Miller: Athletes are ALREADY Getting Paid

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
Miller: Athletes Getting Paid AlreadyHawkeye Nation

Also, once we factor in what it costs to pay for an out of state player for four or five years, all costs here like tuition, room and board, per diem, training table, travel to and from games (their brands are being built on the road too, so there has to be a shared cost), training, equipment depreciation, etc….then take a stab at how much a star player nets for a school….I am guessing the percentage will be akin to a sales commission.

Say Ricky Stanzi generated $1mil in value for Iowa via marketing, licensing, promotion, etc…and his cost of scholarship was around $200k….that’s a 20% commission…those of you in sales, you know that ain’t crazy. Then most of the athletes are not stars like Stanzi…not to mention most every female athlete….and you ain’t gonna have a system where the ladies aren’t getting the same as the men. This argument is such a waste of time based on Title IX alone

PM ADDITION: I am adding this at 12:40pm after coming across some concrete numbers for the University of Iowa...these numbers reflect just tuition and room and board, per semester, for an OUT OF STATE athlete on scholarship...which is the majority of the football and basketball teams, 100% of the field hockey team which is the 2nd most expensive sport at Iowa relative to scholarship costs as there isn't a native Iowan on the team and it operates at a loss.

Out of state tuition: 13,465.50 a semester
Room and board: 4682.5 a semester

If off campus later in careers, off campus housing award is roughly $4,000 a semester that is sent in installments

That's a freshman year total of $18,148. Back it off $1,365 after freshman year assuming the players move out of the dorms after one year

FRESHMAN: $18,148/semester x2 = $36,296 per year
SOPH-SENIOR (x3): $16,783 x2= $33566 per year x3 = $100,698.
FOUR YEAR TOTAL: $136,994
add additional costs for the fifth year...but there could be minimal credit hours involved, but the $8000 in annual off campus room and board is still in play.

So let's just call it $140,000 for ease of discussion and most players are there beyond four years.

Those are not estimated costs, those are actual costs as of September 26th, 2013. Add to this the free healthcare that each student athlete gets while at Iowa...some of those players could be on their parents plan, some of their parents are not insured. But there is no monthly premium, no co-pay, etc for these plans. None at all. They are covered, just as they would be if they were playing professionally.

That value doesn't include the amazing value opportunity they receive from building their personal brand on the fields of the B1G. They don't pay any costs associated with the maintenance, upkeep and construction of Kinnick Stadium or Carver Hawkeye, nor should they...they are receiving their just and agreed up reward; a free ride...and they get the amazing benefits that go along with that. If some of them need tutoring, they don't have to pay for that. They don't have to pay extra for the world class strength training and nutrition they have access to. They don't have to pay a health club membership fee to access the football facilities.

It's not a stretch to say there is $200,000 in value from a scholarship. The USA Today suggests the value for a basketball scholarship is upwards of $600k.

The players are 'getting paid' and they (as well as others) are naive to think this is an unfair deal. How many other 18 year olds are receiving that value for their services? And it's not a one-off value; it's an accruing value and the ability to build their own brand in a state or region hold incredible value...as you'll see if you read the article.
 
Last edited:
Miller: Athletes Getting Paid AlreadyHawkeye Nation

Also, once we factor in what it costs to pay for an out of state player for four or five years, all costs here like tuition, room and board, per diem, training table, travel to and from games (their brands are being built on the road too, so there has to be a shared cost), training, equipment depreciation, etc….then take a stab at how much a star player nets for a school….I am guessing the percentage will be akin to a sales commission.

Say Ricky Stanzi generated $1mil in value for Iowa via marketing, licensing, promotion, etc…and his cost of scholarship was around $200k….that’s a 20% commission…those of you in sales, you know that ain’t crazy. Then most of the athletes are not stars like Stanzi…not to mention most every female athlete….and you ain’t gonna have a system where the ladies aren’t getting the same as the men. This argument is such a waste of time based on Title IX alone

As the English would say, "Lovely".
 
Miller: Athletes Getting Paid AlreadyHawkeye Nation

Also, once we factor in what it costs to pay for an out of state player for four or five years, all costs here like tuition, room and board, per diem, training table, travel to and from games (their brands are being built on the road too, so there has to be a shared cost), training, equipment depreciation, etc….then take a stab at how much a star player nets for a school….I am guessing the percentage will be akin to a sales commission.

Say Ricky Stanzi generated $1mil in value for Iowa via marketing, licensing, promotion, etc…and his cost of scholarship was around $200k….that’s a 20% commission…those of you in sales, you know that ain’t crazy. Then most of the athletes are not stars like Stanzi…not to mention most every female athlete….and you ain’t gonna have a system where the ladies aren’t getting the same as the men. This argument is such a waste of time based on Title IX alone

Thanks Jon. The argument to date has been so one-sided it's quite silly. The players aren't going to win sympathy with folks who went to college and left with a huge amount of debt or are facing sending their kids to school and seeing how much it now costs.

The area where the players are getting (and will continue to get) sympathy is in the large salaries being earned by coaches, administrators, NCAA staff, etc. If the coaches can get rich (even the assistants at a place like Iowa earn in the hundreds of thousands of dollar per year), then why can't the players? (or so they will argue).

I have wondered at what point the colleges will stop acting like a de facto minor league system for the NFL and NBA. MLB teams spend millions of dollars every year on their minor league systems. The NBA spends some on the D-League, but not nearly the investment of MLB. And the NFL has nothing comparable.

Lots of issues to unwrap in this debate (the cost of higher education, Title IX, etc.) but it's one worth having.
 
Thanks Jon. The argument to date has been so one-sided it's quite silly. The players aren't going to win sympathy with folks who went to college and left with a huge amount of debt or are facing sending their kids to school and seeing how much it now costs.

The area where the players are getting (and will continue to get) sympathy is in the large salaries being earned by coaches, administrators, NCAA staff, etc. If the coaches can get rich (even the assistants at a place like Iowa earn in the hundreds of thousands of dollar per year), then why can't the players? (or so they will argue).

I have wondered at what point the colleges will stop acting like a de facto minor league system for the NFL and NBA. MLB teams spend millions of dollars every year on their minor league systems. The NBA spends some on the D-League, but not nearly the investment of MLB. And the NFL has nothing comparable.

Lots of issues to unwrap in this debate (the cost of higher education, Title IX, etc.) but it's one worth having.
Its the same maroons that think burger flippers should make as much as CEO s.

We live in a free country. If star college players are upset they aren't compensated more for their time, then they don't have to play.

I won't feel bad that Manziel can't sell his sig, because his sig would be worthless if it wasn't for the NCAA.
 
Per the latest numbers released by the Big Ten conference member institutions received over 200 million from the conference. Rumor was that Maryland and Rutgers were told to expect that number to go to 400 million. So over the course of an athletes five years on campus 2 billion in revenue is going to be disbursed to members schools. So you can see why Delany is for full cost scholarships. After all we're not talking about players getting rich - like the head coaches, assistant coaches, administrator etc. are - it's just an additional stipend.

If you are against this idea get ready to go the way of the dinosaur as this August was red-hot with conference commissioners laying the ground work for a Division IV that has the financial (and moral) obligation to pay full cost scholarships.
 
These players know the rules before they ever step on campus. If you don't like how an organization operates you don't associate yourself with it.

My primary issue is that those in favor of paying players view it as an issue of right and wrong and that the players are being denied something rightfully theirs. The NCAA can run their organization however they see fit (considering all laws of course, discrimination etc.), the players have no right to get paid.

They also have a few flaws in their argument. They are paid very well according to what they produce. We are all exploited (in this instance exploitation being one getting paid less than the actual value they produce) because if we weren’t, businesses would all go broke. Everyone on this board makes more money for their business than they are paid. Like Jon said about commission, a car salesman doesn’t sell a $50,000 Lexus and complain when the dealership doesn’t pay him $50,000 for doing so.

The reason they are well paid is because college athletes, especially football and basketball players, do not produce nearly the amount of money they believe they do. They are replaceable. It’s the institutions and the teams that produce the money no matter who is suiting up on saturday. Did Florida’s program go broke when Tebow graduated? Did Texas’s program go broke when Vince Young graduated?

If every single top 250 players coming out of high school next year refused to play NCAA football in protest it would affect almost nothing. Would the level of play be affected the next few years? Perhaps, but Iowa will still put 70,000 fans in the seats, OSU will still sell out their games and players who don’t care about getting paid will fill the rosters.
If you don’t like the food at McDonald’s you don’t eat there. If you don’t like the handling on a Toyota you don’t buy a toyota. If you don’t like how the NCAA operates you don’t play sports under their banner. It’s that simple.
 
$40k a year is more than an Iowa graduate with a degree in something like Communications, History, Journalism, or Women and Gender Studies will make in their first 5 years out of college.
 
Per the latest numbers released by the Big Ten conference member institutions received over 200 million from the conference. Rumor was that Maryland and Rutgers were told to expect that number to go to 400 million. So over the course of an athletes five years on campus 2 billion in revenue is going to be disbursed to members schools. So you can see why Delany is for full cost scholarships. After all we're not talking about players getting rich - like the head coaches, assistant coaches, administrator etc. are - it's just an additional stipend.

If you are against this idea get ready to go the way of the dinosaur as this August was red-hot with conference commissioners laying the ground work for a Division IV that has the financial (and moral) obligation to pay full cost scholarships.
Revenue is not profit. Only 23 of 228 schools generated enough revenue in 2012 to cover expenses. So do you recommend greater tax burdens and subsidies? Or cutting the money taking sports?
Throwing out a number like 2 billion only matters to those who don't understand how business functions.

It would be a competitive advantage for big ten, so I see why Delaney likes it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
 
Last edited:
Two things:

#1--International track and field, for decades, mandated amateur status for those who competed at the olympics, etc. Look back on that now. How silly all that seems.

#2--The whole "gets a free education" thing is a sham. Truly. These FB players are so busy, 12 months a year being a conscript to the sport, they (for the most part) do not have time to devote to a truly rigorous academic pursuit (pre-med/pharmacy/nursing, engineering). "Keep me eligible" is the mantra. Sorry....having a piece of paper stating you have some truly worthless degree is just that....worthless.

Meanwhile, Iowa does a $93/mil renovation.....Michigan does a $225/mil improvement. Goodness.
 
Two things:

#1--International track and field, for decades, mandated amateur status for those who competed at the olympics, etc. Look back on that now. How silly all that seems.

#2--The whole "gets a free education" thing is a sham. Truly. These FB players are so busy, 12 months a year being a conscript to the sport, they (for the most part) do not have time to devote to a truly rigorous academic pursuit (pre-med/pharmacy/nursing, engineering). "Keep me eligible" is the mantra. Sorry....having a piece of paper stating you have some truly worthless degree is just that....worthless.

Meanwhile, Iowa does a $93/mil renovation.....Michigan does a $225/mil improvement. Goodness.

This is not the case at institutions like Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, etc. Those are real degrees worth real money.

If these athletes want to get paid, go pro.
 
This thread is gonna get heated.

JDM is correct. Athletes have a huge advantage over the rest the student population already. Am I concerned that some can't afford to go clubbin' and make it rain? No.

Commence meltdown.......
 
I think Delaney and Miller are spot on! The only payment I can see the logic in would be a SMALL stipend to put a FEW bucks in these guys' pockets. The demands of the sport are so rigorous that there's no way they can get a part time job on the side like lot of college students have. A small stipend would give them some cash if they want to get a pizza or go to a movie. Hopefully this would also help them resist the $50 handshakes from boosters.
 
USA Today has estimated a basketball scholarship as having a value of $120k annually. Or $480k for 4 years, or $600k for 5 years. That seems to be pretty darn good value to the student-athlete.

USA TODAY analysis finds $120K value in men's basketball scholarship - USATODAY.com

To me, the solution to this debate is to follow the Olympic model and allow endorsements. It already works for the world's largest "amateur" sports, so it should work for collegiate athletes. It solves the issue of not having to pay the backup women's soccer players the same as Ricky Stanzi. I haven't heard any good arguments against the endorsement concept other than "it isn't perfect either."
 
USA Today has estimated a basketball scholarship as having a value of $120k annually. Or $480k for 4 years, or $600k for 5 years. That seems to be pretty darn good value to the student-athlete.

USA TODAY analysis finds $120K value in men's basketball scholarship - USATODAY.com

To me, the solution to this debate is to follow the Olympic model and allow endorsements. It already works for the world's largest "amateur" sports, so it should work for collegiate athletes. It solves the issue of not having to pay the backup women's soccer players the same as Ricky Stanzi. I haven't heard any good arguments against the endorsement concept other than "it isn't perfect either."

This would be a ******* disaster. Schools could just flat out buy kids then. Schools with big money boosters could pick off smaller schools star players. Schools like Texas and Oregon would have boosters handing out $50,000 to kids just to have them be in some Nike commerical or car dealership spot. This would create a gigantic gap between the top few schools and every other program.
 
Two things:

#1--International track and field, for decades, mandated amateur status for those who competed at the olympics, etc. Look back on that now. How silly all that seems.

#2--The whole "gets a free education" thing is a sham. Truly. These FB players are so busy, 12 months a year being a conscript to the sport, they (for the most part) do not have time to devote to a truly rigorous academic pursuit (pre-med/pharmacy/nursing, engineering). "Keep me eligible" is the mantra. Sorry....having a piece of paper stating you have some truly worthless degree is just that....worthless.

Meanwhile, Iowa does a $93/mil renovation.....Michigan does a $225/mil improvement. Goodness.

Your #2 stinks. Yes, those degrees are very valuable and there are many players earning advanced degrees. Many of those players who are just trying to stay eligible would be a whole lot worse off had they not gotten a scholarship to play sports. This gives them a chance to get ahead if they choose to use it. Many players seem to have plenty of free time to get in trouble so that's ridiculous.

Also, those worthless degrees a lot of times translate into jobs for those players after school. Have seen many players who hold jobs in the community who wouldn't otherwise have them without their "name recognition" that the big, bad athletic program gained for them.

I'd rather see them blow up the whole system before paying a dime more. Go back to the days of colleges fielding teams of players who just happen to go to school there and want to play. Create a minor league football system as they have in other sports and let those players who don't want to go to school anyway take that route. They'll find they were a LOT better off with the free education as a safety net as most will fail as a professional athlete.
 
They should be able to profit from their likeness and their fame, ie selling signatures. But should not be paid. If they need extra money for living expenses I have no problem with that bc they can't work. But I think that help is already available if they are poor in the form of grants.

There are too many problems with actually paying players
Only a limited amount of ADs are profitable so the rich get richer
Would this violate nonprofit status of school?
Titile IX problems
Rising ticket prices
Force schools to drop sports bc can't keep up
It wouldn't stop kids from taking money from agents or boosters
Do some get paid more than others? Do all athletes get paid not just football?
 
Two things:

#1--International track and field, for decades, mandated amateur status for those who competed at the olympics, etc. Look back on that now. How silly all that seems.

#2--The whole "gets a free education" thing is a sham. Truly. These FB players are so busy, 12 months a year being a conscript to the sport, they (for the most part) do not have time to devote to a truly rigorous academic pursuit (pre-med/pharmacy/nursing, engineering). "Keep me eligible" is the mantra. Sorry....having a piece of paper stating you have some truly worthless degree is just that....worthless.

Meanwhile, Iowa does a $93/mil renovation.....Michigan does a $225/mil improvement. Goodness.

If they don't take advantage of the education that's on them bc they are given every opportunity. Just look at players at Iowa and you will see plenty of guys commited to academics. Morris and Rudock are two guys off the top of my head.
 
#2--The whole "gets a free education" thing is a sham. Truly. These FB players are so busy, 12 months a year being a conscript to the sport, they (for the most part) do not have time to devote to a truly rigorous academic pursuit (pre-med/pharmacy/nursing, engineering). "Keep me eligible" is the mantra. Sorry....having a piece of paper stating you have some truly worthless degree is just that....worthless.

Jake Rudock and James Vanderberg play the most important position on the field, yet also pursued a very rigorous degree. It can be done, if you have the mind for it.
 
Players should not be paid. College football is amateur athletics. The problem is not the rule, it is the lack of enforcement.

Funny how the SEC gets implicated and now everyone is questioning the rule. Where was this debate when USC and others got penalized?
 

Latest posts

Top