I don't see how this topic can be discussed more than superficially without getting political.
I am very interested to see how it plays out as the creation of a union based system for the revenue sports will almost certainly be at direct odds with Title IX. It will be very interesting to see how the politically motivated segments of society take sides in this case. I am also waiting for the day when the players figure out that if they are unionized and paid as employees, they will have to pay union dues and taxes.
Are you seriously arguing that players should regard 1) getting paid, and having to hand a fraction of that away to a union and for taxes, is less financially advantageous than 2) not getting paid at all?
All I can say to that is that not all players go to UNC, my friend.
Paging Greybeard! (He has more experience in this arena than he has in Feldenkrais...)
-jk
The more and more I think about it, the more I think this is all going to blow up sooner than we'd like from a pure college sports fan perspective. Toeing a very fine line here, the South Park episode on the NCAA from several years isn't that far off.
The inertia comment upthread is really what is holding all of collegiate athletics together at this point. Unlike any other country, our minor leagues for two of of our 4 major sports (and part of the other two) are intertwined with our educational systems.
But I could envision some type of quasi-minor league where teams are associated with universities (at least initially), but the players are paid and don't have to go to class. The money would come from the alumni associations and would be completely unfair. But... it would be a similar evolution as English soccer where the clubs were simply representative of the town, village or neighborhood, and some evolved into behemoths while others languish in the fifth division for 100 years.
This is all just some futurist hair-brained scenario that hit me today as I've been ruminating on this. But I don't think the college football status quo will work, even via some kind of additional stipend. Either college football splits from intercollegiate athletics and becomes its own entity, or the NFL or some rich dudes fund a minor league and relegate college football to what college baseball is like today, at best, and glorified club teams, at worst - with many schools forgoing football altogether. That latter scenario is not an altogether bad thing, but it could gut revenues and put other sports at risk.
Let's be clear about something. This system of semi-professional football teams described above will not happen in more than a handful of places. Once it is not College Football, it will no longer get my money or my support. I would rather go watch a game of non-scholarship walk-ons who are students at Duke and UNC play each other than watch the Durham Azure Devils play for the "College" National Championship against the Tuscaloosa Elephants.
And for those that don't feel that way already, it will only take a year or two to realize that they are paying for the "Durham Bulls" of football, except that they're called the "Duke Bulls."
Is the NCAA a plantation system? There is a LOT of money passing between hands, but at the end of the day, the NCAA's statement is accurate. Participation in athletic endeavors is VOLUNTARY. If you are too stupid or misguided to NOT take advantage of your scholarship, educate yourself, and prepare yourself to earn a living, then that is on YOU. Even down the road at UNC, just because a counselor TOLD YOU about a fake class does not mean you HAVE TO TAKE IT. There are certainly a large number of football, basketball, lacrosse, and baseball players that didn't take those classes, so the argument that "UNC" didn't actually provide the value of the scholarship -- the responsibility lies with the athlete that CHOSE to take the fake class.
I believe that there are valid complaints about some aspects of the treatment of athletes: full cost scholarships should be allowed, medical expenses should be 100% covered, scholarships should be for 4 years. But I draw the line at "paying them" (beyond the full cost scholarship). It will be interesting to watch what happens with the O'Bannon case. A loss by the NCAA will result in massive changes, but they aren't what the media thinks they will be (everyone is assuming the semi-pro / D4 scenario). There is a completely different scenario that will likely occur, and the B1G has hinted at it.
The talent level will regress greatly, but the games will be a lot more fun - because it will be true interscholastic sports at the college level. There may not even be TV, since the on field product won't match the D4 teams - but those that want to root for their schools will still go, still tailgate, and still cheer.
This is close to my view as well. It surprises me when all of these radical changes toward professionalism are discussed that scant consideration is given to the thought that many schools may realize that this new model is such an obvious far cry from what was intended as an extra-curricular activity and so far from their purported purpose that significant numbers may simply drop out.
Assuming even the most prestigious schools go along, I still don't think anything resembling "professional" college sports will generate interest and revenue anywhere near what the "amateur student athlete" model does. I'm picturing a press conference where a hot-shot HS senior, after weeks of tense negotiations between his agent and several schools, signs a multi-million dollar contract to play for UK. I can promise you that I will be out long before we reach that degree of capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt I'm alone.
Gotcha.
That actually happened to my grandparents in the 70s. They were working in Saudi in the 70s. Housing was provided as part of the job that was significantly higher in value than the salary for the job. (The housing wasn't particularly special, but the location near the university was.)
The IRS sent a representative to explain the new interpretation of the compensation clause. My grandfather was one of many to complain that they would be losing money to stay there. The IRS guy's non-ironic response was that they could get a loan.
The IRS ultimately backed down, however. My guess is there would be a similar outcome here. Like the Saudi gov't, the schools are well-connected politically and I imagine they'd push back against such an interpretation, should the IRS go there.
Lessee... For players to get the right to organize in the labor-union sense, the DoL or the regulatory agencies of either the US or Illinois has to decide they are employees. Then, one supposes, the athletic scholarships (worth $60K a year at Northwestern and Duke) would be recognized as compensation, which would then be taxable. Also, as non-exempt employees (not management), wouldn't they be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA? Anyway, if this issue catches on, it will be a national civics lesson about differences and similarities between college sports and the recognized workplace.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Got it. I think I already addressed this above. To be clear, I'm just speculating on what would happen in this hypothetical case.
Should any one of these case/actions end up with players being ruled employees and the IRS needs to rule on compensation, the IRS will either:
1) rule tuition as compensation that is NOT taxable as income
2) rule tuition as compensation that IS taxable as income and destroy college revenue sports
I really, really, really don't think it will be the latter. JMHO, IANAL, YMMV, M-O-U-S-E.
Yeah, I think I agree with you.
Which is why I don't think this will ever happen.
In this day and age, the bottom line is revenue-generation and cash flows. If "college sports" goes down the route you describe above, there would be massive revenue destruction (IMO) on the whole. Good players may make more money - depending on how much actual interest there is in these "professional" college leagues. Bad players would most certainly make less money (in whatever form). TV would likely make less money - if for no other reason than less product to broadcast. Schools will make less money as they drop revenue sports (some will). Other students will lose scholarships due to Title IX considerations and dropping revenue sports, such as football. And I think college experiences, in general, would suffer for the vast majority of young students if for no other reason than less sports options at their respective schools for them to choose to enjoy and follow.
I understand the pay-the-players view that some have, from a micro case-by-case stand point at the high end of the skill distribution. But from a macro perspective, I just think the negative consequences of that singular decision would affect many, many parties and would net out to a much worse situation than we are in right now.
- Chillin
How about non-athletic scholarships? Would those get taxed too?
Seems like a complicated ball of twine to start unravelling. How about walk-ons with existing financial assistance or aid? How many loopholes can motivated schools find?
I think this union is a good thing, as it forces the issues to be discussed somewhere other than message boards and SportsCenter.
I also believe that college sports as we have known them are on life-support, and 12-15 years from now will be unrecognizeable, and that is a shame. I like to think that Duke will maintain whatever integrity there is left to hold on to, but with so much money at stake, it is tough.
Go Duke
I think there may be some interesting parallels with attempts by graduate student teaching assistants attempting to unionize. One of more interesting things (IIRC) was that "employees" of public vs. private schools are covered by different regulations and it was much easier for the TAs to unionize at public universities.
This. Again -- when inertia is really the main thing keeping the current system in place, there are real problems. But when things start to unwind, it could all fall apart quickly I don't disagree with those above that say they'd never support local teams of college aged players in the same way they support their alma mater. The scenario I laid out in the previous post was kind of a brainstormed nuclear option if the "unions" get any kind of traction and *someone* has to pay the players.
The players, though, are fighting a steep, steep, uphill battle because they aren't around long enough to adequately stand up for themselves and get through the legal process, barring another O'Bannon type lawsuit. The NFL, the colleges, television, the non-revenue sports, the coaches, the fans, etc. are all reaping the benefits of the massive amount of money coming in for football, and there is much more permanence with all of those institutions.
If you listen to the Bilas interview on the linked page he is not really on board with the union concept. He refers to the players right to earn their "market value" which IMO would be much more detrimental to college sports than a collective bargaining union approach which might produce an equal stipend for scholarship athletes in revenue sports versus each athlete finding out how much they are worth to various alumni associations and shoe companies.
I think revenue sports might fair much better under former than the latter.