4 ms·

He’s an outlier. The overwhelming majority of college football players will make no money from it.

by umanwizard 8y ago

metalliqaz 8y ago
What about a degree?
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Often it’s essentially an on-paper degree in soft majors specifically designed to cater to athlete schedules and ensure minimal attendance or effort is needed to pass and stay eligible for sports. For the majority of D-1 student athletes, unless they go pro (a tiny percentage) or otherwise convert their college fame into a career, the degree does not open any doors. There are exceptions, but it’s rare. Even athletes who do make it pro are often fucked over by the teams they play for, agents, financial advisors, etc., and a lot of them still end up poor, especially if they are more of a roster player who only manage to stay in the league for a few seasons. For example, I’d guess a lot of people reading this article earn more than median salary for Major League Soccer. In 2016 the median was around $117,000 per year, with around 40 players (on senior rosters) earning the league minimum of about $55,000 [1]. Professional sports leagues are pretty brutal places for all but the biggest stars and of course managers and executives (unsurprisingly disproportionately white men as well...). [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2016/09/07/major-league-soccers-top-earning-players/#721f82831dee https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2016/09/07/maj...
  - bruceb 8y ago
    >Even athletes who do make it pro are often fucked over by the teams they play for, agents, financial advisors, etc., and a lot of them still end up poor, especially if they are more of a roster player who only manage to stay in the league for a few seasons. Yes, but that is supposing they would not end up the same way had they not played. Also there are lots of people would love to earn 55K to play soccer. Lots of people actually pay for the privilege to play normal people in their same city...
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      > "Yes, but that is supposing they would not end up the same way had they not played." That's supposing they would wind up with brain damage if they had not played. For most it seems likely to be a net loss, but try explaining that to a teenager who only wants to consider the moonshot of making it big.
  - moftz 8y ago
    Just having a BA in anything is going to open more job opportunities than not having one. Even just having an Associates is going to open more than just a highschool diploma. A lot of athletes get degrees in things like biology and communications, not exceptionally hard majors but they still have that piece of paper if they graduate. Unless you want to work minimum wage or ruin your body working manual labor, a degree in anything is required. Could these kids have gone further in life going to a trade school? Could they have joined the military and went to college for a competitive degree under the GI Bill? Maybe, but at the time, a scholarship to play football at a university was a lot of kids only opportunity.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      It's honestly very difficult for me to understand this mentality. Is a degree supposed to represent a certain level of education, or is it just an arbitrary way of sorting people into different social classes? There was another article on HN about how a masters' degree in physics increases earnings and is a great career move. Should we find a few thousand kids who are outliers in some bodily attribute every year, and arbitrarily give them physics masters' degrees? Wouldn't there be some serious drawbacks to this? How is this different from giving BAs with basically zero academic requirements to people because of their football skill? The system in the US is just so bizarre. In every single other country in the world[1], universities are one thing, and elite amateur or semi-pro sports leagues are another thing, and nobody would really imagine mixing them. [1]: This is literally true, as far as I know, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I actually get pretty annoyed when people talk about how the US is the "only country in the world" with various problems like violence or healthcare, because usually by "the world" they mean "highly developed Western and Northern Europe". But in this case I think there are actually literally zero other examples of countries with the dysfunctional fusion of academia and semi-pro sports that exists in the US.
      - moftz 8y ago
        Unfortunately, the US poor and middle class cannot usually attend higher-education unless given a massive scholarship through some sort of application process (which they might not even get) or take out large loans that take decades to pay back in most cases. Athletic programs offer help to the few that perform at the peak of their sport. It's not a great system, it's a lottery for student athletes who can't afford college. I don't think university athletics programs are the worst thing, it should be separate but it's not the major problem. The major issue is the requirement of a college degree for anything and the lack of major public funding. Sure, you can get grants from the govt that help cover school but very few people can attend school with zero expenses. I think that part needs to change. I think free college (and discounted university tuition) would greatly improve things. It would also have an affect of university athletics program where they wouldn't be able to dangle such massive opportunities in poor people's faces to attract them to their school. If kids are less focused on getting the athletic scholarship, they would be able to focus on school more.
jedberg 8y ago
No but they will have a college degree. And in 26% of the cases they are the first person in their family to have a degree.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  The correct way to solve this problem is to make it so that poor but intelligent people can get into college and afford it, not to give fake credentials to people based on football skill.
  - JakeTheAndroid 8y ago
    This has it's own inherent bias. Poorer families have less structure and can make it harder for kids in those households to succeed academically. Sports at least allows another avenue for children of lower income families to find their way to college. There should just also be more money for lower income academic students. But, that is far harder to monetize. Football programs generate tons of money, which then pays for the student to attend that school for free.
    - zbentley 8y ago
      > Poorer families have less structure What? Citation needed. I totally grant your conclusion that there are big obstacles to academic success for kids growing up in poverty, but, if what you mean what I think you mean, that's a wrong basis for that conclusion.
      - macintux 8y ago
        I’m neither the poster nor do I have any citations, but it does seem difficult to argue that a single parent household where the breadwinner is working two or three jobs won’t have less active supervision.
      - JakeTheAndroid 8y ago
        [0] - http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-poverty-rates-and-family-structure.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-poverty-ra... [1] - https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-amer... I am not sure what you think I mean. But what I mean is poorer families have less support, and parents spend less time with their children. This can have cognitive and emotional impact on them impacting academic success and overall emotional maturity.

He’s an outlier. The overwhelming majority of college football players will make no money from it.

metalliqaz 8y ago

What about a degree?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Often it’s essentially an on-paper degree in soft majors specifically designed to cater to athlete schedules and ensure minimal attendance or effort is needed to pass and stay eligible for sports. For the majority of D-1 student athletes, unless they go pro (a tiny percentage) or otherwise convert their college fame into a career, the degree does not open any doors. There are exceptions, but it’s rare. Even athletes who do make it pro are often fucked over by the teams they play for, agents, financial advisors, etc., and a lot of them still end up poor, especially if they are more of a roster player who only manage to stay in the league for a few seasons. For example, I’d guess a lot of people reading this article earn more than median salary for Major League Soccer. In 2016 the median was around $117,000 per year, with around 40 players (on senior rosters) earning the league minimum of about $55,000 [1]. Professional sports leagues are pretty brutal places for all but the biggest stars and of course managers and executives (unsurprisingly disproportionately white men as well...). [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2016/09/07/major-league-soccers-top-earning-players/#721f82831dee https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2016/09/07/maj...
- bruceb 8y ago
  >Even athletes who do make it pro are often fucked over by the teams they play for, agents, financial advisors, etc., and a lot of them still end up poor, especially if they are more of a roster player who only manage to stay in the league for a few seasons. Yes, but that is supposing they would not end up the same way had they not played. Also there are lots of people would love to earn 55K to play soccer. Lots of people actually pay for the privilege to play normal people in their same city...
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    > "Yes, but that is supposing they would not end up the same way had they not played." That's supposing they would wind up with brain damage if they had not played. For most it seems likely to be a net loss, but try explaining that to a teenager who only wants to consider the moonshot of making it big.
- moftz 8y ago
  Just having a BA in anything is going to open more job opportunities than not having one. Even just having an Associates is going to open more than just a highschool diploma. A lot of athletes get degrees in things like biology and communications, not exceptionally hard majors but they still have that piece of paper if they graduate. Unless you want to work minimum wage or ruin your body working manual labor, a degree in anything is required. Could these kids have gone further in life going to a trade school? Could they have joined the military and went to college for a competitive degree under the GI Bill? Maybe, but at the time, a scholarship to play football at a university was a lot of kids only opportunity.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    It's honestly very difficult for me to understand this mentality. Is a degree supposed to represent a certain level of education, or is it just an arbitrary way of sorting people into different social classes? There was another article on HN about how a masters' degree in physics increases earnings and is a great career move. Should we find a few thousand kids who are outliers in some bodily attribute every year, and arbitrarily give them physics masters' degrees? Wouldn't there be some serious drawbacks to this? How is this different from giving BAs with basically zero academic requirements to people because of their football skill? The system in the US is just so bizarre. In every single other country in the world[1], universities are one thing, and elite amateur or semi-pro sports leagues are another thing, and nobody would really imagine mixing them. [1]: This is literally true, as far as I know, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I actually get pretty annoyed when people talk about how the US is the "only country in the world" with various problems like violence or healthcare, because usually by "the world" they mean "highly developed Western and Northern Europe". But in this case I think there are actually literally zero other examples of countries with the dysfunctional fusion of academia and semi-pro sports that exists in the US.
    - moftz 8y ago
      Unfortunately, the US poor and middle class cannot usually attend higher-education unless given a massive scholarship through some sort of application process (which they might not even get) or take out large loans that take decades to pay back in most cases. Athletic programs offer help to the few that perform at the peak of their sport. It's not a great system, it's a lottery for student athletes who can't afford college. I don't think university athletics programs are the worst thing, it should be separate but it's not the major problem. The major issue is the requirement of a college degree for anything and the lack of major public funding. Sure, you can get grants from the govt that help cover school but very few people can attend school with zero expenses. I think that part needs to change. I think free college (and discounted university tuition) would greatly improve things. It would also have an affect of university athletics program where they wouldn't be able to dangle such massive opportunities in poor people's faces to attract them to their school. If kids are less focused on getting the athletic scholarship, they would be able to focus on school more.

jedberg 8y ago

No but they will have a college degree. And in 26% of the cases they are the first person in their family to have a degree.

umanwizard 8y ago
The correct way to solve this problem is to make it so that poor but intelligent people can get into college and afford it, not to give fake credentials to people based on football skill.
- JakeTheAndroid 8y ago
  This has it's own inherent bias. Poorer families have less structure and can make it harder for kids in those households to succeed academically. Sports at least allows another avenue for children of lower income families to find their way to college. There should just also be more money for lower income academic students. But, that is far harder to monetize. Football programs generate tons of money, which then pays for the student to attend that school for free.
  - zbentley 8y ago
    > Poorer families have less structure What? Citation needed. I totally grant your conclusion that there are big obstacles to academic success for kids growing up in poverty, but, if what you mean what I think you mean, that's a wrong basis for that conclusion.
    - macintux 8y ago
      I’m neither the poster nor do I have any citations, but it does seem difficult to argue that a single parent household where the breadwinner is working two or three jobs won’t have less active supervision.
    - JakeTheAndroid 8y ago
      [0] - http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-poverty-rates-and-family-structure.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-poverty-ra... [1] - https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-amer... I am not sure what you think I mean. But what I mean is poorer families have less support, and parents spend less time with their children. This can have cognitive and emotional impact on them impacting academic success and overall emotional maturity.