8 ms·

>Or Option 3, just change the NCAA rules to match California, and let players get paid. It needs to be pointed out that this law doesn't allow schools to pay p

by slg 7y ago

>Or Option 3, just change the NCAA rules to match California, and let players get paid. It needs to be pointed out that this law doesn't allow schools to pay players directly. There probably isn't enough money for that without totally restructuring athletic departments around the country (a football team like USC is wildly profitable, but most of that profit goes to pay for unprofitable teams like swimming, volleyball, etc). Paying players directly also has a number of Title IX repercussions that would likely need to be ironed out in court. This law instead allows the players a way to make money for themselves based off their participation in sports. That simply frees athletes up in the same way that non-athletes are unrestricted from how they can earn money while in school. No actor is going to be kicked out of their school's theater program because they got $200 for acting in a local car commercial. Now the football player won't either.

kodablah 7y ago
Is there a meaningful difference between a school paying players with booster-provided money and a company doing so? EDIT: To clarify, I mean a "practical" difference whether a booster gives money to a school to pay players or gives it to a company to do so. The payer matters to law, not to the paid nor to the practical result.
- jsgo 7y ago
  One is an employee, the other is basically an influencer?
- aripickar 7y ago
  In terms of title IX repercussions, there very much is.
  - kodablah 7y ago
    I was a bit too succinct and therefore unclear. To rephrase, is there any meaningful difference between a booster paying players via the university or a booster taking their money to pay a player and doing it via a company instead? I understand the legal ramifications of who the payer is seen as, I am talking about the practical ramifications and whether a school having a player that is paid by a company rooting for the school (and with monies from same pockets) is meaningfully different. I'd say not.
    - aripickar 7y ago
      The practical difference is that title IX means that universities have to provide equal opportunity for male and female students. If a donor wants the university to pay male athletes $1 from his pocket per athlete, he would have to donate $2 per athlete, since there needs to be equal opportunity for males and females. Currently that manifested itself in equal scholarships, but if the law changes, I would assume it would end up mandating equal $$
- slg 7y ago
  You will have Title IX problems as soon as the school is directly involved paying players. No school receiving federal funds can provide a benefit to its male football players that it doesn't also provide its female field hockey players. Personally, I also feel that boosters have too much direct involvement in athletic departments as is. Removing the school from the booster-player relationship and bringing booster payment to players out from under the table could potentially help clean up some of the corruption in college sports.
- shiloa 7y ago
  Of course - think about schools with deep pockets compared to those without much; top talent will flock to these, leaving smaller/less wealthy schools. Today athletes weigh a lot of factors when choosing where to attend - academics, athletic program, campus life, etc. If this becomes the norm I suspect we'll see clusters of high talent in "rich" schools. I don't think that will be good for the long run.
  - wkrp 7y ago
    That already happens now. See Ole Miss: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892/ole-miss-ncaa-allegations-list-updated-2017 https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892...
alistairSH 7y ago
How do the military academies get around the "no direct payment" rule? AFAIK, all their students (athletes included) are salaried members of the armed services. For a Navy football players, it's literally part of their job description to go to practice and show up on Saturdays.
- cronix 7y ago
  How is that different than a scholarship paying room/board/tuition for athletes?
  - jkeuhlen 7y ago
    Because in addition to room/board/tuition, those at military academies are also paid a salary. It's above and beyond cost of schooling, and goes directly to the students instead of to defray education costs. I think that's the "direct" part of "no direct pay".
    - wkrp 7y ago
      You are not paid a salary while in a military academy, you are given a stipend from which they deduct food, board, and other costs.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    jkeuhlen covered it. Students at the military academies are both on full scholarship (tuition and board paid by the taxpayers) and salaried. After required [non-academic] expenses (uniforms, laundry, etc) the "take home" is tiny. But, that doesn't negate the fact that they are salaried employees of the US government. And, just to be clear, I'm in no way arguing students at the service academies are over-paid, or shouldn't be paid, or anything like that. I'm just curious if they have an explicit exemption from the NCAA, or if the NCAA isn't following it's own rules.
- wkrp 7y ago
  I know for the Naval Academy, you don't get the salary. Even if you were previous enlisted you are no longer paid your salary, though I believe the 4 years in the academy count towards retirement.
scott_s 7y ago
Is USC's football program wildly profitable? The Washington Post published a great investigative piece in 2015 showing how most big football programs are in the red: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/runni...
- sarah180 7y ago
  "Profit" just isn't really the right concept here. They pay their coach $3.2 million every year. In 62% of US states, the highest paid public employee is a football coach. In another 16% it's a basketball coach. Regardless of whether they return some of their windfall to the endowment, they're raking in cash. Hollywood movies often show a loss after the studio deducts all the expensive things they bought themselves. Everybody with points against net gets nothing, but the studio still does just fine.
  - scott_s 7y ago
    I think profit is the right concept. People see the massive spending of these programs, and even if it strikes them as extravagant, they also see the massive revenue of these programs. I think most discussions around this issue take as an assumption that the revenues covers the spending. I think a common way of thinking is "Yeah, it's pretty ludicrous for our university to spend that much money on the football program, but they make it all back, so it's a wash." But it usually doesn't. That's important, and I think would change how people considered the programs if this fact was more widely considered. I don't think Hollywood movies are a good comparison. The studios will play accounting tricks by setting up shell companies for the purposes of screwing over the people who actually made the movie [1]. That's just pushing paper around, though: if the movies makes more than the studio spent, they turned a profit. Universities aren't doing that; many of their football programs are actual money losers, and they get that money from student tuition or the state if it's a public university. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/holly...
    - 7y ago

by slg 7y ago

kodablah 7y ago

Is there a meaningful difference between a school paying players with booster-provided money and a company doing so? EDIT: To clarify, I mean a "practical" difference whether a booster gives money to a school to pay players or gives it to a company to do so. The payer matters to law, not to the paid nor to the practical result.

jsgo 7y ago
One is an employee, the other is basically an influencer?
aripickar 7y ago
In terms of title IX repercussions, there very much is.
- kodablah 7y ago
  I was a bit too succinct and therefore unclear. To rephrase, is there any meaningful difference between a booster paying players via the university or a booster taking their money to pay a player and doing it via a company instead? I understand the legal ramifications of who the payer is seen as, I am talking about the practical ramifications and whether a school having a player that is paid by a company rooting for the school (and with monies from same pockets) is meaningfully different. I'd say not.
  - aripickar 7y ago
    The practical difference is that title IX means that universities have to provide equal opportunity for male and female students. If a donor wants the university to pay male athletes $1 from his pocket per athlete, he would have to donate $2 per athlete, since there needs to be equal opportunity for males and females. Currently that manifested itself in equal scholarships, but if the law changes, I would assume it would end up mandating equal $$
slg 7y ago
You will have Title IX problems as soon as the school is directly involved paying players. No school receiving federal funds can provide a benefit to its male football players that it doesn't also provide its female field hockey players. Personally, I also feel that boosters have too much direct involvement in athletic departments as is. Removing the school from the booster-player relationship and bringing booster payment to players out from under the table could potentially help clean up some of the corruption in college sports.
shiloa 7y ago
Of course - think about schools with deep pockets compared to those without much; top talent will flock to these, leaving smaller/less wealthy schools. Today athletes weigh a lot of factors when choosing where to attend - academics, athletic program, campus life, etc. If this becomes the norm I suspect we'll see clusters of high talent in "rich" schools. I don't think that will be good for the long run.
- wkrp 7y ago
  That already happens now. See Ole Miss: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892/ole-miss-ncaa-allegations-list-updated-2017 https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892...

alistairSH 7y ago

How do the military academies get around the "no direct payment" rule? AFAIK, all their students (athletes included) are salaried members of the armed services. For a Navy football players, it's literally part of their job description to go to practice and show up on Saturdays.

cronix 7y ago
How is that different than a scholarship paying room/board/tuition for athletes?
- jkeuhlen 7y ago
  Because in addition to room/board/tuition, those at military academies are also paid a salary. It's above and beyond cost of schooling, and goes directly to the students instead of to defray education costs. I think that's the "direct" part of "no direct pay".
  - wkrp 7y ago
    You are not paid a salary while in a military academy, you are given a stipend from which they deduct food, board, and other costs.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  jkeuhlen covered it. Students at the military academies are both on full scholarship (tuition and board paid by the taxpayers) and salaried. After required [non-academic] expenses (uniforms, laundry, etc) the "take home" is tiny. But, that doesn't negate the fact that they are salaried employees of the US government. And, just to be clear, I'm in no way arguing students at the service academies are over-paid, or shouldn't be paid, or anything like that. I'm just curious if they have an explicit exemption from the NCAA, or if the NCAA isn't following it's own rules.
wkrp 7y ago
I know for the Naval Academy, you don't get the salary. Even if you were previous enlisted you are no longer paid your salary, though I believe the 4 years in the academy count towards retirement.

scott_s 7y ago

Is USC's football program wildly profitable? The Washington Post published a great investigative piece in 2015 showing how most big football programs are in the red: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/runni...

sarah180 7y ago
"Profit" just isn't really the right concept here. They pay their coach $3.2 million every year. In 62% of US states, the highest paid public employee is a football coach. In another 16% it's a basketball coach. Regardless of whether they return some of their windfall to the endowment, they're raking in cash. Hollywood movies often show a loss after the studio deducts all the expensive things they bought themselves. Everybody with points against net gets nothing, but the studio still does just fine.
- scott_s 7y ago
  I think profit is the right concept. People see the massive spending of these programs, and even if it strikes them as extravagant, they also see the massive revenue of these programs. I think most discussions around this issue take as an assumption that the revenues covers the spending. I think a common way of thinking is "Yeah, it's pretty ludicrous for our university to spend that much money on the football program, but they make it all back, so it's a wash." But it usually doesn't. That's important, and I think would change how people considered the programs if this fact was more widely considered. I don't think Hollywood movies are a good comparison. The studios will play accounting tricks by setting up shell companies for the purposes of screwing over the people who actually made the movie [1]. That's just pushing paper around, though: if the movies makes more than the studio spent, they turned a profit. Universities aren't doing that; many of their football programs are actual money losers, and they get that money from student tuition or the state if it's a public university. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/holly...
  - 7y ago