The likelihood that this season was going to be played is increasingly slim anyway so the idea that they'd boycott a season that might not happen is quite odd. Also, there's no chance at all these types of demands could be negotiated in the next month. Finally, a 50/50 revenue share? Really?? The NFL doesn't even get that.
The players deserve to have their safety considered and I like the idea of extending their insurance but, on the whole, the demands seem too extreme to garner any serious consideration.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Hell yes, it's great timing for the players, not the fans for sure. 6 years of health insurance post graduation is obviously not feasible, I think the strategy there is hoping it'll get bargained down to 2 or 3 instead of completely ignored.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm not sure they do. If VT players went on strike, I'd still watch the replacements. I'd honestly be happy if schools didn't give out athletic scholarships for any sport, and there were no exemptions to admissions standards for athletes.
Having said that, I can get on board with some post-graduation insurance.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
First of all, did you what happened when Chuba Hubbard threatened not to play after he saw a picture of Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt? You see how quickly Mike Gundy hopped on that shit? The players have tons of leverage.
If VT players went on strike, I'd still watch the replacements.
If VT players striked, there's no way Fuente could find 85 replacement players before the season. Even if the NCAA removed the 25 scholarship limit cap, there's no way you could find 85 suitable players between seasons. So, assuming that one season is down, that fucks up everything for the ACC - revenue share, TV money, etc. Then imagine that mulitple teams started to do this... All of a sudden the Jenga tower that is college football is very unstable.
I'd honestly be happy if schools didn't give out athletic scholarships for any sport, and there were no exemptions to admissions standards for athletes.
So you'd watch intramural sports? Because that's what it would be. So many of these kids would be unable to afford college. New minor leagues would form, and college sports would no longer be a path to the NFL. You could argue this would be in the best interest of the player (and you could also argue that's what society should focus on), but no way this makes for a better fan experience.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Chuba Hubbard got one of the most old-school coaches in college football to publicly apologize for wearing a shirt affiliated with an alt-right media network, admit ignorance (Gundy's words, not mine), and publicly support a movement that is completely opposed to his political philosophy. Chuba's goal wasn't to increase equity for college football players; his goal was to get his coach to renounce a media outlet that offended him. And he did it roughly 24 hours.
Ignoring the politics of the issue, this marks a monumental, albeit small, shift in the power dynamic between players and coaches. I don't think players could get 50% of revenue if they wanted, but I think you're underestimating how much leverage they do hold.
EDIT: Original phrasing unintentionally implied that Gundy was ignorant or stubborn because of his political views. That was NOT the intent of my comment.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I guess I don't think an apology from a college football coach means jack shit. Public opinion was heavily slanted against Gundy and it was just the smart PR move. That won't be the case in a widespread boycott.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So you'd watch intramural sports? Because that's what it would be.
It would be more like Division III. Which is in no way a problem. As it stands a lot of players don't get a quality education from their scholarship anyway, so are they really gaining anything?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Definitely agree. But, there's a reason people don't watch D3 sports. Mount Union, the best D3 football program (arguable one of the best college football programs of all time) has a 5600 person stadium, and doesn't always fill it. Perhaps you would continue to watch college football if it was no longer the minor league, but most wouldn't.
As it stands a lot of players don't get a quality education from their scholarship anyway, so are they really gaining anything?
It would be really interesting to see a statistical breakdown of wear D1 football players land 3-5 years out of school. My understanding is that majority wind up as high school coaches, but there are definitely plenty who use their degree.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
In defense of OHokie, there would still be a division 1 (or whatever you would call it) where the best players left in the pot play. How many NFL players are on an average FBS team at a given time, and how different would the game actually look if they were substituted with guys that are on the bubble or just below? FBS would essentially look more like FCS, which isn't bad football. Considering I am watching my school's team, I would still be interested. All that said, it isn't something that I want to happen though.
I do not think the degrees are wasted by athletes at any significant measure more than the general student population.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
a CNN investigation revealed that most schools have between 7% and 18% of revenue sport athletes who are reading at an elementary school level. Some had even higher percentages of below-threshold athletes.
Speaking anecdotally, I knew a handful of players at VT during my time who basically had tutors do all their homework. Revenue sport athletes get a lot of special treatment at every school, and not just swag, food, and drinks.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
My point was that scholarship football is great for fans and administrators, but you're completely ignoring a lot of ethical dilemmas that plague college athletics (at least revenue sports) today:
Players being admitted to schools that they are in no way prepared for
Players being 'highly encouraged' to take courses or pursue majors that will take as little time away from football as possible
Players relying on tutors not to help them with work, but to do work for them
Players being graded easier on classwork
If we took these things out of college sports, the model would not be sustainable, and fans would not be happy. A minor league would form, and players could just play ball, and not deal with the facade of being a "student"-athlete, which many of them would prefer.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I would prefer a "minor league" to materialize. A lot of these athletes have no intention of graduating and could make money right away based on their level of skill. For those that likely aren't going to go pro or simply want an education to be provided in exchange for them representing their school athletically, so be it. I think it would greatly simplify a lot of the problems we're seeing.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree. I would be completely onboard for an NFL minor league to form for the guys who have major pro aspirations. I'm sure it will have a following, but give me the student athletes who want to come to VT to get an education and also happen to want to play football. Would totally end a lot of the ridiculous recruiting game and put a lot of the focus back on education. Maybe a lot of money leaves the sport and it's more like FCS, but I would be fine with that and still watch VT football. The college football bubble bursting wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Players being admitted to schools that they are in no way prepared for
Players being 'highly encouraged' to take courses or pursue majors that will take as little time away from football as possible
Players relying on tutors not to help them with work, but to do work for them
Players being graded easier on classwork
I agree these are definite problems, and they're not just limited to football. Basketball has the same issues. The difference is I'd rather have athletes come from the general student population (like in D-III) instead of having the charade of "student athletes" who can barely read. The current system isn't really benefitting those players if they don't go pro in their sports (which is the vast majority of them). But I realize that's probably not a popular stance.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You're right, that didn't read very clearly. I've edited it.
Also I strongly disagree that it would damage TV contracts. For college sports people are much bigger fans of their school than of the players. If D-I suddenly decided to draw from the student population only, I'd still watch because I follow VT. That wouldn't change no matter where the players are drawn from.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I get where you're going with this, but I don't think that's a fair comparison. I don't have any direct ties to the Columbus Crew or the Cincinnati Whatever they're called. But I went to VT, and because of that I root for their teams. That wouldn't change just because some players don't qualify for their football team. I'd imagine it's the same for most schools; they'd get ratings regardless of where the players come from.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
My point was to the level of play...and what it's literally worth in the world of TV.
Yes, WE have a connection to VT. And we will watch games. But will some yahoo who didn't go to VT, on a Saturday, turn the game on? Whether it be at home, in a group, or at the sports bar? I'm guessing no. So the revenue would go down because fewer people would be watching. I know I'm not tuning in for D3 level football for other schools like I watch them now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It is all relative. The football being played at those lower tier schools is not bad football. The players just aren't as simultaneously as big and fast as what we are used to. But, put those players in P5 jerseys and play comparable competition in other P5 jerseys, my guess is you would hardly notice the difference. And, tv ratings would still be higher than some random developmental league that fans have no emotional attachment to and would likely fold up before having enough time to develop that attachment.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The difference is I'd rather have athletes come from the general student population (like in D-III) instead of having the charade of "student athletes" who can barely read.
From an ethical perspective, I agree. But I'm pretty confident none of us would enjoy the product as much.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I mostly agree except that I have not seen any proof that a minor league would be sustainable. XFL has better talent than FBS football, but the fans of college football are rabid for their school.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It would be an interesting study if they were held at the same time. Off-season from what the norm is typically does not fair well for upstart sports leagues.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm thinking a minor league similar to the NBA D league. My thought process is that making all college football like D3 would drive players who either (1) are NFL prospects or (2) can't qualify to college to minor league/semi-pro leagues. The remaining pool of players would be (for the most part) less talented, and spread thinner across college football teams, effectively destroying college football as we know it today.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If the minor league was associated with the NFL, sort of like minor league baseball farm teams, I think it would be sustainable. If they can market themselves as getting the top high school talent each year and mixing them with recent college grads who didn't get drafted, it would probably be a decent product. I agree that college fanbases are absolutely rabid because of their love of the school. Even if the overall caliber of athlete was reduced, if the talent was comparable it would still be an extremely exciting product. That's what makes college so unique - people just have so much support for their school and the rivalries that make college football great.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The minor league would fill up as well since there wouldn't be a 4 year eligibility limit and you would reach the point where it becomes like baseball and talented players go to school in all but the 5 star and most 4 star player cases.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think the best way to get a minor league working is to stop the whole student-athlete requirement, make them employees of the athletic department and let them just be associated with the universities. I would add some instruction that make sense for "majoring" in football (personal finance, public speaking). Let the kids take classes in the off season if they want. Or after they complete their time in the football program, or after the NFL.
This way we can get a sequal to NCAA 14, which is my number 1 priority in life. /s
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If they are not students, then there's no reason for them to be associated with the school. I would rather have no football honestly. Or really I would want club football to take its place. If we're just going to pay random people to wear our uniform, winning anything is meaningless. "The kids we paid off the street are better than the kids you paid off the street"
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You said it. I think the Pac 12 schools would tell them to walk and don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. They would just bring replacement players.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is why theyr'e having this discussion this year. The Pac-12 has already announced that they'll honor the scholarships of players who sit out this season. There's no real risk for them right now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
They are not employees and they hold 0 leverage as they are naturally replaced within 2 years. Not to mention fans are loyal to the brands, not the athletes
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yea, but going a year without football would be devistating to an athletic department, and a local economy in some places (as we're about to find out). NFL owners could not play for a year and be fine financially. Not the case for athletic departments.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
In theory they should get insurance from their next employer when they leave college. I could see some type of extended coverage for treatment related to football which seems fair.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Many NFL players have talked about how the after NFL care sucks. They can't afford top notch doctors where in the NFL you have a team of sone of these top doctors in sports medicine seeing you weekly, if not more often. So many have more problems after they play from injuries that they were treated for previously.
It's could to be a lot worse coming out of college with potentially tons of issues and a high deductible plan because that's the only thing your employer offers any more. So you could be out almost $8k AND you need to put in another ~$6k in this year for tax reasons because you'll use it the next year. So that's $14k out of a starting $30k job is going to be tight.
I would definitely want better insurance coming out of college.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm not sure I understand this. You're given a scholarship - if you decide not to play b.c of concerns w/ covid, that's totally fair. I'm sure the university will honor the scholarship, and if not, take a stance on that. To come out and make a list of demands that includes 50% of revenues, seems ungrateful. The school is the one taking all the financial risks and paying all the bills. Are they going to contribute to 50% of the debt if their sport doesn't make a profit?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A. Gotta start somewhere. They knew they had to get their attention...and a 50/50 split proposal does that. When has a first offer ever been accepted by both sides. It's called negotiations. And if they came out and said 2%, well, the conference and schools would toss it directly in the trash and ignore it.
B. This was in the works for some time. They didn't come up with this since Covid started. However, now is as good a time as any especially when there's a good chance football won't be played this fall...so plenty of time to belly up to the table to talk/negotiate.
C. The players are taking a bit of a financial risk by playing each week, with the risk of injury which could eliminate a professional career. So it's not all 100% on one side.
I don't really back either side. Interested in where this goes...and again...the 50/50 split is getting everyone's attention and has them talking about it. That's half the battle nowadays.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's more than professional football careers that are ended by head and neck injuries. They absolutely deserve medical coverage past the end of their playing days.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Hard disagree. 1. Neck injuries that would prevent a normal white collar job are a rare exception, not a norm. 2. CTE is a whole different discussion, and not blanket in any case. 3. Players paralyzed playing college sports is also very rare and not blanket justification for VT paying for your health insurance for 3 years post grad.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There are other injuries beyond that that will affect normal life. Knee surgeries, arthritis, wrist injuries, head injuries (headaches, vision, concussions) can stay with people for decades. And time off for surgery, etc does not exclude the risk. But Risk is the key term. It's not guaranteed that the conferences and schools will loose money either. And if they do, that's 99.99% out of the hands of the ones who suit up.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Right, and most insurance covers that, thus when Joe football player gets a job at Deloitte he is covered. We are talking about injuries suffered that would prevent an athlete from working - period. Those cases are rare.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Rare, but not unheard of. Also, a college degree isn't a guarantee that a person will land an office job with a good, or even half-good benefits package. The way the jobs market has been and is, most recent graduates don't exactly have a ton of offers to choose from.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This. What people seem to forget about them not playing is that their chances of going pro are basically 0 if they don't play. The additional strength and conditioning they receive that is needed for the NFL along with further developing their skillset to achieve is what they don't get by not playing.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is entitlement run amuck. On top of a scholarship they want 50%? It's terribly obtuse. My son, who could have played D-3 easily, and certainly could have made a few D-2 rosters would gladly take the place of someone "on strike" for the petty price of his entire college being paid for.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Have to agree. It's not like Alabama fans switched allegiance to Oklahoma when Jalen Hurts transferred. Pro sports have fans that follow individual players, but in college sports, especially football, it's the name on the front of the jersey that matters most.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yes I would call that bluff by completely ignoring it. Responding to it will cause more media attention. Let a few outspoken players sit out and miss draft exposure
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm sympathetic to the ideas behind what you're saying but what you've actually written (that the players don't get compensated "al all") is patently, demonstrably, obviously false. People need to stop trying to shoehorn this absurd notion into the conversation. The players absolutely are compensated. The debate is around whether it's enough and/or the right kind of compensation.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Okay, if that's true why don't you try starting a business and paying your workers exclusively in benefits.
(I get what you're saying but no it's not equivalent, they are getting 0 monetary compensation there is no standard of meaningful monetary compensation, with some players receiving none at all)
Edit: fixed for DC Wilson
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The players absolutely are compensated. The debate is around whether it's enough and/or the right kind of compensation.
Do you? Do you get what he's saying? Because he's certainly NOT saying "the compensation they have is enough, end of conversation" and yet that seems to be what you responded to.
And, as an aside, I know that people have taken jobs 100% on benefits with no salary. I know someone who worked for an NGO in Haiti for two years in that exact scenario. She had to run the staff of a compound that the NGO used as a base of operations for charitable work. No pay, but food and lodging were covered as well as a discretionary stipend that was tagged to be spent in country (she couldn't save it). She had 6 trips to the US covered per year. Scooter and a beatup truck for getting around (gas covered by the non profit). She loved it. Turned out to be a great resume builder for her as well and got her the job she has now back in the states as a manager.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I know you mean well, but this is some pretty high level reductionism.
If you think individual management/labor agreements are sufficient I have some reading for you about working conditions and pay before labor organizing. Could also go into market theory and explain why that agreement isn't a fair one, but that's probably too far down the road of "political".
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
No I responded to the "patently and demonstrably false" comment. Which is not true because it's generally illegal to pay only in hard benefits and not an actual wage.
I'm glad it worked out for your friend in Haiti, that sounds like a good experience but we have laws against that type of thing here for good reason.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A key difference is that the NGO for whom your friend worked in Haiti wasn't simultaneously making billions in revenue off of her efforts. That's the issue here: everyone except the players is getting paid based on market rates. As I said in a post in another thread, coaches, administrators, conferences, media companies, apparel and game companies, advertisers, et. al., are (collectively) making billions from football and men's basketball. It's a lucrative ecosystem with one glaring exception: the individuals who provide the majority of the value are "paid" in the form of a scholarship and are explicitly prohibited from making money by leveraging their association with the sport. Tellingly, those restrictions apply only to the players, and not to other students, coaches, administrators, media personalities, etc.
Of course, it may be true that for some players, the value of the scholarship meets or exceeds the economic value that they contribute, and they may well be happy to get a "free" education along with the ability to play a sport that they love. But for many others, the value they provide far exceeds the actual cost of their attendance. In the end, the system is rigged so that an elite few profit primarily off of the labor of others.
The good news for players is that this landscape is changing, with the passage of "Fair Pay to Play" and similar laws, as well as the recent NCAA proposal allowing athletes to be compensated for usage of their name and likeness. My take is that the NCAA realized that it was going to end up on the losing end of this fight and is trying to find a middle ground that doesn't involve paying the players directly. Time will tell if this approach will work, versus a true revenue-sharing model.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I highly doubt this comes to fruition but if it does, Let them walk. I'm sure there are plenty of athletes who want a free education that are willing to play.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Can't wait to see Cal come back and negotiate something like this:
- 50/50 revenue split with ALL collegiate sports
- Revocation of scholarship since, well, they're getting paid now and can afford it
- Hand them a bill for this fall's tuition
Cal had a financial deficit last year of $875k for football alone, ~$19.2M overall. With 97 players on the current roster, that would be a total owed of $9020.62, assuming the players keep their scholarship and Cal only counts the football revenue (loss). Cal lists their tuition for the upcoming fall to just over $40k. That's getting close to $50k per player, and arriving at $4.8M back to the university which would still put Cal at a $15M financial loss for the athletic department (assuming last years numbers).
you're right - i'm definitely getting the two mixed up... although I think i'm making a solid argument that Cal is already in financial despair. If the players took at 50% split off the revenues (which could be $19M if looking across all revenue) then that alone would have doubled Cal's operating loss for the year.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This comment was in reference to what the athletes are asking for. The profit or loss is not the amount they want to share. They want to share revenue regardless of expenses.
It's also why this proposal is DOA.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Also found this report from the PAC-12 conference financials - $530M in revenue against $518M in expenses. Distributed evenly thats $12M (convenient) with $1M per school, $500k for the players under a 50/50 split, and since I'll assume 1000 total student athletes (see 2nd link)... that's $500 per athlete.
Everyone seems to be ignoring this very key detail. 50% revenue split isn't feasible for even the most robust and successful businesses. This is just flat out an absurd request.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Agree, although I suppose it depends on which portion (if any) of the revenue. I had to educate myself on how the NFL does it and it to me looks pretty complex. If the players were asking for 50% of the gate sales then that could mean ~$3M for the players which breaks out to $31k per player. The problem of course is that it adds to Cal's existing deficit. Then there is the fallout of all of the other sports requesting the same thing, and the number of that deficit continues to swell.
I guess my position is that they need to be careful what they wish for. The university could certainly agree to a revenue split as long as there is some kind of financial equity as a result. If the players are getting paid then they are no longer student athletes - they are just athletes, and the school should be expecting them to fork over their cost for tuition, and if they did that then the players would end up owing money ($10k) in the end.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
First reaction is this is the most Cal Berkeley story line ever. Second, the "demands" are ludicrous and not researched in the slightest. NFL doesn't even get 50/50 revenue share. No company ever spends 50% of total revenue on employee expenses. Also, 6 years of health insurance for 4-5 years of service? Seems aggressive. Also, I thought we didn't want health insurance ties to employment?
And then there's the part of me that thinks this sounds super fake and hyperbolic.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There's a strong argument to be made that you don't want healthcare tied to employment. But #Murica, cuz reasons. However it happens, it seems like the right thing to do to make sure athletes are taken care of (both physically and mentally) after their time taking great physical risks (in part) for the promotion of your school brand is over.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
My first sentence was a response to a line in the OP that struck me as related but tangential.
The thrust of my comment is that, in the absence of some other form of health care coverage that meets a suitable minimum standard, college athletes at well resourced P5 schools should receive health care coverage benefits from their institution(s) that extend beyond their career as an athlete at said institution(s) and covers them to some suitable minimum standard. I feel it is a justifiable and ethical extension of the relationship due to the unique physical risks P5 athletes take in the performance of their sport/discipline - to say nothing of other sacrifices they might make during that time.
Edit: This is all based on the 2019 version of college football... there are many things that could change which would cause me to reevaluate my take.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Gotta say this feels ill timed and with very little forethought. A strike when theres going to be a full season and a full profit as well would be the better timing not when the season most likely wont go through and you have very little weight on your side to throw around. I get the health insurance thing but the 6 years after is a bit of a reach I could see if a player suffers a serious injury due to playing NCAA football to offer some longer term aid but every player gets 6 years post playing is a bit over the top.
I get some people saying you always start high when negotiating but the 50/50 split PLUS keeping the scholarships is an insane idea and in no was plausible. Its like me as an electrician walking into my bosses office demanding they keep paying for my schooling to get my journeymans card and demanding 200k a year plus fully paid health insurance plan(Which is very very rare these days). Its just not gonna happen.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The middle of a global pandemic when everything is shut down and schools are already slashing athletic budgets to stay afloat seems like an excellent time to be going through this.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Thats where I'm stuck at, you dont strike when things are tough you strike when everything is at a high point and your value is too high to risk the loss, not when its already highly likely we have no football season due to covid-19 not a players strike.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I mean when Stanford, who has dominated the Director's Cup for the past 25 years or so is slashing about 1/3 of their teams within your own conference, UCLA and Cal just lost their big UnderArmor contracts, and there's a very real chance we won't see collegiate athletic competition until, at the earliest, fall 2021, going through with an announcement like this seems completely and utterly out of touch with reality.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Take their scholarships, require them to get into schools on academic merit, pay them as employees, tax accordingly, fire them for bad plays, cut them mid season. It will be awesome for them.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I doubt the schools want to pay them as employees because they don't want to carry the payroll taxes. I have to imagine at free market salaries that's much more expensive for talent-laden teams than scholarships are.
I don't think the kids who make a hypothetical healthy salary would balk at the tax burden.
A free market model wouldn't work well for all players, but it would serve a decent amount better when you narrow down to Power 5 schools. NLI will help. The NFL's 3 years removed from high school limitation plays a part too.
The system as a whole is inequitable for the players. It's worth exploring how to solve that given how lucrative and important college football is to the collegiate athletics model.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
But, if this story is true, threatening a players strike right now during the current economic and pandemic situation is probably about as bad a timing as it can get.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
not if leverage equals your earning potential for the school. This upcoming season will be worth a whole lot less to the schools than other years because games may not even be played. It's kind of like telegraph operators striking for more benefits...in 2020. If your job is obsolete, no one cares if you don't show up to work.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm sure this season stands to pay out less. (Honestly, I haven't read how the payouts change based on absence of games, but am happy to run with less product equals less money.) However, not having a college football season at all (via boycott) might cripple a Power 5 athletic department. Like everyone else, because of COVID-19 players are aware of that now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Would need to see some serious number crunching to back up either side honestly. With no fans in attendance I'm not sure what the expected monetary income from a game would be in the current climate. Without the fans would gameday really generate all that much or say enough to pay for all the stuff needed to make a game happen and still make enough money to pay all the full time employees? Or might no season be more beneficial in saving them from the gameday costs and therefor making the boycott something that might not really hurt them all that much?
All honest questions I cant answer but I think its easy to see why either side would either believe the players boycotting would have an honest effect or not.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Coaches are taking pay cuts to assist in the budget shortfalls even if we do have some sort of season this year. I don't know what money they are shooting for right now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
People across the country are facing significant hardships and many view sports as an escape. I believe that threatening to boycott and force a significant change around compensation is going to be looked upon unfavorably by many fans.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree with everything you wrote. The average person has been bitching about how much athletes make since as long as I've been alive. I'm sure it would only ramp in this scenario. I'm not sure that's a reason against pushing for a more equitable system now though.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I would have to assume the players are only looking at their payroll/stipend part, and not at the total compensation package they are already provided which includes their tuition, housing, food, books, tutors, clothing, equipment, etc. Using the numbers I pulled for Cal I think that total compensation package has to be north of $50k per year and that is nothing to laugh at for the majority of the country.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's an interesting topic for debate, but on another note, best I can tell this entire article was based on two tweets from Rudy Carpenter. It doesn't include any original reporting. From a media hat perspective, it's click quota content.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Interesting "article". Apparently these supposed football players considering this haven't completely thought this through.
First, if they are concerned about the long term effects of possible injuries, then DON'T PLAY. Don't do the thing that could lead to that injury. They aren't being forced to play. It's not like they are signing a contract and are bound to complete the contract under penalty of having to repay the costs incurred for services rendered (i.e. scholarship, room, board, medical, stipend, etc.) They can simply quit, not risk injury, and go about their lives.
Second, is the insurance applicable to all student athletes under scholarship to the universities in the conference, or just them? This is important for determining the ability of the conference schools to qualify for different group rates on coverage.
Third, what level of deductible do these insurance policies have? Catastrophic cap? Particular coverage options?
Again, it goes into cost calculations.
Fourth, since profits related to "revenue" sports are used to pay for "non-revenue" sports, what are these players planning to do to deal with those tricky Title IX requirements? Since most sports that are required to meet Title IX will have to be cut due to lack of funding, the universities will be out of compliance with Federal Law, so they can't have football so there won't be any profits for them to have a 50/50 split. I guess they will have to go to Capitol Hill and plead with Congress to get them to change/abolish Title IX for their personal gain. Damn that fairness and equality!
Fifth, who is going to tell the "non-revenue" athletes that their sports are being cut in order to pay these players 50% of the profits? If I were the sports administrators at these universities, it wouldn't be me. I would march these football players out before an assemblage of these "non-revenue" athletes and have them explain why their blood, sweat and tears, sacrifices of hours for practices, travel, competition, and study (with the help of a platoon of tutors who strive to keep them academically eligible) is worth the cancellation of the sports and scholarships of the "non-revenue" sports and that, really, in the grand scheme of things, "non-revenue" sports (and the athletes that compete in them) don't matter as long as the football players get 50% of the profits. Of course, being the savvy sports administrator, I would have the sports that provide the most opportunity for underprivileged athletes to get a college degree sit front and center so that the football players can look them in the eye. Cancel culture indeed.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think their effort may be better spent trying to form a minor league for the NFL if all they are interested in is money. They should talk to Oliver Luck and see how they could set one up.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Well at this point they can argue that they generate a lot of revenue, have a high injury risk/low professional reward scenario on their hands, and now hazard pay for possibly playing through a pandemic? Not the worst hand I'd have played.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
And now statements like this are coming from players families in the Pac12
UCLA sophomore OL Jon Gaines to @RealSportsHBO: "We know what the motive is: players have to play to generate revenue for schools. ... It will become something where hopefully nobody has to die for things to happen."— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 20, 2020
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A more equitable system would be a true minor league for the NFL so that anyone who wants to get 'paid' more than a scholarship can play in that league. For those who want a college education, they can play under the existing system.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
So many thoughts here...
The likelihood that this season was going to be played is increasingly slim anyway so the idea that they'd boycott a season that might not happen is quite odd. Also, there's no chance at all these types of demands could be negotiated in the next month. Finally, a 50/50 revenue share? Really?? The NFL doesn't even get that.
The players deserve to have their safety considered and I like the idea of extending their insurance but, on the whole, the demands seem too extreme to garner any serious consideration.
Hell yes, it's great timing for the players, not the fans for sure. 6 years of health insurance post graduation is obviously not feasible, I think the strategy there is hoping it'll get bargained down to 2 or 3 instead of completely ignored.
I've always wondered if college athletes would ever strike. The hold all the leverage; all they need to do is coordinate it.
I'm not sure they do. If VT players went on strike, I'd still watch the replacements. I'd honestly be happy if schools didn't give out athletic scholarships for any sport, and there were no exemptions to admissions standards for athletes.
Having said that, I can get on board with some post-graduation insurance.
First of all, did you what happened when Chuba Hubbard threatened not to play after he saw a picture of Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt? You see how quickly Mike Gundy hopped on that shit? The players have tons of leverage.
If VT players striked, there's no way Fuente could find 85 replacement players before the season. Even if the NCAA removed the 25 scholarship limit cap, there's no way you could find 85 suitable players between seasons. So, assuming that one season is down, that fucks up everything for the ACC - revenue share, TV money, etc. Then imagine that mulitple teams started to do this... All of a sudden the Jenga tower that is college football is very unstable.
So you'd watch intramural sports? Because that's what it would be. So many of these kids would be unable to afford college. New minor leagues would form, and college sports would no longer be a path to the NFL. You could argue this would be in the best interest of the player (and you could also argue that's what society should focus on), but no way this makes for a better fan experience.
Name one concrete change benefitting the student-athletes from the Chuba Hubbard/Mike Gundy thing though.
Chuba Hubbard got one of the most old-school coaches in college football to publicly apologize for wearing a shirt affiliated with an alt-right media network, admit ignorance (Gundy's words, not mine), and publicly support a movement that is completely opposed to his political philosophy. Chuba's goal wasn't to increase equity for college football players; his goal was to get his coach to renounce a media outlet that offended him. And he did it roughly 24 hours.
Ignoring the politics of the issue, this marks a monumental, albeit small, shift in the power dynamic between players and coaches. I don't think players could get 50% of revenue if they wanted, but I think you're underestimating how much leverage they do hold.
EDIT: Original phrasing unintentionally implied that Gundy was ignorant or stubborn because of his political views. That was NOT the intent of my comment.
Yep, not touching that one.
I guess I don't think an apology from a college football coach means jack shit. Public opinion was heavily slanted against Gundy and it was just the smart PR move. That won't be the case in a widespread boycott.
It would be more like Division III. Which is in no way a problem. As it stands a lot of players don't get a quality education from their scholarship anyway, so are they really gaining anything?
Definitely agree. But, there's a reason people don't watch D3 sports. Mount Union, the best D3 football program (arguable one of the best college football programs of all time) has a 5600 person stadium, and doesn't always fill it. Perhaps you would continue to watch college football if it was no longer the minor league, but most wouldn't.
It would be really interesting to see a statistical breakdown of wear D1 football players land 3-5 years out of school. My understanding is that majority wind up as high school coaches, but there are definitely plenty who use their degree.
In defense of OHokie, there would still be a division 1 (or whatever you would call it) where the best players left in the pot play. How many NFL players are on an average FBS team at a given time, and how different would the game actually look if they were substituted with guys that are on the bubble or just below? FBS would essentially look more like FCS, which isn't bad football. Considering I am watching my school's team, I would still be interested. All that said, it isn't something that I want to happen though.
I do not think the degrees are wasted by athletes at any significant measure more than the general student population.
This is where I disagree. If you take away the scholarship, a minor league will (eventually) form. From there, you'll see the following changes:
Ehhhhh let's just say that UNC-like cheating scandals are pretty rampant in college football. Not to that level of planning and premeditation, but here's a piece on it from CNN talking about the amount of athletes who come to college not prepared academically:
Speaking anecdotally, I knew a handful of players at VT during my time who basically had tutors do all their homework. Revenue sport athletes get a lot of special treatment at every school, and not just swag, food, and drinks.
Hmmm, sounds like several excellent reasons why getting a scholarship to play football isn't such a bad deal after all..
My point was that scholarship football is great for fans and administrators, but you're completely ignoring a lot of ethical dilemmas that plague college athletics (at least revenue sports) today:
If we took these things out of college sports, the model would not be sustainable, and fans would not be happy. A minor league would form, and players could just play ball, and not deal with the facade of being a "student"-athlete, which many of them would prefer.
I would prefer a "minor league" to materialize. A lot of these athletes have no intention of graduating and could make money right away based on their level of skill. For those that likely aren't going to go pro or simply want an education to be provided in exchange for them representing their school athletically, so be it. I think it would greatly simplify a lot of the problems we're seeing.
I agree. I would be completely onboard for an NFL minor league to form for the guys who have major pro aspirations. I'm sure it will have a following, but give me the student athletes who want to come to VT to get an education and also happen to want to play football. Would totally end a lot of the ridiculous recruiting game and put a lot of the focus back on education. Maybe a lot of money leaves the sport and it's more like FCS, but I would be fine with that and still watch VT football. The college football bubble bursting wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
This. So much, this.
I agree these are definite problems, and they're not just limited to football. Basketball has the same issues. The difference is I'd rather have athletes come from the general student population (like in D-III) instead of having the charade of "student athletes" who can barely read. The current system isn't really benefitting those players if they don't go pro in their sports (which is the vast majority of them). But I realize that's probably not a popular stance.
Then you will see D-III like tv contracts, etc. Too much money to let it slide backwards.
Imagine if there weren't opportunities such as scholarships out there.
You're right, that didn't read very clearly. I've edited it.
Also I strongly disagree that it would damage TV contracts. For college sports people are much bigger fans of their school than of the players. If D-I suddenly decided to draw from the student population only, I'd still watch because I follow VT. That wouldn't change no matter where the players are drawn from.
I'd basically equate it as going from Premier League soccer, to below MLS soccer. And there is a huge faction of people that won't even watch MLS...
TV contracts for soccer leagues
I get where you're going with this, but I don't think that's a fair comparison. I don't have any direct ties to the Columbus Crew or the Cincinnati Whatever they're called. But I went to VT, and because of that I root for their teams. That wouldn't change just because some players don't qualify for their football team. I'd imagine it's the same for most schools; they'd get ratings regardless of where the players come from.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
My point was to the level of play...and what it's literally worth in the world of TV.
Yes, WE have a connection to VT. And we will watch games. But will some yahoo who didn't go to VT, on a Saturday, turn the game on? Whether it be at home, in a group, or at the sports bar? I'm guessing no. So the revenue would go down because fewer people would be watching. I know I'm not tuning in for D3 level football for other schools like I watch them now.
It is all relative. The football being played at those lower tier schools is not bad football. The players just aren't as simultaneously as big and fast as what we are used to. But, put those players in P5 jerseys and play comparable competition in other P5 jerseys, my guess is you would hardly notice the difference. And, tv ratings would still be higher than some random developmental league that fans have no emotional attachment to and would likely fold up before having enough time to develop that attachment.
From an ethical perspective, I agree. But I'm pretty confident none of us would enjoy the product as much.
It would be fine.
Sort of like watching Harvard and Yale play.
I mostly agree except that I have not seen any proof that a minor league would be sustainable. XFL has better talent than FBS football, but the fans of college football are rabid for their school.
It would be an interesting study if they were held at the same time. Off-season from what the norm is typically does not fair well for upstart sports leagues.
I'm thinking a minor league similar to the NBA D league. My thought process is that making all college football like D3 would drive players who either (1) are NFL prospects or (2) can't qualify to college to minor league/semi-pro leagues. The remaining pool of players would be (for the most part) less talented, and spread thinner across college football teams, effectively destroying college football as we know it today.
If the minor league was associated with the NFL, sort of like minor league baseball farm teams, I think it would be sustainable. If they can market themselves as getting the top high school talent each year and mixing them with recent college grads who didn't get drafted, it would probably be a decent product. I agree that college fanbases are absolutely rabid because of their love of the school. Even if the overall caliber of athlete was reduced, if the talent was comparable it would still be an extremely exciting product. That's what makes college so unique - people just have so much support for their school and the rivalries that make college football great.
The minor league would fill up as well since there wouldn't be a 4 year eligibility limit and you would reach the point where it becomes like baseball and talented players go to school in all but the 5 star and most 4 star player cases.
I think the best way to get a minor league working is to stop the whole student-athlete requirement, make them employees of the athletic department and let them just be associated with the universities. I would add some instruction that make sense for "majoring" in football (personal finance, public speaking). Let the kids take classes in the off season if they want. Or after they complete their time in the football program, or after the NFL.
This way we can get a sequal to NCAA 14, which is my number 1 priority in life. /s
If they are not students, then there's no reason for them to be associated with the school. I would rather have no football honestly. Or really I would want club football to take its place. If we're just going to pay random people to wear our uniform, winning anything is meaningless. "The kids we paid off the street are better than the kids you paid off the street"
I mean, I'm not sure how meaningful winning is now.
You said it. I think the Pac 12 schools would tell them to walk and don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. They would just bring replacement players.
If the school suspends scholarship and room/board money during said strike, it won't last 4 days.
This is why theyr'e having this discussion this year. The Pac-12 has already announced that they'll honor the scholarships of players who sit out this season. There's no real risk for them right now.
They are not employees and they hold 0 leverage as they are naturally replaced within 2 years. Not to mention fans are loyal to the brands, not the athletes
Yea, but going a year without football would be devistating to an athletic department, and a local economy in some places (as we're about to find out). NFL owners could not play for a year and be fine financially. Not the case for athletic departments.
Lol... wait until they start fighting over how to split up their 50%...
Then wait until they realize how much they'll have to pay in taxes, agents fees, attorneys, accountants, union/guild dues... etc...
Lots of wolves at the door licking their chops. I would think the NFL is shitting its congressionally granted tax exempt cartel pants.
The health insurance seems like a no brainer tho. Should've happened a long time ago but... #Murica.
In theory they should get insurance from their next employer when they leave college. I could see some type of extended coverage for treatment related to football which seems fair.
Many NFL players have talked about how the after NFL care sucks. They can't afford top notch doctors where in the NFL you have a team of sone of these top doctors in sports medicine seeing you weekly, if not more often. So many have more problems after they play from injuries that they were treated for previously.
It's could to be a lot worse coming out of college with potentially tons of issues and a high deductible plan because that's the only thing your employer offers any more. So you could be out almost $8k AND you need to put in another ~$6k in this year for tax reasons because you'll use it the next year. So that's $14k out of a starting $30k job is going to be tight.
I would definitely want better insurance coming out of college.
Yeah... it's a nice theory. It's just not very inclusive of reality.
Take your politics to twitter. Nobody wants to lose another thread.
How is what he said political?
I'm not sure I understand this. You're given a scholarship - if you decide not to play b.c of concerns w/ covid, that's totally fair. I'm sure the university will honor the scholarship, and if not, take a stance on that. To come out and make a list of demands that includes 50% of revenues, seems ungrateful. The school is the one taking all the financial risks and paying all the bills. Are they going to contribute to 50% of the debt if their sport doesn't make a profit?
A. Gotta start somewhere. They knew they had to get their attention...and a 50/50 split proposal does that. When has a first offer ever been accepted by both sides. It's called negotiations. And if they came out and said 2%, well, the conference and schools would toss it directly in the trash and ignore it.
B. This was in the works for some time. They didn't come up with this since Covid started. However, now is as good a time as any especially when there's a good chance football won't be played this fall...so plenty of time to belly up to the table to talk/negotiate.
C. The players are taking a bit of a financial risk by playing each week, with the risk of injury which could eliminate a professional career. So it's not all 100% on one side.
I don't really back either side. Interested in where this goes...and again...the 50/50 split is getting everyone's attention and has them talking about it. That's half the battle nowadays.
Less than 3% of all D1 athletes go pro. This huge injury risk thing is blown way out of proportion.
It's more than professional football careers that are ended by head and neck injuries. They absolutely deserve medical coverage past the end of their playing days.
Hard disagree. 1. Neck injuries that would prevent a normal white collar job are a rare exception, not a norm. 2. CTE is a whole different discussion, and not blanket in any case. 3. Players paralyzed playing college sports is also very rare and not blanket justification for VT paying for your health insurance for 3 years post grad.
There are other injuries beyond that that will affect normal life. Knee surgeries, arthritis, wrist injuries, head injuries (headaches, vision, concussions) can stay with people for decades. And time off for surgery, etc does not exclude the risk. But Risk is the key term. It's not guaranteed that the conferences and schools will loose money either. And if they do, that's 99.99% out of the hands of the ones who suit up.
Right, and most insurance covers that, thus when Joe football player gets a job at Deloitte he is covered. We are talking about injuries suffered that would prevent an athlete from working - period. Those cases are rare.
Rare, but not unheard of. Also, a college degree isn't a guarantee that a person will land an office job with a good, or even half-good benefits package. The way the jobs market has been and is, most recent graduates don't exactly have a ton of offers to choose from.
They have better options than they'd have without a degree.
They risk not ever going pro by not playing
This. What people seem to forget about them not playing is that their chances of going pro are basically 0 if they don't play. The additional strength and conditioning they receive that is needed for the NFL along with further developing their skillset to achieve is what they don't get by not playing.
50/50 revenue split?! lol ... they are either getting terrible advice or none at all on this demand.
Agree on the rest though.
If Notre Dame players demand a 50/50 split of the NBC deal but the ACC has negotiated a 30/70 split, do you think they'll join the conference?
/s... I think.
nope and they'll still have the ACC by the balls ;)
50/50 of a negative number this year would have the players paying to play instead of being paid to play.
This is entitlement run amuck. On top of a scholarship they want 50%? It's terribly obtuse. My son, who could have played D-3 easily, and certainly could have made a few D-2 rosters would gladly take the place of someone "on strike" for the petty price of his entire college being paid for.
Have to agree. It's not like Alabama fans switched allegiance to Oklahoma when Jalen Hurts transferred. Pro sports have fans that follow individual players, but in college sports, especially football, it's the name on the front of the jersey that matters most.
It's a pretty classic negotiation technique to start high then work down...
When you start at completely unrealistic, you don't even get to the table to negotiate.
With all the buzz around the idea now, do you think the Pac12 can just simply turn their nose up at the idea now?
Yes I would call that bluff by completely ignoring it. Responding to it will cause more media attention. Let a few outspoken players sit out and miss draft exposure
Idk entitlement to me sounds more like earning money off of someone else's work without compensating them (at all let alone fairly)
I'm sympathetic to the ideas behind what you're saying but what you've actually written (that the players don't get compensated "al all") is patently, demonstrably, obviously false. People need to stop trying to shoehorn this absurd notion into the conversation. The players absolutely are compensated. The debate is around whether it's enough and/or the right kind of compensation.
Okay, if that's true why don't you try starting a business and paying your workers exclusively in benefits.
(I get what you're saying but no it's not equivalent,
they are getting 0 monetary compensationthere is no standard of meaningful monetary compensation, with some players receiving none at all)Edit: fixed for DC Wilson
They get a monthly stipend.. cash if you will. so it's not zero.
Not on every team
??? Whom are you referring to?
Last I believed it's was only P5 and larger G5's and FCS, glad to be refuted if it is all of them
Do you? Do you get what he's saying? Because he's certainly NOT saying "the compensation they have is enough, end of conversation" and yet that seems to be what you responded to.
And, as an aside, I know that people have taken jobs 100% on benefits with no salary. I know someone who worked for an NGO in Haiti for two years in that exact scenario. She had to run the staff of a compound that the NGO used as a base of operations for charitable work. No pay, but food and lodging were covered as well as a discretionary stipend that was tagged to be spent in country (she couldn't save it). She had 6 trips to the US covered per year. Scooter and a beatup truck for getting around (gas covered by the non profit). She loved it. Turned out to be a great resume builder for her as well and got her the job she has now back in the states as a manager.
Many school bus drivers and teaching aids do their job for what essentially amounts to their health insurance only.
Doesn't make it right
Why would it be wrong? This is what the job pays--Do you want the job?--- Yes. Carry on.
When I am retired I will gladly do a job for health benefits.
I know you mean well, but this is some pretty high level reductionism.
If you think individual management/labor agreements are sufficient I have some reading for you about working conditions and pay before labor organizing. Could also go into market theory and explain why that agreement isn't a fair one, but that's probably too far down the road of "political".
No I responded to the "patently and demonstrably false" comment. Which is not true because it's generally illegal to pay only in hard benefits and not an actual wage.
I'm glad it worked out for your friend in Haiti, that sounds like a good experience but we have laws against that type of thing here for good reason.
A key difference is that the NGO for whom your friend worked in Haiti wasn't simultaneously making billions in revenue off of her efforts. That's the issue here: everyone except the players is getting paid based on market rates. As I said in a post in another thread, coaches, administrators, conferences, media companies, apparel and game companies, advertisers, et. al., are (collectively) making billions from football and men's basketball. It's a lucrative ecosystem with one glaring exception: the individuals who provide the majority of the value are "paid" in the form of a scholarship and are explicitly prohibited from making money by leveraging their association with the sport. Tellingly, those restrictions apply only to the players, and not to other students, coaches, administrators, media personalities, etc.
Of course, it may be true that for some players, the value of the scholarship meets or exceeds the economic value that they contribute, and they may well be happy to get a "free" education along with the ability to play a sport that they love. But for many others, the value they provide far exceeds the actual cost of their attendance. In the end, the system is rigged so that an elite few profit primarily off of the labor of others.
The good news for players is that this landscape is changing, with the passage of "Fair Pay to Play" and similar laws, as well as the recent NCAA proposal allowing athletes to be compensated for usage of their name and likeness. My take is that the NCAA realized that it was going to end up on the losing end of this fight and is trying to find a middle ground that doesn't involve paying the players directly. Time will tell if this approach will work, versus a true revenue-sharing model.
The fact that they agree to it is self evident that it is enough. Nobody is forced to go play D1 football
It's the tail wagging the dog big time.
I highly doubt this comes to fruition but if it does, Let them walk. I'm sure there are plenty of athletes who want a free education that are willing to play.
Can't wait to see Cal come back and negotiate something like this:
- 50/50 revenue split with ALL collegiate sports
- Revocation of scholarship since, well, they're getting paid now and can afford it
- Hand them a bill for this fall's tuition
Cal had a financial deficit last year of $875k for football alone, ~$19.2M overall. With 97 players on the current roster, that would be a total owed of $9020.62, assuming the players keep their scholarship and Cal only counts the football revenue (loss). Cal lists their tuition for the upcoming fall to just over $40k. That's getting close to $50k per player, and arriving at $4.8M back to the university which would still put Cal at a $15M financial loss for the athletic department (assuming last years numbers).
Cal FY19 Athletic Financial Statement
Cal Financial Aid 2020
Don't confuse revenue with profit/loss. Expenses don't factor into the equation. This is top line not bottom line.
you're right - i'm definitely getting the two mixed up... although I think i'm making a solid argument that Cal is already in financial despair. If the players took at 50% split off the revenues (which could be $19M if looking across all revenue) then that alone would have doubled Cal's operating loss for the year.
So what incentive is there for Pac12 athletics to operate at a (huge) loss? Revenue is meaningless when exceeded by expenses.
This comment was in reference to what the athletes are asking for. The profit or loss is not the amount they want to share. They want to share revenue regardless of expenses.
It's also why this proposal is DOA.
Advertisement. Keeping alumni happy.
Also found this report from the PAC-12 conference financials - $530M in revenue against $518M in expenses. Distributed evenly thats $12M (convenient) with $1M per school, $500k for the players under a 50/50 split, and since I'll assume 1000 total student athletes (see 2nd link)... that's $500 per athlete.
PAC12 Financials
Berkeley Athletics Information
Bahahahaha
The players are asking for 50% of gross revenue, not after expenses. So they want half of $530 million.
Everyone seems to be ignoring this very key detail. 50% revenue split isn't feasible for even the most robust and successful businesses. This is just flat out an absurd request.
Agree, although I suppose it depends on which portion (if any) of the revenue. I had to educate myself on how the NFL does it and it to me looks pretty complex. If the players were asking for 50% of the gate sales then that could mean ~$3M for the players which breaks out to $31k per player. The problem of course is that it adds to Cal's existing deficit. Then there is the fallout of all of the other sports requesting the same thing, and the number of that deficit continues to swell.
I guess my position is that they need to be careful what they wish for. The university could certainly agree to a revenue split as long as there is some kind of financial equity as a result. If the players are getting paid then they are no longer student athletes - they are just athletes, and the school should be expecting them to fork over their cost for tuition, and if they did that then the players would end up owing money ($10k) in the end.
Bold Strategy Cotton let's see how it plays out for them
First reaction is this is the most Cal Berkeley story line ever. Second, the "demands" are ludicrous and not researched in the slightest. NFL doesn't even get 50/50 revenue share. No company ever spends 50% of total revenue on employee expenses. Also, 6 years of health insurance for 4-5 years of service? Seems aggressive. Also, I thought we didn't want health insurance ties to employment?
And then there's the part of me that thinks this sounds super fake and hyperbolic.
There's a strong argument to be made that you don't want healthcare tied to employment. But #Murica, cuz reasons. However it happens, it seems like the right thing to do to make sure athletes are taken care of (both physically and mentally) after their time taking great physical risks (in part) for the promotion of your school brand is over.
Let's save the thinly veiled healthcare politics for twitter.
You want healthcare subsidized in the american model. Bottom line. Whether it's "tied" to employer discounted group plans or something else.
My first sentence was a response to a line in the OP that struck me as related but tangential.
The thrust of my comment is that, in the absence of some other form of health care coverage that meets a suitable minimum standard, college athletes at well resourced P5 schools should receive health care coverage benefits from their institution(s) that extend beyond their career as an athlete at said institution(s) and covers them to some suitable minimum standard. I feel it is a justifiable and ethical extension of the relationship due to the unique physical risks P5 athletes take in the performance of their sport/discipline - to say nothing of other sacrifices they might make during that time.
Edit: This is all based on the 2019 version of college football... there are many things that could change which would cause me to reevaluate my take.
Nobody is forcing them to assume those risks. They should be afforded every resource that all students are (things Like shiffert and cook counseling)
NCAA:
Their counter to the 50/50...
Gotta say this feels ill timed and with very little forethought. A strike when theres going to be a full season and a full profit as well would be the better timing not when the season most likely wont go through and you have very little weight on your side to throw around. I get the health insurance thing but the 6 years after is a bit of a reach I could see if a player suffers a serious injury due to playing NCAA football to offer some longer term aid but every player gets 6 years post playing is a bit over the top.
I get some people saying you always start high when negotiating but the 50/50 split PLUS keeping the scholarships is an insane idea and in no was plausible. Its like me as an electrician walking into my bosses office demanding they keep paying for my schooling to get my journeymans card and demanding 200k a year plus fully paid health insurance plan(Which is very very rare these days). Its just not gonna happen.
The middle of a global pandemic when everything is shut down and schools are already slashing athletic budgets to stay afloat seems like an excellent time to be going through this.
the easiest boycott is when there is nothing to boycott..... ?
Thats where I'm stuck at, you dont strike when things are tough you strike when everything is at a high point and your value is too high to risk the loss, not when its already highly likely we have no football season due to covid-19 not a players strike.
I mean when Stanford, who has dominated the Director's Cup for the past 25 years or so is slashing about 1/3 of their teams within your own conference, UCLA and Cal just lost their big UnderArmor contracts, and there's a very real chance we won't see collegiate athletic competition until, at the earliest, fall 2021, going through with an announcement like this seems completely and utterly out of touch with reality.
Take their scholarships, require them to get into schools on academic merit, pay them as employees, tax accordingly, fire them for bad plays, cut them mid season. It will be awesome for them.
I doubt the schools want to pay them as employees because they don't want to carry the payroll taxes. I have to imagine at free market salaries that's much more expensive for talent-laden teams than scholarships are.
I don't think the kids who make a hypothetical healthy salary would balk at the tax burden.
A free market model wouldn't work well for all players, but it would serve a decent amount better when you narrow down to Power 5 schools. NLI will help. The NFL's 3 years removed from high school limitation plays a part too.
The system as a whole is inequitable for the players. It's worth exploring how to solve that given how lucrative and important college football is to the collegiate athletics model.
Agreed that its worth exploring how to solve it.
But, if this story is true, threatening a players strike right now during the current economic and pandemic situation is probably about as bad a timing as it can get.
I don't understand that position. Wouldn't they have a ton of leverage right now?
not if leverage equals your earning potential for the school. This upcoming season will be worth a whole lot less to the schools than other years because games may not even be played. It's kind of like telegraph operators striking for more benefits...in 2020. If your job is obsolete, no one cares if you don't show up to work.
I'm sure this season stands to pay out less. (Honestly, I haven't read how the payouts change based on absence of games, but am happy to run with less product equals less money.) However, not having a college football season at all (via boycott) might cripple a Power 5 athletic department. Like everyone else, because of COVID-19 players are aware of that now.
Would need to see some serious number crunching to back up either side honestly. With no fans in attendance I'm not sure what the expected monetary income from a game would be in the current climate. Without the fans would gameday really generate all that much or say enough to pay for all the stuff needed to make a game happen and still make enough money to pay all the full time employees? Or might no season be more beneficial in saving them from the gameday costs and therefor making the boycott something that might not really hurt them all that much?
All honest questions I cant answer but I think its easy to see why either side would either believe the players boycotting would have an honest effect or not.
Coaches are taking pay cuts to assist in the budget shortfalls even if we do have some sort of season this year. I don't know what money they are shooting for right now.
People across the country are facing significant hardships and many view sports as an escape. I believe that threatening to boycott and force a significant change around compensation is going to be looked upon unfavorably by many fans.
Counter: Not "paying" the athletes is not looked upon favorably by the fans...
Some fans.
I agree with everything you wrote. The average person has been bitching about how much athletes make since as long as I've been alive. I'm sure it would only ramp in this scenario. I'm not sure that's a reason against pushing for a more equitable system now though.
I would have to assume the players are only looking at their payroll/stipend part, and not at the total compensation package they are already provided which includes their tuition, housing, food, books, tutors, clothing, equipment, etc. Using the numbers I pulled for Cal I think that total compensation package has to be north of $50k per year and that is nothing to laugh at for the majority of the country.
1099.
Dangle W2 employment as an incentive...
Ironically, this process would hurt the schools more than the players. The amount of revenue lost would kill athletic departments.
This threat to strike is jockeying with the Kanye West presidential campaign for things I'm gonna take least seriously that are making headline news.
It's an interesting topic for debate, but on another note, best I can tell this entire article was based on two tweets from Rudy Carpenter. It doesn't include any original reporting. From a media hat perspective, it's click quota content.
So we made a mountain out of a speed bump? Sounds like TKP.
Interesting "article". Apparently these supposed football players considering this haven't completely thought this through.
First, if they are concerned about the long term effects of possible injuries, then DON'T PLAY. Don't do the thing that could lead to that injury. They aren't being forced to play. It's not like they are signing a contract and are bound to complete the contract under penalty of having to repay the costs incurred for services rendered (i.e. scholarship, room, board, medical, stipend, etc.) They can simply quit, not risk injury, and go about their lives.
Second, is the insurance applicable to all student athletes under scholarship to the universities in the conference, or just them? This is important for determining the ability of the conference schools to qualify for different group rates on coverage.
Third, what level of deductible do these insurance policies have? Catastrophic cap? Particular coverage options?
Again, it goes into cost calculations.
Fourth, since profits related to "revenue" sports are used to pay for "non-revenue" sports, what are these players planning to do to deal with those tricky Title IX requirements? Since most sports that are required to meet Title IX will have to be cut due to lack of funding, the universities will be out of compliance with Federal Law, so they can't have football so there won't be any profits for them to have a 50/50 split. I guess they will have to go to Capitol Hill and plead with Congress to get them to change/abolish Title IX for their personal gain. Damn that fairness and equality!
Fifth, who is going to tell the "non-revenue" athletes that their sports are being cut in order to pay these players 50% of the profits? If I were the sports administrators at these universities, it wouldn't be me. I would march these football players out before an assemblage of these "non-revenue" athletes and have them explain why their blood, sweat and tears, sacrifices of hours for practices, travel, competition, and study (with the help of a platoon of tutors who strive to keep them academically eligible) is worth the cancellation of the sports and scholarships of the "non-revenue" sports and that, really, in the grand scheme of things, "non-revenue" sports (and the athletes that compete in them) don't matter as long as the football players get 50% of the profits. Of course, being the savvy sports administrator, I would have the sports that provide the most opportunity for underprivileged athletes to get a college degree sit front and center so that the football players can look them in the eye. Cancel culture indeed.
Well stated.
I think their effort may be better spent trying to form a minor league for the NFL if all they are interested in is money. They should talk to Oliver Luck and see how they could set one up.
Well at this point they can argue that they generate a lot of revenue, have a high injury risk/low professional reward scenario on their hands, and now hazard pay for possibly playing through a pandemic? Not the worst hand I'd have played.
And now statements like this are coming from players families in the Pac12
A more equitable system would be a true minor league for the NFL so that anyone who wants to get 'paid' more than a scholarship can play in that league. For those who want a college education, they can play under the existing system.