From Yahoo….Lots on the plate for college sports….
Link:
Big month
50 Replies
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Have a feeling even schools like the B1X who sponsor a lot of sports will start unloading non-revenues, one at a time until they reach the minimum required.
Questions to be asked: will free room & board, tuition and books start being counted as payments to players? Will those now become taxable?
I don't see NIL as being included in the "payments," since it's for the individuals "name, image and likeness." If no one wants to buy a player's jersey, then how can that be included in payments?
I would probably be OK if every college completely dropped every sport, and just became an academic research institution again. High schools should probably start dropping sports too, because they will be next in the great cash grab.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
V
VPI 1924
2y
Athletes can’t read and they already live in Government housing .
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
the player, but really are not, yes, no more benefits provided. The players pay for their own health insurance for surgeries, pay the school for use of and direction for training and facilities and pay for all schooling cost. Heck I would be in favor of charging athletes a student activity fee as a percent of their salary.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
H
hokieZ71
2y
"You're the main source of all this athletic revenue we are pulling in and a large part of enticing academic applicants from HS, which is literally the lifeblood of our institution, so we are going to nickel and dime you all we can now that we are supposed to pay you more inline with what you're worth."
I hope you weren't a business major.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
T
TerryD
2y
....if the employer cannot afford to pay its workers, then it has to close its doors.
In the real world, competition between employers means that in order to attract the best workers, it must offer more money and benefits, not less, than other employers.
In the real world, if the employers all collude to suppress wages and benefits, those employers run afoul of employment and maybe anti-trust law.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
have to be paid like they are employees, then it is time for those "majors" to be shut down.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
H
hokieZ71
2y
They never were truly students, not the vast majority of the ones that generate revenue. Less than half of them (if not way more) would have been accepted through the normal process.
They're professional athletes now, in a multi billion dollar business.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and the corresponding professional leagues as well as the educational institutions have been beneficiaries of a system that has now become significantly imbalanced due to rising media rights revenues.
Once upon a time, a scholarship and the other benefits were reasonable compensation for services rendered but, with all the money pumped into the system now that is no longer the case. An entirely new model is necessary that reduces the free rides for all and distributes the revenues according to investments made, risks assumed and contributions to the enterprise.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
T
TerryD
2y
They had decades to figure out a player compensation system, but did not want to. They chose instead to ride the "student-athlete" fiction into a brick wall.
The schools and conferences trumpeted the ever increasing TV deals. The money expanded tremendously.
The coaches obtained salaries now over ten million a year. The conferences bragged about dispersing tens of millions per school per year.
The players sat and watched the AD's, coaches and "consultants" get more and more money.
They watched long enough. They then sued.
You cannot constantly brag about how much money you are making, then poor mouth when the players want a piece of the action.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
S
saret
2y
responsible will never be held accountable.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the schools could have steered the bus in a different direction. I do believe that some had more control than others but, everybody played a role in where things stand now.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2y
the company softball team doesn't play in a league with an ESPN contract. In the real world, those softball players don't have aspirations of going pro, nor does anyone give a 💩 about their N, I, or L.
In the real world, widget manufacturers don't bring on widget makers who aren't actually good at widget making (and often don't even really want to make widgets) just because they're good at sportsball.
This isn't the real world you speak of.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Yeah I know college athletes WILL become a class of employee. That is the real world but that doesn't mean it is the right one.
Again, if the full value of a scholie to offer opportunities in a profession or craft, including training facilities etc, isn't enough then downgrade the "requirements to where it is. Drop all spring practice and off season conditioning and workouts? why not if that time and effort is changing the players from students to employees.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
of us experience as the "real" world. How many places have you worked where you or fellow employees are on TV? Where sharing media revenue with employees is a topic? Where the revenue is really not much aligned with the purpose of the greater organization? Arguing that a football player is just like an "employee" as most of us have been or otherwise know of is a stretch.
As for your second paragraph, it's kind of a nice theory, but changing someone who came to (and got into) college because football into a student is a tall order. And a lot of of the employee argument stems from the revenue generated, not just the work done. Even if you succeed at the longshot of cutting back as described the burden on the athlete, as long as millions still want to watch, the revenue argument remains...and the workload is still quite significant beyond "student".
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
T
TDVick
2y
combined with the egalitarianism of Title 9, makes me wonder just how viable college sports will be in the future.
Clearly there will be massive pressures on the cost side way beyond what has occurred in the past. I guess if they can figure out how to pay the better performers on a specific team as well as closing the gender gap, it will work.
I guess they will have to have some minimal floor payment and deal with the demand differences and incentive components with the NIL cooperatives. Those entities will have to be outside the university, or there will be constant lawsuits.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/20/2024, 7:10:29 AM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Why shouldn't every benefit, provided to players be counted before we talk about "free labor?"
Things like laying the responsibility of being big game ready on the players, no more training rooms or workout schedules without payment to the entity providing them whether the school or a private entity.
Buying their own insurance to pay for any "job" related injuries. After all they will be getting full compensation in cash.
And the list goes on and on.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Quote from the story:
On the Title IX implications for a House settlement, Arthur Bryant, a leading Title IX lawyer, said there is no gray area when it comes to whether male and female athletes should receive the same amount of money in a revenue sharing model: “Title IX requires equal treatment of male and female athletes. How much money is involved, whether teams or programs are making money or losing money, doesn’t matter.”
Ummmmm, yea.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
V
VPI 1924
2y
Recruit transwomen for football. Bet there is a huge supply in Northern Virginia .
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
GFY
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
2y
If yes, they must be paid. The profitability of a particular sport does not change that reality (the requirement for pay). Title IX does not go away. I expect to see all athletes at a particular school being paid at the same rate. Top performers will earn outside NIL money on top of the base pay provided by the school. The NLRB and courts will not address the relative financial success of individual sports. That's the schools' problem.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Most NCAA legal experts believe it actually will be the courts that decide how Title IX is applied to the revenue sharing model for athletes.
As much as the NCAA is trying to keep the courts out of their hair (they were successful at it for over 100 years but not so much now) it's never going to end. People sue, lawyers make obscene money, that is the America we live in.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
W
WarHog38
2y
I have read about three articles written by reputable sources as the Link in the OP above this thread. Each article talks about & quotes the same attorneys that are pushing this in court. The above article refers to two individuals that are trying to entice college athletes into a grouping they can legally represent. Those attorneys pushing revenue sharing talk of continuing opportunities for litigation to freshman newly entering college sports. They also talk about keeping open the option to litigate any complaint an athlete might have with revenue sharing. This all along with demanding parallel adjustments in athlete revenue sharing to align with economic changes at the university. This is NEVER getting out of court.
You cannot give attorneys an opportunity to litigate with millions upon millions of dollars as their prize. They will litigate like a surgeon is going to cut. Raking in those millions with exorbitant attorney fees. I could get real political here. I will just say this. We have enjoyed college football too long for some of the people that actually control things. They are pulling the plug on college football. Running it into bankruptcy like they destroy countries.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Could not have said that any better.
Waiting now on the NCAA settlement agreement to blow up as the G5 conferences oppose the fact they had no seat at the bargaining table. The digger you deep, the deeper the rabbit hole.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/21/2024, 1:41:46 PM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
congress in my humble opinion. Congress will not step in during an election year, and they will not prevent the kids from getting paid.
The anti trust exemption might precipitate the P2 in forming their own league, but it would no longer be a 502(c)(3). There is too much media money involved now.
The NFL received their exemption with their media deal because they negotiated it as a group, rather than separately, and they shared the proceeds equally. There were other provisions as well, like not playing within 75 miles of an NCAA school, which is why they do not play on Saturdays.
The anti exemption will be a media deal that is negotiated by the NCAA, and distributed equally. The P2, or P3, will never agree to share revenue, or pay their players equally, so we may see that break away from the NCAA. Not sure how the new league will handle Basketball, baseball, or the non revs - but that will be on them. Title 9 will be addressed for the 501(c)(3)'s, and the semi pro break away if it were to happen, will either pay the ladies, or drop the programs - as they would be separate from the rules as private for profit institutions.
Either you have college athletics, or you are a for profit institution.
All of that I just typed is based on nothing but my opinion - it is not fact.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
the NCAA be willing to give up in return to get it? The NFL was willing to give up playing regular season games on Saturday during the college regular season and on Friday during the high school regular season in order to get it.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
that has pretty well been opened. The lawsuits and potential lawsuits may well get so bad that many schools declare athletic bankruptcy and walk away from sports period. And maybe that is what is needed.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
W
WarHog38
2y
This all just looks like an attorney's paradise being unleashed on college football. it will just be more & more money until the bank is broke.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
2y
Watch level from a 10 to maybe a 2. Sorry to see and glad I lived in better times.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
S
Stech
2y
Athletes getting paid for performance like minor league baseball or hockey, although probably not near as much in a multi billion dollar industry, how about you?
(In response to this post by cricket77)
L
lawhokie
2y
I’d much rather see scholars get paid to attend school. Anybody that whines about no pay to throw a ball into a hoop or to knock a ball around a golf course should be introduced to the wonder of matrices and differential calculus.
I’m seriously tired of hearing about the oppressed athlete. Try four years of engineering courses and guarantee yourself a real job.
(In response to this post by Stech)
Entertainment business to throw ball into a hoop
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
V
VPI 1924
2y
You are absolutely right. The majority of athletes aren’t worth spit.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
W
WarHog38
2y
They are talking Title lX & every sport on a college campus. Sports that make money along with those that lose money. All those athletes getting an equal share. No professional team owner in any sport deals with close to those type numbers of people needing to be paid. I also see that the rights of any incoming freshman to file lawsuits on this previous revenue sharing agreement is still somewhat under debate. if freshman get that right which seems nearly certain in this political climate. The clock is set on the end of college football.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
for athletes? Have I got that right?
** Edited by Stech at 5/20/2024, 11:46:19 AM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
There should be a cap put on those coach's salaries. No coach is worth more than $1 Million a year. Those mega sized buy out contracts you refer to can easily be controlled too. All the universities across this country have to do is just all agree to the cap.
Just refusing to ever negotiate with the the third party agents as Jimmy Sexton would be a big step in regaining salary controls. Those continued problems are obviously corruption just like everything else across high finance & government in this country.
This athlete revenue sharing with no apparent limitations is just over the top like Jimbo's buy out. Very few universities have deep pockets like Texas A&M. Not really accurate to compare them to the financial capabilities of most every other major university. The Aggies can out spend them all.
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
2y
should lead to a career other than as a sports player is not enough. If college sports require so much that they have to be paid, drop the requirements like off seasons stuff.
College academically is a multi billion dollar industry but they aren't paying students to come there and get "revenue sharing" with them. College sports even in a multi billion dollar industry as a whole, is not as big a scam as many parts on the academic side.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
So why are okay with coaches making millions? And the players getting no money and get some an education in a sketchy major that keeps them qualified, and not what they actually may want to learn. And have tutors do all the work for them...
** Edited by NokieHokie at 5/20/2024, 4:45:37 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
T
TerryD
2y
Is there a "student-athlete" definition in employment law or is it merely a made up term by universities to avoid paying players the past century?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
video games, media companies (tv, print, internet, radio, etc.), casinos all used college teams, athlete names, and athlete images to make a ton of money over the years.
As long as other people are making money (above and beyond the cost of the scholarships) based on the players, then the players deserve to get their piece of the revenue pie. It's as simple as that.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
V
VTCALS72
2y
that are not employees any more than students paying to learn their profession or craft. Student athlete should not be classed as "employees" any more than marching band members who also go to intercollegiate competitions. Same for other academic and research teams.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2y
academic research teams...
** Edited by NokieHokie at 5/20/2024, 3:32:49 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
saret
2y
should apply. And, I'm not so sure that the scholly and R&B wouldn't then be taxable. This might be a good object lesson for the athletes to be careful what you ask for. It would also be a good object lesson for the schools, conferences, NCAA, CFP, NILs, etc., for not taking appropriate action years ago. Otherwise, laws would have to be passed making the student-athletes a special, protected class. And, if you get the lawmakers involved, they would screw it up worse than the aforementioned entities have already done. Yeah, the more I think about, this could be amusing. And now, the student-athletes, whose litigation has brought us here, would have skin in the game.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
L
lawhokie
2y
In order to be upset about a lack of athlete pay you have to believe there is some fundamental right to make a living through sport. Before the world went insane, we expected people to avoid industries in which the employers made billions and employees made nothing. Now the legal system is expected to bring pay for a chosen few who want to do what the rest of us did in high school for fun.
Pay for fun.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
Stech
2y
for athletes? Have I got that right?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
That's why I feel the same as you
I used to have the other opinion.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
past.
Which is ironic, to say the least.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)