8 ms·

The true injustice is how much money universities make on the backs of athletes who don't earn a red cent. And the coach salaries demonstrate the value of colle

The true injustice is how much money universities make on the backs of athletes who don't earn a red cent. And the coach salaries demonstrate the value of collegiate athletics, adding insult to real injuries.

Alex3917 18y ago
I don't understand this view that just because you're doing work you deserve to get paid. Rowing was the first amateur sport in the United States, and if you look back at the history of why Rowing when amateur in the late 1800s then you see there are some very good reasons. The reason the NCAA is amateur is because it creates a better experience for athletes. You don't have to worry about people fixing the games, getting stabbed, being pressured to take steroids, sports overshadowing schoolwork, etc. If athletes started earning a salary then you'd see a lot of the best student-athletes give up sports overnight. I certainly would have. Furthermore, schools aren't making money on the backs of athletes, they're raising money. That money doesn't get redistributed to shareholders, it gets added to the endowment and spent on the university. If anything student-athletes should get an income tax credit on their first X dollars earned after college rather than a check, basically a modified form of the tax credit they would get for any other charitable contribution.
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  That's a very naive perspective. Briefly, * There is tremendous pressure to juice for any athlete who hopes to go pro or even be competitive. * People gamble heavily on collegiate athletics. Of course you have to worry about fixed games. * Look at USC, Miami, or just about any major sports school: The players barely have to attend class to remain eligible. * No, they're making money. Take a look at the salaries of coaches, athletic directors, and college presidents and think again. If universities cared about endowments, they'd spend the athletic dollars on academics, investing in contributions from future alumni. I highly recommend "What's My Name, Fool!", specifically the section on collegiate athletics (page 230). http://books.google.com/books?id=ut3M85a6yTMC&dq=What%27s+my+name,+fool&pg=PP1&ots=qpDGt6hEac&source=bn&sig=kEjOQBDaMbUH6EG5Cm3BOBzo9LA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result http://books.google.com/books?id=ut3M85a6yTMC&dq=What%27...
  - Alex3917 18y ago
    It seems to me that your view of the 380,000 U.S. student-athletes is heavily skewed toward on the 200 people you see on TV. Creating policy based on this view is the equivalent of designing child protection laws to benefit the one missing white girl on CNN. I'll check out the book though.
    - eru 18y ago
      The Onion: "Ugly Girl Killed - Nation Unshaken By Not-So-Tragic Death" http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30112 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30112
    - thomasmallen 18y ago
      To take an example from the source I cited, Maurice Clarett wouldn't be very profitable without the other 54 players on his team, or the opponent for that matter.
    - dgabriel 18y ago
      I don't think we're talking about all student athletes, here, but specifically the higher profile athletic teams (men's basketball, football, hockey). Try to get a million+ to finance the fencing team, or women's wrestling, or (har) ultimate frisbee, or any other worthwhile, but not extremely popular, sport. The 200 people you see on TV get a disproportionate amount of the funding.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      College basketball + College baseball + College football = thousands of players. Even though it might be a small percent of the total, it's still a significant amount of people.
      - Retric 18y ago
        And a free ride to a good school is the equivalent of a 50+k a year salary without working the full year.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  This brings up another group who makes huge money at some universities - the people managing that endowment. From http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510756 http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510756 "Former bond managers David R. Mittelman and Maurice Samuels were paid $18 million and $16.9 million, respectively, for their work at Harvard Management Company (HMC), which invests the endowment. Jack R. Meyer, the firm’s former president, received $6 million for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005." Not that they don't deserve it.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
wumi 18y ago
To be fair, with the skyrocketing cost of tuition, so increases the value of a full-tuition (and room & board) scholarship. While the athletes 'don't earn a red cent,' it is fair to say that they get compensated in many other ways, one of which is free tuition (for the best athletes). At a major sports school, athletes get tons of perks - from scheduling classes early, private tutoring available in any subject if needed, room & board, clothing & athletic gear, personal medical trainers & Doctors, etc. Of course, it is in the athletic department/University's interest to take very good care of their players -- both for the ability to bring in new talent, and also for the continued exceptional performance of the players on the field. All that being said, there are many sports out of the typical 29 at a D-I University, that are not profitable and not generating significant revenue. Typically, from all the empirical data I've seen, that would be every sport except for Football & Basketball. So there is a bit of 'wealth distribution' as players in sports that aren't significant money-makers still have access to full-tuition scholarships.
quantumhobbit 18y ago
Technically the athletes are being compensated. Not monetarily but with an education. This may not appeal to the superstar with pro ambitions, but for a majority of athletes an education(with a full scholarship) that might not have been available if they didn't play sports is appealing. Most Div I schools go out of their way to hire tutors for their athletes, something they would never do for the average student.

Alex3917 18y ago

I don't understand this view that just because you're doing work you deserve to get paid. Rowing was the first amateur sport in the United States, and if you look back at the history of why Rowing when amateur in the late 1800s then you see there are some very good reasons. The reason the NCAA is amateur is because it creates a better experience for athletes. You don't have to worry about people fixing the games, getting stabbed, being pressured to take steroids, sports overshadowing schoolwork, etc. If athletes started earning a salary then you'd see a lot of the best student-athletes give up sports overnight. I certainly would have. Furthermore, schools aren't making money on the backs of athletes, they're raising money. That money doesn't get redistributed to shareholders, it gets added to the endowment and spent on the university. If anything student-athletes should get an income tax credit on their first X dollars earned after college rather than a check, basically a modified form of the tax credit they would get for any other charitable contribution.

thomasmallen 18y ago
That's a very naive perspective. Briefly, * There is tremendous pressure to juice for any athlete who hopes to go pro or even be competitive. * People gamble heavily on collegiate athletics. Of course you have to worry about fixed games. * Look at USC, Miami, or just about any major sports school: The players barely have to attend class to remain eligible. * No, they're making money. Take a look at the salaries of coaches, athletic directors, and college presidents and think again. If universities cared about endowments, they'd spend the athletic dollars on academics, investing in contributions from future alumni. I highly recommend "What's My Name, Fool!", specifically the section on collegiate athletics (page 230). http://books.google.com/books?id=ut3M85a6yTMC&dq=What%27s+my+name,+fool&pg=PP1&ots=qpDGt6hEac&source=bn&sig=kEjOQBDaMbUH6EG5Cm3BOBzo9LA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result http://books.google.com/books?id=ut3M85a6yTMC&dq=What%27...
- Alex3917 18y ago
  It seems to me that your view of the 380,000 U.S. student-athletes is heavily skewed toward on the 200 people you see on TV. Creating policy based on this view is the equivalent of designing child protection laws to benefit the one missing white girl on CNN. I'll check out the book though.
  - eru 18y ago
    The Onion: "Ugly Girl Killed - Nation Unshaken By Not-So-Tragic Death" http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30112 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30112
  - thomasmallen 18y ago
    To take an example from the source I cited, Maurice Clarett wouldn't be very profitable without the other 54 players on his team, or the opponent for that matter.
  - dgabriel 18y ago
    I don't think we're talking about all student athletes, here, but specifically the higher profile athletic teams (men's basketball, football, hockey). Try to get a million+ to finance the fencing team, or women's wrestling, or (har) ultimate frisbee, or any other worthwhile, but not extremely popular, sport. The 200 people you see on TV get a disproportionate amount of the funding.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    College basketball + College baseball + College football = thousands of players. Even though it might be a small percent of the total, it's still a significant amount of people.
    - Retric 18y ago
      And a free ride to a good school is the equivalent of a 50+k a year salary without working the full year.
ojbyrne 18y ago
This brings up another group who makes huge money at some universities - the people managing that endowment. From http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510756 http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510756 "Former bond managers David R. Mittelman and Maurice Samuels were paid $18 million and $16.9 million, respectively, for their work at Harvard Management Company (HMC), which invests the endowment. Jack R. Meyer, the firm’s former president, received $6 million for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005." Not that they don't deserve it.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

wumi 18y ago

To be fair, with the skyrocketing cost of tuition, so increases the value of a full-tuition (and room & board) scholarship. While the athletes 'don't earn a red cent,' it is fair to say that they get compensated in many other ways, one of which is free tuition (for the best athletes). At a major sports school, athletes get tons of perks - from scheduling classes early, private tutoring available in any subject if needed, room & board, clothing & athletic gear, personal medical trainers & Doctors, etc. Of course, it is in the athletic department/University's interest to take very good care of their players -- both for the ability to bring in new talent, and also for the continued exceptional performance of the players on the field. All that being said, there are many sports out of the typical 29 at a D-I University, that are not profitable and not generating significant revenue. Typically, from all the empirical data I've seen, that would be every sport except for Football & Basketball. So there is a bit of 'wealth distribution' as players in sports that aren't significant money-makers still have access to full-tuition scholarships.

quantumhobbit 18y ago

Technically the athletes are being compensated. Not monetarily but with an education. This may not appeal to the superstar with pro ambitions, but for a majority of athletes an education(with a full scholarship) that might not have been available if they didn't play sports is appealing. Most Div I schools go out of their way to hire tutors for their athletes, something they would never do for the average student.