Where do you come down on Athletes being Employees?

eyekwah

eyekwah

Well-Known Member
First my disclaimer, I'm not in favor of members of college teams being treated as employees.

I can understand why D-I football and basketball players are questioning why they are not sharing in the money they are generating. I can see why the NLRB officer ruled as he did, given the facts presented by the NW players. Sometimes it takes confronting those with power to change things.

The Universities and Colleges making up the NCAA are not without blame. They have allowed the current sports programs to become minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. All you have to do is compare conferences. The Big Ten has bastardized itself to stay competitive with the SEC and other conferences. The Big Ten dropped its stance on sports in order to compete with conferences set up for purely athletics. Go back to the 60's to see how the Big Ten changed its stance on the role of athletics. Delaney, with the approval of the Presidents, has flamed the fire of reaching for the dollars.

What is likely to happen if athletes are employees? It is anybody's guess. I heard it phrased this way, colleges are going to have to decide if they are in the business of educating students or being the minor leagues for professional sports. Since so few colleges can operate in the black it will force institutions to re-evaluate their sports programs if athletes are employees. There are so many variables to consider, Title 9, pay scales, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, social security, scholarships being renewable and Obamacare to name a few.

It is my belief that; long term, colleges will be dropping minor sports. Football programs will drop the number of scholarships, return to limited substitution football, and eliminate freshman eligibility (same for all sports). My reason is that the Presidents will weigh the costs of sports programs in the light of athletes being employees and decide it is not in the best interest of the primary mission of the college.
 
I dont think they are employees, they enroll as students and they play sports.

But that said, there is so much money in D1 football and Mens Bball that 1) scholarships should be for 4 years, 5 with a redshirt, 2) no more taking away schollies 3) give them a stipend equal to a fair wage times the number of hours they practice and workout because they do not have the chance to work and this could work for all athletes if the NCAA and TV give up a small slice of the pie.
 
why would they go back to not allowing Freshmen to play? Coupled with your belief they'll give less scholarships seems hard to maintain.
 
To answer your question, I think athletes should perhaps receive some additional stipend or something, not sure how schools afford to give it to all athletes though.
 
HawkinGoferLand said:
To answer your question, I think athletes should perhaps receive some additional stipend or something, not sure how schools afford to give it to all athletes though.
Click to expand...

I know this is not a politics/controversial forum but "not sure how schools/business/etc can afford it" is not an excuse, it can be done when people and businesses decide to not hog all the profits and wealth. Maybe some athletes dont practice near as many hours as others but whatever I see no reason that a decent stipend for football and bball players cannot be given to players.

This could be a compromise that holds the status quo
 
Schools wont be able to give all scholarship athletes in all sports the same amount. So it's DOA...and just try not giving the women's crew team the same that a football player gets. There will be a Title IX defense in a New York minute, and it might even begin on the Iowa campus.

They wont be able to allow the players to earn money from their name and likeness in college, as that is an unfair recruiting advantage for some schools....it would be an advantage to schools in the Big Ten and SEC, and perhaps PAC12, as they have their own TV networks....and marketing is about reach. But even then, an Ohio State and Bama recruiting pitch is even more lopsided.

Even if the money is there for the power leagues, it won't be there for the other leagues.
 
HawkinGoferLand said:
why would they go back to not allowing Freshmen to play? Coupled with your belief they'll give less scholarships seems hard to maintain.
Click to expand...
"Why would they go back to not allowing Freshmen to play?"
There is and has been an NCAA movement to increase the eligibility standards for freshman to play. Beginning in 2016 incoming freshman will not be allowed to practice or possibly play if they do not meet the minimum NCAA requirements. See below. It is only one short step from freshman ineligibility. For the colleges to prove the athlete isn't an employee they need a method to demonstrate the recruit is a student first and not an employee. Making participation dependent on academic success is one option.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-04-26/new-eligibility-standards-start-2016
"The new initial-eligibility requirements create a higher academic standard for freshman to play. That standard is higher than what will be needed to receive aid and practice, creating an academic redshirt year. Student-athletes who achieve the current minimum initial-eligibility standard will continue to be eligible for athletically related financial aid during the first year of enrollment and practice during the first regular academic term of enrollment. Student-athletes could earn practice during the second term of enrollment by passing nine semester or eight quarter hours.


For immediate access to competition, prospective student-athletes must achieve at least a 2.3 GPA and an increased sliding scale. For example, an SAT score of 1,000 requires a 2.5 high school core-course GPA for competition and a 2.0 high school core-course GPA for aid and practice.


Prospects also must successfully complete 10 of the 16 total required core courses before the start of their senior year in high school. Seven of the 10 courses must be successfully completed in English, math and science."

Coupled with your belief they'll give less scholarships seems hard to maintain.

The NCAA is made up of private and public institutions. At NW the tuition is $62K annually, now add the employment related costs. My estimate is one NW employee athlete would cost $90,000. For a 85 member football team we are talking $7,650,000. Now add the coaches salaries and the facilities cost. We are now in excess of $11M. Now start counting the members of the other male NW sports teams (80) and add them to the 85. Double that number because of title ix (330) . NW faces a potential payroll of $29,700,000 for current athletes. They and along with others will not be able to keep all sports and dropping football scholarships is one way to keep more sports. Platoon football relies on numbers where as limited substitution could live with 65 and freshman ineligible.
 
^^^^While I agree with what you are saying, I think there is a very wide margin between making all freshmen ineligible and raising the expectations and standards that they must meet academically to be eligible to play as freshmen.
 
In Europe, we have a system where the athlete, regardless of age, is paid according to their capabilities. It is absolutely strange to me that in America, they have sports based off of schools, both University and Secondary, where the athlete freely gives his services away for nothing more than the ability to play. How did a system like this develop anyways? Here, I mean, we had a neighborhood full of lads playing football together, who challenged another neighborhood to a match, and it grew from there. What happened in America? Did they need the school to provide the materials to play the game, which is why they played for the school? I honestly don't get it.Don't mistake me, I love American college football, but it seems to me that the players don't have a case. They chose to play for little compensation. It's not unlike a talented scientist working for a not-for-profit instead of Bristol-Meyers-Squib, and then complaining he could get paid more elsewhere. From where I stand, it seems like American college football players trade their earning opportunities for the ability to play and be seen.
 
BritishHawk said:
In Europe, we have a system where the athlete, regardless of age, is paid according to their capabilities. It is absolutely strange to me that in America, they have sports based off of schools, both University and Secondary, where the athlete freely gives his services away for nothing more than the ability to play. How did a system like this develop anyways? Here, I mean, we had a neighborhood full of lads playing football together, who challenged another neighborhood to a match, and it grew from there. What happened in America? Did they need the school to provide the materials to play the game, which is why they played for the school? I honestly don't get it.Don't mistake me, I love American college football, but it seems to me that the players don't have a case. They chose to play for little compensation. It's not unlike a talented scientist working for a not-for-profit instead of Bristol-Meyers-Squib, and then complaining he could get paid more elsewhere. From where I stand, it seems like American college football players trade their earning opportunities for the ability to play and be seen.
Click to expand...

I love college sports, specifically college football, but I'll be the first to admit the entire premise is F'd up. Back in the day, when the concept of college football was first starting (late 19th century), it was like a campus club - your 11 biggest, toughest, fastest, meanest, etc guys on campus playing against the equivalent 11 guys from the college the next town over. As you progress through the 20th century, you see the American public taking a vastly increased interest in sports - alumni very intensely following whether the 11 guys from their college beat the 11 guys from their hated rival, colleges offering free tuition to make sure they have a good team, pro leagues springing up all over, radio followed by TV, and tons of money being pumped in from every direction.

In short, sports in America in 2000 bore very little resemblance to sports in America in 1900. The whole system had exploded and radically changed...except for this concept of handing out scholarships to make sure your guys are bigger/faster/stronger than the ones the next college over can field.

I don't think this union thing is going to work (for the reasons many others smarter than me have pointed out)...but I think the real uncomfortable truth that we as American college sports fans have to come to grips with is that this whole union business is simply exposing the fact that the system as it exists today is an anachronism (and has been for the better part of 50 years - i.e. when pro sports started REALLY becoming big money ventures).

That's my 2 cents. I'd be very sad to see college sports go, but at the end of the day an open-market minor league system (probably subsidized/supported by the pro leagues) makes far more sense and would allocate resources much more fairly/efficiently.
 
I don't think capitalism can take over in this situation... Every player must be compensated the same as every other team's player. <P> If the NCAA steps in to regulate wages for college athletes, cheating will still occur. I guess that's an entirely different issue, though.
 
There needs to be caps on athletic spend. Also players should recieve guarenteed scholarships for 4 years. Use the extra move over the spending cap for more scholarships to things like wrestling and soccer and junk.
 
I see a few issues:

1. How much should they be paid? Some football players are likely to make millions, most are unlikely to make anything from professional football. If you merely increase their stipend, you are not dealing equitably with the players who are likely to make millions who also are making millions now for the university. Certain players are "worth" more than others.

2. Who should be paid? Does this extend to all the non-revenue sports? If so, this puts an incredible burden on the university. And again, do you pay them based on the quality of their contribution to the team? Or just some fixed amount?

I suspect that two things will end up merging. As the premier conferences move toward their own league and players on these teams are recognized as employees, we may find that revenue sports have outgrown the university model. I foresee some sort of quasi-college league. Perhaps it will begin with each team having a certain number of players who can be paid under a salary cap. Or it might take the form of tiers where each team can have a certain number of players being paid at each tier. Of course, there are lots of troubling variables, such as the great player who is willing to forego pay now because he wants to play on a national championship and make his money later.

Another scenario would be the development of a dual-track, like baseball has. Players can enter the pros and work their way through the system. Or they can enroll in college. So far, it seems that the quality of baseball has been sustained in college. In fact, it may have been helped by getting the truly mercenary players (and I mean that in the best sense) out of the college game.
 
so many angles on this...its hard to sort it all out... each decision will be filled with contingency and unanticipated consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top