Fair Market Value, College Football Players

[Madscientistvol]

Many of the advocates of the "college players should be paid" argument are SJWs that overstate their argument, but it doesn't mean that they are completely off base.

Can anybody say with a straight face that Johnny Manziel, for example, was fairly compensated for his time at Texas A&M?

The 3rd string offensive lineman on scholarship gets a great deal. The starting QB who isn't quite good enough to go pro gets a great deal. Manziel? Tebow? Newton? Not so much.

Then they should take it up with the NFL and their requirements. It's the NFL that's making them go through the apprenticeship system that is CFB. CFB is an amateur collegiate sports system, and it is not the colleges problem that the NFL won't let players just come on over straight from high school.

Universities should NOT pay players just because the professional leagues they want to play in won't let them until they've had some college play under their belt. This is a pro issue and not a college one.

 

[swchandler1988]

Then they should take it up with the NFL and their requirements. It's the NFL that's making them go through the apprenticeship system that is CFB. CFB is an amateur collegiate sports system, and it is not the colleges problem that the NFL won't let players just come on over straight from high school.

Universities should NOT pay players just because the professional leagues they want to play in won't let them until they've had some college play under their belt. This is a pro issue and not a college one.

I've never thought of it that way. Seriously, really good point.

 

[sammyhagar]

Any D1 player already gets a phenomenal deal. The perks and benefits go far, far beyond their $100k-$250k scholly (depending on the institution they attend).

And as has already been accurately stated, the real value comes from the name on the front of their jersey, not the back. In other words, for example, had Manziel attended Toledo or Eastern Michigan, nobody would've given 2 ishes who he was and he never wins a heisman. But because he played at TAM and beat Alabama, he got all the accolades and benefits that being affiliated with those great college programs provide.

In any facet of college life, only one class of people have any financial restriction on them at all and that’s athletes. So the idea that it's based on education is a lie. No other student is told what they can and cannot make, and if it affects their education, or scholarship, or anything.

If you’re a music student, who's on a full music scholarship, you can apply your trade in any professional sense you want. You’re not kicked out of the band. Not kept from performing on campus. Doesn’t affect your academic status in any way. You’re celebrated for that.

If you’re an athlete that happens to make the schools in the NCAA machine billions of dollars, then the athletes are told, 'You get only your expenses.' And one of the biggest components of the expenses you get, we pay to ourselves, and claim it cost us money.

 

[sammyhagar]

It is not possible to pay them.

The authors need to take a sport finance class. Off hand issues for why it cannot and will not occur:

Very few Athletic Departments turn a profit in FBS.
No one turns a profit below FBS.
Most lose millions and rely on tuition hikes to offset costs.
Non-revenue producing sport athletes would need to be paid as well or hello Title IX violations.
Tuition would sky rocket to where no one went to college.

That is just a few.

Um, what? How can schools afford to pay coaches 5 million a year, yet paying the players is somehow impossible?

 

[livefaith]

Alabama is easily #1. The only reason they are lower is because they have to apply a debit for the salaries their players already receive.

 

[fade route]

Let them be paid a certain % of revenue upon graduating with their degree. It's what they're there for anyway (supposedly)

 

[05_never_again]

Then they should take it up with the NFL and their requirements. It's the NFL that's making them go through the apprenticeship system that is CFB. CFB is an amateur collegiate sports system, and it is not the colleges problem that the NFL won't let players just come on over straight from high school.

Universities should NOT pay players just because the professional leagues they want to play in won't let them until they've had some college play under their belt. This is a pro issue and not a college one.

Then why did a federal court rule that the NCAA's bylaws are in violation of the Antitrust Act?

 

[volfan102455]

In any facet of college life, only one class of people have any financial restriction on them at all and that’s athletes. So the idea that it's based on education is a lie. No other student is told what they can and cannot make, and if it affects their education, or scholarship, or anything.

Not necessarily true. Some assistance is based on income and what a student makes does impact that.

I had assistance when I was in school and I could only make so much before impacting that and I was not an athlete or band member - just a mere student.

 

[Madscientistvol]

Then why did a federal court rule that the NCAA's bylaws are in violation of the Antitrust Act?

Unfortunately this comes down to perspective and semantics. Are they getting paid to play, or compensated for their likeness being used on licensed product? The antitrust violation came down to use of likenesses in video games IIRC, hence no NCAA 15 or 16. Next on the chopping block jerseys?

 

[volfan102455]

Um, what? How can schools afford to pay coaches 5 million a year, yet paying the players is somehow impossible?

They would have to pay ALL athletes across ALL sports not just football at the university. And title IX implies fairness across it. So its not like athletes from one sport would get paid more than athletes from another sport.

What would end up happening is just what was stated or schools would stop support for some sports.

The revenue from football at some of these schools supports much more than football.

 

[05_never_again]

Unfortunately this comes down to perspective and semantics. Are they getting paid to play, or compensated for their likeness being used on licensed product? The antitrust violation came down to use of likenesses in video games IIRC, hence no NCAA 15 or 16. Next on the chopping block jerseys?

The judgment of the court was that they weren't getting compensated for their likeness on a licensed product. Hence, as you said, no more NCAA Football video games.

My point in all of this is not to say that all college athletes should get cut a check from their athletic departments. There is no model whereby that could work. At most schools, you'd start off with only the athletes in revenue-producing sports getting paid, followed by huge cries how that is unfair (which, ironically, would be loudest from the same people saying college athletes should be paid).

What should happen, in theory, is that any athlete should be able to profit from their likeness. This means video games, jerseys, autographs, etc. However, even that model would be riddled with corruption and practices that go against the spirit of the rule (e.g., a big booster paying $500k for an autograph). And even if they were being paid, who's to say that they still wouldn't get money under the table to sweeten the offer?

There is always going to be rulebreaking in college sports...period.

 

[99gator]

It's gonna be awesome when these guys start getting paid.

- paying tuition
- raising tuition to cover the cost
- hiring accountants
- paying tennessee state taxes
- paying federal taxes
- paying taxes in every state they play in
- paying state taxes in their home of residence
- the ability to fire employees for not fulfilling the contractual obligations
- hiring lawyers to protect them from contractual language
- added pressure of freinds and family wanting money

- it's gonna be awesome

Out of a job in 4 years too.

Here's the fun part for me too. If they are an employee, they can be fired.

 

[n_huffhines]

Let the stars go play in a minor league system before the NFL takes them and see how much revenue is generated. The vast majority of money in college football is based on the name in the front of the jersey, not the back.

With that said, in my opinion, each school should have a trust set up for some back-end benefit for former players that have graduated.

You can't have one without the other. You could say the same exact thing about the NFL and its players.

 

[05_never_again]

Out of a job in 4 years too.

Here's the fun part for me too. If they are an employee, they can be fired.

Any model where athletes got paid wouldn't have them classified as employees. That would never work. That is what the Northwestern case was about.

I can envision a day where athletes are allowed by the NCAA to profit individually off of their likenesses, but with a lot of catches and caveats. And it would still be riddled with shady activity just like it is now.

 

[n_huffhines]

Didn't read. Looks like yet another attempt to push the "college football players are mistreated, abused, taken advantage of and are just generally modern-day slaves" agenda.

Holy **** dude...cover your ears and make loud noises while you're at it

 

[n_huffhines]

Then they should take it up with the NFL and their requirements. It's the NFL that's making them go through the apprenticeship system that is CFB. CFB is an amateur collegiate sports system, and it is not the colleges problem that the NFL won't let players just come on over straight from high school.

Universities should NOT pay players just because the professional leagues they want to play in won't let them until they've had some college play under their belt. This is a pro issue and not a college one.

This is silly, IMO. It's not a pro issue at all. There is nothing wrong with having employment requirements. There is something wrong with not paying revenue-generating agents in your organization.

 

[n_huffhines]

Any model where athletes got paid wouldn't have them classified as employees. That would never work. That is what the Northwestern case was about.

I can envision a day where athletes are allowed by the NCAA to profit individually off of their likenesses, but with a lot of catches and caveats. And it would still be riddled with shady activity just like it is now.

There is no system that will achieve the NCAA's ideal of amateurism and competitive balance. Chasing that ideal hurts more than it helps, IMO

 

[05_never_again]

There is no system that will achieve the NCAA's ideal of amateurism and competitive balance. Chasing that ideal hurts more than it helps, IMO

Agreed, but "competitive balance" is a nonsense term that they should just go ahead and do away with already.

There are schools that have money and resources and schools that don't. The good players get to go to the wealthier schools, where their odds of turning into into better players and having professional careers are better.

Is that "fair?" Of course not. But so what if it isn't? The SJWs don't like that answer though.

 

[KBVol]

Holy **** dude...cover your ears and make loud noises while you're at it

Just reading the stitches on the fastball. It's as clear as the nose on your face.

 

[n_huffhines]

Agreed, but "competitive balance" is a nonsense term that they should just go ahead and do away with already.

There are schools that have money and resources and schools that don't. The good players get to go to the wealthier schools, where their odds of turning into into better players and having professional careers are better.

Is that "fair?" Of course not. But so what if it isn't? The SJWs don't like that answer though.

I think we'd all be a lot better off with an exclusive, paid college club league (50 teams?) and the remaining (70?) division 1 schools could pursue amateurism and competitive balance. There can't be competitive balance when the top teams have players with $500k in market value and the bottom teams have players with next to $0 market value.

I would be happy to never see Tennessee vs Montana again.

 

[RCKYT0P]

I would think a free bachelors degree would be enough.

If one sport is going to be paid big bucks then it will have to spread across the board male and female.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I have always been opposed to the Northwestern-like push to pay college athletes in the money sports as if they were pros, or employees. Have always believed that thinking of our players as student-athletes benefits both them and us/society. Sure, there's a fig leaf aspect to it, covering raw business underneath, but that fig leaf still gets young men and women an education and something to fall back on when they (90-something percent of the time) don't make the pros.

But this I could get behind, some sort of deferred trust fund for each athlete in the money sports, a share they can't touch until they graduate and leave the program. Not millions of $$, but something in six figure territory, a way to acknowledge that they did contribute to what is, at the end of the day, big business for the universities and media.

Trouble is, how do you treat football players and men's basketball players this way, and not give some trust benefit to, say, women's soccer? "Oh, sorry, too bad, your sport isn't popular to the tune of high finance?" Is that the answer to them?

I don't know the answer to that question; just know that it's one of several tough ones that would need to be answered before our society could move forward in this direction.

Interesting questions, that's for sure.

 

[TCbodybuilder]

They would have to pay ALL athletes across ALL sports not just football at the university. And title IX implies fairness across it. So its not like athletes from one sport would get paid more than athletes from another sport.

What would end up happening is just what was stated or schools would stop support for some sports.

The revenue from football at some of these schools supports much more than football.

Thank you. Someone who gets it.

And add to it, to remain competitive for FBS under NCAA guidelines, they would have to still support those non-revenue producing programs or it violates Title IX. Choosing to willingly violate Title IX will result in losing federal funding for the university/college.

 

[AM64]

Didn't read. Looks like yet another attempt to push the "college football players are mistreated, abused, taken advantage of and are just generally modern-day slaves" agenda.

Yep, these articles always go into that and never really address what part the university plays in the whole thing. You gotta love those big signing bonuses and starting salaries - all based on play at a university, but no mention of the real expense (facilities, coaching, etc) that the university incurred to make the guy marketable. Imagine the horror of suggesting that some of those millions be paid back to the university for the value added.

Wonder what the allocated cost per player of a multi-million dollar a year coaching staff might be; or the allocated cost for debt on the stadiums, training facilities, and improvements might be; or how about the allocated cost of just the electric bill to light a stadium and training facilities not available to the common student?

Ever wonder how much of the cost of an article you buy is related to the advertising, and whether that particular thing would be only a figment of someone's imagination without the promotion that brought it to everyone's attention. How do you suppose a budding NFL player might get a shot without all the promotion generated from college play. We all pay our "dues" somehow, someplace. Most people work for years to become an overnight sensation.

 

[TCbodybuilder]

Um, what? How can schools afford to pay coaches 5 million a year, yet paying the players is somehow impossible?

You are talking about a handful of programs when the NCAA has 1,200+ members or so.