KevBear;842293861 said:

---

College football players are being exploited. Let's not bullshit that with air quotes.

The value of a scholarship is a fraction of what NCAA players would receive under the kind of salary model the NFL and NBA employ. The belief that the overall margin is made up by the players having access to educational opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have is farcical.

I suspect that most people who do not support a model that treats players like professionals do so for reasons that are completely separate from a rational analysis of labor rights. It's that they simply don't like the idea of college players getting paid, the same way I don't like mushrooms, fancy sports shoes, or people who misuse the word "literally." It just turns them off.

They don't like it because 'this is the way it's always been.' Players have always been "amateur student-athletes" and the traditional reward of the student athlete system should be good enough for football players now, just as it was since time immemorial. "They're getting a free ride at Cal for playing a lousy game and they're not happy? Are you kidding me?"

They also don't like it because labor agitation is generally not popular in this country, and it gets a hell of a lot worse when professional sports are thrown into the mix. They already can't stand the "outrageous salaries" that professional athletes make, so a new group of athletes claiming they're being exploited by pointing to pros leagues is not going to generate any sympathy, even if the players' claims are rationally valid.

Finally, they don't like it because they feel threatened by it. College football is really beloved by a lot of people who can't imagine what the game will be like if college players become pros. It could have unforeseen repercussions that fundamentally alter the game. I won't deny that. Besides which, there's a kind of sacred association the alums make with players out of the sentiment that hey're all part of the same community, that they're family through the university that is jeopardized by turning them into pros. I get that, I really do.

Even though they're irrational, a large part of me sympathizes with the above sentiments. But "because I'd prefer it otherwise" is not a valid reason to deny someone a claim they're entitled to.

---

Your argument and the suit's argument should be directed at the NFL and NBA. They are the for profit entities. They also have much more revenue than their equivalent for revenue sport team in college. Force them to change their age of entry rules and set up minor league systems and there wouldn't be any problems. They are the ones restricting the earnings of these student athletes.

Even if you go that route, student athletes as a whole have negative value. If they had any kind of economic value, profitable minor league systems would have been set up long ago by the earnings driven NFL and NBA.

FiatSlug;842293887 said:

---

Are you arguing that the value of the scholarship is greater than $12 per hour because it's not taxed and it's not a full-time job?

---

Not exactly I'm arguing that when people compare scholarships to playing payers they don't take into account that a scholarship is an untaxed benefit . If you paid a player instead of a scholarship it would be taxed

Who do you see paying players at "market value"? All I'm saying is that most colleges will choose not to be in the business of operating a pro franchise if the current model is substantially changed as a result of the various legal actions that have been filed. This may, in fact, be just the impetus that educators need to exit this aspect of the entertainment business which many academicians view as incompatible with the core mission of education. If intercollegiate sports survive, it may well be on an endowment basis much like crew and rugby at Cal.

Darby;842293873 said:

---

Cal does not have extra millions laying around to pay a salary to student athletes. Make no mistake, all athletes would have to be paid the same due to Title IX. That means every last field hockey athlete will be getting the same check as a Top 100 FB recruit. That is patently unfeasible.

It could be worse for athletes, actually. In the international soccer model the club "owns" the player under contract, decides which club they may play for and is due transfer compensation. How about the NFL pays a transfer fee to the NCAA schools for player development costs? That is just as absurd as paying players. The monetary value of NCAA football comes from the history of the game and school brands. The current players have little to do with that. If it was all about the athletes there would be billion dollar TV contracts in minor league baseball or basketball. That there are not tells you where the value in NCAA sports is generated.

---

Finally, 33 comments into this post you are able to get to the real issue - Title IX. Unless the NCAA is able to separate football and men's basketball from the rest of the sports, Title IX makes all this moot. On the plus side, if a separate category is set aside for football and its 85 scholarships, then we may see the return of other men's sports to Division I - which would be a much needed improvement.

KevBear;842293861 said:

---

College football players are being exploited. Let's not bullshit that with air quotes.

The value of a scholarship is a fraction of what NCAA players would receive under the kind of salary model the NFL and NBA employ. The belief that the overall margin is made up by the players having access to educational opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have is farcical.

I suspect that most people who do not support a model that treats players like professionals do so for reasons that are completely separate from a rational analysis of labor rights. It's that they simply don't like the idea of college players getting paid, the same way I don't like mushrooms, fancy sports shoes, or people who misuse the word "literally." It just turns them off.

They don't like it because 'this is the way it's always been.' Players have always been "amateur student-athletes" and the traditional reward of the student athlete system should be good enough for football players now, just as it was since time immemorial. "They're getting a free ride at Cal for playing a lousy game and they're not happy? Are you kidding me?"

They also don't like it because labor agitation is generally not popular in this country, and it gets a hell of a lot worse when professional sports are thrown into the mix. They already can't stand the "outrageous salaries" that professional athletes make, so a new group of athletes claiming they're being exploited by pointing to pros leagues is not going to generate any sympathy, even if the players' claims are rationally valid.

Finally, they don't like it because they feel threatened by it. College football is really beloved by a lot of people who can't imagine what the game will be like if college players become pros. It could have unforeseen repercussions that fundamentally alter the game. I won't deny that. Besides which, there's a kind of sacred association the alums make with players out of the sentiment that hey're all part of the same community, that they're family through the university that is jeopardized by turning them into pros. I get that, I really do.

Even though they're irrational, a large part of me sympathizes with the above sentiments. But "because I'd prefer it otherwise" is not a valid reason to deny someone a claim they're entitled to.

---

I think theres a whole lot more to this argument and discussion than to just start basically name calling the other side. There are truly two sides to this issue and the side that is making all the money is probably more rational than irrational. If anything theyre too rational and lack compassion for the players. its not a matter of being irrational or based on emotion at all. I actually agree that players should have some sort of compensation, but not in the manner that the players themselves suggest. my first concern is medical care for football players after their playing career is over, not whether or not some backup o lineman gets a few more thousand dollars on his stipend.

The second part of this is actually determining what portion of this is actually the players share. What makes this product? To me its a whole lot more than the players that strap it up every saturday and has as much to do with tradition, history, ties to the universities themselves as it does with the players. Are the players today owed money basically based on how the game has built itself up through decades of tradition long before there was big money involved? What part of this is the result of the players on the field vs the actual tradition? also, what are the chances that the players ruin the product and traditions by declaring themselves more important to this game than they really are?

gobears725;842293932 said:

---

I think theres a whole lot more to this argument and discussion than to just start basically name calling the other side. .......

The second part of this is actually determining what portion of this is actually the players share. What makes this product? To me its a whole lot more than the players that strap it up every saturday and has as much to do with tradition, history, ties to the universities themselves as it does with the players. Are the players today owed money basically based on how the game has built itself up through decades of tradition long before there was big money involved? What part of this is the result of the players on the field vs the actual tradition? also, what are the chances that the players ruin the product and traditions by declaring themselves more important to this game than they really are?

---

This ^^ and Title IX make a good argument. The tradition is not, and should not be, "Gimme MY money."

One could also argue though (and I believe it is weaker) that the game and tradition has changed to the point where the obvious "We're in it for the NFL only" has brought about the perceived exploitation, increased risk of injury, etc. As long as the "College education is desired" and, all things considered, approaches equal footing with the value of a short-term NFL degree, it is tougher to say the NCAA is ripping off players under the current system?

I don't profess to know much about Title IX but believe it is tied to "opportunity" not necessarily revenue in kind. In truth, a large part of the current disaster stems from the NCAA using the word "scholarship" which has an academic connotation. For football and basketball there is little scholarship. If the State of California were awarding academic scholarships at say $25,000 a year for five years and 40% of them didn't graduate there would be cries of outrage as the cost per student graduated would be over $200,000. Yet nobody seems to care about this as it is not a cost or a lost opportunity but an expense against revenue.

I would drop the word scholarship and call it what it is a paid internship for a student in good standing. There is also no justification for awarding scholarships or paying 85 people to play a game mostly played by 44; nor is there justification for red shirting: this is a university not a feed lot for the NFL . Pay 50 players more money and everyone plays 4 years. I suspect there's enough money currently to do that.

gobears725;842293932 said:

---

I think theres a whole lot more to this argument and discussion than to just start basically name calling the other side. There are truly two sides to this issue and the side that is making all the money is probably more rational than irrational.

---

You're confusing two distinct groups: the college athletic establishment, who I do not accuse of acting irrationally, and the reacting populace, who I do. Of course the athletic establishment is acting in their own rational self-interest. They're keeping almost all of the money.

gobears725 said:

---

I actually agree that players should have some sort of compensation, but not in the manner that the players themselves suggest. my first concern is medical care for football players after their playing career is over, not whether or not some backup o lineman gets a few more thousand dollars on his stipend.

---

What entitles you to custodianship over these players careers?

gobears725 said:

---

The second part of this is actually determining what portion of this is actually the players share. What makes this product? To me its a whole lot more than the players that strap it up every saturday and has as much to do with tradition, history, ties to the universities themselves as it does with the players. Are the players today owed money basically based on how the game has built itself up through decades of tradition long before there was big money involved? What part of this is the result of the players on the field vs the actual tradition? also, what are the chances that the players ruin the product and traditions by declaring themselves more important to this game than they really are?

---

You are not arbiter of this determination. Nor should the determination be arbitrary or unilateral, which it currently is.

Are the players solely responsible for the financial value of NCAA football? No, just like NFL and NBA players are not solely responsible for the financial value of those leagues. You know how they apportioned that responsibility? Through bargaining, which the NCAA players are being denied.

For reference, NBA players as a group are entitled by their collective bargaining agreement with the league to 51% of league revenue. That means at the end of the year, the value of the contracts and benefits the players get has to come to 51% of the money the league made. NFL players are entitled to 46%. You know how much FBS football players are getting right now from the plain dollar value of scholarships? Around 15%.

Maybe you think they don't deserve more than that, but that's not up to you. Just like it's not up to me as a Warriors fan to say that NBA players deserve less than 51% of what the NBA makes. The players are entitled to seek the value of their labor.

BTW, when you talk about the value of the product that is tied up in the history and tradition of the game: that was the players too!

I agree that a case could be made to fully professionalize college football based on the level of commitment required of players today but I doubt doing so would result in a salary structure even remotely approaching that of the NFL. The NFL is a cartel and its labor pool is so miniscule compared to that of DI football that it is ludicrous to suggest the average college jock might command the salary of his NFL counterpart. NBA players are the plutocrats of the sports world but their NBADL counterparts mostly play for peanuts...probably less than the annual value of a college scholarship. And back to my basic premise: if college football (and basketball) adopt a pro model, most would have to drop the sports because the economics are not there to support the switch even if Title IX were not a factor.

KevBear;842293973 said:

---

You're confusing two distinct groups: the college athletic establishment, who I do not accuse of acting irrationally, and the reacting populace, who I do. Of course the athletic establishment is acting in their own rational self-interest. They're keeping almost all of the money.



What entitles you to custodianship over these players careers?



You are not arbiter of this determination. Nor should the determination be arbitrary or unilateral, which it currently is.

Are the players solely responsible for the financial value of NCAA football? No, just like NFL and NBA players are not solely responsible for the financial value of those leagues. You know how they apportioned that responsibility? Through bargaining, which the NCAA players are being denied.

For reference, NBA players as a group are entitled by their collective bargaining agreement with the league to 51% of league revenue. That means at the end of the year, the value of the contracts and benefits the players get has to come to 51% of the money the league made. NFL players are entitled to 46%. You know how much FBS football players are getting right now from the plain dollar value of scholarships? Around 15%.

Maybe you think they don't deserve more than that, but that's not up to you. Just like it's not up to me as a Warriors fan to say that NBA players deserve less than 51% of what the NBA makes. The players are entitled to seek the value of their labor.

BTW, when you talk about the value of the product that is tied up in the history and tradition of the game: that was the players too!

---

i think your own errr and arrogance is making this issue about my opinion and construing it as fact. attack the issue, not the poster. my point is that im raising issues that could be points which invalidate why they should be paid and questions that have or will arise.

for the record ive already stated previously that the athletes should be compensated in some way. so if you catch the drift, im partly playing devil advocate on the issue. this is no slam dunk, partly why i feel tyndall's involvement in this and not much more visible former college football players is ill-advised. Tyndall should be no more than a signature on a class action suit. not the key plaintiff on this issue. the players are so poorly organized that tyndall was allowed to do this and he will lose. this is a losing case because hes going to have little public support as a no name college football player and in my experience watching labor battles, the court of public opinion is where the battle is won and lost. he does not have the star power to win this case and a former college football star spearheading the issue is what is needed to win.

hate to break it to you be college football players arent the only people in america that are getting exploited. in fact in 98% of cases the public doesnt give a rats ass about whether people get exploited. the only way to get people to care is to garner public support to where it gets enough leverage to force the powers at be to care. otherwise the bottomline will always be, they will exploit you and what can you friggin do about it

slider643 said:

---

Even if you go that route, student athletes as a whole have negative value. If they had any kind of economic value, profitable minor league systems would have been set up long ago by the earnings driven NFL and NBA.

---

No, that's not at all necessarily true. The NCAA has had a de facto monopoly on minor league football for decades. That monopoly is a stranglehold with enormously massive barriers to entry.

slider643;842293893 said:

---

Your argument and the suit's argument should be directed at the NFL and NBA. They are the for profit entities. They also have much more revenue than their equivalent for revenue sport team in college. Force them to change their age of entry rules and set up minor league systems and there wouldn't be any problems. They are the ones restricting the earnings of these student athletes.

---

The age entry rules are not the problem in this equation, and are in fact beside the point. Even in the event that the NFL and NBA are compelled to drop their age restrictions, only a very small percentage of currently ineligible college players would be drafted.

The NFL and NBA are already saturated with higher skilled players than are currently working in the NCAA; they have no desire to pay young players to sit on the bench and develop. There is a needed niche for a farm league, which is what FBS football serves as; meanwhile, the NFL and NBA have no incentive to create one.

59bear;842293979 said:

---

I agree that a case could be made to fully professionalize college football based on the level of commitment required of players today but I doubt doing so would result in a salary structure even remotely approaching that of the NFL. The NFL is a cartel and its labor pool is so miniscule compared to that of DI football that it is ludicrous to suggest the average college jock might command the salary of his NFL counterpart.

---

This is all true, but it is also misleading. The position of "pay the players" does not claim that they would be making the same kind of money that NFL players make. The position of "pay the players" claims that the college players as a group are receiving a much smaller proportion of the FBS money pie than NFL players are of the NFL pie. This is undeniably true.

The NFL has 32 teams of 53 players each. FBS has 125 teams of 85 players each. NFL revenue amounts to $9 billion/year. FBS revenue amounts to a quarter of that. Of course the distribution will not be the same. But players would make a lot more than they do now.

59bear said:

---

NBA players are the plutocrats of the sports world but their NBADL counterparts mostly play for peanuts...probably less than the annual value of a college scholarship.

---

This is true, but the D-League is not analogous to NCAA BB. Its sole purpose is to farm NBA rejects, not providing an alternative to the NCAA. NBDL games have very low attendance and almost no television. The money for player contracts comes directly from the NBA itself.

59bear said:

---

And back to my basic premise: if college football (and basketball) adopt a pro model, most would have to drop the sports because the economics are not there to support the switch even if Title IX were not a factor.

---

Your original point is wrong. Few athletic departments turn a profit, but most FBS football programs and D1 men's basketball programs do. Aside from football and men's basketball, there isn't another athletic program that is profitable at the average D1 school. Most athletic departments hang around the break-even mark because football and basketball revenue are used to fund all of the other sports. The "economics" certainly support professionalizing football and men's basketball. It's the establishment and society at-large that doesn't.

gobears725;842293992 said:

---

i think your own errr and arrogance is making this issue about my opinion and construing it as fact. attack the issue, not the poster. my point is that im raising issues that could be points which invalidate why they should be paid and questions that have or will arise.

---

And I'm raising issues with your interpretation of the issue. I'm not attacking you personally, unless you equate attacking your positions with attacking you. If you do, well, have a nice day.

And ironically, you are the only one between us who has used an ad hominem in this exchange by calling me arrogant (while refusing to address pretty much anything I actually wrote).

gobears725;842293992 said:

---

hate to break it to you be college football players arent the only people in america that are getting exploited. in fact in 98% of cases the public doesnt give a rats ass about whether people get exploited. the only way to get people to care is to garner public support to where it gets enough leverage to force the powers at be to care. otherwise the bottomline will always be, they will exploit you and what can you friggin do about it

---

I'm not advising on the practicality of Tyndall's labor politics in this thread. I'm weighing in on what the justice of his position vis-a-vis the entitlement that players have to a more fair value from their labor than is currently being derived.

I do think that the players face an uphill battle, and that a lot of that has to do with public opinion, as I have stated in other posts. But I disagree that in 98% of cases the public doesn't care whether others are exploited. I think in 98% of cases the public doesn't care that others are exploited if redressing the problem costs them personally, but where their own self-interests are not concerned I believe people sentimentally support rectifying injustice.

KevBear;842294022 said:

---

This is all true, but it is also misleading. The position of "pay the players" does not claim that they would be making the same kind of money that NFL players make. The position of "pay the players" claims that the college players as a group are receiving a much smaller proportion of the FBS money pie than NFL players are of the NFL pie. This is undeniably true.

The NFL has 32 teams of 53 players each. FBS has 125 teams of 85 players each. NFL revenue amounts to $9 billion/year. FBS revenue amounts to a quarter of that. Of course the distribution will not be the same. But players would make a lot more than they do now.



This is true, but the D-League is not analogous to NCAA BB. Its sole purpose is to farm NBA rejects, not providing an alternative to the NCAA. NBDL games have very low attendance and almost no television. The money for player contracts comes directly from the NBA itself.



Your original point is wrong. Few athletic departments turn a profit, but most FBS football programs and D1 men's basketball programs do. Aside from football and men's basketball, there isn't another athletic program that is profitable at the average D1 school. Most athletic departments hang around the break-even mark because football and basketball revenue are used to fund all of the other sports. The "economics" certainly support professionalizing football and men's basketball. It's the establishment and society at-large that doesn't.

---

CFB is not the NFL. It's more akin to minor league baseball development wise. There isn't big money in minor league sports. You are day dreaming if you think professionalizing college sports will certainly be beneficial to the student athletes. The big money TV deals are not guaranteed to last forever. Turning the NCAA into an outdoor version of the arena league will kill the goose that's laying the golden egg.

KevBear;842294028 said:

---

And I'm raising issues with your interpretation of the issue. I'm not attacking you personally, unless you equate attacking your positions with attacking you. If you do, well, have a nice day.

And ironically, you are the only one between us who has used an ad hominem in this exchange by calling me arrogant (while refusing to address pretty much anything I actually wrote).



I'm not advising on the practicality of Tyndall's labor politics in this thread. I'm weighing in on what the justice of his position vis-a-vis the entitlement that players have to a more fair value from their labor than is currently being derived.

I do think that the players face an uphill battle, and that a lot of that has to do with public opinion, as I have stated in other posts. But I disagree that in 98% of cases the public doesn't care whether others are exploited. I think in 98% of cases the public doesn't care that others are exploited if redressing the problem costs them personally, but where their own self-interests are not concerned I believe people sentimentally support rectifying injustice.

---

well i think that was my point of my posts. it was trying to get to the point that the players are so poorly organized that in certain respects theyre setting themselves up for failure. their points, as is your points are valid, but unless they attack this with some thought out strategy then their efforts will be pretty much a moot. I dont feel like they are going to have many shots to take this down. Tyndall's lawsuit i think will result in a bullet in the foot rather than actually causing any change within the sport. i respect the cause and what theyre trying to get at and accomplish, but theyre going to have to do a much better job at organizing this thing than what is currently being done. Theyre trying to bring change to a multi-billion dollar business and honestly i find i laughable that someone like Tyndall thinks that he can somehow accomplish this without a much larger and more organized backing and without a true visible name. This will be shot down so fast it wont even make a dent.

youre trying to argue about the validity of their arguments. im saying that the validity of the arguments doesnt matter unless the players can strengthen much more through organization.

one their argument isnt a slam dunk in terms of its validity anyway because i can say things like, well what about the university, their name, their tradition, is what partly drives the sport. the validity of their argument has some holes in it to where it can be argued either way. then on top of that, its looking like a poorly organized effort. no way theyll win.

Darby;842294033 said:

---

CFB is not the NFL. It's more akin to minor league baseball development wise. There isn't big money in minor league sports. You are day dreaming if you think professionalizing college sports will certainly be beneficial to the student athletes. The big money TV deals are not guaranteed to last forever. Turning the NCAA into an outdoor version of the arena league will kill the goose that's laying the golden egg.

---

No, it's not. The FBS programs are huge regional (and sometimes national) brands, just like major league pro franchises are. FBS football is an over $2 billion per year industry, and one that continues to grow financially. I doubt the combined revenue of all the MLB affiliated minor league teams in the country exceeds a third of that. The top FBS programs bring in over ten times the revenue that top minor league baseball franchises do.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that turning FBS football into a league with the same individual contract model as the NFL is the best way to go about getting the players a more equitable share of the pie. I also think that, for the players, maximizing value means working within the college affiliated framework, because the college teams are irreplaceable brands.

That evaluation, however, does not modify the very simple fact that FBS players receive a comparatively tiny share of FBS revenue when compared to NFL and NBA players. There is no justifiable economic explanation for it. It's entirely the result of the NCAA schools having all of the power in this labor relationship. They have arbitrarily and unilaterally told players "we're going to pay you X regardless of how much money you generate." They're allowed to do this because they have a monopoly and the public supports them. Economically, FBS football is still a financially viable enterprise even if colleges paid players a salary that was worth four times more than the plain dollar value of scholarships.

KevBear;842294012 said:

---

No, that's not at all necessarily true. The NCAA has had a de facto monopoly on minor league football for decades. That monopoly is a stranglehold with enormously massive barriers to entry.



The age entry rules are not the problem in this equation, and are in fact beside the point. Even in the event that the NFL and NBA are compelled to drop their age restrictions, only a very small percentage of currently ineligible college players would be drafted.

The NFL and NBA are already saturated with higher skilled players than are currently working in the NCAA; they have no desire to pay young players to sit on the bench and develop. There is a needed niche for a farm league, which is what FBS football serves as; meanwhile, the NFL and NBA have no incentive to create one.

---

It is true. If there were a better value proposition for a revenue sport athlete, there would be no major college revenue sports, they would all be taking that opportunity. That includes minor leagues and jobs without a college degree. The fact is that very few 18-22 year olds without a degree have a "market value" more than the value of their scholarship.

Form the other end of it, if there was a positive cash flow valuation for a minor league, somebody would have started a successful one by now. The NFL and NBA aren't stupid and aren't in the business of losing money, so they don't do it.

That tells you all you need to know about the "market value" of a revenue sport athlete when taken as a whole. Very few have any value without the school on their chest.

slider643;842294062 said:

---

It is true. If there were a better value proposition for a revenue sport athlete, there would be no major college revenue sports, they would all be taking that opportunity. That includes minor leagues and jobs without a college degree. The fact is that very few 18-22 year olds without a degree have a "market value" more than the value of their scholarship.

Form the other end of it, if there was a positive cash flow valuation for a minor league, somebody would have started a successful one by now. The NFL and NBA aren't stupid and aren't in the business of losing money, so they don't do it.

That tells you all you need to know about the "market value" of a revenue sport athlete when taken as a whole. Very few have any value without the school on their chest.

---

Although you are correct in having assessed NCAA players value as being critically tied to the brand power of the schools, I'm not sure you've reached the right conclusion.

Those, like yourself, who having assessed college football players value as being critically tied to the brand of the school have concluded therefore that they have very little market value outside of associations with the school have misinterpreted the issue. The players still have enormous market value; that value is being suppressed by an agreement between the schools and the NCAA to offer only scholarships as compensation. That is wage fixing, and it is illegal.

Those schools represent an oligopoly who are colluding with the NCAA to enact the most brazen wage fixing operation in the country. The fact that the players are to a significant degree dependent upon the FBS schools to maximize their earnings does not absolve those schools of the responsibility of following fair labor practices, just as all businesses who are allowed to possess a practical monopoly are required to do.

Does anyone doubt that if FBS schools were permitted to offer cash in addition to scholarships in order to secure the services of potential players--and were forced to do so in open competition, rather than as a cartel--that the market value of these players would be established at a much higher rate than the plain dollar value of a scholarship?

Philosophically, if not legally, I question how an organization that has set itself up to run amateur (college) sports can be sued for failing to pay the amateurs. An organization governing amateur sports does not have to mean non-profit, incidentally.

There are in fact competing options that are not "amateur", such as semi pro football, arena football, or Canadian football (apparently you can play arena or CFL straight out of high school). The NFL is not an option due to the collective bargaining agreement of the NFL - not the actions of the NCAA. The NCAA does not force football players to forgo the arena league or CFL.

It is precisely because of the amateur aspects that Title 9 applies. If the NCAA is forced to pay athletes, then that will be the end of lots of women's sports scholarships, that's for sure.

BearGoggles;842294175 said:

---

Philosophically, if not legally, I question how an organization that has set itself up to run amateur (college) sports can be sued for failing to pay the amateurs. An organization governing amateur sports does not have to mean non-profit, incidentally.

There are in fact competing options that are not "amateur", such as semi pro football, arena football, or Canadian football (apparently you can play arena or CFL straight out of high school). The NFL is not an option due to the collective bargaining agreement of the NFL - not the actions of the NCAA. The NCAA does not force football players to forgo the arena league or CFL.

It is precisely because of the amateur aspects that Title 9 applies. If the NCAA is forced to pay athletes, then that will be the end of lots of women's sports scholarships, that's for sure.

---

Amateur is just a word. A practice is what its practical properties are, regardless of what you choose to call it.

These "amateur" performers are:

1) Hired in an open recruitment process, like most employees

2) Are expected to fulfill regular work responsibilities, including performance levels, like any employee

3) Giving labor which their employer derives fantastic financial benefit from

4) Are compensated for their labor with a financial package that includes future job training

5) Can be terminated at any time

How are these "amateur" employees any different from professional ones?

Tell me, what industry do work in? If all of the companies in your industry got together and said "hey, let's call these guys amateurs, and then agree to only pay them for room and board and job training for another career four years from now," and continued to make billions of dollars off yours and your colleagues labor, what would you think about it?

KevBear;842294172 said:

---

Although you are correct in having assessed NCAA players value as being critically tied to the brand power of the schools, I'm not sure you've reached the right conclusion.

Those, like yourself, who having assessed college football players value as being critically tied to the brand of the school have concluded therefore that they have very little market value outside of associations with the school have misinterpreted the issue. The players still have enormous market value; that value is being suppressed by an agreement between the schools and the NCAA to offer only scholarships as compensation. That is wage fixing, and it is illegal.

Those schools represent an oligopoly who are colluding with the NCAA to enact the most brazen wage fixing operation in the country. The fact that the players are to a significant degree dependent upon the FBS schools to maximize their earnings does not absolve those schools of the responsibility of following fair labor practices, just as all businesses who are allowed to possess a practical monopoly are required to do.

Does anyone doubt that if FBS schools were permitted to offer cash in addition to scholarships in order to secure the services of potential players--and were forced to do so in open competition, rather than as a cartel--that the market value of these players would be established at a much higher rate than the plain dollar value of a scholarship?

---

You can argue labor practices all you want, it doesn't change the fact that those on scholarship are not employees. They are free to leave their scholarship and pursue gainful employment status anytime they want. Most do not leave their scholarship. In their minds, the value of the scholarship is worth more than their market value.

Again, you are targeting the NCAA which governs amateur athletics (whether you believe these athletes are "amateur" is another debate) and is a non-profit. As I said before, the suit is targeting the wrong organization. It should be targeting the NBA or NFL if they want athletes to receive "market value".

slider643;842294208 said:

---

Again, you are targeting the NCAA which governs amateur athletics (whether you believe these athletes are "amateur" is another debate) and is a non-profit. As I said before, the suit is targeting the wrong organization. It should be targeting the NBA or NFL if they want athletes to receive "market value".

---

No, it's not another debate. Whether you agree or disagree with the idea, the position that the so-called 'amateur performers' FBS football players and NCAA basketball players are de facto professionals is central to the issue, a fact which you confirm by making it central to your last post.

Amateur is just a word. A practice is what its practical properties are, regardless of what you choose to call it.

These "amateur" performers are:

1) Hired in an open recruitment process, like most employees

2) Are expected to fulfill regular work responsibilities, including performance levels, like any employee

3) Giving labor which their employer derives fantastic financial benefit from

4) Are compensated for their labor with a financial package that includes future job training

5) Can be terminated at will for any reason

How are these "amateur" employees any different from professional ones?

slider643 said:

---

You can argue labor practices all you want, it doesn't change the fact that those on scholarship are not employees. They are free to leave their scholarship and pursue gainful employment status anytime they want. Most do not leave their scholarship. In their minds, the value of the scholarship is worth more than their market value.

---

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but let's note that you didn't respond to a single point in my last post. Aside from the claim to amateurism, your final word amounts to "the fact that the situation persists proves there are not abuses," which of course is absurd and could be applied to pretty much any labor dispute in which the laborer is not legally compelled to remain.

But where is the incentive (for the institutions) to (further) professionalize college FB/BB? IMO, most major colleges chase the money because they have to in order to compete and are happy to do so as long as the fiction of a sport as an extracurricular activity can be maintained. I suspect most great universities don't want to be exposed as operating a for profit subsidiary that is only tangentially a part of the total student experience. It can be argued that this is, in fact, the case now but at least the "funding other activities" justification has some merit. If you raise player "pay" four fold, how are expenses impacted? What about the multipliers attendant true employment: social security taxes, benefit costs, workers' compensation, etc. Would they still be required to be students? How do you treat student mangers, the band, the cheerleaders? I don't so much question the feasibility as I do the motivation. I suspect there are a lot of administrators who would welcome the opportunity to get out of the sports business.

KevBear;842294258 said:

---

No, it's not another debate. Whether you agree or disagree with the idea, the position that the so-called 'amateur performers' FBS football players and NCAA basketball players are de facto professionals is central to the issue, a fact which you confirm by making it central to your last post.

Amateur is just a word. A practice is what its practical properties are, regardless of what you choose to call it.

These "amateur" performers are:

1) Hired in an open recruitment process, like most employees

2) Are expected to fulfill regular work responsibilities, including performance levels, like any employee

3) Giving labor which their employer derives fantastic financial benefit from

4) Are compensated for their labor with a financial package that includes future job training

5) Can be terminated at will for any reason

How are these "amateur" employees any different from professional ones?



Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but let's note that you didn't respond to a single point in my last post. Aside from the claim to amateurism, your final word amounts to "the fact that the situation persists proves there are not abuses," which of course is absurd and could be applied to pretty much any labor dispute in which the laborer is not legally compelled to remain.

---

You could say the Cal band has those requirements also. Is the straw hat band due collective bargaining also? Where is this "fantastic" mountain of cash you speak of located in Berkeley?

In your hobby horse pursuit of collective bargaining for student athletes you fail to realize that their is no additional money available for the vast majority of NCAA schools to hugely increase student athlete compensation. That money would have to come from someplace else in the budget. When that isn't possible schools would just drop football. Is that what you really want?

The problem is that every student-athlete is different. Each has a different reason and motivation for choosing a particular school. Some of them want to use it as a stepping stone to the pros. Far more, myself and most of my teammates included, used it as an opportunity to get a degree for a world class university. Back then, academics were very important and came first (as much as possible). I have dozens of teammates that are very successful in business, law, medicine, banking, etc. We used our time at Cal to get a degree and get ahead in life. I also know many that flunked out or didn't finish school. It was a choice that you made, get your degree or just take classes to stay eligible. I am sure many that took that route are regretting that decision now. That being said, I don't think kids should be paid. It isn't a 'job' as such. It is a trade off. You play for us and we'll pick up the tab. If you take full advantage of the opportunity, the true value of the scholarship and degree FAR outweighs a small monthly stipend or even a stint in the NFL.

KevBear;842294258 said:

---

No, it's not another debate. Whether you agree or disagree with the idea, the position that the so-called 'amateur performers' FBS football players and NCAA basketball players are de facto professionals is central to the issue, a fact which you confirm by making it central to your last post.

Amateur is just a word. A practice is what its practical properties are, regardless of what you choose to call it.

These "amateur" performers are:

1) Hired in an open recruitment process, like most employees

2) Are expected to fulfill regular work responsibilities, including performance levels, like any employee

3) Giving labor which their employer derives fantastic financial benefit from

4) Are compensated for their labor with a financial package that includes future job training

5) Can be terminated at will for any reason

How are these "amateur" employees any different from professional ones?



Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but let's note that you didn't respond to a single point in my last post. Aside from the claim to amateurism, your final word amounts to "the fact that the situation persists proves there are not abuses," which of course is absurd and could be applied to pretty much any labor dispute in which the laborer is not legally compelled to remain.

---

You are entitled to your opinion too. But the fact is that these are amateur athletes. They choose to be amateur athletes. They are welcome to become professionals at any time. They choose to retain amateur status instead of seeking the market value of an uneducated 18-22 year old.

If they were professional athletes or employees, your opinion on labor practices would be valid. Just because you think they are professionals or employees doesn't make it so.

59bear;842294270 said:

---

But where is the incentive (for the institutions) to (further) professionalize college FB/BB?

---

There is no incentive, of course. There's usually no natural incentive for one group to stop exploiting another. Incentives are about self-interest, and an exploiting group is already taking care of that. That's why, particularly in cases where the exploiter owns a preponderance of power in the relationship, others have to step in.

59bear said:

---

IMO, most major colleges chase the money because they have to in order to compete and are happy to do so as long as the fiction of a sport as an extracurricular activity can be maintained. I suspect most great universities don't want to be exposed as operating a for profit subsidiary that is only tangentially a part of the total student experience. It can be argued that this is, in fact, the case now but at least the "funding other activities" justification has some merit. If you raise player "pay" four fold, how are expenses impacted? What about the multipliers attendant true employment: social security taxes, benefit costs, workers' compensation, etc. Would they still be required to be students? How do you treat student mangers, the band, the cheerleaders? I don't so much question the feasibility as I do the motivation. I suspect there are a lot of administrators who would welcome the opportunity to get out of the sports business.

---

I'm not a business expert, so I really don't know what the best way to go about adjusting the model would be, particularly with regard to questions like entitlements. I know the money is there, if we're talking about football and men's basketball as a closed system, but of course we're not. Football and men's basketball are tremendously profitable, but that profit is already being leveraged to fund the rest of the other sports.

Honestly, I don't there we're really there anyway. First there has to be a recognition that there's a legitimate grievance and a will to rectify the problem, and those things aren't found here. The legislature wants no part of this, and I don't see the courts siding with the players. Maybe a lower court ruling goes in their favor, but if this thing goes to trial I believe it will die in the Supreme Court. This Court leans pretty hard to the right on business.

IMO, the best the players can hope for is that the NCAA mandates an increase scholarship to cover "out of pocket" expenses (something like $2k per year) and drops their dumb rule against players having commercial endorsements. If they do those things, and the players get nowhere with their legal challenge, I believe this issue will recede to the background.

slider643;842294281 said:

---

You are entitled to your opinion too. But the fact is that these are amateur athletes. They choose to be amateur athletes. They are welcome to become professionals at any time. They choose to retain amateur status instead of seeking the market value of an uneducated 18-22 year old.

If they were professional athletes or employees, your opinion on labor practices would be valid. Just because you think they are professionals or employees doesn't make it so.

---

You still did not address the pragmatic argument against the amateur label. What, other than the fact that the school chooses to label the players as amateurs, separates them practically from professionals?

If I slap a label that says "grape juice" on a bottle of wine, can I sell it to minors? No, of course not, because it still contains alcohol and kids will get drunk, regardless of what it says on the label.

KevBear;842294289 said:

---

You still did not address the pragmatic argument against the amateur label. What, other than the fact that the school chooses to label the players as amateurs, separates them practically from professionals?

If I slap a label that says "grape juice" on a bottle of wine, can I sell it to minors? No, of course not, because it still contains alcohol and kids will get drunk, regardless of what it says on the label.

---

Your argument seems odd to me. They are amateurs because they are unpaid - and they willingly entered into that arrangement. Your argument (about devotion of time, etc.) might support a minimum wage claim(similar to arguments made by unpaid interns), but not anti-trust.

I agree with the prior poster - the players' real beef is with the NFL and the NFL Union which have collectively bargained to exclude athletes under a certain age. Legally speaking, collectively bargained arrangements like that are exempt from anti-trust laws, which is why the players are suing the NCAA not the NFL. If they tried to sue the NFL and union, the case would be thrown out.

And for the record, I have no objection to the NCAA paying players. But I don't see how the anti-trust argument flies (but I'm by now means an expert in that area of law).

BearGoggles;842294311 said:

---

Your argument seems odd to me. They are amateurs because they are unpaid - and they willingly entered into that arrangement.

---

Ok, first the amateurs/unpaid dynamic. We call amateurs because we don't have to pay them. Why don't we have to pay them? Because we call them amateurs. It's circular.

Rather than relying on what a thing is called, let's look at what it is. That is, lets look at what affects it has and what it is affected by, rather than what label has been slapped on it. In the case of college football players, they are employees in every meaningful sense of the word.

The common law definition of an employee is a person who has an agreement with another entity, implicit or explicit, to work as directed by that employee in exchange for remuneration. College football players meet all of these criteria in any practical sense.

1) They have an explicit service agreement with the school (which can be terminated at-will and includes a virtual non-compete clause for the player).

2) While on the team, they have to obey the coaches, who meticulously direct them in their labor.

3) They receive compensation for their service. Yes, the scholarship. It has a definite financial value, and is given explicitly for the player's participation on the team.

U.S. labor laws are more detailed; they include the above criteria, plus tests of the independence of the worker to the employer, in order to differentiate an "employee" from an independent contractor. They also concern themselves with the size of the employer's operation. These criteria do not practically disqualify college football players.

Having willingly entered into an arrangement has nothing to do with whether a person is an amateur or not. Amateurism is about the relationship between an activity and its compensation. It is not about consent. A girl who gets railroaded into being a hooker for five years by a sadistic pimp is a professional sex worker, regardless of the fact that she did not enter into the arrangement willingly.

BearGoggles said:

---

Your argument (about devotion of time, etc.) might support a minimum wage claim(similar to arguments made by unpaid interns), but not anti-trust.

---

No, it is related, and does support anti-trust actions against the NCAA and the member schools. The FBS football and D1 men's basketball are de facto business enterprises and as such should be prohibited from engaging in anti-competitive behavior, which is the heart of anti-trust regulation. The agreement between the schools and the NCAA to offer only scholarships as compensation to their de facto employees is wage fixing. It is an anti-competitive cartel.

BearGoggles said:

---

I agree with the prior poster - the players' real beef is with the NFL and the NFL Union which have collectively bargained to exclude athletes under a certain age. Legally speaking, collectively bargained arrangements like that are exempt from anti-trust laws, which is why the players are suing the NCAA not the NFL. If they tried to sue the NFL and union, the case would be thrown out.

---

The NCAA players have a case against the NCAA and its schools entirely apart from their (also valid) case against the NFL/NBA and their age restrictions. Even if the NFL/NBA dropped their age limits, the NCAA and its schools are still guilty of wage fixing against their players.

You are correct that CBAs provide a great deal of protection against anti-trust laws, but I believe the age limit is an equal protection violation, which means it would be illegal regardless. That said, suing the NFL to drop their age limit would provide relief for only a tiny fraction of NCAA players who would be drafted within their first two years of college and not solve the greater problem which is that the schools are denying the remaining players an equitable share of the enormous revenue pie.

BearGoggles said:

---

And for the record, I have no objection to the NCAA paying players. But I don't see how the anti-trust argument flies (but I'm by now means an expert in that area of law).

---

I'm not a legal expert either, but you shouldn't need to be to have an opinion. Democracy works best when people get involved, even when they may not know what the heck they're talking about, so kudos to us

You define the scholarship as compensation but I don't know that that has ever been established in the courts. There have been a number of cases in which injured players sought to be awarded workers' compensation benefits on the premise that they were employed by their schools with the payment being the scholarship. I don't know that any of these have been successful but when I was working as a WC underwriter in California many years ago I was aware of several that were not. One such case, IIRC, involved the Cal Poly team that was involved in a plane crash while traveling for a game. I suspect most of us here would consider the scholarship "payment" although unlike most forms of payment it is not negotiable for goods and services beyond tuition, food, lodging and, perhaps, incidentals. Certainly, in California at least, WC cases have been decided in favor of workers on the basis of less obvious "payment" for services. Of course, employment may be more liberally construed in common law than in any workers' compensation law, most of which have a very specific definition of what constitutes employment as well as very structured recourse in the event of worker injury.

KevBear;842294393 said:

---

Ok, first the amateurs/unpaid dynamic. We call amateurs because we don't have to pay them. Why don't we have to pay them? Because we call them amateurs. It's circular.

---

It's not circular. The NCAA was formed for amateur collegiate athletics. Now that a subset of those athletes feel they should be employees or professionals doesn't change that the NCAA is for amateur collegiate athletics has been for long before sports revenue exploded in select sports.

It's not on the NCAA to preside over a professional league. That's strictly the realm of the NBA and NFL. I don't think there are many out there who think that forcing NCAA to preside over professional players is a good idea.

As I said before, the issue should be directed at the NBA and NFL. It's too bad they realize that there are far too few 18-22 year olds who are worth more than a college scholarship.

Darby;842294271 said:

---

You could say the Cal band has those requirements also. Is the straw hat band due collective bargaining also?

---

No, you could not say the Cal band has those requirements also. There is no quid pro quo. As far as I understand, band members do not receive scholarships from the University in exchange for participating in the band. Nor does the university make money off of the band (except in an indirect sense, as contributors to the game day experience).

Darby said:

---

Where is this "fantastic" mountain of cash you speak of located in Berkeley?

---

In FY 2013, Cal football brought in a net $9.5 million (even including a $5 million payout to the CMS finance fund to cover financing shortfalls). That's where it's located.

Darby said:

---

In your hobby horse pursuit of collective bargaining for student athletes you fail to realize that their is no additional money available for the vast majority of NCAA schools to hugely increase student athlete compensation. That money would have to come from someplace else in the budget. When that isn't possible schools would just drop football. Is that what you really want?

---

You're joking, right? The median FBS football program brings in an annual profit of $4 million. In addition to the scholarship, they could afford to pay every football player $45,000 in cash and the program would still finish in the black.

The reason athletic budgets are stretched to the breaking point is because of every sports except football and basketball. At the average FBS school, football and men's basketball are the only profitable sports. In fact, at the average FBS school, it is the profit of these two sports which support the existence of every other sport.

When you say "there is no additional money available for the vast majority of NCAA schools to hugely increase student athlete compensation," what you are really saying is 'we can't afford to pay football players more because the enormous profits they are generating are feeding the scholarships of all the rest of the athletes.' Although I sympathize with the funding plight that faces Olympic sports, how do you justify forcing football and men's basketball players to suffer artificially low compensation in order to enable financially nonviable programs?

There is a zero percent chance football and basketball would be dropped for financial reasons, even if players were paid twice what they're making from their scholarships now. The only chance football and men's basketball would be dropped is if colleges elected to drop their entire athletic departments for ideological reasons.

Finally, I hope a compromise can be reached which can maintain a semblance of the working order and yet give the football and basketball players what they deserve, which is a more equitable slice of the revenue pie. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. The NCAA and its member schools are not going to fold willingly. It would take legislation or a court ruling to force them to the table, and those aren't going to happen. Public opinion does not support legislation, and the Supreme Court is too conservative. So you can breathe easy.

KevBear;842294412 said:

---

No, you could not say the Cal band has those requirements also. There is no quid pro quo. As far as I understand, band members do not receive scholarships from the University in exchange for participating in the band. Nor does the university make money off of the band (except in an indirect sense, as contributors to the game day experience).



In FY 2013, Cal football brought in a net $9.5 million (even including a $5 million payout to the CMS finance fund to cover financing shortfalls). That's where it's located.



You're joking, right? The median FBS football program brings in an annual profit of $4 million. In addition to the scholarship, they could afford to pay every football player $45,000 in cash and the program would still finish in the black.

The reason athletic budgets are stretched to the breaking point is because of every sports except football and basketball. At the average FBS school, football and men's basketball are the only profitable sports. In fact, at the average FBS school, it is the profit of these two sports which support the existence of every other sport.

When you say "there is no additional money available for the vast majority of NCAA schools to hugely increase student athlete compensation," what you are really saying is 'we can't afford to pay football players more because the enormous profits they are generating are feeding the scholarships of all the rest of the athletes.' Although I sympathize with the funding plight that faces Olympic sports, how do you justify forcing football and men's basketball players to suffer artificially low compensation in order to enable financially nonviable programs?

There is a zero percent chance football and basketball would be dropped for financial reasons, even if players were paid twice what they're making from their scholarships now. The only chance football and men's basketball would be dropped is if colleges elected to drop their entire athletic departments for ideological reasons.

Finally, I hope a compromise can be reached which can maintain a semblance of the working order and yet give the football and basketball players what they deserve, which is a more equitable slice of the revenue pie. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. The NCAA and its member schools are not going to fold willingly. It would take legislation or a court ruling to force them to the table, and those aren't going to happen. Public opinion does not support legislation, and the Supreme Court is too conservative. So you can breathe easy.

---

I dont know if this has been brought up, but wouldnt we be required to have additional sports at least on the women's side to cover title IX. the scholarship numbers have to match up and women dont play football. I think that in whatever costs you associate with football and basketball, you need to include the equitable amount of women's scholarships in other sports as fixed costs. so whether say women's tennis for instance is finanically viable, it has to exist in order for football to exist and money has to be pumped into the program to support travel, upkeeping of facilities etc in order to allow football to continue.

What i think would likely happen if we were to pay football and basketball players is that sports where the teams are large and endowments dont cover the expenses would then be cut. so goodbye baseball, softball, water polo etc.

slider643;842294411 said:

---

It's not circular. The NCAA was formed for amateur collegiate athletics. Now that a subset of those athletes feel they should be employees or professionals doesn't change that the NCAA is for amateur collegiate athletics has been for long before sports revenue exploded in select sports.

---

What it was formed as does not matter. Things change. It's what it is now that matters, and things are what their practical effects are, not what label they come with. Now that the amateur label no longer practically fitting, it is illegitimate. And efforts to justify perpetuating the label by perpetuating the consequences of the label and then using the consequences of the label to justify continued application of the label are circular.

slider643 said:

---

It's not on the NCAA to preside over a professional league. That's strictly the realm of the NBA and NFL. I don't think there are many out there who think that forcing NCAA to preside over professional players is a good idea.

---

Those are bureaucratic concerns. The NCAA would adapt. And frankly, if it ends up adapting poorly, well it sucks as a football regulatory body anyway, so c'est la vie.

slider643 said:

---

As I said before, the issue should be directed at the NBA and NFL. It's too bad they realize that there are far too few 18-22 year olds who are worth more than a college scholarship.

---

You're dead wrong. Instead of limiting use of a scholarship as incentive in high school recruitment, imagine that schools had to offer the scholarship, but were also allowed to offer negotiated single year renewable contracts instead. The average scholarship is worth about $35,000/year. So that's where the bidding starts at. For 2* and most 3*, the price isn't going to change much. But for most 4* and all 5*, the price is going to skyrocket.

Now they're in the program. Every year the college wishes to retain the player, the must offer them the choice between the scholarship and a negotiated single year contract. Most players who are retained will simply accept the scholarship. But a significant minority (probably all starters at a good school and many starters at most school) will get contracts worth more than $35,000. And a small elite will get contracts in the hundreds of thousands. That's how the free market works, and that's what these players are being denied by the college cartel.

Finally, again, this has little to do with the NFL and NBA. It's the behavior of the colleges in relation to the college players that is the crux of the issue, not the NFL or NBA.