Minimum wage is necessary
Why?
Broke
21–30 of 46 posts
Re: Broke
#22The counter to paying college players is that it can be a gateway to the NFL, so college players play for "free" in exchange for access to a potentially very lucrative career. So why not a venture capital model? Pay players, with the condition that the university receives a % of their pro pay.
Top-tier college recruits shouldn't need a gateway to the NFL with their talent level. We can stick with a tech metaphor: It would be like all tech companies and startups and VCs colluding to require a certain number of years in college before being willing to hire or fund anyone. And the universities would own any apps/code the kids wrote while they were in school. Obviously it would be ludicrously imbalanced for th…
Agreed that they shouldn't need a gateway, but disagree on the 18 year old being ready. There may be one from time to time, but the extra 3 years of both skill and physical development makes a big difference for almost every player/position.
Re: Broke
#23Let the poor demand to be paid. And ignore that for most universities, the sportsballs are net losses on the whole. By all means pay them what they are owed. They are owed exactly what they demand and receive for contracting their playing services. If they can strengthen their hand by bargaining as a team, go for it.
They should be bargaining collectively, but they're not being allowed to do so. The NLRB acknowledged that football players at Northwestern University are employees, but then refused to say whether they can form a union on the basis of a technicality (specifically, that the university is a state institution, and the NLRB only has jurisdiction over private employers). So none of the employees in question is represented by a union, and it's not clear whether any or all of them are even legally entitled to such representation if they elect it.
I agree that this would go a long way toward addressing the fundamental inequity here, at least for the tiny fraction of employees whose skills are actually generating cash for their employers. It's pathetic that we can't agree that everyone has the right to join a union and bargain collectively if they wish, but that's where we are.
Re: Broke
#24I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…
> First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" That's easy: what makes football special is that it generates absolutely gigantic piles of cash. If a delegation of athletes from, say, the college ultimate frisbee team were to demand similar compensation, the burden would be on them to demonstrate they're generatin…
I'm fine with a huge wage gap, but most people aren't. There's an odd defect in most people's thinking where if you make some small contribution toward solving a problem, they'll berate you for not doing more.[1] I'm simply pointing out that because of this, the author's solution is politically infeasible.
Paying college athletes is probably as difficult as starting minor league football. There are a significant number of regulations in place to prevent college athletes from being compensated, to ensure gender parity, and to stop colleges from spending "too much" on sports. Their efficacy varies, but repealing them would be an immense political effort. For starters, you'd have to get rid of Title IX.
There's no hill-climbing solution here. We're in a local maximum. :(
1. http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...
Re: Broke
#25I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…
I'm of the opinion that there are two things that colleges owe their revenue-generating athletes:
1) Insurance policies. These people put their bodies on the line for 4 years and serious, life-long injuries can be sustained. In the event that a player is hurt in this way, they should receive compensation (an annuity, to ensure it lasts their entire lifetime). Insurance seems like a good way to handle this.
2) Financial education. This works for both the 2% that go on to professional careers and the 98% that don't. What goes along with being broke is not having basic financial skills like budgeting or even opening a bank account. There's a reason that the majority of professional players are broke only a few years after retirement despite making millions during their playing careers. ESPN's documentary, Broke, did a good job of dissecting it, but the moment that left the biggest impression on me was when one player admitted to taking his $500k signing bonus to a check cashing store.
I agree with you about creating a minor league instead of using colleges, but it will never happen. The two popular college sports are the ones where the pro league has no minor league (the D-League is a very recent development, so it remains to be seen whether it survives.) Baseball and Hockey have minor leagues and neither is popular. The college equivalent is also unpopular. But Football and Basketball have found a way to put an inferior product on the field/court and make it incredibly popular/lucrative. It's unlikely they'd be able to replicate that success with a minor league.
So given that the current setup is too profitable to discontinue, I think the only conscionable thing to do is to give athletes who don't pass the admissions process an alternate education. Paying them will, for the vast majority, not make them well off given what we see of athletes paid in the professional leagues. Paying them in a practical education that prepares them to make the most of what they do have once their fame expires with their athletic eligibility seems more appropriate and maintains the mystique of the amateur athlete.
Also, as an aside, I think Universities and football programs are missing a huge opportunity. Football coaches should be required to teach a course in the spring in football theory. As it is now, the only people who become Football coaches are ex-players. But Universities have access to some of the brightest minds in the country and most would love to learn about Football. Offering elective courses could open up the coaching field to a much wider field and make teams much more successful. We saw what happened when the Baseball nerds were allowed to influence how players were valued (Moneyball)...there's no reason to believe that bright and motivated Math/CS nerds couldn't do the same to other sports as well. From analyzing the tendencies of opposing teams using statistical analysis to designing new plays based on computer simulations, we have the tools today to revolutionize these sports if we're only allowed access to their insular communities.
Re: Broke
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Top-tier college recruits shouldn't need a gateway to the NFL with their talent level. We can stick with a tech metaphor: It would be like all tech companies and startups and VCs colluding to require a certain number of years in college before being willing to hire or fund anyone. And the universities would own any apps/code the kids wrote while they were in school. Obviously it would be ludicrously imbalanced for th…
Agreed that they shouldn't need a gateway, but disagree on the 18 year old being ready. There may be one from time to time, but the extra 3 years of both skill and physical development makes a big difference for almost every player/position.
That's certainly true; it's true in most other sports as well. That's why for example baseball players spend anywhere from 2 to 5 or 6 years in the minor leagues before they make the big club (which many never do). There's no reason to prefer that they spend that developmental time playing for free on a university's team instead of for peanuts on a minor-league professional club. And there are plenty of reasons to prefer the alternative.
Re: Broke
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Top-tier college recruits shouldn't need a gateway to the NFL with their talent level. We can stick with a tech metaphor: It would be like all tech companies and startups and VCs colluding to require a certain number of years in college before being willing to hire or fund anyone. And the universities would own any apps/code the kids wrote while they were in school. Obviously it would be ludicrously imbalanced for th…
Agreed that they shouldn't need a gateway, but disagree on the 18 year old being ready. There may be one from time to time, but the extra 3 years of both skill and physical development makes a big difference for almost every player/position.
More realistically, it's 3 to 4 more years of a chance to get a career ending injury. It seems like there's at least 1 or 2 every draft season that never gets a shot at the pros because they're injured in college.
Re: Broke
#28I'll never understand why people reject the most sensible answer: allow high school students to be drafted into the NFL. Even if they're not playing in the NFL for 2,3 or 4 years, pu them into a developmental league where they can earn $30K a year for a shot to make the league. Then college is reserved for people who want to go to college , not for people who have to go because that's the collusion that's been design…
That doesn't solve the problem. Even if football athletes could go straight from high school to college as in basketball and baseball, college football will still be a huge moneymaker, and the athletes will remain broke. Secondly, your premise is incorrect. It's the NFL that has a rule against drafting players out of high school, not society. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/sports/football-citing-ant...
> Secondly, your premise is incorrect. It's the NFL that has a rule against drafting players out of high school, not society.
I'm not sure how you could have interpreted my post any other way. When I refer to "collusion" I'm speaking of that between the NFL and the NCAA. I'm aware it's the NFL's rule (in collaboration with the NCAA).
> That doesn't solve the problem. Even if football athletes could go straight from high school to college as in basketball and baseball, college football will still be a huge moneymaker, and the athletes will remain broke.
Actually, this solves a lot of problems. First, that there is more than one route to the NFL. If you're 18, insanely talented and want to go to the NFL, you don't have to waste everyone's time pretending to be a student for 3 years. Colleges can focus more on academics instead of the charade it is now. And if you have the skills necessary to make money out of high school, you have an avenue to do so.
Re: Broke
#29I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…
I feel the brutality of the sport every morning when I get out of bed. And I was a scrub for the most part. But I wouldn't trade any of it. If it weren't for the increase in brain injuries and the muscle-mass maximizing arms race that ends careers (and limp-free middle age) on a weekly basis, I'd encourage my son to play. I absolutely loved the sport. It still has its merits, and I'm still a huge fan, but there's a l…
> brain injuries and the muscle-mass maximizing arms race
The huge players and huge hits are a direct consequence of the modern changes to the game. Just go back to no separate defense/offense/special teams. Everybody runs the whole game. Maybe also bring the play clock down to 15 seconds.
Re: Broke
#30I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…
> If football came into being today, people would riot in the streets. Who would pay money to watch mostly lower-class, mostly black[1] players permanently damage each other's brains and bodies?
Mixed Martial Arts is a very popular sport which is exactly this (maybe not the 'mostly black' part), and as a spectator sport in the US has only really risen recently. No rioting in the streets against it yet.
Also, given your criticisms, how do you find football more repugnant than professional boxing, given that the latter's explicit goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission?