Should High School Athletes be Paid?

[Texsox]

High schoolers in Indiana sell out 40,000 seat arena, football players in Texas are playing in $50,000,000 stadiums. Advertising revenue will be financing a $2,000,000 scoreboard for the stadium where I teach. With all that money being made, shouldn't the athletes get a cut?

[Iwritecode]

It’s a tougher argument because I think the popularity of HS sports is very, very localized. In the Rockford area, HS sports are largely ignored.

[Texsox]

So pay high school athletes in places where it generates profits, like Indiana basketball and Texas football? Isn't that the same argument for college, some of the colleges aren't making money. Outside of D1 schools, I doubt many of those programs are barely breaking even.

[cabiness42]

So pay high school athletes in places where it generates profits, like Indiana basketball and Texas football? Isn't that the same argument for college, some of the colleges aren't making money. Outside of D1 schools, I doubt many of those programs are barely breaking even.

 

Well, off topic a bit but what I think is eventually going to happen is that the approximately 70 "power-conference" schools are going to split from the NCAA entirely and form their own association, so they can have different rules than the rest of the schools.

 

[Balta1701]

Thought about this a bit more in the context of the actual NLRB-regional ruling for colleges.

 

One key argument that was made in the NLRB ruling was that the college athletes were being worked like full time employees. They were required to be at 40+ hours of practices and sessions per week, and thus could not by any reasonable means be considered amateurs.

 

This concept actually sets up a potential to draw a dividing line. Back in my day, before these kids and their music, the football team at my high school didn't commit anywhere near 40 hours a week to practice; I think I'd have been impressed if they did 20. Based on that standard, it would seem entirely reasonable to consider them as volunteering/not full time employees. Furthermore, they weren't obviously getting anything (like payment in the form of a scholarship) in exchange for the time they spent there.

 

However, I didn't go to one of those football factory high schools that now exist. Those are a different beast, and I wouldn't be surprised if the football teams at those schools, the top ones in the country where they have 15,000 seat stadia and so forth, are effectively working their players like full time employees. Furthermore, I would bet that the players are in many ways receiving the equivalent of "compensation" by being allowed to be at those schools.

 

You make an interesting point, and with some thought it seems like following the NLRB ruling could actually give a way to come up with a rough dividing line.

[StrangeSox]

Wasn't part of the ruling about how much control over the athletes' lives the universities have as well? Curfews, pressure over what classes/majors to take, final say on where they can or can't live, etc.

[Balta1701]

Wasn't part of the ruling about how much control over the athletes' lives the universities have as well? Curfews, pressure over what classes/majors to take, final say on where they can or can't live, etc.

And I'd bet at those few "football factory" high schools, those sorts of restrictions are in place as well.

[StrangeSox]

To some extent, but there's not nearly as many options for the team to control--they're minors, they're going to be living with their parents. They're in high school, so they have electives, but it's not as broad as choosing a major at a University with dozens or hundreds of options. There's bound to be local youth curfew laws they're already under, labor laws about how many hours a minor can work at an after-school job, etc.

[bmags]

We had practice 3-5pm, thursday walk through which was usually 1 hr practice, and friday game. Saturday was 1 hr practice with windsprints.

 

About 11 hrs a week.

 

And when I quit I didn't suddenly have to pay 40k to go to the school.

[Jenksismyhero]

We had practice 3-5pm, thursday walk through which was usually 1 hr practice, and friday game. Saturday was 1 hr practice with windsprints.

 

About 11 hrs a week.

 

And when I quit I didn't suddenly have to pay 40k to go to the school.

 

I had that plus "mandatory" (if you want to play) lifting from 5-7am each day.

 

The arguments are the exact same. The reason the NLRB judge focused on the control issue was in part to argue that the scholarship was less about education and more about football. There are ton of basketball high schools around the country that kids transfer to solely for basketball purposes. I'm sure in Texas football works the same way. I think if you're going down the line of "they make money off you, you should get paid," HS students have to be paid as well.

[Balta1701]

I had that plus "mandatory" (if you want to play) lifting from 5-7am each day.

 

The arguments are the exact same. The reason the NLRB judge focused on the control issue was in part to argue that the scholarship was less about education and more about football. There are ton of basketball high schools around the country that kids transfer to solely for basketball purposes. I'm sure in Texas football works the same way. I think if you're going down the line of "they make money off you, you should get paid," HS students have to be paid as well.

But I think the trick is "it's possible to make money off of people volunteering for an athletic program, but there is a dividing line between legit volunteerism/amateurism and a nearly-full-time-job".

 

Oh, and the HS Swimmer in me has officially just resumed my taunting of the weak workloads of the football teams.

[Jenksismyhero]

But I think the trick is "it's possible to make money off of people volunteering for an athletic program, but there is a dividing line between legit volunteerism/amateurism and a nearly-full-time-job".

 

Oh, and the HS Swimmer in me has officially just resumed my taunting of the weak workloads of the football teams.

 

Why should the amount of time you put into something matter?

 

I think true amateurism is rural high schools where 50 people show up to games. The school isn't making any money off it. But those texas high schools with 30k people stadiums are clearly making profits. Someone is getting paid. That's no different than collegiate programs, just a different scale.

 

[StrangeSox]

Why should the amount of time you put into something matter?

 

The full-time/part-time distinction is central to whether or not a group can unionize.

[Jenksismyhero]

The full-time/part-time distinction is central to whether or not a group can unionize.

 

Fine, but we're talking about change the laws anyway. Or at least re-interpreting them. To me if you're making the argument that college athletes should be paid (and I understand the NW players are not as part of this union push), high school athletes should too.

[StrangeSox]

Fine, but we're talking about change the laws anyway. Or at least re-interpreting them. To me if you're making the argument that college athletes should be paid (and I understand the NW players are not as part of this union push), high school athletes should too.

The law is explicit and clear about part-time/full-time, and as of right now nobody has proposed rewriting that law. The NW players had to show in their argument that they qualify not only as employees but as full-time employees. The impact would be much broader than just (non-)amateur athletics.

 

At least one distinction is that these mega-programs are rare edge cases in HS sports, and we're still mainly talking about public high schools that all kids are free to attend and don't need scholarships. The opposite is true for college.

[kev211]

No to HS, that's just absurd. Yes to college.

[Texsox]

At least one distinction is that these mega-programs are rare edge cases in HS sports, and we're still mainly talking about public high schools that all kids are free to attend and don't need scholarships. The opposite is true for college.

 

Which is an interesting point. It seems you are suggesting that if the athlete, who is generating profits for his school, receives something (scholarship) for his efforts, he should also receive additional money in the form of a stipend or salary. But an athlete who receives nothing, should continue to receive nothing.

 

It would be interesting to think about a college sports model without scholarships. You play who can afford to attend and who meets your institution's rules for entrance.

[Texsox]

No to HS, that's just absurd. Yes to college.

 

If the argument is that some athletes generate profits for their school and deserve a cut, why should it stop in college?

[kev211]

If the argument is that some athletes generate profits for their school and deserve a cut, why should it stop in college?

Because then they stop being STUDENT athletes which just isn't right in high school

[Texsox]

Because then they stop being STUDENT athletes which just isn't right in high school

 

What are college players? Aren't they student athletes? Or are we just going to allow colleges to hire employees to play for their team and not attend classes?

 

 

[kev211]

What are college players? Aren't they student athletes? Or are we just going to allow colleges to hire employees to play for their team and not attend classes?

First off college players bring in much more money to their schools then high schools. Most high schools lose money each year in their athletic departments. Football might make it, but then it's lost on the other sports.

 

I'm just not comfortable paying HS kids to play football, it's not right and it'll mess with their mindset that they're there for football and not school when that is not the mentality they should be having. As a teacher I wouldn't be able to deal with students who have that attitude.

 

If college kids choose to go in with that mentality then that's their decision. High school kids are too young and high school is too important for 14 year olds to be getting paid to play.

[Texsox]

All the same arguments fit for college athletes. The baseball, swimming, tennis, golf, lacrosse, wrestling, etc teams are losing money. College athletes should also be there for an education. High School football is becoming a year round sport with spring practices, conditioning, football "class" each day. etc.

 

What do you teach?

[kev211]

All the same arguments fit for college athletes. The baseball, swimming, tennis, golf, lacrosse, wrestling, etc teams are losing money. College athletes should also be there for an education. High School football is becoming a year round sport with spring practices, conditioning, football "class" each day. etc.

 

What do you teach?

I teach High School Science.

 

I see your points and I know it's roughly the same, something just feels wrong about paying high school athletes that's hard to put into words.

[Texsox]

I agree. And I especially agree with the sense of entitlement that some athletes feel that you just want to stop.

[Iwritecode]

Another distinction is that college is a choice. AFAIK, HS isn't option for most kids unless they are home-schooled and many don't even get the choice of which HS they go to.