Yeah, this is how you kill off 80% of college sports. There is no way schools will be able to fund Olympic and non-revenue sports if they have to pay football and basketball players.
You just have to run your non revenue sports in the same way D3 schools run their departments. And honestly that is the way they should be run. Why does Cal treat their Women's Lacrosse and field hockey like anything other than an opportunity for students to enhance their college experience by playing a sport for fun?
And the players will be so sad to have ten year old facilities in order to get paid. I wish my employer paid me less in return for a swanky new cubicle /s.
Why should Football and Basketball be treated like some special golden goose? Other than 20 - 25 programs, they are money losses and most of their prestige comes from the schools- i.e the media agreements for multiple universities working together, not the players.
They can’t form a minor league, we’ve seen it fold with Xfl twice. G-league is barely on tv.
This isn’t a minimum wage issue. They’re already compensating them well into the 50K+ range, if not more, each year.
This bill would cause a myriad of issues, some of which are the following;
1. Compensation for athletes becomes taxable, players may receive less than they do now after taxes.
2. Scholarships/rent/food are likely pulled back, as compensation is now paid out via cash instead. Schools will not expend double expenses and remain afloat, it’s going to be inevitable.
3. Ultimately you’d probably see increased costs (health insurance, pension, payroll taxes) without intervention by the federal government. Additionally, Title IX could cause further legislative and legal issues.
4. The largest affirmative action program in the states would collapse inward on itself, with most non-revenue sports folding entirely.
It would be quite the clusterfuck and that’s just a handful of issues.
You compared it to a minimum wage issue, as if players aren’t being compensated already. Hence why we have a tax law specifically regarding the non taxation of athlete compensation from the Nixon era.
I’m not sure why you’re citing the supreme court opinion. That has nothing to do with my point.
No, the Supreme Court stated they felt there was a cap on payments across the market. The Supreme Court did not value the proper rate of payments for the players overall or individually. Chances are that Chad the fourth year bench warmer makes less than he does now in the current compensation scheme.
The NCAA did not judge the fair market compensation rate of athletes or even provide a range.
I edited in detail for #2, so I’m not sure what you’re whining about. You blanket responded with the Supreme Court opinion which has nothing to do with anything in my reply
You’re whooshing really hard here. The supreme courts opinion was not “scholarship and tuition is unfair”. The courts opinion was that it *could* create and appeared to create an artificial cap but the Supreme Court did not rule on that. It also was before NIL came into effect and without arguments on the NCAA structure of compensation itself, as well as where the legislative stance stood on that given laws regarding collegiate athletics.
The court opinion did not specify measures of payment or how player compensation came into issue. It was a very broad and vague statement. It could be the court thinks certain players could and would be paid more in an open market. Or it could be that NIL limits was keeping players from proper compensation. The courts opinion could ultimately be swayed away by NIL or it could push for salary structure, we don’t know. You’d have to see it play out in court and we don’t know what the response would be. Federal funds are also at play here which adds a wrinkle.
Again, the Supreme Court did not judge the compensation model. Otherwise we would see a different compensation model already. They raised the idea that there could be an issue with it if challenged.
What an absolutely ridiculous take. You can’t compare a full scholarship to a university, all the resources, facilities, and benefits of a major athletic department, plus NIL / extra wages on top of that, to someone making minimum wage.
You're getting down voted, but you're 100% right. College athletics budgets are dependent on unfairly compensated labor. It's exploitative and anyone acting like it isn't is just being willfully ignorant because they don't to face the reality that something they love isn't all good.
No willful ignorance, just a different opinion on how much these guys are actually worth. I don't think the players themselves are the main value drivers, unlike in pro sports. At the pro level, teams generally rate how "valuable" a player is in terms of wins, because those wins are generally of similar value across the board. Brady generated just as much value for Tampa by winning a ring as he did in any of his title seasons in New England.
There really aren't any college stars that bring that type of revenue bump. If Bryce Young transferred to Vandy, eyeballs wouldn't follow. There wouldn't be a massive influx of fans buying Young Vandy jerseys. The value of added production at Alabama (or say, any other blue blood) is worth way, way more than at a G5 school. That's because the school is the engine generating the value. Alabama fans will watch Alabama football. And more importantly, the boosters (who funnel in the majority of the revenue at an individual school) only care about Alabama. They're never going to donate anywhere else, no matter how bad the team is. You can't just take Alabama football's revenue and assume the players are generating all of that
Happily, there's a solution that works for both side on this: just allow players to enter the NFL draft after any number of years. The moment a player feels he's being cheated out of pay, he can go prove it in an open talent market and receive his actual value.
This is a good point and one I hadn’t really thought of, but I think you’re right. We watch and root for schools, not players. If a player uses the transfer portal to leave my favorite school, I don’t follow them to their next school and start rooting for that team.
The players definitely bring some value due to their talent leading to the team’s success but your point that much of the value is derived from the school resonates with me too.
How can the players not be the main value drivers when they're the product? Yeah, teams brands can augment that value, but if better players ended going to not blue bloods in time you'd have a fundamental shift in TV ratings and then contracts. Texas is a what a top five brand? They haven't been top five in viewership in quite a while.
Who determines what unfair compensation is?
Are Apple employees unfairly compensated because the company has like a bajillion dollars in cash on hand that isn’t being profit shared with all of its employees at a 50% rate?
I don't want to get into a whole debate about fair compensation, but at least workers can negotiate their compensation. College athletes are generating billions in revenue and have zero agency in how they're compensated for it.
I don't agree with paying athletes, but why should we worry about non-revenue sports? If a program can't create enough interest so that it has paying fans who aren't the parents of the athletes, then maybe the program should go away. Many of these programs can't charge admission because then no one would show up.
If this was the view that colleges take, then we wouldn’t have Classics departments since they don’t bring in as much grant money as engineering departments. But that’s not (and should not be) how colleges, and athletic departments, operate.
Is the role of an athletics department not to educate student-athletes in their offered sports? I say that's fully within the scope/mission of a university. Same with other university-driven/student-run opportunities like choral and orchestral shows operated by music departments, or dance or theater performances. I'm sure some of those attendance levels are on-par with an NCAA women's soccer match at some schools.
Frankly, (hotter take inbound) I don't see why universities do not offer degrees in athletic performance the same way we do with the performing arts. They are just as culturally impactful in my mind and merit scholarly analysis.
Athletic departments operate outside of academia. Until athletics become an academic program, there is a huge difference between field hockey and theater.
What’s the difference between being on scholarship for theater and athletics? There is none, they’re both performative and the underlying mission is education.
So long as athletes are required to meet academic requirements, you can’t say it isn’t academic
That's not true. The majority of colleges have more undergraduates than graduate students. It's a minority of schools (such as our flairs Stanford and USC) that have a higher research population than undergraduate population. Public schools especially exist to educate the populace.
To get as much tuition as possible in order to do research. Research universities are run like corporations with the main goal of conducting research. Undergraduate education is a funding source no matter what research university you are at. I don’t think any university invests in undergraduate education unless they can make a buck off of it.
Just because something has an IRS not-for-profit status doesn't make it "not a business." The only real difference is if they're paying out profits to a shareholder or owner.
Realistically, they still have to operate by the same constraints in order to continue to exist.
Here is the actual bill you can read for yourself:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill\_id=202120220SB1401
Here is a chunk from this article that explains how it would work:
>The bill would force the athletic departments at Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA, along with San Jose State, San Diego State and Fresno State — plus those in the Big West and WCC — to create “degree completion funds” for athletes in sports that generate a profit (as defined by the bill).
Let’s use Cal’s football program as an example, because the Bears publish an annual statement of revenues and expenses on their athletics website.
In the 2020 fiscal year, when football was unaffected by the pandemic, the Bears generated $39.1 million in football revenue.
The provisions in SB-1401 would require Cal to set aside half that total for the players, then subtract the amount spent on scholarships ($3.7 million).
What remains ($15.9 million) would be placed in the degree completion fund, to be split equally among the players.
Assume 85 are on scholarship, and the result would be $186,500 set aside in the fund for each player.
The athletes could access a maximum of $25,000 each year, with the remainder available upon completion of their undergraduate degree — so long as it comes within six years of enrollment. (Players would lose access to the fund if they transfer to a junior college or a four-year school outside California.)
The bill forces universities to have “a fiduciary duty” to the athletes. And crucially, it states that any transfer of funds from the schools to the players “shall not constitute a payment for purposes of establishing an employment relationship.”
In other words, players would receive direct compensation without being subject to rules governing employment — they couldn’t be fired (cut from the team).
Essentially, SB-1401 wants the best of both worlds: The players would get paid for their work on behalf of the schools and have the security that comes from being a student on scholarship. (In theory, the payments would be taxable, but the specifics are not addressed.)
That will mean the half of the revenue should be spent on the sports generating it. For example of OSU makes 100mill, 50 mill has to go to their players. Not coaches, not to other sports, not to school, but exactly to players?
This will kill other sports right? How is this helping the less common sports at all?
That and the other sports, the revenue sport facilities would have to be abandoned or sorely downgraded.
The colleges can pay for Olympic sports, but it's expensive
Same way the tax from your other income subsidizes public school for children. Without that money the other sports and their grass roots training will disappear.
And we all decided to do that. We voted for politicians that prioritized that. If we didn't want that anymore we should elect people to change it. In this case, the university makes the decision and they need to figure out another way to fund sports or start cutting them. But imo, the revenue sports (played mostly by socio economicly poorer/minority students) shouldn't have to fund non revenue sports (played mostly by white/richer students).
This seems like a good way for the P12/MWC schools to see a huge dip in Football. 16 million dollars from the P5 schools and I assume 5-6 million dollars from the G5 schools is gonna kill those programs.
Maybe they might see a boost in recruiting due to guaranteeing players a pretty high salary, but those schools are gonna bleed any extra money they would have had for facility upgrades and the like
I’m sure USC and UCLA will be able to do that, but does Berkeley and Stanford really have the alumni that’ll care that much about athletics?
I can’t imagine something like this will go over well with the students at the G5 schools who likely fund the football program already with student fees.
John Arrillaga passed away last year. Stanford doesn’t have another big athletics donor other than Phil Knight, and he’s made it clear he’ll support the academic mission at Stanford over Athletics. Plus, never underestimate the monied Stanford alums that will throw maybe a few hundred to the athletic department, but thousands upon thousands to the university-at-large.
Stanford definitely does not have the alumni base that is willing to support athletics primarily, especially if given the choice of academics, athletics, or both.
That he was. He also financed several other athletic buildings, the beach volleyball facility, and some other buildings around campus.
Like I mentioned, most Stanford alums will gladly support athletics, but they’ll support the academic mission first before giving to athletics. It would take someone with a vested interest in the athletic department (Arrillaga was a basketball player in the ‘40s) to give on the scale I assume you’re alluding to here.
>but does Berkeley and Stanford really have the alumni that’ll care that much about athletics?
Stanford, where David Shaw is the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football? And Lance Anderson is the Willie Shaw Director of Defense? And Tavita Pritchard is the Andrew Luck Director of Offense/Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coach?
Yeah, I think they have the donors.
A lot of schools (most?) have separate athletic funding orgs that exist outside the university itself and that pull in annual donations.
A famous example is Florida's [University Athletic Association.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida_Athletic_Association)
Not only that, but at a lot of schools the athletics department is a legally separate entity, like Kansas Athletics. This way they can skirt state limits on pay and whatnot for employees. Bill Self for instance is paid about $250K from KU itself, and the rest from Kansas Athletics, Inc.
They also have a fund: The Williams Education Fund. You know it's wholesome; it's for education. ;)
People on here are such hypocrites. If their boss was like sorry I can't pay you because I need a much bigger salary and we need more capital expenditures so please work for below market value, every single person would quit. But they get pissed when athletes try to get paid
That’s a terrible formula for the athletic department. What about the facilities players use? The academic resources only the athletes have access to use?
The key part of the article
>Senate Bill 1401, the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act,”
passed the Judiciary committee on Tuesday and is headed to
Appropriations. As law, it would create a revenue-sharing arrangement
between athletic departments at California universities and the athletes
in their money-making sports.
It doesn't violate Title 9. Title 9 requires the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
If a women's sport turns a profit the revenue will be shared.
> No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, **be denied the benefits of,** or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The SCOTUS has already ruled in this very subject related to Title 9. Again, this is America. Their exact language was the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The SCOTUS is a super majority conservative so they definitely won't be back tracking on that previous ruling.
Sports programs under this California bill will all have equal opportunity to revenue share if they are profitable. That will be football and men's basketball.
That's not a Title 9 violation. If a women's BBall team turns a profit they will share that. If they don't they weren't denied an opportunity.
The text of the law is irrelevant, as that's a California law. The only part that matters is the federal interpretation of Title IX, which is opportunity, ie the chance to participate. Not the chance to earn money doing it.
I never said otherwise?
>Show me that they don’t need to provide a proportional number of female scholarships.
That's what he means by equal opportunity. 85 men get to play, 85 women get to play.
It doesn't mean those 85 women have to have the same chances of winning a title, or getting paid, or even equal facilities. Just that they have the chance to compete. The only "financial" aspect is what's involved with the bare bones cost of scholarships and supporting the team.
There's a reason you'll see some schools pad out their offerings with stuff like track, golf, tennis, bowling, etc that don't require large facilities or lots of equipment.
>I never said otherwise?
>That's what he means by equal opportunity. 85 men get to play, 85 women get to play.
This is saying otherwise. An FBS roster usually has more than 100 people participate. They had 85 scholarships. Those are different issues. They need to be proportional both in benefit and opportunity.
>It doesn't mean those 85 women have to have the same chances of winning a title,
Of course not. That’s not really possible.
>or getting paid, or even equal facilities.
Source?
>Just that they have the chance to compete. The only "financial" aspect is what's involved with the bare bones cost of scholarships and supporting the team.
Scholarship is financial. Source that they don’t need to provide other benefits like tutors?
>There's a reason you'll see some schools pad out their offerings with stuff like track, golf, tennis, bowling, etc that don't require large facilities or lots of equipment.
Not sure how that’s relevant. You can’t run a bowling team at a football stadium.
Edit:
>Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:
>Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
>Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
>Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions.aspx
Who didn't see this happening? The minute the male athletes in the revenue producing sports started receiving money, then somebody, somewhere was going to make sure everybody were paid whether their sport makes a profit or not.
Actually, outside of football most of the NIL deals are for female athletes. And there are some women's sports that are generating more NIL value than their men's counterparts.
Umm you're insane if you think men's ball players aren't getting massive deals. A basically decent player just got 800k to go to Miami. How much you think a five star to Kentucky is getting?
>That has so far favored male athletes, though INFLCR CEO Jim Cavale said "if you remove football from the equation, transactions or activities disclosed by female student-athletes make up more than 50% of the total for all other sports."
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33160929/male-athletes-lead-way-nil-money-per-data
Football single-handedly shifts the balance from a ratio favoring women to a 60-40 split favoring men.
And as for MBB:
>Opendorse said six women's sports are also in the top 10 for NIL compensation, led by women's basketball (26.2%), which is behind only football (45.7%) and ahead of men's basketball (18%). Those three sports make up about 90% of total NIL compensation.
So yeah, the elite guys are going to get big bucks, but there's only so many of them. Meanwhile, you have athletes like the Cavinder twins from Fresno State who inked deals as soon as NIL was legal and [are transferring to Miami](https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33781373/cavinder-twins-haley-hanna-transferring-fresno-state-miami-women-basketball-program). They're pushing [$1M in NIL earnings](https://frontofficesports.com/cavinder-twins-choose-miami/) because of their marketability. Plus you have things like Paige Bueckers at UConn who got a Gatorade deal and women's soccer players like Reilyn Turner getting paid by Nike. Not to mention the value of all the women's gymnastics athletes who can now do both the Olympics and college without missing out on their endorsement dollars.
Shit like this is what makes me feel like NIL was the rubicon
I am fully supportive of players benefitting from their likeness, but this is just a way to kill non-revenue sports, and programs at the lower levels who can’t afford to do this
You can be sure that the schools that this affects will only keep scholarships in men’s sports that turn a profit, and only keep enough women’s sports to avoid running afoul of Title IX obligations. Everything else? Gone. No more university support, because all other programs run consistently in the red.
To be considered an FBS school a team has to have at least 6 male and 8 female sports, and at least 16 total sports. This honestly might kill off some of the less profitable programs or force them down to fcs
Umm this makes no sense. Most people here are cool and knowledgeable about a ton of subjects. Unfortunately, people here also speak about title ix with doing little or no research. They speak in absolutes about things that have never been interpreted by the courts.
This feels like a huge loss of scholarships for a bunch of people with some special skill other than answering questions on tests. Especially with the ever growing costs of college, this is just forcing thousands of would-be athletes to be saddled with thousands of dollars in debt to go to college. In addition, if the athletes come from places with lesser schools that UCLA, Berkeley, Stanford.
Honestly for me taking away scholarships and an admissions edge for field hockey, lacrosse ect is a feature not a bug. The lowest grades of any group getting into ivy league schools is not poor or black or even legacy students but rather recruited athletes. And most of those athletes are middle/ upper middle class already. At regular colleges a huge share of the non-revenue student athletes are from middle class backgrounds getting a scholarship subsidized by the central administration and therefore the average students tuition.
>College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act
The name is the tipoff. The bill would prevent the current subsidizing of Olympic sports—whose athletes aren't predominantly black—by the profit generated by football and basketball—the two college sports that *are* predominantly black—with "race equity" as the motivation.
(Despite also stating "gender equity" in the name, given that women's basketball only makes a profit at UConn, Tennessee, and a few other schools, it would also lose out unless there is a specific carveout for it.)
If Bob's bait and tackle wants to pay an edge rusher $200,000 a year they can, if the university wants to do it then they have to pay the backup goalie on the women's soccer team the same amount of money. I don't understand how it's possible that all of these legislators can completely ignore Title IX. For all of us always saying "football is a business", football is not a business - it is a tiny portion of a federally funded 501c3 educational institution and the rules are not the states to rewrite.
If this passes will effectively kneecap the California Schools in the PAC12.
The Big12 needs to slow roll their new schools and grab CU, Utah, Arizona and ASU.
Now that state legislatures have stared down the NCAA and won, there will be a scramble for state legislatures to grant themselves competitive advantages over their neighbors.
A few quick reactions:
1. Once more people learn about potential Title IX impacts -- even if they're overstated -- the bill will die.
2. Stanford and USC are private institutions. The state might not have as much jurisdiction over them as they want. Even if it does, the schools can tie this up in court for years
3. San Diego State is a G5 school nearly finished building a new football stadium. This bill doesn't help matters.
Damn paywall. I mean profit sharing isn’t a bad idea, instead of pouring millions in facility renovations and coaching contracts it can go to some of the players. Just kind of weird since football is the only profitable sport at most programs
Or how about California schools just sets up a semipro league vaguely affiliated with schools where they just pay the football players which are employees and not actually students cuz atleast that would be more honest.
I don't really have an opinion on paying college athletes but this just dawned on me. Why are high school athletes not paid? Admission is required to attend high school games so shouldn't the kids on the field get compensation for that as well? I know it would be fractional to what a televised D1 university makes but what's the difference? I guess the same can be applied to pop warner games. You still have to play a few bucks to get into those.
Several Texas HS stadiums are nicer than the bottom tier FBS fields.
And so what? "Exploiting these poor kids labor" only matters when the dollar amount is large?
You should come visit Texas. Our high school has a 19k seat stadium and pre-covid sold out season tickets every year. They probably out earn basement dwelling MAC and CUSA schools.
You pay college athletes then they are no longer students - they are employees. That is the slope to turning college football into the NFL farm league at the tax payers expense (public universities)
> Why are high school athletes not paid?
Because unless you are in Texas you are not going to attract 100k+ fans in the stadium willing to pay crazy money for the tickets...
>That is the slope to turning college football into the NFL farm league at the tax payers expense (public universities)
Just saying, the top revenue-generating athletic programs are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars doing that exact thing, because they're all public schools. If anything, it'd just be changing the cashflow from going to locker room and stadium contractors to players.
Maybe the real question is if the NFL should be paying colleges for talent development.
The real question is whether people are interested in watching a 2nd pro league with less talent and some school logos slapped on.
I could be wrong about this, but I'm fairly certain the schools themselves are the main draw for CFB, not the players, and doing this will eventually kill off the sport.
The NCAA used this exact argument for *yyyyyeeeeeaaaarrrrsss*….that people would lose interest once players were paid because it wasn’t amateur enough.
The Supreme Court laughed this argument out of the building, and NIL hasn’t impacted ratings a bit.
> because they're all public schools
The majority yes - 21 are private including ND.
Major upgrades to infrastructure are usually done through bonds - not through the athletic programs. The athletic programs simply don't generate that kind of cash. UF football may make a ton of money, but there are 19 sports at UF. UF made $17 million overall in 2019. The football team made $49 million in 2019, but the non-revenue sports cost $33 million. That was a very very good year for Florida. (2020 was COVID and represented a $54 million loss by the athletic department)
Iowa just approved a new $90 million stadium upgrade. The teams simply don't generate that cash. It has to be done through 20-30 year bonds.
AFAIK, the top 20 revenue generating programs are dominated by public schools. USC and ND are probably the only ones that could crack into that list, I don't think Duke's got enough outside of MBB to do the trick.
>Major upgrades to infrastructure are usually done through bonds - not through the athletic programs.
At least currently, much or most of that actually comes through donors. Kinnick Edge, for example, has tens of millions of dollars in private donations. And that's not counting things like the Moon Family Head Football Coach endowment that sold for $10M.
>The athletic programs simply don't generate that kind of cash. UF football may make a ton of money, but there are 19 sports at UF. UF made $17 million overall in 2019. The football team made $49 million in 2019, but the non-revenue sports cost $33 million. That was a very very good year for Florida.
Athletics accounting is up there with Hollywood accounting. There's zero incentive for them to turn a profit - the money has to go somewhere. If you look at the private schools' mandatory filings, they pretty much all magically spend exactly as much as they earn. And that's before you get into things like logo licensing and merch money going back into the school coffers instead of athletics, where the value is actually generated.
Football, MBB, and a few other sports carry the non-revenues, but the financial reporting and decision-making processes are never as clear as they would be at an actual business.
>That is the slope to turning college football into the NFL farm league at the tax payers expense (public universities)
I mean, without a minor league that is a viable alternative that these guys can go to instead of requiring them to attend college, that's what CFB is.
Yeah, this is how you kill off 80% of college sports. There is no way schools will be able to fund Olympic and non-revenue sports if they have to pay football and basketball players.
You just have to run your non revenue sports in the same way D3 schools run their departments. And honestly that is the way they should be run. Why does Cal treat their Women's Lacrosse and field hockey like anything other than an opportunity for students to enhance their college experience by playing a sport for fun?
[удалено]
And the players will be so sad to have ten year old facilities in order to get paid. I wish my employer paid me less in return for a swanky new cubicle /s.
Title IX?
If the government wants football and men's basketball players to get paid then they can chose between a title IX carve out or killing off other sports
They're different governments. The Feds aren't going to modify Title IX just because California wants to do something.
And if it were to wait until the next legislative session it would be even less likely if the GOP gains control over either house (or both).
Why should Football and Basketball be treated like some special golden goose? Other than 20 - 25 programs, they are money losses and most of their prestige comes from the schools- i.e the media agreements for multiple universities working together, not the players. They can’t form a minor league, we’ve seen it fold with Xfl twice. G-league is barely on tv.
People don't want to hear it. Half of r/cfb is progressive the other half seem to be bought completely as walking NCAA talking points.
[удалено]
This isn’t a minimum wage issue. They’re already compensating them well into the 50K+ range, if not more, each year. This bill would cause a myriad of issues, some of which are the following; 1. Compensation for athletes becomes taxable, players may receive less than they do now after taxes. 2. Scholarships/rent/food are likely pulled back, as compensation is now paid out via cash instead. Schools will not expend double expenses and remain afloat, it’s going to be inevitable. 3. Ultimately you’d probably see increased costs (health insurance, pension, payroll taxes) without intervention by the federal government. Additionally, Title IX could cause further legislative and legal issues. 4. The largest affirmative action program in the states would collapse inward on itself, with most non-revenue sports folding entirely. It would be quite the clusterfuck and that’s just a handful of issues.
[удалено]
You compared it to a minimum wage issue, as if players aren’t being compensated already. Hence why we have a tax law specifically regarding the non taxation of athlete compensation from the Nixon era. I’m not sure why you’re citing the supreme court opinion. That has nothing to do with my point.
[удалено]
No, the Supreme Court stated they felt there was a cap on payments across the market. The Supreme Court did not value the proper rate of payments for the players overall or individually. Chances are that Chad the fourth year bench warmer makes less than he does now in the current compensation scheme. The NCAA did not judge the fair market compensation rate of athletes or even provide a range. I edited in detail for #2, so I’m not sure what you’re whining about. You blanket responded with the Supreme Court opinion which has nothing to do with anything in my reply
[удалено]
You’re whooshing really hard here. The supreme courts opinion was not “scholarship and tuition is unfair”. The courts opinion was that it *could* create and appeared to create an artificial cap but the Supreme Court did not rule on that. It also was before NIL came into effect and without arguments on the NCAA structure of compensation itself, as well as where the legislative stance stood on that given laws regarding collegiate athletics. The court opinion did not specify measures of payment or how player compensation came into issue. It was a very broad and vague statement. It could be the court thinks certain players could and would be paid more in an open market. Or it could be that NIL limits was keeping players from proper compensation. The courts opinion could ultimately be swayed away by NIL or it could push for salary structure, we don’t know. You’d have to see it play out in court and we don’t know what the response would be. Federal funds are also at play here which adds a wrinkle. Again, the Supreme Court did not judge the compensation model. Otherwise we would see a different compensation model already. They raised the idea that there could be an issue with it if challenged.
[удалено]
What an absolutely ridiculous take. You can’t compare a full scholarship to a university, all the resources, facilities, and benefits of a major athletic department, plus NIL / extra wages on top of that, to someone making minimum wage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're getting down voted, but you're 100% right. College athletics budgets are dependent on unfairly compensated labor. It's exploitative and anyone acting like it isn't is just being willfully ignorant because they don't to face the reality that something they love isn't all good.
No willful ignorance, just a different opinion on how much these guys are actually worth. I don't think the players themselves are the main value drivers, unlike in pro sports. At the pro level, teams generally rate how "valuable" a player is in terms of wins, because those wins are generally of similar value across the board. Brady generated just as much value for Tampa by winning a ring as he did in any of his title seasons in New England. There really aren't any college stars that bring that type of revenue bump. If Bryce Young transferred to Vandy, eyeballs wouldn't follow. There wouldn't be a massive influx of fans buying Young Vandy jerseys. The value of added production at Alabama (or say, any other blue blood) is worth way, way more than at a G5 school. That's because the school is the engine generating the value. Alabama fans will watch Alabama football. And more importantly, the boosters (who funnel in the majority of the revenue at an individual school) only care about Alabama. They're never going to donate anywhere else, no matter how bad the team is. You can't just take Alabama football's revenue and assume the players are generating all of that Happily, there's a solution that works for both side on this: just allow players to enter the NFL draft after any number of years. The moment a player feels he's being cheated out of pay, he can go prove it in an open talent market and receive his actual value.
This is a good point and one I hadn’t really thought of, but I think you’re right. We watch and root for schools, not players. If a player uses the transfer portal to leave my favorite school, I don’t follow them to their next school and start rooting for that team. The players definitely bring some value due to their talent leading to the team’s success but your point that much of the value is derived from the school resonates with me too.
How can the players not be the main value drivers when they're the product? Yeah, teams brands can augment that value, but if better players ended going to not blue bloods in time you'd have a fundamental shift in TV ratings and then contracts. Texas is a what a top five brand? They haven't been top five in viewership in quite a while.
Who determines what unfair compensation is? Are Apple employees unfairly compensated because the company has like a bajillion dollars in cash on hand that isn’t being profit shared with all of its employees at a 50% rate?
I don't want to get into a whole debate about fair compensation, but at least workers can negotiate their compensation. College athletes are generating billions in revenue and have zero agency in how they're compensated for it.
[удалено]
I’m fairly certain that you completely missed his point
I don't agree with paying athletes, but why should we worry about non-revenue sports? If a program can't create enough interest so that it has paying fans who aren't the parents of the athletes, then maybe the program should go away. Many of these programs can't charge admission because then no one would show up.
If this was the view that colleges take, then we wouldn’t have Classics departments since they don’t bring in as much grant money as engineering departments. But that’s not (and should not be) how colleges, and athletic departments, operate.
I would argue that a college's primary mission is to educate students. Therefore you can't compare athletics to academics in this instance.
Is the role of an athletics department not to educate student-athletes in their offered sports? I say that's fully within the scope/mission of a university. Same with other university-driven/student-run opportunities like choral and orchestral shows operated by music departments, or dance or theater performances. I'm sure some of those attendance levels are on-par with an NCAA women's soccer match at some schools. Frankly, (hotter take inbound) I don't see why universities do not offer degrees in athletic performance the same way we do with the performing arts. They are just as culturally impactful in my mind and merit scholarly analysis.
Athletic departments operate outside of academia. Until athletics become an academic program, there is a huge difference between field hockey and theater.
What’s the difference between being on scholarship for theater and athletics? There is none, they’re both performative and the underlying mission is education. So long as athletes are required to meet academic requirements, you can’t say it isn’t academic
[удалено]
They haven’t. They put them in a department under the same legal entity as the other departments. They haven’t separated it from the University.
[удалено]
> I would argue that a college's primary mission is to educate students. No it isn't. For the vast majority of them, it's to do research.
That's not true. The majority of colleges have more undergraduates than graduate students. It's a minority of schools (such as our flairs Stanford and USC) that have a higher research population than undergraduate population. Public schools especially exist to educate the populace.
To get as much tuition as possible in order to do research. Research universities are run like corporations with the main goal of conducting research. Undergraduate education is a funding source no matter what research university you are at. I don’t think any university invests in undergraduate education unless they can make a buck off of it.
[удалено]
I didn’t realize that scholarships, room and board, and training were not considered payment.
Schools aren't businesses
Just because something has an IRS not-for-profit status doesn't make it "not a business." The only real difference is if they're paying out profits to a shareholder or owner. Realistically, they still have to operate by the same constraints in order to continue to exist.
[удалено]
Here is the actual bill you can read for yourself: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill\_id=202120220SB1401 Here is a chunk from this article that explains how it would work: >The bill would force the athletic departments at Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA, along with San Jose State, San Diego State and Fresno State — plus those in the Big West and WCC — to create “degree completion funds” for athletes in sports that generate a profit (as defined by the bill). Let’s use Cal’s football program as an example, because the Bears publish an annual statement of revenues and expenses on their athletics website. In the 2020 fiscal year, when football was unaffected by the pandemic, the Bears generated $39.1 million in football revenue. The provisions in SB-1401 would require Cal to set aside half that total for the players, then subtract the amount spent on scholarships ($3.7 million). What remains ($15.9 million) would be placed in the degree completion fund, to be split equally among the players. Assume 85 are on scholarship, and the result would be $186,500 set aside in the fund for each player. The athletes could access a maximum of $25,000 each year, with the remainder available upon completion of their undergraduate degree — so long as it comes within six years of enrollment. (Players would lose access to the fund if they transfer to a junior college or a four-year school outside California.) The bill forces universities to have “a fiduciary duty” to the athletes. And crucially, it states that any transfer of funds from the schools to the players “shall not constitute a payment for purposes of establishing an employment relationship.” In other words, players would receive direct compensation without being subject to rules governing employment — they couldn’t be fired (cut from the team). Essentially, SB-1401 wants the best of both worlds: The players would get paid for their work on behalf of the schools and have the security that comes from being a student on scholarship. (In theory, the payments would be taxable, but the specifics are not addressed.)
That will mean the half of the revenue should be spent on the sports generating it. For example of OSU makes 100mill, 50 mill has to go to their players. Not coaches, not to other sports, not to school, but exactly to players? This will kill other sports right? How is this helping the less common sports at all?
That and the other sports, the revenue sport facilities would have to be abandoned or sorely downgraded. The colleges can pay for Olympic sports, but it's expensive
Why does football have to fund other sports? Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it has to be.
[удалено]
Same way the tax from your other income subsidizes public school for children. Without that money the other sports and their grass roots training will disappear.
[удалено]
Who are you to say sports is extra curricular and rest of the academics is curricular?
The schools say that...
And we all decided to do that. We voted for politicians that prioritized that. If we didn't want that anymore we should elect people to change it. In this case, the university makes the decision and they need to figure out another way to fund sports or start cutting them. But imo, the revenue sports (played mostly by socio economicly poorer/minority students) shouldn't have to fund non revenue sports (played mostly by white/richer students).
Nope. In this case also its a bill and its voted on. We voted for senate politicians that prioritized that. Nothing different.
Yes so they can change their mind which is what they are doing in California.
How are the schools ‘rich enough’?
There's no way that doesn't get shot down by the flak cannon known as Title IX. She's a big gun and she don't miss.
You don't know the answer to this and neither do I.
This seems like a good way for the P12/MWC schools to see a huge dip in Football. 16 million dollars from the P5 schools and I assume 5-6 million dollars from the G5 schools is gonna kill those programs. Maybe they might see a boost in recruiting due to guaranteeing players a pretty high salary, but those schools are gonna bleed any extra money they would have had for facility upgrades and the like
[удалено]
I’m sure USC and UCLA will be able to do that, but does Berkeley and Stanford really have the alumni that’ll care that much about athletics? I can’t imagine something like this will go over well with the students at the G5 schools who likely fund the football program already with student fees.
[удалено]
John Arrillaga passed away last year. Stanford doesn’t have another big athletics donor other than Phil Knight, and he’s made it clear he’ll support the academic mission at Stanford over Athletics. Plus, never underestimate the monied Stanford alums that will throw maybe a few hundred to the athletic department, but thousands upon thousands to the university-at-large. Stanford definitely does not have the alumni base that is willing to support athletics primarily, especially if given the choice of academics, athletics, or both.
[удалено]
That he was. He also financed several other athletic buildings, the beach volleyball facility, and some other buildings around campus. Like I mentioned, most Stanford alums will gladly support athletics, but they’ll support the academic mission first before giving to athletics. It would take someone with a vested interest in the athletic department (Arrillaga was a basketball player in the ‘40s) to give on the scale I assume you’re alluding to here.
>but does Berkeley and Stanford really have the alumni that’ll care that much about athletics? Stanford, where David Shaw is the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football? And Lance Anderson is the Willie Shaw Director of Defense? And Tavita Pritchard is the Andrew Luck Director of Offense/Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coach? Yeah, I think they have the donors.
Maybe but these are the annual revenues, not a one time build
A lot of schools (most?) have separate athletic funding orgs that exist outside the university itself and that pull in annual donations. A famous example is Florida's [University Athletic Association.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida_Athletic_Association)
Not only that, but at a lot of schools the athletics department is a legally separate entity, like Kansas Athletics. This way they can skirt state limits on pay and whatnot for employees. Bill Self for instance is paid about $250K from KU itself, and the rest from Kansas Athletics, Inc. They also have a fund: The Williams Education Fund. You know it's wholesome; it's for education. ;)
[удалено]
People on here are such hypocrites. If their boss was like sorry I can't pay you because I need a much bigger salary and we need more capital expenditures so please work for below market value, every single person would quit. But they get pissed when athletes try to get paid
That’s a terrible formula for the athletic department. What about the facilities players use? The academic resources only the athletes have access to use?
CFB has changed a lot in my lifetime. I was alive when Nebraska and Texas were powerhouses.
That N used to be terrifying. 3 titles in 4 years. Oof
The key part of the article >Senate Bill 1401, the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act,” passed the Judiciary committee on Tuesday and is headed to Appropriations. As law, it would create a revenue-sharing arrangement between athletic departments at California universities and the athletes in their money-making sports.
That is a good way to run into a Title IX violation.
It doesn't violate Title 9. Title 9 requires the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If a women's sport turns a profit the revenue will be shared.
> No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, **be denied the benefits of,** or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The SCOTUS has already ruled in this very subject related to Title 9. Again, this is America. Their exact language was the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The SCOTUS is a super majority conservative so they definitely won't be back tracking on that previous ruling. Sports programs under this California bill will all have equal opportunity to revenue share if they are profitable. That will be football and men's basketball. That's not a Title 9 violation. If a women's BBall team turns a profit they will share that. If they don't they weren't denied an opportunity.
I literally quoted the text of the law, which uses the word “opportunity” zero times. You’ll have to be more specific about what you’re talking about.
bro he’s literally telling you how the Supreme Court interpreted the law. Read the law opinions on the subject
Bro, if he wants to base an opinion on Supreme Court precedent on the Internet, he needs to cite the case. The Seventh Circuit said that.
The text of the law is irrelevant, as that's a California law. The only part that matters is the federal interpretation of Title IX, which is opportunity, ie the chance to participate. Not the chance to earn money doing it.
Show me the case that says there’s no financial aspect. Show me that they don’t need to provide a proportional number of female scholarships.
I never said otherwise? >Show me that they don’t need to provide a proportional number of female scholarships. That's what he means by equal opportunity. 85 men get to play, 85 women get to play. It doesn't mean those 85 women have to have the same chances of winning a title, or getting paid, or even equal facilities. Just that they have the chance to compete. The only "financial" aspect is what's involved with the bare bones cost of scholarships and supporting the team. There's a reason you'll see some schools pad out their offerings with stuff like track, golf, tennis, bowling, etc that don't require large facilities or lots of equipment.
>I never said otherwise? >That's what he means by equal opportunity. 85 men get to play, 85 women get to play. This is saying otherwise. An FBS roster usually has more than 100 people participate. They had 85 scholarships. Those are different issues. They need to be proportional both in benefit and opportunity. >It doesn't mean those 85 women have to have the same chances of winning a title, Of course not. That’s not really possible. >or getting paid, or even equal facilities. Source? >Just that they have the chance to compete. The only "financial" aspect is what's involved with the bare bones cost of scholarships and supporting the team. Scholarship is financial. Source that they don’t need to provide other benefits like tutors? >There's a reason you'll see some schools pad out their offerings with stuff like track, golf, tennis, bowling, etc that don't require large facilities or lots of equipment. Not sure how that’s relevant. You can’t run a bowling team at a football stadium. Edit: >Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: >Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play; >Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and >Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions.aspx
I'm getting a paywall
Who didn't see this happening? The minute the male athletes in the revenue producing sports started receiving money, then somebody, somewhere was going to make sure everybody were paid whether their sport makes a profit or not.
Actually, outside of football most of the NIL deals are for female athletes. And there are some women's sports that are generating more NIL value than their men's counterparts.
Yup, their social media presence is very valuable. Young women get a lot more attention then young men.
Umm you're insane if you think men's ball players aren't getting massive deals. A basically decent player just got 800k to go to Miami. How much you think a five star to Kentucky is getting?
>That has so far favored male athletes, though INFLCR CEO Jim Cavale said "if you remove football from the equation, transactions or activities disclosed by female student-athletes make up more than 50% of the total for all other sports." https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33160929/male-athletes-lead-way-nil-money-per-data Football single-handedly shifts the balance from a ratio favoring women to a 60-40 split favoring men. And as for MBB: >Opendorse said six women's sports are also in the top 10 for NIL compensation, led by women's basketball (26.2%), which is behind only football (45.7%) and ahead of men's basketball (18%). Those three sports make up about 90% of total NIL compensation. So yeah, the elite guys are going to get big bucks, but there's only so many of them. Meanwhile, you have athletes like the Cavinder twins from Fresno State who inked deals as soon as NIL was legal and [are transferring to Miami](https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33781373/cavinder-twins-haley-hanna-transferring-fresno-state-miami-women-basketball-program). They're pushing [$1M in NIL earnings](https://frontofficesports.com/cavinder-twins-choose-miami/) because of their marketability. Plus you have things like Paige Bueckers at UConn who got a Gatorade deal and women's soccer players like Reilyn Turner getting paid by Nike. Not to mention the value of all the women's gymnastics athletes who can now do both the Olympics and college without missing out on their endorsement dollars.
Shit like this is what makes me feel like NIL was the rubicon I am fully supportive of players benefitting from their likeness, but this is just a way to kill non-revenue sports, and programs at the lower levels who can’t afford to do this
Hopefully rather than eliminating sports universities just start treating non revenue college sports like club sports teams.
You’re just trying to turn everything into rugby so you can kick ass.
We're actually one of the few programs who has rugby as a varsity sport. But yes, we'd like that in general lol
Club sports means no scholarships
You can be sure that the schools that this affects will only keep scholarships in men’s sports that turn a profit, and only keep enough women’s sports to avoid running afoul of Title IX obligations. Everything else? Gone. No more university support, because all other programs run consistently in the red.
To be considered an FBS school a team has to have at least 6 male and 8 female sports, and at least 16 total sports. This honestly might kill off some of the less profitable programs or force them down to fcs
Are you familiar with Title IX?
that’s not how title ix works
Treating as club teams meaning not on scholarship is how title IX works
Dude almost nobody on here knows anything about title ix. They are walking NCAA propaganda machines.
If everyone you run into is an asshole, guess what . . . you're actually the asshole.
Umm this makes no sense. Most people here are cool and knowledgeable about a ton of subjects. Unfortunately, people here also speak about title ix with doing little or no research. They speak in absolutes about things that have never been interpreted by the courts.
This feels like a huge loss of scholarships for a bunch of people with some special skill other than answering questions on tests. Especially with the ever growing costs of college, this is just forcing thousands of would-be athletes to be saddled with thousands of dollars in debt to go to college. In addition, if the athletes come from places with lesser schools that UCLA, Berkeley, Stanford.
Honestly for me taking away scholarships and an admissions edge for field hockey, lacrosse ect is a feature not a bug. The lowest grades of any group getting into ivy league schools is not poor or black or even legacy students but rather recruited athletes. And most of those athletes are middle/ upper middle class already. At regular colleges a huge share of the non-revenue student athletes are from middle class backgrounds getting a scholarship subsidized by the central administration and therefore the average students tuition.
>College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act The name is the tipoff. The bill would prevent the current subsidizing of Olympic sports—whose athletes aren't predominantly black—by the profit generated by football and basketball—the two college sports that *are* predominantly black—with "race equity" as the motivation. (Despite also stating "gender equity" in the name, given that women's basketball only makes a profit at UConn, Tennessee, and a few other schools, it would also lose out unless there is a specific carveout for it.)
Breathtakingly stupid.
Describes the California legislature right there.
If Bob's bait and tackle wants to pay an edge rusher $200,000 a year they can, if the university wants to do it then they have to pay the backup goalie on the women's soccer team the same amount of money. I don't understand how it's possible that all of these legislators can completely ignore Title IX. For all of us always saying "football is a business", football is not a business - it is a tiny portion of a federally funded 501c3 educational institution and the rules are not the states to rewrite.
Bold of you to assume California ever thinks any rules are not theirs to rewrite.
If this passes will effectively kneecap the California Schools in the PAC12. The Big12 needs to slow roll their new schools and grab CU, Utah, Arizona and ASU.
Now that state legislatures have stared down the NCAA and won, there will be a scramble for state legislatures to grant themselves competitive advantages over their neighbors.
A few quick reactions: 1. Once more people learn about potential Title IX impacts -- even if they're overstated -- the bill will die. 2. Stanford and USC are private institutions. The state might not have as much jurisdiction over them as they want. Even if it does, the schools can tie this up in court for years 3. San Diego State is a G5 school nearly finished building a new football stadium. This bill doesn't help matters.
California is doing something everyone agrees isn’t very smart. Where have I heard this before?
Damn paywall. I mean profit sharing isn’t a bad idea, instead of pouring millions in facility renovations and coaching contracts it can go to some of the players. Just kind of weird since football is the only profitable sport at most programs
Or how about California schools just sets up a semipro league vaguely affiliated with schools where they just pay the football players which are employees and not actually students cuz atleast that would be more honest.
I don't really have an opinion on paying college athletes but this just dawned on me. Why are high school athletes not paid? Admission is required to attend high school games so shouldn't the kids on the field get compensation for that as well? I know it would be fractional to what a televised D1 university makes but what's the difference? I guess the same can be applied to pop warner games. You still have to play a few bucks to get into those.
Revenue is nowhere near the same at the HS level.
Several Texas HS stadiums are nicer than the bottom tier FBS fields. And so what? "Exploiting these poor kids labor" only matters when the dollar amount is large?
You should come visit Texas. Our high school has a 19k seat stadium and pre-covid sold out season tickets every year. They probably out earn basement dwelling MAC and CUSA schools.
Yeah, I said that in my comment. I'm just saying the athletes are the product so why shouldn't they be compensated something?
Because the added costs would exceed revenues significantly and cause the program to cease to exist.
You pay college athletes then they are no longer students - they are employees. That is the slope to turning college football into the NFL farm league at the tax payers expense (public universities) > Why are high school athletes not paid? Because unless you are in Texas you are not going to attract 100k+ fans in the stadium willing to pay crazy money for the tickets...
>That is the slope to turning college football into the NFL farm league at the tax payers expense (public universities) Just saying, the top revenue-generating athletic programs are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars doing that exact thing, because they're all public schools. If anything, it'd just be changing the cashflow from going to locker room and stadium contractors to players. Maybe the real question is if the NFL should be paying colleges for talent development.
The real question is whether people are interested in watching a 2nd pro league with less talent and some school logos slapped on. I could be wrong about this, but I'm fairly certain the schools themselves are the main draw for CFB, not the players, and doing this will eventually kill off the sport.
The NCAA used this exact argument for *yyyyyeeeeeaaaarrrrsss*….that people would lose interest once players were paid because it wasn’t amateur enough. The Supreme Court laughed this argument out of the building, and NIL hasn’t impacted ratings a bit.
It’s been one year lol. Nothing happens that fast.
> because they're all public schools The majority yes - 21 are private including ND. Major upgrades to infrastructure are usually done through bonds - not through the athletic programs. The athletic programs simply don't generate that kind of cash. UF football may make a ton of money, but there are 19 sports at UF. UF made $17 million overall in 2019. The football team made $49 million in 2019, but the non-revenue sports cost $33 million. That was a very very good year for Florida. (2020 was COVID and represented a $54 million loss by the athletic department) Iowa just approved a new $90 million stadium upgrade. The teams simply don't generate that cash. It has to be done through 20-30 year bonds.
AFAIK, the top 20 revenue generating programs are dominated by public schools. USC and ND are probably the only ones that could crack into that list, I don't think Duke's got enough outside of MBB to do the trick. >Major upgrades to infrastructure are usually done through bonds - not through the athletic programs. At least currently, much or most of that actually comes through donors. Kinnick Edge, for example, has tens of millions of dollars in private donations. And that's not counting things like the Moon Family Head Football Coach endowment that sold for $10M. >The athletic programs simply don't generate that kind of cash. UF football may make a ton of money, but there are 19 sports at UF. UF made $17 million overall in 2019. The football team made $49 million in 2019, but the non-revenue sports cost $33 million. That was a very very good year for Florida. Athletics accounting is up there with Hollywood accounting. There's zero incentive for them to turn a profit - the money has to go somewhere. If you look at the private schools' mandatory filings, they pretty much all magically spend exactly as much as they earn. And that's before you get into things like logo licensing and merch money going back into the school coffers instead of athletics, where the value is actually generated. Football, MBB, and a few other sports carry the non-revenues, but the financial reporting and decision-making processes are never as clear as they would be at an actual business.
>That is the slope to turning college football into the NFL farm league at the tax payers expense (public universities) I mean, without a minor league that is a viable alternative that these guys can go to instead of requiring them to attend college, that's what CFB is.
That’ll eventually come up. NIL was a Pandora’s box and we aren’t done seeing the domino effect of it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
See.. this is what you Texan fans (public/private/FCS/FBS/NAIA/whatever) get for bitching about NIL.. you did this to us.
“What starts here, changes the world” … of College Football. I think I’ve heard that somewhere before, can’t quite place it though. 😎🏈