Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 208

Thread: Labor/Workers movements thread

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Deaconblue View Post
    Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alston v NCAA this week. It is framed as an anti-trust case. NCAA is the sole "employer" of college athletes. "Monopsist" was the word used, I think.

    Justices did not seem to be sympathetic to NCAA amateurism model. Seemed to be headed toward allowing much greater payments to athletes as "academic awards." Post eligibility paid internships, vocational training, graduate school scholarships, study abroad funds, and $5980 cash awards. The cash award amount was apparently a construct by the district Court Judge.

    I'd love to see the thoughts of some of the lawyers on the issues.
    My thought is probably more suited for the sports board, but it's looking more and more like the college sports world as we've known it may be on its last legs. Not that it will disappear, but the model, organization, and the way it operates is likely to change dramatically within the next few years.

  2. #122
    I hope so.

    And I hope the change is away from semi-professionalism more towards student-athletics.

    But I donít know how this would be with all the freaking money on the table.

    Which way is actually anticipated?
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by ConnorEl View Post
    I hope so.

    And I hope the change is away from semi-professionalism more towards student-athletics.

    But I donít know how this would be with all the freaking money on the table.

    Which way is actually anticipated?
    We will never play relevant big time college athletics at Wake once the shift happens. There will be big schools that follow the new model and there will be schools that end up about as competitive as the Patriot League.

  4. #124
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquid Karma View Post
    We will never play relevant big time college athletics at Wake once the shift happens. There will be big schools that follow the new model and there will be schools that end up about as competitive as the Patriot League.
    Or Chris can get his buddy Lebron to use our athletes in some of his multitude of shows, movies and businesses.

  5. #125
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquid Karma View Post
    We will never play relevant big time college athletics at Wake once the shift happens. There will be big schools that follow the new model and there will be schools that end up about as competitive as the Patriot League.
    I disagree. There have been shifts before and every time Wake has shifted too.

  6. #126
    Why do y'all think wake has dumped so much money into facilities, endowing Olympic sports' scholarships, and, in particular, nutrition and student-athlete well-being?

    When the model changes, and it will, wake's investment in these areas will (theoretically) give us a huge leg up in the new world of college athletics -- one possibly focused on a commitment to amateurism and non-revenue sports. Doofus-twin-hedging.

  7. #127
    The discussion seemed to center on the need to pay market rate for players. Market for football, men's basketball would drive higher pay in many locals. Other sports, market would probably be less than current scholarship. If the 29 sports NCAA manages were each considered a corporate division, only a few would be making a profit, the rest operate at a loss.

  8. #128
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,870
    The thing few people want to talk about is that the big time TV sports played predominantly by Black US athletes (football, menís and womenís basketball) pay for scholarships and facilities for sports played almost completely by white US and international athletes.

    Iíll also add that the current model discourages schools and networks from seeking a market for most sports. Who knows? If they actually did the work, maybe they could develop a profitable revenue stream for Olympic sports.

  9. #129
    Interesting stat:

    One of the arguments against allowing collegians to make money off their renown is that the popular male players in the biggest sports ó football and basketball ó will reap most of the benefits. But of the 30 college athletes with the top social media followings, just over half come from nonrevenue sports like track, tennis and wrestling, Lawrence said. And many are women.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/s...e=articleShare

  10. #130
    That surprises me. Regardless, I'm skeptical whether social media fame would translate to money earned, but it is possible. GenZ have already made lots of money by selling their "influence" and image online.

  11. #131

    Labor/Workers movements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by wakephan09 View Post
    That surprises me. Regardless, I'm skeptical whether social media fame would translate to money earned, but it is possible. GenZ have already made lots of money by selling their "influence" and image online.
    Definitely translates into money earned in the short term.

    Woodhall will spend his time training for the Paralympics while reaping the rewards of being an internet influencer, paid in full. He said he makes roughly $7,500 per post and that itís not hard to produce 10 each month.

    Tack on earnings paid by social media sites for bringing in viewers, the windfall from athletic gear sponsorship deals that he is poised to sign and income from a clothing company he co-owns, and he seems to be doing pretty well without running track under the forbidding eye of the N.C.A.A.
    Remains to be seen what the long term career prospects for social media influencers are like though.

  12. #132
    Good points. I'll need to read the article.

    That's a hell of a lot more money than you'd make selling autographs. But maybe not nearly as much as you'd make selling to a video game the rights to use your image on the cover.

  13. #133
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,870
    Quote Originally Posted by wakephan09 View Post
    That surprises me. Regardless, I'm skeptical whether social media fame would translate to money earned, but it is possible. GenZ have already made lots of money by selling their "influence" and image online.
    Man Surprised People Follow Young Women Online

    Like I said, thereís never really been a major effort to promote and market Olympic sports so we donít know that theyíre not marketable. Itís quite possible if ESPN cover college volleyball like theyíre covering the womenís basketball tournament weíd see more interest in volleyball. People would follow volleyball players on Instagram and watch their matches on the ESPN app and so forth and so on.

  14. #134

    Labor/Workers movements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    The thing few people want to talk about is that the big time TV sports played predominantly by Black US athletes (football, menís and womenís basketball) pay for scholarships and facilities for sports played almost completely by white US and international athletes.

    Iíll also add that the current model discourages schools and networks from seeking a market for most sports. Who knows? If they actually did the work, maybe they could develop a profitable revenue stream for Olympic sports.
    It seems like those Black athletes are likely to get screwed by a major shift in how college athletics are conducted. If football and basketball switch to salaries, I think scholarships will go away, income taxes will need to be paid, and most (perhaps all) colleges will drop basketball and football. The resulting minor league teams will draw way less interest and money, and those athletes will end up getting much less than they are currently (which is estimated to be about $100,000 per year for full scholarship athletes).

    Conversely, the Olympic sports will remain tied to colleges and will thrive. Soccer and baseball, in particular.

    Many suggest that the current amateur college athletics system is structured to exploit Black student athletes, when the reality is that the current system was created before Black people were even allowed to participate.

    Not everything works well in a capitalist model. I think healthcare and college sports are two prominent examples. And the only law one call always count on is the law of unintended consequences...

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafi View Post
    most (perhaps all) colleges will drop basketball and football.
    No they wonít.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Man Surprised People Follow Young Women Online
    That's not what I said at all and I didn't specify women's sports.

  17. #137
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,870
    Rafi, that's a horrible take, an all-time horrible take.

    First of all, at every shift in labor, people have argued that exploited Black workers are better off being exploited than having more rights and a greater share of the economic value they create. Your argument is no different.

    Second, nobody is going to drop college basketball and football. They'll still be profitable. They won't drop scholarships either. There's no purpose is treating scholarships as income except to screw over athletes and ruin the whole enterprise. Scholarships and a stipend and NIL will be in place and the income will be taxed appropriately.

    Third, the current system didn't become as exploitive as it is until Black athletes were allowed. Your argument seems to be that money is just as important in college sports now as it was in the 60s when college sports were still largely segregated.

    Fourth, the NCAA does embrace a capitalist model.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Rafi, that's a horrible take, an all-time horrible take.

    First of all, at every shift in labor, people have argued that exploited Black workers are better off being exploited than having more rights and a greater share of the economic value they create. Your argument is no different.

    Second, nobody is going to drop college basketball and football. They'll still be profitable. They won't drop scholarships either. There's no purpose is treating scholarships as income except to screw over athletes and ruin the whole enterprise. Scholarships and a stipend and NIL will be in place and the income will be taxed appropriately.

    Third, the current system didn't become as exploitive as it is until Black athletes were allowed. Your argument seems to be that money is just as important in college sports now as it was in the 60s when college sports were still largely segregated.

    Fourth, the NCAA does embrace a capitalist model.
    Ha! Tell me how you really feel though.

    I appreciate your view, and maybe Iím wrong. Maybe colleges will embrace paying football and menís basketball student athletes and not other student athletes. But I highly doubt it. Many, many college administrators are looking for a way out of college athletics, and this will be the perfect opportunity. I have sat on enough faculty senates to see this first hand.

    Iím not talking about stipends and NIL. Those are already in place, and stipends have been around for years. Iím talking about paying ďmarket valueĒ to student athletes, and not paying other student athletes because they have no market value.

    When Ed OíBannon sued to get student athletes paid for using their likeness, I said there was no way they would get paid - theyíll just stop making the game, which as we know is what happened. There is no way most colleges are going to pay some student athletes and not others. If this were to be forced on the NCAA by law, I estimate about 40 colleges would try it, and the rest would drop football and basketball. Those 40 programs would last a few years and then when interest, and most importantly TV money, dried up, they would drop it too.

    In regards to your last point, college athletics is obviously not a capitalist model. Címon. If it was, most sports would have been dropped years ago.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Third, the current system didn't become as exploitive as it is until Black athletes were allowed. Your argument seems to be that money is just as important in college sports now as it was in the 60s when college sports were still largely segregated.
    I donít think thatís correct. When college sports were created freshman couldnít play, student athletes had to sit out 1-2 years when they transferred, there were no stipends, they had to stay in school much longer before going pro, etc. The rules of the system are not nearly as strict now for the student athletes. Itís just that sports became much more lucrative because of TV, so there is way more money involved now.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafi View Post
    In regards to your last point, college athletics is obviously not a capitalist model. Címon. If it was, most sports would have been dropped years ago.
    You don't think college athletics extracts and surplus value from the labor of athletes/staff and stockpiles it in the hands of a minority few? What economic model guides college athletics?
    semi-aquatic like otters be.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •