Northwestern Wildcat Players Attempt to Unionize

[Texsox]

So, you want to get rid of multi-multi-multi billion dollar industry (and the jobs, tax revenue and local economic impact) just to save like 1% of college players that are being "ripped" off by a system that provides them with exposure/experience that also gets them paid by the professional leagues?

 

That makes no sense.

 

There are all sorts of business ventures that a university could be involved in. Fielding a sports team makes about as much sense to the university's mission as building a factory to make the t-shirts that are sold in the book store. Why are universities running billion dollar sports franchises? How about running enormousuniversity.com and competing with Amazon?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There are all sorts of business ventures that a university could be involved in. Fielding a sports team makes about as much sense to the university's mission as building a factory to make the t-shirts that are sold in the book store. Why are universities running billion dollar sports franchises? How about running enormousuniversity.com and competing with Amazon?

 

If you're starting a school from day one it might make sense to have this conversation, but there's no going back now. Schools rely on the big sports programs both for money and for marketing to potential students.

[StrangeSox]

The ncaa is a cartel by any definition of the word. Edited January 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I don't think AD departments act like normal businesses, so that's a faulty comparison. They have no shareholders or investors to pay back. They worry about funding their programs and maybe expanding the school a little bit. That's it. I'd also bet that the major schools like OSU, Texas, any SEC, etc. could double their ticket prices and still sell out. But they don't, because there's no need to. Present them with the need and they will.

 

Think about the argument you're making. Collectively, the NCAA sports generate about $5,000,000,000 a year. New medical coverage for athletes will cost $X. Your argument is that any new costs imposed on the NCAA will not come out of that current $5B revenue stream, so they're voluntarily foregoing $X in revenue each year.

 

Now, why would they be doing that? It would mean bigger, fancier sports facilities, bigger TV contracts, bigger endorsement deals, bigger executive/coaching salaries, etc. Why would NCAA sports be completely immune from the basic forces of capitalism that every other industry faces? They may not be publicly traded companies, but there definitely are people who would love to have additional revenue streams. Plus, this ignores that a lot of the revenue actually does come from publicly traded companies (NBC/ABC/ESPN, Adidas/Nike, Gatorade).

 

The NCAA made 71 million in 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/colle...urplus/2128431/ In the grand scheme that's really not a lot.

 

The NCAA itself made that much in surplus (profit) revenue. When you add in the conferences and schools, it amounts to billions of dollars a year. Alabama generated over $100M alone last year. In the grand scheme of things, that really is a lot of money and more than enough to pay for athletes' ongoing medical issues. There are huge amounts of money thrown around to coaches and administrators throughout the NCAA, and there's nothing that says they're entitled to the entire revenue stream while locking the players out. There isn't some law of economics that says if suddenly the athletes got a bigger share of the revenues (via medical insurance, better scholarship guarantees, stipends, etc.) that existing expenses are fixed in stone and that the only possible source would be additional revenues. That doesn't happen anywhere else and there's no reason to expect it to happen here, even if they aren't publicly traded for-profit companies.

Edited January 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The NCAA itself made that much in surplus (profit) revenue. When you add in the conferences and schools, it amounts to billions of dollars a year. Alabama generated over $100M alone last year. In the grand scheme of things, that really is a lot of money and more than enough to pay for athletes' ongoing medical issues. There are huge amounts of money thrown around to coaches and administrators throughout the NCAA, and there's nothing that says they're entitled to the entire revenue stream while locking the players out. There isn't some law of economics that says if suddenly the athletes got a bigger share of the revenues (via medical insurance, better scholarship guarantees, stipends, etc.) that existing expenses are fixed in stone and that the only possible source would be additional revenues. That doesn't happen anywhere else and there's no reason to expect it to happen here, even if they aren't publicly traded for-profit companies.

There's a big problem here that I point out with budgeting. Alabama generated over $100 million in revenue last year, but where does most of that go? A lot of it goes to fund the athletic department and in particular to fund the facilities available on campuses.

 

When you switch from "Revenue" to "profit" you wind up with a much more complicated story because things like "100,000 person stadiums" are very, very expensive and are often financed through government-backed bond issues, creating a wide net of subsidies and off-the-books accounting tricks.

 

Some programs turn significant profits on their athletic departments for a while, while others don't, but in all cases they benefit from saving a whole lot of marketing dollars that they would otherwise have to spend.

 

There are more than a few cases where the 8 football home games and conference moneys the athletic departments take in do not cover their costs (particularly if they're firing a lot of coaches or doing renovations). The University of Tennessee has had to dump several million dollars into its athletic department the last couple years to keep it solvent, for example.

 

The money the NCAA makes is almost entirely due to revenue on the NCAA tournament, which they hold the rights to for some reason.

[StrangeSox]

"Non-profits" play all sorts of games with revenues and pretty typically act just like for-profits. I'm sure you're very familiar with the national trend of administrative bloat (in salary and numbers) at colleges and universities.

[Jenksismyhero]

Think about the argument you're making. Collectively, the NCAA sports generate about $5,000,000,000 a year. New medical coverage for athletes will cost $X. Your argument is that any new costs imposed on the NCAA will not come out of that current $5B revenue stream, so they're voluntarily foregoing $X in revenue each year.

 

Now, why would they be doing that? It would mean bigger, fancier sports facilities, bigger TV contracts, bigger endorsement deals, bigger executive/coaching salaries, etc. Why would NCAA sports be completely immune from the basic forces of capitalism that every other industry faces? They may not be publicly traded companies, but there definitely are people who would love to have additional revenue streams. Plus, this ignores that a lot of the revenue actually does come from publicly traded companies (NBC/ABC/ESPN, Adidas/Nike, Gatorade).

 

 

 

The NCAA itself made that much in surplus (profit) revenue. When you add in the conferences and schools, it amounts to billions of dollars a year. Alabama generated over $100M alone last year. In the grand scheme of things, that really is a lot of money and more than enough to pay for athletes' ongoing medical issues. There are huge amounts of money thrown around to coaches and administrators throughout the NCAA, and there's nothing that says they're entitled to the entire revenue stream while locking the players out. There isn't some law of economics that says if suddenly the athletes got a bigger share of the revenues (via medical insurance, better scholarship guarantees, stipends, etc.) that existing expenses are fixed in stone and that the only possible source would be additional revenues. That doesn't happen anywhere else and there's no reason to expect it to happen here, even if they aren't publicly traded for-profit companies.

 

Here are the profits of the top schools:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

 

You keep talking about revenue. Great, they make a s*** ton. But they also pay out a s*** ton. Same with the NCAA. It's not like schools are walking away with earnings of 100M which they just hand out to the President or other board members. They go back into the school to fund other athletics, building projects, etc. Some schools (Iowa for example) LOST money.

 

You're suggesting that universities should be on the hook FOR LIFE for "long term effect" injuries to student athletes. You think that's just going to be some pocket change? And you think that the schools and/or NCAA will just pay for it without cutting things and not increasing prices? You honestly believe that?

 

[Balta1701]

It's not like schools are walking away with earnings of 100M which they just hand out to the President or other board members. They go back into the school to fund other athletics, building projects, etc. Some schools (Iowa for example) LOST money.

But his point, which is true, is that the enormous salaries of the coaching staffs at these top-level programs are that high because the money doesn't have to be spent anywhere else. If you've got a coach who you have to pay $15 million in order to turn a $10 million profit, you do that...and that's a big pool of money going to a coaching staff that could be directed elsewhere.

[StrangeSox]

Here are the profits of the top schools:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

 

You keep talking about revenue. Great, they make a s*** ton. But they also pay out a s*** ton. Same with the NCAA. It's not like schools are walking away with earnings of 100M which they just hand out to the President or other board members. They go back into the school to fund other athletics, building projects, etc. Some schools (Iowa for example) LOST money.

 

They also go to bloated admin/coaches salaries in many cases, or spending money on new facilities just to spend money. Non-profits do this in every industry, which is why it's important to look at revenues and not just pure surplus.

 

You're suggesting that universities should be on the hook FOR LIFE for "long term effect" injuries to student athletes.

 

No, I'm not.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

But his point, which is true, is that the enormous salaries of the coaching staffs at these top-level programs are that high because the money doesn't have to be spent anywhere else. If you've got a coach who you have to pay $15 million in order to turn a $10 million profit, you do that...and that's a big pool of money going to a coaching staff that could be directed elsewhere.

 

Ok, but you're not going to change the status quo. Universities aren't going to start lowering salaries. If you don't have a competitive program, you don't win games. And if you don't win games, you don't make money. And if you don't make money, the school itself becomes damaged.

 

So, what will happen is that X millions will have to be allocated to provide, fight legally, and administer X millions for "long term effect" injuries not currently covered and the school will say "well, i have a choice between lowering coaching salaries, or increasing ticket/merchandise prices." Or if the numbers are that serious, perhaps AD's start cutting sports (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/...-234783781.html)

Edited January 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

They also go to bloated admin/coaches salaries in many cases, or spending money on new facilities just to spend money. Non-profits do this in every industry, which is why it's important to look at revenues and not just pure surplus.

 

That's really the crux here for you: coaches makes millions, players get nothing. Unfair.

 

No, I'm not.

 

OK, well I guess I misread your prior post:

 

It's more of the long-term impact that injuries or even just playing DI football can have on your body that aren't covered. Sure, the surgery to repair your torn ACL may be covered, but not the lingering bad shoulder you'll have for the rest of your life or maybe the CTE you got playing.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

That's really the crux here for you: coaches makes millions, players get nothing. Unfair.

 

The crux is that many people, not just coaches, make personal fortunes off of the billions of dollars collectively generated each year by the NCAA and that it is obviously and unquestionably unfair that the overwhelming majority of the labor force generating those billions of dollars is largely locked out of not only the money the generate directly but also forbidden from generating money on their own.

 

OK, well I guess I misread your prior post:

 

That statement wasn't a fully fleshed out policy proposal or something, just pointing out that while immediate medical coverage for injuries is provided, longer-term care or even medium-term care won't necessarily be.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, but you're not going to change the status quo. Universities aren't going to start lowering salaries. If you don't have a competitive program, you don't win games. And if you don't win games, you don't make money. And if you don't make money, the school itself becomes damaged.

 

So, what will happen is that X millions will have to be allocated to provide, fight legally, and administer X millions for "long term effect" injuries not currently covered and the school will say "well, i have a choice between lowering coaching salaries, or increasing ticket/merchandise prices." Or if the numbers are that serious, perhaps AD's start cutting sports (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/...-234783781.html)

 

If they could increase revenues simply be rising prices, they already would have done that.

 

These sorts of benefits would represent new costs, and in the short-term there could be budgeting issues, but long-term things would even out. If new revenue streams don't magically appear (if they could raise prices and increase revenue, they'd do it regardless of new costs), then schools won't be able to spend as much on future coaching/AD/executive salaries. And it's not just schools here but all of the people that run the various conferences that often make very nice salaries. Telander mentioned on Mac & Speigs the other day the "bowl sponsors" who can get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars basically just to glad-hand corporate sponsors at the bowl games.

 

There is more than enough revenue within college sports to pay for what the NW players are asking for without crippling other sports or programs. It's just that the people who benefit the most from the current system don't want to give up any of those benefits.

[iamshack]

Right, and that's the part I could give two s***s about. You chose to play a sport in which you run full speed into another human and land on a hard ground. Why should anyone else be responsible for that decision?

 

edit: and that's ignoring the benefits these guys get for that potential long-term impact.

Is it that dissimilar from your profession? What is the divorce rate for lawyers? Alcoholism rate? But what is the average salary?

 

Are you going to sue your law firm if (when) you end up as a raving alcoholic divorcee (ok, I am joking about the divorcee part)?

[StrangeSox]

Most of us "choose" to work and are "at-will" employees. Is it wrong that we might ask for a raise, better working conditions, better benefits, more time off, etc?

 

Does the ABA control your employment rights and rules at every law firm in the country?

 

eta: a decent health insurance plan should cover mental illness problems and substance abuse therapy!

Edited January 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

Most of us "choose" to work and are "at-will" employees. Is it wrong that we might ask for a raise, better working conditions, better benefits, more time off, etc?

 

Does the ABA control your employment rights and rules at every law firm in the country?

 

eta: a decent health insurance plan should cover mental illness problems and substance abuse therapy!

 

I just think it's fair to point out that there are a lot of dangerous/unhealthy jobs out there, including those where you don't physically tackle people with helmets.

[Jenksismyhero]

If they could increase revenues simply be rising prices, they already would have done that.

 

These sorts of benefits would represent new costs, and in the short-term there could be budgeting issues, but long-term things would even out. If new revenue streams don't magically appear (if they could raise prices and increase revenue, they'd do it regardless of new costs), then schools won't be able to spend as much on future coaching/AD/executive salaries. And it's not just schools here but all of the people that run the various conferences that often make very nice salaries. Telander mentioned on Mac & Speigs the other day the "bowl sponsors" who can get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars basically just to glad-hand corporate sponsors at the bowl games.

 

There is more than enough revenue within college sports to pay for what the NW players are asking for without crippling other sports or programs. It's just that the people who benefit the most from the current system don't want to give up any of those benefits.

 

Well, agree to disagree. We'll find out soon enough when the NCAA/schools will be forced to pay out some kind of settlement in the O'Bannon case. I won't hold out hope that schools will start spending less on their football and basketball programs to make up the difference.

[Jenksismyhero]

 

I just think it's fair to point out that there are a lot of dangerous/unhealthy jobs out there, including those where you don't physically tackle people with helmets.

 

yep, agreed.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Most of us "choose" to work and are "at-will" employees. Is it wrong that we might ask for a raise, better working conditions, better benefits, more time off, etc?

 

Does the ABA control your employment rights and rules at every law firm in the country?

 

eta: a decent health insurance plan should cover mental illness problems and substance abuse therapy!

 

Yeah, we can ask, and when our employers say no we don't keep complaining about it and pretend like some big injustice is being done to us. We start our own firms. We go solo. We don't extend the hand.

 

And no, i'm not aware of any ABA control over employment rights/rules. Only ethical stuff.

[StrangeSox]

 

I just think it's fair to point out that there are a lot of dangerous/unhealthy jobs out there, including those where you don't physically tackle people with helmets.

 

Yeah but a lot of workers in dangerous industries unionized, often in the face of brutal violence, to get better working conditions and pay. Why couldn't we apply the same argument of "hey, you knew the terms when you took the job, f*** off" to them?

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, we can ask, and when our employers say no we don't keep complaining about it and pretend like some big injustice is being done to us. We start our own firms. We go solo. We don't extend the hand.

 

Or you unionize or leave for somewhere else.

 

I think it's pretty silly to frame attempts to get better pay or better workers' rights as "extend[ing] the hand," as if they're asking for "handouts"

 

And no, i'm not aware of any ABA control over employment rights/rules. Only ethical stuff.

 

So hopefully you can see the difference here and why the NCAA is like a cartel.

[Jenksismyhero]

Or you unionize or leave for somewhere else.

 

I think it's pretty silly to frame attempts to get better pay or better workers' rights as "extend[ing] the hand," as if they're asking for "handouts"

 

 

 

So hopefully you can see the difference here and why the NCAA is like a cartel.

 

It is a handout when they've been "paid," but the argument is "not enough." This isn't a coal town situation. There's a decent argument that a big chunk of student athletes who get scholarships are getting something much more beneficial than the monetary cost of that scholarship - they're going to college, something they'd never be able to afford without one.

 

You have a pretty distorted definition of cartel. By your definition the government is a cartel. The Illinois Supreme Court is a cartel. They mandate certain rules for practice and compensation.

 

[StrangeSox]

It is a handout when they've been "paid," but the argument is "not enough." This isn't a coal town situation. There's a decent argument that a big chunk of student athletes who get scholarships are getting something much more beneficial than the monetary cost of that scholarship - they're going to college, something they'd never be able to afford without one.

 

That's a very distorted definition of a handout. Disagreements over what constitutes fair compensation aren't people asking for handouts.

 

You have a pretty distorted definition of cartel. By your definition the government is a cartel. The Illinois Supreme Court is a cartel. They mandate certain rules for practice and compensation.

 

Cartel doesn't make sense when talking about the government really because governments have sovereignty. The government has absolute authority that derives from sovereignty but it's not really the same thing conceptually. "Cartel" doesn't just mean mandates certain things but that it controls certain markets. If you'd like, we could call it a monopoly instead as it's a market with ridiculously high barriers to entry controlled by one group that sets universal rules for the entire industry.

 

You've said yourself that the NCAA is s*** but you seem to want to defend all of their rules.

[greg775]

How exactly? The "employees" have the option to play the game or not play the game. No one is forcing them to do it. They can wait and see if they get drafted. They can go play in other countries. That's pretty "free" to me.

 

And it's not a cartel either. The schools don't own some unique product. You can start a school and a football program if you'd like. There's also not any price fixing. Schools charge different amounts to watch the games. They charge different amounts for networks to broadcast their games. And they don't really market themselves the same way either. I fail to see how that's a cartel situation.

 

 

 

I don't think AD departments act like normal businesses, so that's a faulty comparison. They have no shareholders or investors to pay back. They worry about funding their programs and maybe expanding the school a little bit. That's it. I'd also bet that the major schools like OSU, Texas, any SEC, etc. could double their ticket prices and still sell out. But they don't, because there's no need to. Present them with the need and they will.

 

 

 

The NCAA made 71 million in 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/colle...urplus/2128431/ In the grand scheme that's really not a lot.

 

The NCAA also was selling players jerseys with names on the back for profit until Jay Bilas called them on it.

Just pay the players. It's only right. Or at least let them market themselves. Why shouldn't RGIII have been able to sell 1 million jerseys to Baylor fans?

Why can't Andrew Wiggins do the same at Kansas? And those Kentucky players? They could make a fortune selling autographed jerseys. Self and Calipari make more than 5 million a year; at least let the players sell their own merchandise to make a huge buck.

[Balta1701]

The NCAA also was selling players jerseys with names on the back for profit until Jay Bilas called them on it.

Just pay the players. It's only right. Or at least let them market themselves. Why shouldn't RGIII have been able to sell 1 million jerseys to Baylor fans?

Why can't Andrew Wiggins do the same at Kansas? And those Kentucky players? They could make a fortune selling autographed jerseys. Self and Calipari make more than 5 million a year; at least let the players sell their own merchandise to make a huge buck.

Why should RG3 be able to sell jerseys using the Baylor license and colors? Michael Jordan can't market his own line of Bulls material.