Effort to unionize NW football players gets unfavorable decision

[knowell]

Yeah, salary caps are totally anti-market too, so I'm gonna need knowell's libertarian acumen to get me through this one.

A sports entity like the NFL should be allowed to make regulations for its members. These would curtail some competitiveness within the organization. The true competition lies outside of the NFL where you are competing for athletes with other sports or professions in general.

 

[avalon]

Yeah, salary caps are totally anti-market too, so I'm gonna need knowell's libertarian acumen to get me through this one.

Ed Snider is a huge Ayn Rand fan. Yet he owns an NHL team and campaigned hard for a salary cap. He wants his team to generate the max value of it's services, but not his players.

 

[knowell]

Team owners aren't in it for the money, they are in it for the competitiveness.

They are in it for the money, but without competition they will make less money. Most football fans feel optimistic about their teams chances as there almost always is a surprise team in the NFL and the distance between a playoff team and a bad team is not that great. Baseball, on the other hand, has teams that do not even pretend to contend.

 

[avalon]

They are in it for the money, but without competition they will make less money. Most football fans feel optimistic about their teams chances as there almost always is a surprise team in the NFL and the distance between a playoff team and a bad team is not that great. Baseball, on the other hand, has teams that do not even pretend to contend.

I'd argue that has more to do with the length of the season than the salary cap. It's easier to fluke your way to a playoff spot when you only play 16 games.

Currently half the teams leading their divisions in the MLB started the season in the bottom half of payrolls.

 

[TownieDeac]

Owners wanting increased competition could not be further from the truth.

NFL owners operate like a cartel on par with OPEC. Their ability to limit competition, limit bargaining rights, and limit wages is unparalleled in sports. Instead of competing against each other for TV money, they share it, reducing risk and spreading wealth regardless of how well their teams perform.

If you go back to 2011 and the owners' lockout, it was a perfect analog to Wisconsin's labor dispute.

And it hasn't really been shown that salary caps increase parity or even that parity is a requirement for smaller teams to succeed. Baseball is actually a perfect example - look at the Kansas City Royals last year. And parity isn't really all that important for the popularity of the sport either - look at soccer's international popularity, and only 2 or 3 teams have a chance at winning their respective domestic leagues year in and year out.

Free agency is tightly regulated, contracts aren't guaranteed, NFL careers are exceedingly short. The league is far more akin to trusts of the 19th Century big business than it is a free market of today.

 

[knowell]

I'd argue that has more to do with the length of the season than the salary cap. It's easier to fluke your way to a playoff spot when you only play 16 games.

Currently half the teams leading their divisions in the MLB started the season in the bottom half of payrolls.

You could be right. I don't really follow baseball anymore. Used to be a Reds fan but it was really weird to see some of your best players or prospects traded each year to contending teams. It seems like it is always the same teams contending, but I am likely wrong on that. The amount of player movement made it very hard to sustain interest. I do think that anything that encourages teams keeping their more popular players is better for that sport. It probably is not better for the player though.

 

[knowell]

Owners wanting increased competition could not be further from the truth.

NFL owners operate like a cartel on par with OPEC. Their ability to limit competition, limit bargaining rights, and limit wages is unparalleled in sports. Instead of competing against each other for TV money, they share it, reducing risk and spreading wealth regardless of how well their teams perform.

If you go back to 2011 and the owners' lockout, it was a perfect analog to Wisconsin's labor dispute.

And it hasn't really been shown that salary caps increase parity or even that parity is a requirement for smaller teams to succeed. Baseball is actually a perfect example - look at the Kansas City Royals last year. And parity isn't really all that important for the popularity of the sport either - look at soccer's international popularity, and only 2 or 3 teams have a chance at winning their respective domestic leagues year in and year out.

Free agency is tightly regulated, contracts aren't guaranteed, NFL careers are exceedingly short. The league is far more akin to trusts of the 19th Century big business than it is a free market of today.

Maybe I misspoke. The league wants more teams to be competitive or at least have the illusion of competitiveness. This will make more money for the league. Each team, off course, wants to win every game and could care less if the other teams do well.

 

[avalon]

You could be right. I don't really follow baseball anymore. Used to be a Reds fan but it was really weird to see some of your best players or prospects traded each year to contending teams. It seems like it is always the same teams contending, but I am likely wrong on that. The amount of player movement made it very hard to sustain interest. I do think that anything that encourages teams keeping their more popular players is better for that sport. It probably is not better for the player though.

I don't follow the NFL that closely, but it seems like the shorter rookie contracts and the non-guaranteed contracts would cause players to switch teams more often in the NFL than the MLB. Maybe not in season, though.

And keeping popular players can cut both ways, and cause high revenue teams to make major mistakes. The Phillies signed their popular players to big money contracts to keep them around, and now they're the worst team in baseball.

 

[avalon]

Free agency is tightly regulated, contracts aren't guaranteed, NFL careers are exceedingly short. The league is far more akin to trusts of the 19th Century big business than it is a free market of today.

And this is why the owners will always win. Players can't afford to give up an entire season. Does anyone think the recent league lock outs were necessary?

 

[knowell]

I don't follow the NFL that closely, but it seems like the shorter rookie contracts and the non-guaranteed contracts would cause players to switch teams more often in the NFL than the MLB. Maybe not in season, though.

And keeping popular players can cut both ways, and cause high revenue teams to make major mistakes. The Phillies signed their popular players to big money contracts to keep them around, and now they're the worst team in baseball.

Agreed that signing long term contracts and not being able to dump them can cripple a team (NY Knicks). The non guaranteed contracts do cause a lot of turnover, but it is usually on the marginal players.

 

[knowell]

And this is why the owners will always win. Players can't afford to give up an entire season. Does anyone think the recent league lock outs were necessary?

No doubt the owners have the upper hand but the product on the field is pretty great. It is somewhat worse for the players relative to other sports, but compared to regular blokes in an office, it is not so bad.

 

[TownieDeac]

No doubt the owners have the upper hand but the product on the field is pretty great. It is somewhat worse for the players relative to other sports, but compared to regular blokes in an office, it is not so bad.

See but this is exactly the point. Yes, compared to an average office worker, it looks like millionaire football players have a sweet deal. But when it comes to billionaire owners with no risk vs millionaire football players with tons of risk, why are we still siding with ownership???

 

[wakephan09]

Many adults in America can't make money off their likeness. If I tried that my employer would shut it down quickly, especially if it focused on my chosen profession. And if they didn't shut it down, they would collect a significant amount of what I was making.

If a non-athlete made a commercial for La Carreta on coliseum (RIP) claiming it was the "home of Wake Forest students," Wake would shut that down immediately.

You are conflating two issues: trademark (the name "Wake Forest") and NCAA's definition of "amateurism" for Student-Athletes.

Wake gets no money when a professor sells an academic book that they write, in which inevitably in the book flap it says professor at Wake Forest. If a famous professor got paid for speaking appearance wake would get none of that money.

Of course being a professor, like any job, will want you to avoid a conflict of interest or spend too much time away from your main duties, but in general they have infinitely more leeway than an athlete that can't even accept a meal from a coach in certain situations.

Can a student on any type of scholarship other than athletic sell their autograph and keep their scholarship?

But here's the kicker, they aren't restricted like athletes... who can't even receive free meals.

My main question... why aren't college athletes allowed to make money? What is the reason? Not from the school, why can't they make it from outside endorsements, signings? What will happen if you're allowed to sell your autograph? If it's just because it could be misused by schools, a) that's not a good reason to deny someone what they're worth and b) big time athletics is already shady as hell. It's already broken.

You are completely missing the point here. College athletes can't "make money" from endorsements, signings, autographs, etc. because that would violate the NCAA ideal of amateurism. Yes, a non-athlete on a Reynolds or Carswell scholarship at Wake, for instance, could sell their autograph or likeness simply because Wake Forest -- the entity that awards the scholarship -- doesn't value amateurism in their students. The issue with something like "free meals," for example, is not because the NCAA doesn't want an athlete to receive anything for free, it is because certain programs or boosters would offer benefits such as these in lieu of paying athletes. While compliance and amateurism have a very complex system of rules, the basics are extremely simple. On the other hand, we can all agree that the hypothetical ideal of amateur sports is complicated by the fact that in some sports -- and very clearly not in others -- those amateur athletes are earning a great deal of money for their institutions.

A college athlete (walk on, at that) was once declared ineligible for using pictures of himself wearing tee shirts he designed on a site to sell them. In a company that he founded as part of a project for a class. Not for using the name of the college, for using his own name and image.

Avalon's story points out an important distinction: that whatever the amount of money an athlete generates for the school (or, money that the school gives [or doesn't give] an athlete in scholarships -- which ultimately reflects their "value" to their sport and school) is immaterial to the idea of amateurism and eligibility.

That a b-school student-athlete would be punished for a class project is pretty messed up, but the line is incredibly fine. The goal of the NCAA, though not always successful in practice, is to have student-athletes as non-earners during their NCAA athletic careers. Otherwise, a booster or other fan could prioritize a student-athlete for a summer job, or over-pay for services rendered, or one of many other ways to benefit a student-athlete from their school that isn't available to athletes from other schools.

e.g.:

-Student-athlete has summer job before college. Without explicit permission, he/she can't continue to work this job once enrolled and competing in college.
-Student-athlete has permissible job working for athletic department (e.g. camps, summer programs, clerical work). All athletes must be paid the same money for similar work (viz. a "better" athlete can't be paid more for the same work).

Things get really tricky when, for instance, a student-athlete has been paid or awarded money for athletic performance in a different sport. Technically no longer an amateur, I am under the impression that they can still be cleared to play a different sport. Strange stuff.

My experience with the NCAA clearinghouse was hilarious and stressful and took months and months. They are (seemingly) just as serious about maintaining amateur-status in non-revenue sports as they are in regard to the revenue sports.

 

[knowell]

See but this is exactly the point. Yes, compared to an average office worker, it looks like millionaire football players have a sweet deal. But when it comes to billionaire owners with no risk vs millionaire football players with tons of risk, why are we still siding with ownership???

I personally am usually siding with whatever puts a better product on the field and entertains me more since both owners and players have a pretty sweet deal. Usually that puts me on the owners side but that could change with the issue.

 

[TheReff]

You're right, by gosh, those kids are creating tons of revenue. Don't they deserve a share?

But they get all these nice fields to play on and get to play on national TV, isn't that enough? 8 year $76 million dollar contract for the 2 week tournament.

"Little League Inc. reported revenue of almost $25 million and assets of more than $85 million in 2012, according to the most recent publicly available tax return it must file to maintain tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Over a five-year period, compensation for Little League Inc.'s CEO, Steve Keener, nearly doubled to $430,000 a year. And in 2012, the 100-person full-time staff made almost $7.5 million in salaries — a year before ESPN agreed to more than double broadcast fees as part of an eight-year, $76 million contract to televise the games during the two-week tournament.

"That's a lot of money when all the grunt work is volunteer," said Randy Stevens, president of the Little League in Nashville, Tenn., whose all-star team qualified for the World Series each of the past two years. "Now I'm wondering where it's all going."

 

[avalon]

I personally am usually siding with whatever puts a better product on the field and entertains me more since both owners and players have a pretty sweet deal. Usually that puts me on the owners side but that could change with the issue.

The owners of three of the four major North American leagues literally took the product off the field / court / ice to negotiate CBA changes that would increase their profits and protect them from themselves. When is the CBA up for your favorite league? Because I'm willing to bet that's the year of the next lockout.

I will say that the owners do enhance competition by ensuring that less competent management can compete against more competent management.

 

[Sandlapper Spike]

in your example, you could drop out of grad school and start a biotech company at any point if you and you alone had come up with some intellectual property that would make you super rich

that same thing can't happen in the NCAA, players have to wait a certain amount of time in school before artificially delaying their entrance to the work force, deflating their current market value

The NCAA has no control over that, however (and in reality it is true for only two sports -- football and men's basketball).