Fair Pay to Play Act

[a fan]

Who do you think owns it? The government of the State of Michigan owns that team.

Harbaugh is a State government employee. Just like some guy working at the Michigan Department of Motor Vehicles.

In fact, the State of Michigan publishes his salary each year, together with the salary of all highly paid State employees.

State Universities meet the OED definition of socialism to the letter.

[wgdsr]

Who do you think owns it? The government of the State of Michigan owns that team.

Harbaugh is a State government employee. Just like some guy working at the Michigan Department of Motor Vehicles.

In fact, the State of Michigan publishes his salary each year, together with the salary of all highly paid State employees.

i guess it's all a matter of perspective.
state funds are a tiny smidgeon of what state universities pull in nowadays. "state" universities are self-surviving entities, imo:
https://2018.annualreport.umich.edu/wp- ... ements.pdf

by far the biggest state contribution is the break they give to residents on the sticker price, and that has nothing to do with operations. then you get the breakout of the fiefdom that's the athletic department.

[a fan]

i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Respectfully disagree. The State owns and operates the University. There is no grey area here.

What you are arguing here is that a State's Department of Motor Vehicles isn't owned and operated by the State because it collects user fees.

It doesn't matter where the revenue comes from.....it's owned and operated by the State. It's the Government. Period.

[wgdsr]

i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Respectfully disagree. The State owns and operates the University. There is no grey area here.

What you are arguing here is that a State's Department of Motor Vehicles isn't owned and operated by the State because it collects user fees.

It doesn't matter where the revenue comes from.....it's owned and operated by the State. It's the Government. Period.

ok, then. you have it as all black and white. i don't.
you have an sro not being allowed to set their own rules. i disagree.
you equate guys playing football and basketball to being employees. i don't.
you have, again an sro, not allowing the free market to work. and again, i disagree. i have never seen the authority of nc$$ forcefully preventing the organization of alternative leagues and avenues for guys to go play basketball or football. they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

do they do that it the most equitable and reasonable way? no, they don't. market forces eventually change that, and that's some of what we're seeing now. there has always been $$ in college sports. as the numbers have ramped geometrically in the last 10-20 years, this was bound to happen.

[Wheels]

You all do realize why the NCAA (i.e., the college presidents) is pissed about this, right? When the NCAA partners with EA sports to make millions off of their players for video games, the players names and likenesses are used in perpetuity (wanna play with 1985 Sooners as your team? Cool!). The players get nothing from this, and it has nothing to do with scholarships.

The CA law has nothing to do with scholarships and nothing to do with the universities paying the players. It's all about licensing and merchandize. Wanna buy some sweet Matt Rambo #1 jerseys at Byrd? You can do that. 3 years after he's gone. He gets nothing for it.

This is simply the Olympic model applied to college athletics. It didn't ruin the Olympics. It won't ruin college athletics. If some car dealer in Albany wants to pay Tehoka for doing a commercial spot, awesome. If some t-shirt vendor wants to give Michael Sowers a cut of the profit from a t-shirt that has his likeness on it? Awesome. How much money are we even talking about here for a sport like lacrosse? Yeah, in football and hoops, it will be more significants...which, BTW, will limit any lacrosse player's market opportunities if their university has big time football and hoops. Syracuse's star midfielder is way down on the list of car dealers and pizza shops that are looking for sponsorships.

But let's all get in a tizzy because EA sports and the NCAA can't keep using the players' names and likenesses in perpetuity.

[a fan]

ok, then. you have it as all black and white. i don't.

The only part I have as black and white is that the State owns the University of Michigan.

The rest is very complicated. I agree with you completely.

I'm simply dragging this back to American principles of economics.

they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

The rules about salaries and sponsorships only apply to the players, and aren't applied equally to the coaches, administrators, staff, or even the professors who are part of the NCAA system. Everyone else is free market (as relative as that term can be) except the players. Seems a tad unfair, to put it mildly.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You all do realize why the NCAA (i.e., the college presidents) is ticked about this, right? When the NCAA partners with EA sports to make millions off of their players for video games, the players names and likenesses are used in perpetuity (wanna play with 1985 Sooners as your team? Cool!). The players get nothing from this, and it has nothing to do with scholarships.

The CA law has nothing to do with scholarships and nothing to do with the universities paying the players. It's all about licensing and merchandize. Wanna buy some sweet Matt Rambo #1 jerseys at Byrd? You can do that. 3 years after he's gone. He gets nothing for it.

This is simply the Olympic model applied to college athletics. It didn't ruin the Olympics. It won't ruin college athletics. If some car dealer in Albany wants to pay Tehoka for doing a commercial spot, awesome. If some t-shirt vendor wants to give Michael Sowers a cut of the profit from a t-shirt that has his likeness on it? Awesome. How much money are we even talking about here for a sport like lacrosse? Yeah, in football and hoops, it will be more significants...which, BTW, will limit any lacrosse player's market opportunities if their university has big time football and hoops. Syracuse's star midfielder is way down on the list of car dealers and pizza shops that are looking for sponsorships.

But let's all get in a tizzy because EA sports and the NCAA can't keep using the players' names and likenesses in perpetuity.

That money goes into a trust until they are done competing. I don't have a problem with players being compensated in some way. I wish it came out of the money generated. Duke wants to sell a Zion jersey, give him a cut. Put it in a trust and pay it out after he is done with school.

[a fan]

That is a good idea, TLD.

[wgdsr]

I'm simply dragging this back to American principles of economics.

they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

The rules about salaries and sponsorships only apply to the players, and aren't applied equally to the coaches, administrators, staff, or even the professors who are part of the NCAA system. Everyone else is free market (as relative as that term can be) except the players. Seems a tad unfair, to put it mildly.

the principles of economics are still in play. if you want to go get paid, go get paid. go to the cfl. go to the g-league or whatever they're calling it. go to europe.
free market. go.
what we're talking about is fiscal compensation for playing a sport. you can argue that they are employees and as such deserve compensation. maybe even compensation that can't be limited. the nc$$ has survived challenges to this in the past, and i do not know what the reasoning is. but they have.
my personal thought is that the nc$$, as an organization, should be allowed to set their own rules for their own organization. unless something illegal is happening there. and an organization dictating how rules for their own organization apply and to whom doesn't qualify in this case. that's just me.
again, no one at the nc$$ is stopping a player from going to play somewhere else.

what i don't agree with -- and i'm surprised it hasn't been successfully challenged -- is the nba and nfl being able to limit eligibility to 1 and 3 years out of high school. i'm only guessing, but somehow they've won that protection based on anti-trust provisions? they have a whole class of people they ARE compensating to be workers, but are restricting a segment of that class by the calendar. i think that's wrong, and certainly the nc$$ has provided plenty of lobbying muscle and been a major beneficiary of those rules.

to take this a little further, i'm assuming all the pay-to-play crowd is a-ok with high schoolers being compensated as well? we're not talking about any differences in the structure of that either, correct?

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is a good idea, TLD.

Would love to see some incentive for kids to graduate. Lifetime free tuition to earn degrees and fund a trust that athletes dip into upon graduation. If it’s left up to hanger-ons and boosters, the football/basketball players will suffer in the long run. Not worried about 1st-3rd round draft picks in football or 1-2 round NBA picks. It’s the thousands of other kids. Kids that think $1,000 is a lot of money.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm simply dragging this back to American principles of economics.

they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

The rules about salaries and sponsorships only apply to the players, and aren't applied equally to the coaches, administrators, staff, or even the professors who are part of the NCAA system. Everyone else is free market (as relative as that term can be) except the players. Seems a tad unfair, to put it mildly.

the principles of economics are still in play. if you want to go get paid, go get paid. go to the cfl. go to the g-league or whatever they're calling it. go to europe.
free market. go.
what we're talking about is fiscal compensation for playing a sport. you can argue that they are employees and as such deserve compensation. maybe even compensation that can't be limited. the nc$$ has survived challenges to this in the past, and i do not know what the reasoning is. but they have.
my personal thought is that the nc$$, as an organization, should be allowed to set their own rules for their own organization. unless something illegal is happening there. and an organization dictating how rules for their own organization apply and to whom doesn't qualify in this case. that's just me.
again, no one at the nc$$ is stopping a player from going to play somewhere else.

what i don't agree with -- and i'm surprised it hasn't been successfully challenged -- is the nba and nfl being able to limit eligibility to 1 and 3 years out of high school. i'm only guessing, but somehow they've won that protection based on anti-trust provisions? they have a whole class of people they ARE compensating to be workers, but are restricting a segment of that class by the calendar. i think that's wrong, and certainly the nc$$ has provided plenty of lobbying muscle and been a major beneficiary of those rules.

to take this a little further, i'm assuming all the pay-to-play crowd is a-ok with high schoolers being compensated as well? we're not talking about any differences in the structure of that either, correct?

What he said, mostly.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

That is a good idea, TLD.

actually im in favor of doing this for pro athletes too.

[Wheels]

I'm simply dragging this back to American principles of economics.

they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

The rules about salaries and sponsorships only apply to the players, and aren't applied equally to the coaches, administrators, staff, or even the professors who are part of the NCAA system. Everyone else is free market (as relative as that term can be) except the players. Seems a tad unfair, to put it mildly.

the principles of economics are still in play. if you want to go get paid, go get paid. go to the cfl. go to the g-league or whatever they're calling it. go to europe.
free market. go.
what we're talking about is fiscal compensation for playing a sport. you can argue that they are employees and as such deserve compensation. maybe even compensation that can't be limited. the nc$$ has survived challenges to this in the past, and i do not know what the reasoning is. but they have.
my personal thought is that the nc$$, as an organization, should be allowed to set their own rules for their own organization. unless something illegal is happening there. and an organization dictating how rules for their own organization apply and to whom doesn't qualify in this case. that's just me.
again, no one at the nc$$ is stopping a player from going to play somewhere else.

what i don't agree with -- and i'm surprised it hasn't been successfully challenged -- is the nba and nfl being able to limit eligibility to 1 and 3 years out of high school. i'm only guessing, but somehow they've won that protection based on anti-trust provisions? they have a whole class of people they ARE compensating to be workers, but are restricting a segment of that class by the calendar. i think that's wrong, and certainly the nc$$ has provided plenty of lobbying muscle and been a major beneficiary of those rules.

to take this a little further, i'm assuming all the pay-to-play crowd is a-ok with high schoolers being compensated as well? we're not talking about any differences in the structure of that either, correct?

#1 - The issue at hand isn't about the NCAA or universities paying athletes. It's about athletes being able to use their names and likenesses to earn money (endorsements, commercials, whatever).
#2 - The NBA and NFL have collectively bargained agreements. The unions have set the ages, not the NFL. The NCAA failed to act in the wake of those CBAs by doing what they do for sports like hockey and baseball. Moreover, universities regularly put penalties on students who have scholarships and fellowships if they don't meet standards. No need to reinvent the wheel here...colleges already do all of these things...pay students, give them scholarships, mandate working conditions...with non-athletes yet for some reason seem totally flummoxed when it comes to athletes. I wonder why?
#3 - If a high school student is 18 years old, why should they be treated differently than any other adult? But even bringing up high school students is just a distraction. You want to engage in a slippery slope argument, but it's meaningless. The fact is that universities with big time sports disproportionately benefit from their athletes (Flutie Effect on admissions, revenue from sports, etc).

[LandM]

afan,
At age 12 I went and got a job working on a farm as I got tired of being teased because I wore my oldest brother and my other brothers patched hand--me-downs. Bought my own clothes and occasionally my own meals - I respect anyone who earns as much money as they can - not a good argument with me - I LOVE Capitalism.

I will use PSU as an example:
1. They are a Land Grant school owned by the state;
2. The donors pay for the athletic department - the taxpayer pays for for the University to operate, yes the coaches are paid by the state and are usually the highest paid employees - but how much does the state make based on revenue generated from the games and concessions, motels and pick about 20 other venues - and what about that pesky donation? You have no FB program without those donations;
3. PSU has a great women's VB team - on TV you will see 4,000 at a game - why? It is FREE to the season TIX holders at PSU football. Since we are footballed out and want to do something else - we walk to rec hall and watch a game - that is a non-revenue generating sport - my guess is 3,800 did not pay to watch that play;
4. Wresting at PSU actually may make money;
5. If all 108,000 get mad - who is going to pick up the tab if we all walk? The taxpayer - alrighty then and good luck with that financial statement
There will be no more college football - there is a business opportunity here just like minor league baseball - cash your liquor chips in and see what happens......lots of money to be made but watch out out for the XFL
6. BTW, FB players are gonna start wanting a commission off a woman's vb, m/w soccer player; lax players and anyone else who does not generate revenue neutral money - how will you handle that?

[wgdsr]

I'm simply dragging this back to American principles of economics.

they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

The rules about salaries and sponsorships only apply to the players, and aren't applied equally to the coaches, administrators, staff, or even the professors who are part of the NCAA system. Everyone else is free market (as relative as that term can be) except the players. Seems a tad unfair, to put it mildly.

the principles of economics are still in play. if you want to go get paid, go get paid. go to the cfl. go to the g-league or whatever they're calling it. go to europe.
free market. go.
what we're talking about is fiscal compensation for playing a sport. you can argue that they are employees and as such deserve compensation. maybe even compensation that can't be limited. the nc$$ has survived challenges to this in the past, and i do not know what the reasoning is. but they have.
my personal thought is that the nc$$, as an organization, should be allowed to set their own rules for their own organization. unless something illegal is happening there. and an organization dictating how rules for their own organization apply and to whom doesn't qualify in this case. that's just me.
again, no one at the nc$$ is stopping a player from going to play somewhere else.

what i don't agree with -- and i'm surprised it hasn't been successfully challenged -- is the nba and nfl being able to limit eligibility to 1 and 3 years out of high school. i'm only guessing, but somehow they've won that protection based on anti-trust provisions? they have a whole class of people they ARE compensating to be workers, but are restricting a segment of that class by the calendar. i think that's wrong, and certainly the nc$$ has provided plenty of lobbying muscle and been a major beneficiary of those rules.

to take this a little further, i'm assuming all the pay-to-play crowd is a-ok with high schoolers being compensated as well? we're not talking about any differences in the structure of that either, correct?

#1 - The issue at hand isn't about the NCAA or universities paying athletes. It's about athletes being able to use their names and likenesses to earn money (endorsements, commercials, whatever).
#2 - The NBA and NFL have collectively bargained agreements. The unions have set the ages, not the NFL. The NCAA failed to act in the wake of those CBAs by doing what they do for sports like hockey and baseball. Moreover, universities regularly put penalties on students who have scholarships and fellowships if they don't meet standards. No need to reinvent the wheel here...colleges already do all of these things...pay students, give them scholarships, mandate working conditions...with non-athletes yet for some reason seem totally flummoxed when it comes to athletes. I wonder why?
#3 - If a high school student is 18 years old, why should they be treated differently than any other adult? But even bringing up high school students is just a distraction. You want to engage in a slippery slope argument, but it's meaningless. The fact is that universities with big time sports disproportionately benefit from their athletes (Flutie Effect on admissions, revenue from sports, etc).

#1 - i fully understand the issue isn't about universities paying athletes. what i've talked about is universities making their own rules.
#2 - both the leagues and the unions have set the rules. the 2 collectively encompass the leagues, do they not? i'm not sure what you mean by the rest of #2, but i don't see where the nc$$ is flummoxed. they want to be able to establish their own rules, they've been pretty clear on that.
#3 - i don't consider it any kind of slippery slope argument, though i certainly wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened soon enough as a result of unintended consequences. it is a theoretical argument, one that it looks like you're in favor of. which is fine. i'm not. your last statement is an opinion, not a fact. in either case, again my point is those athletes have all the freedom to not play nc$$ sports. no one mandates that they have to play if they don't like the system. and the nc$$ has not blocked those athletes from going elsewhere.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm simply dragging this back to American principles of economics.

they merely say these are our rules if you want to play with us.

The rules about salaries and sponsorships only apply to the players, and aren't applied equally to the coaches, administrators, staff, or even the professors who are part of the NCAA system. Everyone else is free market (as relative as that term can be) except the players. Seems a tad unfair, to put it mildly.

the principles of economics are still in play. if you want to go get paid, go get paid. go to the cfl. go to the g-league or whatever they're calling it. go to europe.
free market. go.
what we're talking about is fiscal compensation for playing a sport. you can argue that they are employees and as such deserve compensation. maybe even compensation that can't be limited. the nc$$ has survived challenges to this in the past, and i do not know what the reasoning is. but they have.
my personal thought is that the nc$$, as an organization, should be allowed to set their own rules for their own organization. unless something illegal is happening there. and an organization dictating how rules for their own organization apply and to whom doesn't qualify in this case. that's just me.
again, no one at the nc$$ is stopping a player from going to play somewhere else.

what i don't agree with -- and i'm surprised it hasn't been successfully challenged -- is the nba and nfl being able to limit eligibility to 1 and 3 years out of high school. i'm only guessing, but somehow they've won that protection based on anti-trust provisions? they have a whole class of people they ARE compensating to be workers, but are restricting a segment of that class by the calendar. i think that's wrong, and certainly the nc$$ has provided plenty of lobbying muscle and been a major beneficiary of those rules.

to take this a little further, i'm assuming all the pay-to-play crowd is a-ok with high schoolers being compensated as well? we're not talking about any differences in the structure of that either, correct?

#1 - The issue at hand isn't about the NCAA or universities paying athletes. It's about athletes being able to use their names and likenesses to earn money (endorsements, commercials, whatever).
#2 - The NBA and NFL have collectively bargained agreements. The unions have set the ages, not the NFL. The NCAA failed to act in the wake of those CBAs by doing what they do for sports like hockey and baseball. Moreover, universities regularly put penalties on students who have scholarships and fellowships if they don't meet standards. No need to reinvent the wheel here...colleges already do all of these things...pay students, give them scholarships, mandate working conditions...with non-athletes yet for some reason seem totally flummoxed when it comes to athletes. I wonder why?
#3 - If a high school student is 18 years old, why should they be treated differently than any other adult? But even bringing up high school students is just a distraction. You want to engage in a slippery slope argument, but it's meaningless. The fact is that universities with big time sports disproportionately benefit from their athletes (Flutie Effect on admissions, revenue from sports, etc).

#1 - i fully understand the issue isn't about universities paying athletes. what i've talked about is universities making their own rules.
#2 - both the leagues and the unions have set the rules. the 2 collectively encompass the leagues, do they not? i'm not sure what you mean by the rest of #2, but i don't see where the nc$$ is flummoxed. they want to be able to establish their own rules, they've been pretty clear on that.
#3 - i don't consider it any kind of slippery slope argument, though i certainly wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened soon enough as a result of unintended consequences. it is a theoretical argument, one that it looks like you're in favor of. which is fine. i'm not. your last statement is an opinion, not a fact. in either case, again my point is those athletes have all the freedom to not play nc$$ sports. no one mandates that they have to play if they don't like the system. and the nc$$ has not blocked those athletes from going elsewhere.

Yes. This last line is something I have been saying. Players don’t have to play in college.

[a fan]

afan,
At age 12 I went and got a job working on a farm as I got tired of being teased because I wore my oldest brother and my other brothers patched hand--me-downs. Bought my own clothes and occasionally my own meals - I respect anyone who earns as much money as they can - not a good argument with me - I LOVE Capitalism.

Me too! And that's why I think these kids should be allowed access to that capitalism. If someone wants to pay them to use their likeness or number or whatever, they should be paid for that!

6. BTW, FB players are gonna start wanting a commission off a woman's vb, m/w soccer player; lax players and anyone else who does not generate revenue neutral money - how will you handle that?

I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not suggesting the school's themselves pay them. I'm suggesting that outside companies can pay them for whatever their market value is. Some kids will have no value. So will have values in the millions. Welcome to the free market.

And I as I wrote from the start, yep, there will be all kinds of consequences, good, bad, and other, that will flow from this California law being passed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

afan,
At age 12 I went and got a job working on a farm as I got tired of being teased because I wore my oldest brother and my other brothers patched hand--me-downs. Bought my own clothes and occasionally my own meals - I respect anyone who earns as much money as they can - not a good argument with me - I LOVE Capitalism.

I will use PSU as an example:
1. They are a Land Grant school owned by the state;
2. The donors pay for the athletic department - the taxpayer pays for for the University to operate, yes the coaches are paid by the state and are usually the highest paid employees - but how much does the state make based on revenue generated from the games and concessions, motels and pick about 20 other venues - and what about that pesky donation? You have no FB program without those donations;
3. PSU has a great women's VB team - on TV you will see 4,000 at a game - why? It is FREE to the season TIX holders at PSU football. Since we are footballed out and want to do something else - we walk to rec hall and watch a game - that is a non-revenue generating sport - my guess is 3,800 did not pay to watch that play;
4. Wresting at PSU actually may make money;
5. If all 108,000 get mad - who is going to pick up the tab if we all walk? The taxpayer - alrighty then and good luck with that financial statement
There will be no more college football - there is a business opportunity here just like minor league baseball - cash your liquor chips in and see what happens......lots of money to be made but watch out out for the XFL
6. BTW, FB players are gonna start wanting a commission off a woman's vb, m/w soccer player; lax players and anyone else who does not generate revenue neutral money - how will you handle that?

I started collecting bottles for recycling when I was 7 and cutting grass for pay at 8.... cut grass with kid that was 11 or 12.

[Farfromgeneva]

I did all the standard stuff, shoveling, taking etc. paperboy at 12, first official job at 15 at a Long
John Silvers, but I made serious cash, saved over $20m that my parents locked up until college, starting when I was eight selling baseball cards. My dad loaned my money to buy a couple of boxes of Topps wax packs, was in the $14-$16 range for a box of 36. Would sell them on my front porch off a table w a shi**y picnic table cloth and a bootleg stand I made with my limited cub scouts woodworking skills and cleaned out every kid in the neighborhoods allowances for 3-4yrs at $0.75-$1.00/pack.

Ultimately supper deck ruined cards for everyone.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

I did all the standard stuff, shoveling, taking etc. paperboy at 12, first official job at 15 at a Long
John Silvers, but I made serious cash, saved over $20m that my parents locked up until college, starting when I was eight selling baseball cards. My dad loaned my money to buy a couple of boxes of Topps wax packs, was in the $14-$16 range for a box of 36. Would sell them on my front porch off a table w a shi**y picnic table cloth and a bootleg stand I made with my limited cub scouts woodworking skills and cleaned out every kid in the neighborhoods allowances for 3-4yrs at $0.75-$1.00/pack.

Ultimately supper deck ruined cards for everyone.

you saved twenty million by fifteen?

if so, i'll move farther away from geneva.