7 ms·

Broke

181 points by joe5150 11y ago

dssddsds 11y ago
Minimum wage is necessary
- toolz 11y ago
  Minimum wage is a band-aide on gaping wound. The problem is that employers control employees lives, while employees at worst can take a company down - leaving the owner in a position where he just has to go get a job. The power obviously weighs heavily in the favor of the employer. If everyone (and I do mean everyone including the 1%) was given a wage that could keep you alive and healthy, then there would be balance of power between employer and employee and you would see people taking advantage of each other much less.
  - dssddsds 11y ago
    Ha, you put it much more eloquently! I agree - the underlying problem is obviously how much the wealth disparity has grown.
- eru 11y ago
  Why?
acurious1 11y ago
Let the poor demand to be paid. And ignore that for most universities, the sportsballs are net losses on the whole. By all means pay them what they are owed. They are owed exactly what they demand and receive for contracting their playing services. If they can strengthen their hand by bargaining as a team, go for it.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  They should be bargaining collectively, but they're not being allowed to do so. The NLRB acknowledged that football players at Northwestern University are employees, but then refused to say whether they can form a union on the basis of a technicality (specifically, that the university is a state institution, and the NLRB only has jurisdiction over private employers). So none of the employees in question is represented by a union, and it's not clear whether any or all of them are even legally entitled to such representation if they elect it. I agree that this would go a long way toward addressing the fundamental inequity here, at least for the tiny fraction of employees whose skills are actually generating cash for their employers. It's pathetic that we can't agree that everyone has the right to join a union and bargain collectively if they wish, but that's where we are.
bdcravens 11y ago
The counter to paying college players is that it can be a gateway to the NFL, so college players play for "free" in exchange for access to a potentially very lucrative career. So why not a venture capital model? Pay players, with the condition that the university receives a % of their pro pay.
- majormajor 11y ago
  Top-tier college recruits shouldn't need a gateway to the NFL with their talent level. We can stick with a tech metaphor: It would be like all tech companies and startups and VCs colluding to require a certain number of years in college before being willing to hire or fund anyone. And the universities would own any apps/code the kids wrote while they were in school. Obviously it would be ludicrously imbalanced for the top 18-year-olds in that situation to give up that much earning potential in exchange for a "gateway" to a profession that needs them anyway. Sadly people really get into tribalism, and have much stronger ties to their college than they would to any local minor league team, so there's tremendous amounts of money in play to maintain the status quo.
  - dpeck 11y ago
    Agreed that they shouldn't need a gateway, but disagree on the 18 year old being ready. There may be one from time to time, but the extra 3 years of both skill and physical development makes a big difference for almost every player/position.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      That's certainly true; it's true in most other sports as well. That's why for example baseball players spend anywhere from 2 to 5 or 6 years in the minor leagues before they make the big club (which many never do). There's no reason to prefer that they spend that developmental time playing for free on a university's team instead of for peanuts on a minor-league professional club. And there are plenty of reasons to prefer the alternative.
    - jhspaybar 11y ago
nkozyra 11y ago
I'll never understand why people reject the most sensible answer: allow high school students to be drafted into the NFL. Even if they're not playing in the NFL for 2,3 or 4 years, pu them into a developmental league where they can earn $30K a year for a shot to make the league. Then college is reserved for people who want to go to college, not for people who have to go because that's the collusion that's been designed. It's been designed to protect the value of college football, which exploits poor athletes who otherwise have no way to make a living in sports. The system is likewise awful for college athletics. Kids who have no reverence for school (why should they) break the rules, break the law and are coddled because they make millions for the university with no pay. Then we all have to pretend like we care about academics in student athletes, coaches impose 1-game suspensions during the 1-AA game week and everyone happily looks away. Major League Baseball has solved this - you may be drafted out of high school, but once you start college you have to be out three years. It preserves the notion of amateur athletics - of trading your athletic skill for a shot at a degree - without forcing people to take that route.
- bksenior 11y ago
  Youre looking at it from the wrong side. NCCAF is one of the largest making money leagues in the world and certainly the largest money making "amateur league" the reluctance is on the systems side, not the employee side.
  - nkozyra 11y ago
    No, that's exactly how I'm looking at it. I understand why the collusion exists - it exists to protect college football as a money-making mechanism. It also provides the NFL with a no-cost developmental league. I just wonder why there's not more clamoring to blow this rule up. I can't recall a peep since Maurice Clarett challenged it last. I will say this, though - if we accept this rule (that you cannot enter the NFL directly out of high school) - colleges should at least be honest about this. The notion that you go and get a "Communications" degree (insert your alma mater's sports academics program of choice) is insulting to everyone involved. Why not make a "Sports" degree that focuses on the elements of being an athlete or former athlete? Why is that taboo?
chroma 11y ago
I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and female athletes will be massive. Then there's the problem of mixing sports and education. If these athletes are paid, do they still have to attend classes? Do they have to get good grades? Are they given scholarships in addition to monetary compensation? Can athletes switch colleges if another school will pay them more? It seems to me that most of these problems would be solved by creating a minor league separate from college. If people are so attached to college names, then the colleges can sell naming rights. But honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find a sport more repugnant than football. If football came into being today, people would riot in the streets. Who would pay money to watch mostly lower-class, mostly black[1] players permanently damage each other's brains and bodies? Who would cheer during such an event? Yes, it can be argued that athletes know the risks, but the same is true for dueling. In the past, people thought dueling was fine. Today, we recognize it to be a barbarous tradition. I believe that, as we do with dueling, future societies will condemn us for allowing this sport to continue. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_professional_football#Today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_prof...
- wernercd 11y ago
  What makes Football different than Female baseball or wrestling? Full stadiums. I'm not a football fan either (nor any sport where "we" will go all the way)... but to say that people will riot in the streets over it is a bit over the top. YOU don't like it. Many people obviously disagree - and enough that it's a major sport. Probably THE major sport currently.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Popularity breeds popularity
- webXL 11y ago
supercanuck 11y ago
One of the necessary things that needs to happen if we are to begin paying players is that there would need to be some serious contraction in the number of Division I Football teams. A team like Boise State is just not going to be able to keep up with players at the University of Southern California for example. Since a lot of those would be in small, rural towns, there is A LOT of resistance to this outside the traditional power conference (and frankly some of the stragglers inside power conferences too for that matter)
- tempestn 11y ago
  Transfer payments would also work.
fredkbloggs 11y ago
There's another possible solution, too, which for the 95% of post-secondary institutions you've never heard of is either already the status quo or would be a much more economical answer. That solution is to get out of the business of athletics. If you are not a "power 5" program or one of the top NCAA D-I basketball programs, athletics is a money-loser. The UAB debacle provides a pretty good case study in why this is so: there are only a handful of universities that the system will allow to make any money. So what looks like one problem is really two: first, the employee-athletes at the major athletic programs aren't being paid, and they should be. But the flip side of the coin is that many of the same retarded rules that harm those employees are being applied to people playing sports at much smaller programs, where they are not at all profitable and there is essentially zero chance that anyone is ever going to make their career as a major league athlete. That's the second problem. The solution to the first problem is complex. It starts with paying your employees. But there's more to it than that: something has to be done about the fiction that those employees are fundamentally students. They're not. Scandal after scandal shows every trick and dodge in the book is and will continue to be used to keep functionally illiterate players off the academically ineligible list and on the field. It would be healthier, if these schools insist on keeping their highly profitable athletic programs, to partner with the NBA and NFL (baseball doesn't really have this problem) to transition their status to minor league affiliates. In the process, they could also cut the sanctimonious and absurd NCAA out of the game. No more scandals, no more bullshit. But it's going to take some work to get from here to there. The solution to the second problem is very simple. For the other 95%, no more NCAA rules (they're designed for the big-money programs to deceive themselves, not for the others). No more TV, period. Not that most of them are ever on TV anyway, except for the one or two games a year they volunteer to be slaughtered by far superior competition to fund the rest of their season (in games which, for no conceivable reason, actually count for both teams!). No more licensing. If they want to sell merchandise, they can sell it at the campus bookstore. Not like any of them are making millions from Amazon or Foot Locker anyway. Above all else, no more "athletic scholarships", a profound contradiction in terms hardly anyone ever ponders long enough to recognize. That means no more pressure, no more extended seasons, and no more faux students hanging around in hopes of transferring to a big-money program so they can get their shot at the big time. If you want to play intercollegiate sports, fine. But the reason those academic standards that are so low yet somehow impossible for the big guys to meet without cheating exist in the first place is to prevent students who don't have time for a hobby from being distracted from their studies. Raise them, high. If you don't have at least a 3.25, you have no business doing anything but studying. And without the pressure of having to maintain your "athletic scholarship", why should you? No more games against hopelessly superior competition. You'll play against other teams of full-time students with no funding for fancy uniforms and gleaming locker rooms, at a simple gym or on a field shared with 8 other teams next to a single set of bleachers. High school baseball teams don't play against AA clubs; there's no excuse for pay-for-play in other sports, either. If you can't fund your athletic programs through student fees, they get cut. Simple as that. But stop pretending that "student athletics", a huge money loser and waste of time and energy, is a necessary part of your institutional identity, or that it "builds character". There's nothing wrong with intercollegiate athletics as a hobby, a diversion, another way to network, and a way to stay in shape while you study. But that's all it is. Don't let the tail wag the dog. Because as bad as the futile aspiration of making a major-league professional club is for the 98% who never will, the small schools (or large schools with small athletic programs) forced to play by the same rules as the big boys are in exactly the same spot. The first step is admitting that you're not competitive and never will be. Once you've done that, a whole world of refreshingly decent options opens up.
RandallBrown 11y ago
College athletes are paid. I'm not just talking about getting free school. They get free housing, free food, and lots of other free benefits that are all completely allowed by the NCAA. That's without any of the shady booster money. The athletes I knew (two large division 1 schools) got considerable housing and food stipends. They were quite a bit more than what most students were paying for rent in the area and these athletes had much more disposable income than most of the regular students I knew.
fphhotchips 11y ago
I've never understood why the American model of mixing academics with athletics came to existence. I understand why it continues, of course, since the status quo nearly always does. The Australian(/European? I'm not sure) model of having schools only passingly involved with athletics, and then having the athletics clubs and associations as separate entities just makes much more sense to me. First, it allows for amateur sports to continue well past high school/college, allowing those who compete for fun and fitness to do so. Sports, after all, shouldn't just something you watch on TV once you're out of school. Second, apart from providing a fun diversion to students in much the same way as a video gaming club might do, why should any teaching institution be involved in sports? Surely that's outside the core mission.

Broke

181 points by joe5150 11y ago

dssddsds 11y ago

Minimum wage is necessary

toolz 11y ago
Minimum wage is a band-aide on gaping wound. The problem is that employers control employees lives, while employees at worst can take a company down - leaving the owner in a position where he just has to go get a job. The power obviously weighs heavily in the favor of the employer. If everyone (and I do mean everyone including the 1%) was given a wage that could keep you alive and healthy, then there would be balance of power between employer and employee and you would see people taking advantage of each other much less.
- dssddsds 11y ago
  Ha, you put it much more eloquently! I agree - the underlying problem is obviously how much the wealth disparity has grown.
eru 11y ago
Why?

acurious1 11y ago

Let the poor demand to be paid. And ignore that for most universities, the sportsballs are net losses on the whole. By all means pay them what they are owed. They are owed exactly what they demand and receive for contracting their playing services. If they can strengthen their hand by bargaining as a team, go for it.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
They should be bargaining collectively, but they're not being allowed to do so. The NLRB acknowledged that football players at Northwestern University are employees, but then refused to say whether they can form a union on the basis of a technicality (specifically, that the university is a state institution, and the NLRB only has jurisdiction over private employers). So none of the employees in question is represented by a union, and it's not clear whether any or all of them are even legally entitled to such representation if they elect it. I agree that this would go a long way toward addressing the fundamental inequity here, at least for the tiny fraction of employees whose skills are actually generating cash for their employers. It's pathetic that we can't agree that everyone has the right to join a union and bargain collectively if they wish, but that's where we are.

bdcravens 11y ago

The counter to paying college players is that it can be a gateway to the NFL, so college players play for "free" in exchange for access to a potentially very lucrative career. So why not a venture capital model? Pay players, with the condition that the university receives a % of their pro pay.

majormajor 11y ago
Top-tier college recruits shouldn't need a gateway to the NFL with their talent level. We can stick with a tech metaphor: It would be like all tech companies and startups and VCs colluding to require a certain number of years in college before being willing to hire or fund anyone. And the universities would own any apps/code the kids wrote while they were in school. Obviously it would be ludicrously imbalanced for the top 18-year-olds in that situation to give up that much earning potential in exchange for a "gateway" to a profession that needs them anyway. Sadly people really get into tribalism, and have much stronger ties to their college than they would to any local minor league team, so there's tremendous amounts of money in play to maintain the status quo.
- dpeck 11y ago
  Agreed that they shouldn't need a gateway, but disagree on the 18 year old being ready. There may be one from time to time, but the extra 3 years of both skill and physical development makes a big difference for almost every player/position.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    That's certainly true; it's true in most other sports as well. That's why for example baseball players spend anywhere from 2 to 5 or 6 years in the minor leagues before they make the big club (which many never do). There's no reason to prefer that they spend that developmental time playing for free on a university's team instead of for peanuts on a minor-league professional club. And there are plenty of reasons to prefer the alternative.
  - jhspaybar 11y ago

nkozyra 11y ago

I'll never understand why people reject the most sensible answer: allow high school students to be drafted into the NFL. Even if they're not playing in the NFL for 2,3 or 4 years, pu them into a developmental league where they can earn $30K a year for a shot to make the league. Then college is reserved for people who want to go to college, not for people who have to go because that's the collusion that's been designed. It's been designed to protect the value of college football, which exploits poor athletes who otherwise have no way to make a living in sports. The system is likewise awful for college athletics. Kids who have no reverence for school (why should they) break the rules, break the law and are coddled because they make millions for the university with no pay. Then we all have to pretend like we care about academics in student athletes, coaches impose 1-game suspensions during the 1-AA game week and everyone happily looks away. Major League Baseball has solved this - you may be drafted out of high school, but once you start college you have to be out three years. It preserves the notion of amateur athletics - of trading your athletic skill for a shot at a degree - without forcing people to take that route.

bksenior 11y ago
Youre looking at it from the wrong side. NCCAF is one of the largest making money leagues in the world and certainly the largest money making "amateur league" the reluctance is on the systems side, not the employee side.
- nkozyra 11y ago
  No, that's exactly how I'm looking at it. I understand why the collusion exists - it exists to protect college football as a money-making mechanism. It also provides the NFL with a no-cost developmental league. I just wonder why there's not more clamoring to blow this rule up. I can't recall a peep since Maurice Clarett challenged it last. I will say this, though - if we accept this rule (that you cannot enter the NFL directly out of high school) - colleges should at least be honest about this. The notion that you go and get a "Communications" degree (insert your alma mater's sports academics program of choice) is insulting to everyone involved. Why not make a "Sports" degree that focuses on the elements of being an athlete or former athlete? Why is that taboo?

chroma 11y ago

I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and female athletes will be massive. Then there's the problem of mixing sports and education. If these athletes are paid, do they still have to attend classes? Do they have to get good grades? Are they given scholarships in addition to monetary compensation? Can athletes switch colleges if another school will pay them more? It seems to me that most of these problems would be solved by creating a minor league separate from college. If people are so attached to college names, then the colleges can sell naming rights. But honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find a sport more repugnant than football. If football came into being today, people would riot in the streets. Who would pay money to watch mostly lower-class, mostly black[1] players permanently damage each other's brains and bodies? Who would cheer during such an event? Yes, it can be argued that athletes know the risks, but the same is true for dueling. In the past, people thought dueling was fine. Today, we recognize it to be a barbarous tradition. I believe that, as we do with dueling, future societies will condemn us for allowing this sport to continue. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_professional_football#Today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_prof...

wernercd 11y ago
What makes Football different than Female baseball or wrestling? Full stadiums. I'm not a football fan either (nor any sport where "we" will go all the way)... but to say that people will riot in the streets over it is a bit over the top. YOU don't like it. Many people obviously disagree - and enough that it's a major sport. Probably THE major sport currently.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Popularity breeds popularity
webXL 11y ago

supercanuck 11y ago

One of the necessary things that needs to happen if we are to begin paying players is that there would need to be some serious contraction in the number of Division I Football teams. A team like Boise State is just not going to be able to keep up with players at the University of Southern California for example. Since a lot of those would be in small, rural towns, there is A LOT of resistance to this outside the traditional power conference (and frankly some of the stragglers inside power conferences too for that matter)

tempestn 11y ago
Transfer payments would also work.

fredkbloggs 11y ago

There's another possible solution, too, which for the 95% of post-secondary institutions you've never heard of is either already the status quo or would be a much more economical answer. That solution is to get out of the business of athletics. If you are not a "power 5" program or one of the top NCAA D-I basketball programs, athletics is a money-loser. The UAB debacle provides a pretty good case study in why this is so: there are only a handful of universities that the system will allow to make any money. So what looks like one problem is really two: first, the employee-athletes at the major athletic programs aren't being paid, and they should be. But the flip side of the coin is that many of the same retarded rules that harm those employees are being applied to people playing sports at much smaller programs, where they are not at all profitable and there is essentially zero chance that anyone is ever going to make their career as a major league athlete. That's the second problem. The solution to the first problem is complex. It starts with paying your employees. But there's more to it than that: something has to be done about the fiction that those employees are fundamentally students. They're not. Scandal after scandal shows every trick and dodge in the book is and will continue to be used to keep functionally illiterate players off the academically ineligible list and on the field. It would be healthier, if these schools insist on keeping their highly profitable athletic programs, to partner with the NBA and NFL (baseball doesn't really have this problem) to transition their status to minor league affiliates. In the process, they could also cut the sanctimonious and absurd NCAA out of the game. No more scandals, no more bullshit. But it's going to take some work to get from here to there. The solution to the second problem is very simple. For the other 95%, no more NCAA rules (they're designed for the big-money programs to deceive themselves, not for the others). No more TV, period. Not that most of them are ever on TV anyway, except for the one or two games a year they volunteer to be slaughtered by far superior competition to fund the rest of their season (in games which, for no conceivable reason, actually count for both teams!). No more licensing. If they want to sell merchandise, they can sell it at the campus bookstore. Not like any of them are making millions from Amazon or Foot Locker anyway. Above all else, no more "athletic scholarships", a profound contradiction in terms hardly anyone ever ponders long enough to recognize. That means no more pressure, no more extended seasons, and no more faux students hanging around in hopes of transferring to a big-money program so they can get their shot at the big time. If you want to play intercollegiate sports, fine. But the reason those academic standards that are so low yet somehow impossible for the big guys to meet without cheating exist in the first place is to prevent students who don't have time for a hobby from being distracted from their studies. Raise them, high. If you don't have at least a 3.25, you have no business doing anything but studying. And without the pressure of having to maintain your "athletic scholarship", why should you? No more games against hopelessly superior competition. You'll play against other teams of full-time students with no funding for fancy uniforms and gleaming locker rooms, at a simple gym or on a field shared with 8 other teams next to a single set of bleachers. High school baseball teams don't play against AA clubs; there's no excuse for pay-for-play in other sports, either. If you can't fund your athletic programs through student fees, they get cut. Simple as that. But stop pretending that "student athletics", a huge money loser and waste of time and energy, is a necessary part of your institutional identity, or that it "builds character". There's nothing wrong with intercollegiate athletics as a hobby, a diversion, another way to network, and a way to stay in shape while you study. But that's all it is. Don't let the tail wag the dog. Because as bad as the futile aspiration of making a major-league professional club is for the 98% who never will, the small schools (or large schools with small athletic programs) forced to play by the same rules as the big boys are in exactly the same spot. The first step is admitting that you're not competitive and never will be. Once you've done that, a whole world of refreshingly decent options opens up.

RandallBrown 11y ago

College athletes are paid. I'm not just talking about getting free school. They get free housing, free food, and lots of other free benefits that are all completely allowed by the NCAA. That's without any of the shady booster money. The athletes I knew (two large division 1 schools) got considerable housing and food stipends. They were quite a bit more than what most students were paying for rent in the area and these athletes had much more disposable income than most of the regular students I knew.

fphhotchips 11y ago

I've never understood why the American model of mixing academics with athletics came to existence. I understand why it continues, of course, since the status quo nearly always does. The Australian(/European? I'm not sure) model of having schools only passingly involved with athletics, and then having the athletics clubs and associations as separate entities just makes much more sense to me. First, it allows for amateur sports to continue well past high school/college, allowing those who compete for fun and fitness to do so. Sports, after all, shouldn't just something you watch on TV once you're out of school. Second, apart from providing a fun diversion to students in much the same way as a video gaming club might do, why should any teaching institution be involved in sports? Surely that's outside the core mission.