NCAA to pay student athletes


#1

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F08%2F09%2Fsports%2Ffederal-judge-rules-against-ncaa-in-obannon-case.html&ei=OAvmU96HGIqu8AHihIHYDw&usg=AFQjCNGjLz51A5Hor2Dx4k4q-ZCojv5EPQ&bvm=bv.72676100,d.b2U

In a decision that could drastically reshape the world of college sports, a federal judge ruled on Friday that the N.C.A.A.'s decades-old rules barring payments to college athletes were in violation of antitrust laws.

Jim Calhoun suggested this a few years back when U-Conn was found guilty of recruiting violations. Its been going on a very long time. You can’t profit off college athletes and neglect them to do so. There’s no equal rights there. Its a glaring double standard.


#2

I’m glad to see students finally being able to share in the schools windfall. Wonder how long before we have a high school senior becoming a millionaire as a college freshmen?


#3

This is actually very good news. There is no reason why the good athletes should not get paid.


#4

Dreadful. I would have thought that the full-boat all-expenses-paid scholarships such student athletes get was enough. So the message seems to be that if you’re good at athletics, and headed for a multi-million dollar career in pro sports, we’ll pay you for just being a student athlete and a “draw” for the school’s program. However, if you’re great at science, or engineering, or some other discipline where you stand to make a contribution to all mankind, cure a disease, advance civilization, help children – and incidentally earn only a fraction of what pro athletes earn – well, you’re pond scum, tough. Bread and circuses.


#5

Using this logic, shouldn’t $100k per year be enough for a coach? Why should anyone’s pay be artificially held down?

So the message seems to be that if you’re good at athletics, and headed for a multi-million dollar career in pro sports, we’ll pay you for just being a student athlete and a “draw” for the school’s program. However, if you’re great at science, or engineering, or some other discipline where you stand to make a contribution to all mankind, cure a disease, advance civilization, help children – and incidentally earn only a fraction of what pro athletes earn – well, you’re pond scum, tough. Bread and circuses.

That is just the way life is though. The probability of making a good living however is much higher as a scientist than it is as a pro athlete.


#6

:thumbsup:

And the tuition for those science and engineering students will go up to fund the new “pay” for the athletes. The athletes rarely do any real work anyway. They get “jobs” on campus that are part of their scholarship packages with include things like watching empty gyms or greeting guests at the field house. And don’t pretend that their sport is “work”. It’s college. It’s what you are there for. Most of us pay to go to college rather than get paid to do so.


#7

Any evidence for this?

The athletes rarely do any real work anyway. They get “jobs” on campus that are part of their scholarship packages with include things like watching empty gyms or greeting guests at the field house. And don’t pretend that their sport is “work”. It’s college. It’s what you are there for. Most of us pay to go to college rather than get paid to do so.

Using this logic, why should pro athletes get paid. Do they do any real work either?


#8

Actually, the headline is misleading. HLN was covering the story this morning. The ruling doesn’t force NCAA to pay athletes; it stipulates that the schools must give athletes a share (up to $5k per year) of the revenues gained from marketing the athletes’ images, jerseys. I think it’s a good ruling. If someone was making money from selling pictures of my face ( :bigyikes: ), and I wasn’t getting a share in it, I would be unhappy too.


#9

Why would you need evidence? It’s just simple economics. If costs go up, the money has to come from somewhere and with very few exceptions (where tuition is locked due to legislation) tuition goes up based on increased costs. Everyone thinks about the “big ticket” programs like football and basketball that bring in revenue for the school. But most athletic programs are an expense not a profit center. If you pay men’s basketball players you will have to also pay women’s basketball players. There’s only a handful of women’s basketball programs that are net positive to the school.

And using pro athletes as a counter example isn’t rational. The “pro” **means **professional. They are supposed to get paid monetarily. “Student” athletes are supposed to get an education. What they have now created is a minor league of professional athletes.


#10

Right, needless to say there are many inherent flaws. I don’t know about the free ride theory. Nothing is ever free, free with athletics has a long list of responsibility, none of which has much to due with education. Freshman year everyone is required to live in the athletic dorms. About the same as animal house. They learn to get drunk on Friday night and play on Saturday there. I think its a 3-credit course in morality. :wink:

Personally I think the entire process needs to be re-thought. That said, I agree.


#11

Because I am an economist, we need evidence before we make claims.

It’s just simple economics. If costs go up, the money has to come from somewhere

Actually the economics here is anything but simple. First of all the only sports where athletes would be paid would be the revenue sports. Most likely what would happen is that there would be a redistribution of expenditures from other areas to athletes. For example, schools can afford to pay coaches more today because athletes work for low wages. I wouldn’t be surprised if coaches salaries go down if athletes start getting paid.

and with very few exceptions (where tuition is locked due to legislation) tuition goes up based on increased costs. Everyone thinks about the “big ticket” programs like football and basketball that bring in revenue for the school. But most athletic programs are an expense not a profit center. If you pay men’s basketball players you will have to also pay women’s basketball players. There’s only a handful of women’s basketball programs that are net positive to the school.

Actually I am against college athletics in general, I think they should be spun off separate from the university and operate solely on their own and let them sink or swim on their own.

And using pro athletes as a counter example isn’t rational. The “pro” **means **professional. They are supposed to get paid monetarily. “Student” athletes are supposed to get an education. What they have now created is a minor league of professional athletes.

Both do the same thing, they both play in front of crowds who pay to see them. So the distinction between pro and student athlete is a convenient fiction used to exploit the student athletes.


#12

I don’t think the money will be raised through increasing tuition. Even though the colleges don’t make any money from the science and other “geek” majors, I’m guessing that they still want these brainiac types in their school. If nothing else, these are the people most likely to contribute to the college long after they graduate.

Don’t you think it’s more likely that the corporate sponsors of various college athletic broadcasts will be expected to step up and pay in to raise the extra revenue?

After all, they’re the ones making the financial killing off of college athletics. I think it’s reasonable for Budweiser, Nike, etc. to kick in some cash to pay the stipends to college athletes. I don’t think these companies will suffer.

Also, don’t you think that it’s likely that the tickets for various college athletic events will go up, perhaps by a lot, in order to raise the revenue? The student fans may still get a break, but probably not as much of a break. As for the adult fans (alumni and others), I’m guessing that they will have to pay through the nose to be able to sit in a freezing stadium or crowded fieldhouse and watch their favorite team play.


#13

Definitely a bad, bad idea.

However, they are going to CAP the pay and it deals only with Basketball and Football, which in itself seems wrong. Tennis anyone? <— my fave sport


#14

Northwestern’s football players have made it clear that their beef wasn’t with the university, but with the NCAA, whose imperiousness and sanctimony is matched only by its hypocrisy.

The Crimson Tide football coach, Nick Saban, makes $7 million a year. Conversely, a University of Alabama literature professor makes what? $100,000 a year? We’re not so naive as to suggest that this is a “fair” comparison, that conflating football with the humanities curriculum makes sense. Still, this is a university, is it not? Football or no football, it’s still a place where one goes to be educated, is it not? A place where 99 percent of the student body doesn’t participate in intercollegiate sports?

Not only is that wage discrepancy staggering, but when you make $7 million a year, we’re no longer talking about a college football coach, and we’re no longer talking about something as pedestrian as a bunch of “student-athletes” kicking around the old pigskin. When you’re paid $7 million to run a football program – and when college football generates the billions of dollars in revenue it does – you’re no longer a coach. You’re a CEO.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdavid-macaray%2Fmarch-madness-brought-to_b_5044746.html&ei=2WDmU7_CDJGiyASZ94H4CQ&usg=AFQjCNFP4qKYMSmUbHbNiGHIhl8yRPCXjw

By signing the Student Athlete Statement, college athletes agree to a series of NCAA rules, according to Robert Givens, a law student who recently wrote an article about what he calls the “economic exploitation of student athletes” by the NCAA in the UMKC Law Review. Athletes effectively transfer the right to profit off their own image to the NCAA.

“Essentially, for as long as you want to play for this school at the Division 1 level, you cannot make any money for anything that is directly tied to your athletic achievements,” Givens said. “And any other scenario that involves using your face, your reputation, your athletic achievements in exchange to gain something of value to yourself. All of these possibilities go away with your signing this agreement.”

The NCAA wouldn’t comment on why these rules exist,

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkcur.org%2Fpost%2Fcollege-athletes-can-t-profit-their-own-image-ncaa-can&ei=2WDmU7_CDJGiyASZ94H4CQ&usg=AFQjCNGcGp9MQH2C7-OTlBLDMsbacWeLDA


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.