• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Labor/Workers movements thread

As we talk about this, everyone should look at https://www.amazon.com/Cinderella-Strategy-behind-Universitys-Prominence/dp/1597259543

"n 2010, Butler University’s men’s basketball team made a stunning run to the national championship game, becoming the smallest school to make the final in the modern history of the NCAA tournament. In 2011, they did it again. With back-to-back turns as America’s favorite underdog, Butler basketball provided its university back home in Indianapolis with an unprecedented opportunity. The Cinderella Strategy details how Butler started its move toward the Final Fours as far back in 1989, forged a synergy between a big-time athletic program and a serious academic institution in the process, and then leveraged the Cinderella story for all it was worth. The authors analyze how the university’s decision-makers took full advantage of this opportunity, delving into the brilliant marketing of Butler’s live mascot program, the authentic branding of “The Butler Way,” and the critical move into the Big East. Through these and other tactics, Butler transformed its academic reputation, enrollment, fundraising, and campus infrastructure, all in an era when many other small, private universities have struggled to survive. The resulting story interweaves basketball luminaries like Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens, Villanova Coach Jay Wright, and San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich with the tireless efforts of so many lesser known but equally talented individuals within the Butler community. The Cinderella Strategy reveals how Butler has shattered the odds time and time again, both on and off the court. In the process, it offers a heartening case study of how a complex organization can find, manage, and multiply success, without having to trade its soul in the process."

One of the writers used to be a semi-regular poster. It gives a lot of insights.
 
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?

Correct, I do not think that. If we were only talking about football and men's basketball, that would be correct. But we are not - I am referring to all college athletics. The money made from football/basketball gets spread to student athletes in track, volleyball, golf, soccer, etc. Millions of dollars goes into the other sports, yet they bring in essentially no money. As an example, the budget for a volleyball team is $500,000+ per year, yet they make no money. If this was a capitalist model, focused on maximizing profit, only two sports would exist - football and men's basketball.

This gets to the major issue here. If only football and men's basketball were considered, then the answers would be easy (and the system would have changed decades ago) - either separate from schools and form more minor leagues or pay the student athletes based on what they are bringing in. But that's not the reality of what the NCAA is dealing with. There are tens of thousands of student athletes that bring no value from their "labor."
 
Last edited:
and yet those Olympic sports bring in donations from alumni, raise the profile of the University across the country leading to more applications, and are a convenient place to allow children of possible high donors to walk on. I think those teams bring in more "value" than you are giving them credit for.
 
and yet those Olympic sports bring in donations from alumni, raise the profile of the University across the country leading to more applications, and are a convenient place to allow children of possible high donors to walk on. I think those teams bring in more "value" than you are giving them credit for.

Absolutely they do all that. But those sports are not making money. So the money made by football/m basketball TV contracts gets spread amongst all student athletes, men and women.
 
I don’t think it’s off-brand for capitalism to exploit labor for large profits and devote a portion of those profits to less profitable projects important to stakeholders.
 
I don’t think it’s off-brand for capitalism to exploit labor for large profits and devote a portion of those profits to less profitable projects important to stakeholders.

"Less profitable" is quite an understatement. More like "hemorrhaging money for decades with no chance of turning a profit at any point." Again, in a capitalist model, there would only be two sports.
 
That only makes sense if you’re looking at all sports as revenue instead of some sports as revenue and others as expenditures.
 
"Less profitable" is quite an understatement. More like "hemorrhaging money for decades with no chance of turning a profit at any point." Again, in a capitalist model, there would only be two sports.

Ever hear of a loss leader?
 
That only makes sense if you’re looking at all sports as revenue instead of some sports as revenue and others as expenditures.

If this was about making money, there would not be cross-country programs. This is an amateur sports model, just like in high school. As BBD said, those sports are enjoyable for alumni, students, and student athletes, but their "labor" is not making any money. Now, college sports are continuing to move away from an amateur sports model, and more toward a capitalism model. This is why Stanford, the richest athletic department in the country, cut 11 sports. And one of the next potential steps is to pay market-based salaries to football and men's basketball, in which case I think very few schools will do that, and it will reset the whole system.
 
lol @ thinking capitalism is just making things all things profitable and if it isn't profitable it isn't part of a capitalist mode of production
 
also lol @ putting student athlete labor in scare quotes
 
Ever hear of a loss leader?

Haha, yeah, this would be like the most ridiculous loss leader anyone could imagine because it makes no sense, and it would result in the immediate firing of the CEO and board.

To clarify TK's argument, you think a cross-country runner is having value extracted from his labor and given to others? It's the opposite - the runner is receiving much more in compensation than he brings in in value.
 
Ever hear of a loss leader?

The concept of "loss leader" is get consumers to buy something cheaply to get them to buy more expensive products/services. For most non-revenue sports, people aren't buying anything and are costing schools money. Whereas, you might buy a six pack for $4 and spend $200 on other groceries while there, you very rarely go from a cross-country meet or field hockey game and then spend $100 on bball or football stuff.

Non-revenue sports for men or women are not "loss leaders". They have nothing really to do with helping the sports that pay for them.

This is not to say I don't think UWNT soccer players shouldn't be paid as well as or better than the men's team as they might produce more revenues. For decades, Pat Summit should have been paid better than the men's coach as TN as she created sellouts and revenue.

Sports and entertainment are about revenues. Your gender shouldn't matter if you produce revenues.
 
Last edited:
“Sure, these teams bring in money. But they don’t bring in money!”
 
So if it’s not capitalism, what system are all these TV networks and corporate sponsors participating in?
 
also lol @ putting student athlete labor in scare quotes

Do you think the cross-country runner is "labor?" How about at a D3 school? High school? Middle school? Serious question, I'm interested in your thoughts. You post some really insightful stuff (many on here, including many on this thread, do too).
 
“Sure, these teams bring in money. But they don’t bring in money!”

I'm not sure I follow? If you mean that cross-country receives some donations, yes, that's correct. But high school football bake sales also bring in some money. I was differentiating between tens of millions for revenue sports and thousands for cross-country - it's a pretty massive difference and the reason the system is so challenging, in my opinion.
 
Absolutely they do all that. But those sports are not making money. So the money made by football/m basketball TV contracts gets spread amongst all student athletes, men and women.

You acknowledge there are both monetary and non-monetary value in those Olympic sports. My point is that just because there is not immediate TV type money for tennis, golf, and track teams does not mean there is not some return on the school's investment in those teams.
 
rafi, I understand you derive a lot of pleasure from the model as is, but there is absolutely no way anyone creates what we have if they start from scratch


I disagree with both Ph (at least Ph in this particular thread, he may agree with me given more options) and, especially, rafi in that you have to full detach academics from minor league sports -- it's not about paying college players or letting them profit off their likeness, it's about fully separating them from each other -- football and basketball are what they are because of a lack of minor league options (and due to unfair labor practices that don't really apply to any other profession), though you can see the G-League starting to chip away at that very slowly in hoops

I stand by my take that the goal for college hoops in sports with big money pro leagues should be like soccer: the best young players go through club systems and the next tier may or may not play college; it's a path to the big time for the late bloomers and overlooked guys (e.g. Clint Dempsey) but it's not the main way young guys develop and have access to pro leagues


I realize none of this will ever happen in my lifetime because too many people have emotional attachments to the schools and their athletic programs
 
Back
Top