@-Sun_Tzu- said:
@bforrester420 said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:
I don't even think that a black hole is this dense.
Pointing out that collegiate athletes already do receive some amount of material compensation is not the matter at hand when talking about whether or not collegiate athletes are fairly compensated for their (full-time) work. What if your employer told you that since they provide you with health care, a gym membership, and a lunch stipend that they're going to stop paying you a wage? I doubt you'd be too happy with that. College football is a multi-billion dollar industry. Every year there are 39 bowl games, all with their own corporate sponsors. Just look at the name of some these bowl games; the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Capital One Bowl, the GoDaddy Bowl, the Outback Steakhouse Bowl, and the list goes on and on.
People can talk up the guise of amateurism in college athletics all they want, but the fact of the matter is the emperor has no clothes - these kids are being shamelessly exploited (and in the case of football, are being exposed to extremely hazardous workplace conditions). This doesn't even have to be about colleges paying their athletes outright - the NCAA not only doesn't let them touch any of the money that they, the NCAA, is making off of their likeness through jersey sales, video game portrayals, advertising, ect, but if the players even try to make a dime off of their own public image in the same way the institutions they work for do, the NCAA does anything and everything they can to destroy their collegiate career. Hilariously, they even suspended Johnny Manziel for half a game without finding any evidence of "wrongdoing" on his part, while at the same time prominently showcasing his jersey on their website. Moreover just look at all the coaches making millions of dollars per year (much more than the salaries of their more academically inclined colleagues). These are professional coaches coaching professional sports where the athletes simply aren't getting paid.
And to restate a point I made previously - you yourself acknowledged that collegiate athletic programs have less of an incentive to look after the well being of their athletes than the major professional leagues do. All the more reason for these athletes to at the very least unionize to make sure they have at least some amount of institutional influence to look after their own interests.
You're not an economist, are you? The market sets an equilibrium price, in the case a "labor" market. Colleges offer scholarships; tuition, meals, housing, books, coaching, travel expenses, facilities, etc as compensation. The Athletes agree to these terms by accepting said scholarship and participating in their athletic competitions. If the athletes do not feel fairly compensated, they're free to take their talents to another "employer". They aren't forced to participate in NCAA sanctioned sporting events. They're free to go play their sport professionally in another league. They can also do what the rest of the student body does; simply go to class and pay their way through school themselves.
Your example; "What if your employer told you that since they provide you with health care, a gym membership, and a lunch stipend that they're going to stop paying you a wage? I doubt you'd be too happy with that." is patently absurd. It's a (relatively) free market! If I don't agree with my employer's compensation, I have two choices; accept their compensation or refuse, leave my employment, and find employment elsewhere.
You talk of exploitation, but they're not being forced into anything. They have choices and they're informed of what those choices entail. If they really want to stick it to the universities, they'll just refuse to participate. They need the university more than the university needs them, and that's how markets work. McDonald's makes billions but they pay their fry cooks minimum wage. Is the fry cook being exploited?
I'm done discussing this with you. You aren't arguing this based on any measure of market economics. The bottom line is that 90% of college athletes generate Zero revenue for their schools. Those that do are compensated handsomely, and if they do not feel they are compensated fairly are free to ply their trade elsewhere.
Who is this other employer you speak of? Basketball players have to wait a year before they're even allowed to play in the NBA. The only other employer they have is a professional team overseas, something many 17 and 18 year olds are unwilling and most likely unprepared to do (some have done this though, Brandon Jennings signed a 2 million dollar contract with underarmor alongside a multi-million dollar contract with an Italian team. Why shouldn't Brandon Jennings been able to sign that 2 million dollar dear with underarmor if he was on a college team?) Football players have it even worse - not only do they have to wait 2 years but they don't have comparable oversea options. You say "if they don't like it they can play professionally somewhere else" when there are institutional barriers in place that make that option at best inconvenient to the point where it's not a practical option, and at worst it's an option that simply doesn't exist.
You say I'm not arguing based on any measure of market economics, nothing could be further from the case. Andrew Wiggins, if he was eligible, would've been the first overall pick last year in the draft. He would've made 5 million dollars this past year plus endorsements. Instead Kansas employed his talents for a fraction of the cost to them and without any money going into the pocket of Wiggins himself. If there actually was some semblance of a market economy for these players many of them would be making millions of dollars already.
The only professional league in the US that's even close to having it right is the MLB (and even the MLB still has its problems), where players out of high school are given the option to go pro, or they can go to school where they have to wait until their junior year to get drafted. The MLB has a robust professional developmental league in place. The NFL and NBA don't, and instead are using colleges as their developmental leagues, at the detriment of the players themselves.
What good reason is there for them not to even be able to sign endorsement deals? They're already endorsing products under the status quo, they just aren't getting paid for it.
Q. Who is this other employer you speak of? Basketball players have to wait a year before they're even allowed to play in the NBA.
A. They can work overseas or they can work in any other profession. The fact that they can't play in the NBA until a year removed has nothing to do with the NCAA. That's an NBA rule. Take it up with the courts. I had to have a 4-year degree to enter my profession of choice, so I had to wait even longer than a year before I was qualified for my job. Basketball players, according to the NBA, are not qualified until they've had at lease a year out of High School.
Q. Why shouldn't Brandon Jennings been able to sign that 2 million dollar dear with underarmor if he was on a college team?
A. Because there are rules against that under the NCAA. If Brandon Jennings doesn't like it, he doesn't have to play in the NCAA. He didn't like it and played in Italy as a result. He exercised a choice that exists for these other athletes. If their skills aren't marketable enough to play overseas, they can play under the NCAA rules for lesser (non-monetary) compensation.
Q. Andrew Wiggins, if he was eligible, would've been the first overall pick last year in the draft. He would've made 5 million dollars this past year plus endorsements. Instead Kansas employed his talents for a fraction of the cost to them and without any money going into the pocket of Wiggins himself.
A. Andrew Wiggins didn't have to go to Kansas. He could have gone to Italy and accepted endorsements. He went to play college basketball, because like OTHER college students, he knew that going to college was the best avenue into his profession of choice; basketball. If I want to be a chemist, my best avenue is to go to college. Andrew Wiggins received coaching, athletic training, food, housing, etc for his services at Kansas. If he felt he was worth more, he could have gone to Italy.
Your argument boils down to this: The NFL and NBA keeps these kids from coming straight out of HS and earning a living. Somehow, because the NBA and NFL have rules that even I think are unfair and un-American, you make the illogical leap and think the NCAA is somehow responsible for paying the price for the NBA and NFL rules.
Log in to comment