Reply With Quote
Anyone think this is a good thing?
Presented without bolding for your reading enjoyment:
Jeffrey Kessler is an interesting guy. He has been hired by players unions multiple times to form the an rust arguments. They always settle before review but he has been doing little else but trying to sports trusts for decades.Now, the schools -- which, let's face it, are the NCAA -- must choose. Do they make a deal with the athletes? Or do they risk any or all of the following?
• An ultimately unfavorable ruling in the O'Bannon case that would essentially make it illegal to televise a college football game without explicitly compensating the participants.
• An ultimately unfavorable NLRB ruling that would recognize players as employees. That would require schools to sink money into worker's compensation, but it also could have a much bigger impact. If football players are employees, then the schools are employers. From a legal standpoint, they would be very much in the football business. The football business is not part of a school's educational mission, and someone in Congress might look at all those cable-network dollars and decide it's time schools started paying taxes on that revenue.
• An ultimately unfavorable ruling in the case Kessler is bringing, which essentially would declare the entire business model for major college sports illegal.
The schools and NCAA could fight these cases, but there will only be more. The lawyers smell money, and they aren't going away until they get it. The players are compensated with tuition, room and board, but they haven't gotten a raise since the 1950s. Now, they're the stars of a wildly popular series of television shows. In a courtroom, outside the insular system that is college athletics, the NCAA's arguments sound ludicrous. In February, an attorney representing the NCAA tried to claim that television broadcasts are protected by the first amendment. You could test his claim by bringing a camera and streaming the Michigan-Ohio State game on the Internet, but ESPN -- which pays several million dollars to televise the game -- and the Big Ten would put the lie to it by burying you in cease-and-desist letters that threaten very costly legal action.
Unfortunately for the NCAA, that is its cornerstone argument in the O'Bannon case. Meanwhile, Northwestern faces an uphill climb on appeal. Graduation rates mean nothing to the NLRB. Neither does the argument that players get an exceptional educational opportunity. What matters is whether there is an exchange of compensation that provides a financial benefit to the employer. "This is not even close," said Ramogi Huma, the college sports reformer who helped the Northwestern players form the College Athletes Players Association. "It's not even a gray area. They lost every argument they made."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/col...-northwestern/
Anyone think this is a good thing?
there's no football without players.
Yes and no. I think we will likely subs ute one set of problems for another. unquestionably the athletes create value for the NCAA system and the schools.
I would recommend some type of ins utionalized trust system to shepherd the athletes income for them. Maybe pay a stipend from the salary with the balance paid to the athlete upon graduation.
The old fart in me says no. Of course that idiot still thinks the Southwest Conference should still exist.
It just seems to me that you already have a coddled group of "students" that are getting a free education -- and now they are going to get paid on top of that?
Why not use the windfall profits that football and basketball generate and do something for the other students? For example, lower tuition.
Because the athletes are generating income far in excess of tuition/room and board.
I do like the idea of that income going to the general fund but if you have to start accounting for income and disbursements, that GL ledger will have to be maintained seperately as a independent profit center.
The elite players basically major in football or basketball. I'd hardly call them coddled when they don't own the right to capitalize off their fame by doing paid endorsements, charging for autographs, etc without being booted from the second best professional league in the nation, when they are not allowed to enter the best one yet.
For the same reason we don't get lower ticket prices to Spurs games after the owners won shorter contracts and smaller raises in the last labor negotiation: because it has already been established what amount people will pay to attend Spurs games. Same with college.
^That's a damn shame
I think the same applies to top-tier HS football coaches
The public likes their entertainment. They could give money to graduate programs or buy season tickets. Pretty obvious the choice they have made.
This looks like it will be very difficult. The stipend for a woman on the golf team... hmmm. They put in time practicing and traveling that takes away from their school work. If you give the highest revenue earners a larger stipend... Big fat legal mess imo.
We should cap your income arbitrarily because we can.
How do you think the NCAA pays for all the track and volleyball scholarships? Nice marxist sentiment nonetheless.
Not really. There is a playbook in how this works out. The NCAA needs to recognize the students and negotiate a CBA or its equivalent amongst them. If they are smart they will get in front of this and mobilize the lesser sports who are also their employees and get them on the path to preserving the current communist system. If you read the article the NW football team isn't asking for a windfall either.
College football is a for-profit business so if the coach is able to generate the revenue, I don't have a problem with the million dollar salaries.
Too many "now what will this actually mean for college sports" questions to even begin to form an opinion if this is ultimately good or bad.
What I do know is that it sucks that the NCAA makes billions off of college football players and only gives them peanuts in return. That's wrong.
Think about how much money Tebow made the NCAA. He didn't even finish his NFL rookie contract. I don't watch college sports. When kids get hurt it pisses me off.
That's because you care so much
I control my emotions. That does not mean that I avoid feeling them. Stoics are cowards.
The NCAA also was making money off of selling Manziel jerseys but they wouldn't let him sign autographs for a few bucks.
So many hypocritical things wrong with the NCAA.
The rule that college athletes can't get paid goes against every free market ideal imaginable, which makes it that much more hilarious seeing Republicans try to justify it
They either need to let football + basketball players get paid or, preferably, get rid of the bull rules that force kids to play college ball for free which any unbiased court would consider an anti-trust agreement. If the NFL and NBA didn't have college programs to help develop talent and had to create a minor league system like the MLB has, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
You gotta wonder about a student who can get into a good school but can't afford the tuition because they don't entertain the masses. Gotta say it would piss me off. I guess being an alumna who contributes to society later is not entertainment.
Yes, I watch the stuff so I contribute. The commercials must seep into my head. It has always seemed like schools should be separated from sports in the modern world. You don't go get a bunch of guys randomly together and play for a school anymore.
So when does this invade HS sports?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
