Do you think this might be trouble for NCAA sports as we know them?
"Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability in the billions of dollars instead of tens or hundreds of millions," said Michael Hausfeld, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve."
Nobody in their right mind can call major basketball and football players as "amateurs" anymore. Like Chris Webber, if I see thousands and thousands of my jerseys making millions for the school but I don't get to see a penny of it? If I hadn't gone to that particular school, then the school wouldn't be capitalizing from it now. People lining up screaming for autographs and pictures, face is plastered all over TV and media. Flying all over the country like a rock band on tour.
They aren't Student-Athletes anymore, they are Athlete-Students. I understand people will say they are awarded a free education, but the bigger NCAA football and basketball become that argument isn't going to hold much longer. The school doesn't make millions off of me, yet I was still given a free education (academically).
This...that is all!
Upvote for a well-articulated arguement, but I have to say that I completely disagree with this sentiment.
I don't think that the "colleges capitalizing on penieless athletes" arguement isn't without merit--I'm all for increased stipends for the athletes--but allowing them to have cuts in their merchendise sales completely detonates the idea of a collegiate athlete, decimating the NCAA's "equality of opportunity" amongst the schools that call themselves members.
Basicially, you'd have the top 25 schools in the country fighting for every worthwhile recruit (and even for transfers from lesser schools who are more than willing to forsake a year of eligibility) while the small schools would be left fighting for scraps. You'd see schools' recruiting pitches involving written contracts pertaining to the percentage of their team's jersey manufacturing, their television exposure, etc. It would create an arms race for recruits that would literally destroy the very thing that we love, college football.
Now, I'm with you that the current system is broken. But to fix it, we can either maintain and tweak the status quo, or kill it with fire and basically implement a university-sponsored minor leagues of football. Personally, I don't see the latter working (again, it would create the same problems mentioned above; the rich will get richer at the expense of everyone else, and a cyclical downturn could potentially ruin a program), so I'll take what we've got. If anything, increase the kids' stipends; but it is worth remembering that aside from receiving a post-athletics career education, they're also receiving invaluable athletic training, all on the university's dime. Sure, they make a lot of dough on their athletic exploits, but how much of that is directly due to the dinero that they've invested in them? Would they be as good without the top-of-the-line facilities and training that Ohio State has provided them? If players were to be paid, does a backup deserve less than a starter? In fairness, the starter's obviously doing more to aid his team's success, and it's his jersey that's being sold. In my opinion, anything more than that increased stipend is opening a gargantuan can of worms that would probably kill the already laughable idea of parity that the NCAA has. At least there's 120 teams in FBS now, start paying players and you'd see that number reduced by half in five years.
I agree with everything. I wasn't presenting a solution, just the problem. It would quickly turn chaotic if star athletes were paid fully for the contributions without restriction. I have no idea what a solution could be. It's such a fine line between students and professionals that I pray for those who have to make such decisions. I just wish the NCAA and school admins wouldn't continue to preach integrity and prestige when they use young men and women as pawns for making millions.
Hodge--why should "NCAA parity" take precedence over atheletes being fairly compensated? I love college football and all, but taking a step back I don't see any merit to your arguement. Sure, what you say is true and well said, but when looking at it from a perspective of fairness and justice, rather than a perspective of trying to save the 'tradition' of college football it doesn't hold much water.
To add another layer, I can't help but think of the fairness of compensation in conjunction with NCAA's disregard for former players' disabilities. It is sheer lunacy that they have been able to get away with it. I've heard everyone's arguments about how they are "accepting risk" when they choose to play. That doesn't hold water in the real world. I work closely with worker's comp issues. Just because a person takes a high risk job doesn't mean that person isn't (1) compensated for work and (2) receive compensation for disability. The argument that college players accept risk is also easily refuted by the NFL. The NFL may be trying to fight it and skimp as much as possible, but they still have a system for taking care of player's health issues after their career is over.
I fail to see the point this makes. Do professional organizations not invest in training facilities, trainers, medical staffs, etc. to get the most out of their players? Are their players still compensated? Sure, Ohio State invested in, say, Troy Smith. But, Troy Smith also invested in Ohio State. Ohio State clearly profited more from that investment than Troy Smith did.
You're guess is as good as mine, but that's really all it is: a guess. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Baseball players still choose to play for a scholarship instead of playing in the minors. I still watch college basketball which hasn't imploded from when players started going from HS to NBA, or with the change from the 1-and-done rule.
What is the fair compensation? I really have no idea, it could be a nominal increase to the stipend for all I know. Although Cam Newton's open market value would suggest it's probably more than that. Who knows, it could be high at first, but come crashing back down, and other than some chaos for a decade, it may go back to what it is now. One way or another, college football is going to change, I think it's pretty different now from how it was 20 years ago (with huge TV contracts, conference realignment, bowl systems). What should be done is what is right and just. What that means for the forced utopian facade of college football should be an afterthought at most.
I do like the premise that these athelets should get a bigger piece of the pie, but where do we draw the line?
I mean, say an if athlete like Eddie George was financially rewarded for his autograph, do we also allow him to recoup some of the money from sales of his jersey? I was a huge fan of his when he was in college..but it was only because he played for the Buckeyes. Had he not, I can't say that I would've even cared who he was. I bought a Buckeyes jersey, which he happened to wear.
Will this open the doors for players to sign with agents during their playing career in order to negotiate their own contracts/scholarships?
I think the system needs some sort of vehicle to change but I don't like this particular road of travel.
“Right now, Michigan is not at the pinnacle of college football, and that’s all Urban Meyer cares about...He’s been there and knows what it takes to get there.”
Ok, but did they sell the long snapper's jersey, or the punter's jersey. No you bought it because it was Eddie's number. I get where your coming from, but at the same time he was the reason you bought the jersey. While you were an OSU fan, what if you were just some young kid and liked Eddie George. Would you buy the uniform because of him, or because of the school?
EDIT*
The year of Malcolm Jenkins senior year I bought a #2 jersey since I'm a big Jenkins fan. A lot of #2 jerseys were probably bought that year for the other #2 on offense. How'd you split that up?
I'm also a huge Krenzel fan and if #16 is available in stores, I might buy that. Should Evan Spencer get a cut of that sale because he wears 16?
@J.MO
Who are you asking?
From the article:
Because of the school.
“Right now, Michigan is not at the pinnacle of college football, and that’s all Urban Meyer cares about...He’s been there and knows what it takes to get there.”
So since Bengals' fans buy Andy Dalton and AJ Green jerseys because they are fans of the Bengals, Mike Brown can reduce their salaries to $20k a year?
Of course you buy the jerseys because you're an OSU fan (Bengals fans buy AJ Green jerseys not Mike Wallace jerseys for the same reason). It doesn't mean the players don't deserve compensation. Are you honestly going to tell me you guys weren't excited about OSU because of Eddie George? If they were a mediocre team without the likes of George and Pace you wouldn't have been that excited about the team. We wouldn't have been as likely to turn on the TV to even watch the games, let alone spend money on jerseys and merchandise.
See this is where your assumption is wrong. Check out my profile. Not everyone is a fan of the school just because of the great players..SOME of us were born into it. SOME of us did everything we could in order to watch/listen/read about the games. SOME of us were fans of the great players because they were on mediocre teams; i.e. Chris Speilman, Gregg Frey, Raymont Harris. Because their play embodied everything that we as children imagined, late at night, what it meant to be a Buckeye.
My number 27 Eddie George replica Ohio State Jersey also happened to be the same number that belonged to my father in high-school. The same father who helped me form my deep passion and love for Ohio State.
Yes, I was excited to watch Eddie play. Eddie 3:14 is still fresh in my mind. And watching him run through Notre Dame's Vaunted Defense in 1995 was one of my favorite memories as a fan. But, no I would not have wavered in my fanhood.
“Right now, Michigan is not at the pinnacle of college football, and that’s all Urban Meyer cares about...He’s been there and knows what it takes to get there.”
This is why I posted this link, I don't necessarily mind athletes being paid, but I am not sure this suit is the vehicle. I wonder if it will do more harm to the sport than good? Or maybe it will drain all of the money out of it and make it more like "the good ole' days"?
It s foregone conclusion that the system in place isn't suitable especially in todays world, but lets get real we cant be paying these kids that much money its impractical. IMO every scholarship athlete should just get a couple thousand maybe per semester for a spending stipend if you will. They dont NEED that much money, no college student does, but giving them enough money to maybe, i dont know, get a tattoo.
I think the argument is even more basic: if I don't have the right to profit from my own publicity, then nobody else should. It's not just that Eddie didn't get the money from his jersey sales but also that someone else did. The NCAA could continue to preserve the whatever collegiate athlete ideal it claims to cherish and just not use the players' images at all.
Well said and succinct. I feel foolish for rambling on above now.
I hope I don't get too many downvotes for this, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Aren't elite college athletes already compensated already for their time and effort via a FREE EDUCATION? The elite athletes are also receiving free training for their chosen sports/profession (Football, Basketball, etc.). Compare this to a gym membership that might cost you or me $30-50 per month. Add a trainer and that cost goes up even more for the non-college athlete. These kids get that free training 5 or more days per week. Tutors? I would have had to pay for a tutor in school, but student athletes get them for free. There are many other unspoken bennies received by the student athlete - room and board, food, travel expenses (i.e. flights and buses to competitions), and the marketing that comes with a heisman or MVP-type campaign if the athlete is good enough. (Most for-profit companies have to pay handsomely for that kind of advertising). How about health insurance and injury/rehab costs? If I tear up my knee playing pickup hoops, I will outlay a chunk of money paying the deductible, the co-pay for my doctor visits, and my 20% of the bill. Student athletes get some of the finest treatment available at the university medical facilities at no cost to them. Other unspoken and less easily quanitified benefits include fame, higher future earnings, and the likely prospect of a better-than-average looking significant other. :)
The colleges and universities pay for all of these expenses, as well as the cost of the facilities involved, and get athletic performance and ticket/merchandise revenue in return. It's a symbiotic relationship. Sometimes the university comes out a little ahead (OSU football - 2012), and sometimes it doesn't (Tennessee football - 2012).
I guess what I'm alluding to is that I don't see the right of the student to any of the merchandising or TV money when the university is providing for everything that allows that player to be successful and famous.
My $0.02 worth.
No, you are trying to change the direction of the argument. It is not whether they are compensated, it is whether they are compensated fairly.
The amount a college athelete is worth (look at how much Cecil Newton was asking for Cam, and Auburn can attest to how low $180k was for him), and how much college athelete's are receiving. Why shouldn't college football players be allowed to negotiate how much they are worth?
This point holds no water. NFL and NBA players receive training and have access to great facilities, yet they are compensated because they make money for their organizations, the same way college football and basketball players do.
Gym members don't bring in profit for their gyms, other than through memberships. College atheletes bring in money for their college, so this comparison is pointless.
This is hilarious. The people I have known that have to travel on a weekly basis are well compensated for it (far exceeds tuition+room and board+tutors etc., in fact it easily pays for their children to have all those things).
These things are all self-serving to the universities interests. Heck, they don't even deserve good karma points, considering how self serving they are. Tutors--keep their prized atheletes eligible, so they can compete and earn money for the university. Medical care and treatments--keep their prized atheletes eligible and at peak performance capicity, again so that they can compete and earn money for the university.
You're trying to say Tennessee had a deficit because they were investing to much in player's scholarships and training? That is a LAUGHABLE. Besides, it was the Tennessee athletic department NOT Tennessee football. That means there are a whole host of others costs. Besides, you think that no professional sports organizations ever run a debt? Hey, someone tell Mike Brown he doesn't have to play his players at all if the Bengals are in debt. He may implode from joy.
The Chicago Bulls and NBA provided everything for Michael Jordan to be successful and famous. Yet, Jordan got a salary (which reflected money the Bulls and NBA made from merchandise and TV deals), and was allowed to accept endoresements. Jordan was good out of college, but he clearly improved into the amazing all-time great that he was after college. The Bulls provided "everything" for him to improve and succeed is no different than a college providing for a player.
It's not a symbiotic relationship. Universities and others (BCS, bowls, merchants, networks, etc.) are leeches. They are making far more off these atheletes than they will ever see.
By your argument, Jon Hankins should stay at Ohio State because he is already being fairly compensated. You're wrong.