USC AD Haden: Schools should 'prepare' for O'Bannon suit loss

[BillBrasky]

They don't. They just approve of it.

olddke, are you saying there are slaves and volunteers and nothing in between?

Facepalm

All right, say we do give the kids a share of the profits they (probably) rightly deserve. How do we sidestep the legal issues involved, and not have to pay the same amount to all the other athletes? Or do we pay them a stipend as well? So they can cost the school even more money.

What's the solution? Because unless you find a way to go around Title XI and similar legal issues, the end result of this will be revenue sports separating from the institutions they represent and becoming their own entities. And how many can actually afford to do that? Especially when a large portion of their actual value is being connected to a university/community and its alumni and fans. Nobody is gonna pay jack shit to watch a bunch of 18 years old represent the Chapel Hill YMCA or whatever the equivalent of UNC's future basketball program will become in this new world order. After a few years the kids wouldn't be making enough money to cover what they currently get for having a full scholarship, as the value of their program will plummet.

People tend to forget that most of the value tied into the money associated with college athletics comes from the name on the front of the jersey not the back. I think we can all agree that the quality of college basketball has declined in last decade, yet the money paid to the university only increases.

 

[PhDeac]

The pharse forced implies slave labor. They are playing of their own free will and can walk away at any time. If they leave they are thousands of others who will be happy to take their places.

No. You said that student-athletes are volunteers and they are not forced.

"If you are not forced, your labor is given willingly. People volunteer everyday all over this country to 'labor' for free - no pay."

Is it just volunteers and forced?

 

[olddke]

PH are you not reading or just being a jerk?

I have said at least twice in this thread that they are compensated and I feel fairly in that there is a large pool of replacement labor willing to take their places at the current compensations.

To answer your question there is slave labor, volunteer labor and compensated labor and probably several more types that thelabor economist on the board will now tell us about. You keep beating this drum just like RJ when he wants to deflect.

 

[RJKarl]

Why bring me in to your problem? That is BS.

You wonder why situations starts. It's because extraneous imnsults like.

Fuck off!!!

 

[olddke]

No. You said that student-athletes are volunteers and they are not forced.

"If you are not forced, your labor is given willingly. People volunteer everyday all over this country to 'labor' for free - no pay."

Is it just volunteers and forced?

Student atheletes are playing of their own free will, they are neither slaves nor exploited laborers. They can leave without penalty or harm at any time they choose.

 

[olddke]

Why bring me in to your problem? That is BS.

You wonder why situations starts. It's because extraneous imnsults like.

Fuck off!!!

Sweetheart, I didn't mean it. We have been doing so well lately. I mis-spoke. Come back, don't leave me like this.

 

[qcdeac]

I would think they would have a better argument against the video game makers than the NCAA.

Yes the video game makers and the people selling jerseys are getting rich off college kids.

 

[scooter84]

You can't ignore the fact that a large number of people are making huge amounts of money from the efforts of these young men. They deserve a part of the profits, I don't understand how you can dispute that.

It is easy to dispute on many fronts. First of all - what profits? It has already been established many times that few athletic departments actually turn a profit. Secondly, they are already receiving their portion of the proceeds - as discussed ad nauseum - free education, healthcare, training, room and board, exposure, etc. etc. For many of them, the education they are receiving is one they otherwise would not have access to at all - since they would not even be able to gain admittance without their athletic talent. How do you put a price on that?

The cost of the benefits they are already receiving is one reason most athletic departments do not turn a profit.

It is a market economy, if they think they are worth more than they are getting - don't go to college - go play pro ball somewhere.

 

[RJKarl]

Sweetheart, I didn't mean it. We have been doing so well lately. I mis-spoke. Come back, don't leave me like this.

OK. I just get tired of being brought into shit that I have nothing to do with.

 

[olddke]

OK. I just get tired of being brought into shit that I have nothing to do with.

Seriously, I apologize.

 

[RJKarl]

And I accept....

 

[IAppreciateIt]

That's the unreported part of this story. Most D-1 athletic programs lose money. Yes, Bama football makes truckloads of cash, but there are 60+ D-1 programs that do not, and even more 1-AA that don't. In men's basketball, its even more unbalanced. Is there going to be a luxury tax that forces the rich programs to fund the poor ones? Otherwise, the D-1 "pay for play" division is going to have a fraction of the current programs.

Correct, and the result of that would be a drastic reduction in the interest of college sports, which would then lead to a drastic reduction in revenues, which would then make pretty much all college athletics totally unfeasible.

 

[PhDeac]

It is easy to dispute on many fronts. First of all - what profits? It has already been established many times that few athletic departments actually turn a profit. Secondly, they are already receiving their portion of the proceeds - as discussed ad nauseum - free education, healthcare, training, room and board, exposure, etc. etc. For many of them, the education they are receiving is one they otherwise would not have access to at all - since they would not even be able to gain admittance without their athletic talent. How do you put a price on that?

The cost of the benefits they are already receiving is one reason most athletic departments do not turn a profit.

It is a market economy, if they think they are worth more than they are getting - don't go to college - go play pro ball somewhere.

The "what profits?" argument is blown up by common sense and the Deadspin article. What you consider "profit" is what is leftover after ridiculous spending around the players that could be spent on paying the players.

olddke, just trying to get you to explain the "forced" thing.

 

[PhDeac]

Correct, and the result of that would be a drastic reduction in the interest of college sports, which would then lead to a drastic reduction in revenues, which would then make pretty much all college athletics totally unfeasible.

Do you really think that ESPN would let that happen? If this is about the players' share of TV dollars, why would the TV people let college athletics suffer? They'll pick up the slack.

And again, we're not talking about that much money. The equivalent of a grad stipend for revenue sports would not cost that much.

 

[olddke]

The "what profits?" argument is blown up by common sense and the Deadspin article. What you consider "profit" is what is leftover after ridiculous spending around the players that could be spent on paying the players.

olddke, just trying to get you to explain the "forced" thing.

I do not think people engage (over a long period of time) in efforts that do not compensate them in some way that matters to them unless they are 'forced' to do so (as in cases of slavery or coerced labor). If you volunteer repeatedly for some cause it is because you get someting positive and of value to you from it even if it is just the positive feelings that come from helping others. These kids play college sports because they get somethng that they value from it or they would not put in the extreme amount of effort that it requires. I am certain that they are not enslaved and feel fairly certain they are not coerced into participating so they must be receiveing something they value enough to keep them participating over an extended period of time.

The time component is important because we can all be mistaken about the value exchange. I have done some volunteeer work that I will never do again and I have had several jobs that after a while no longer met the value requirement needed for me to continue them.

 

[scooter84]

The "what profits?" argument is blown up by common sense and the Deadspin article. What you consider "profit" is what is leftover after ridiculous spending around the players that could be spent on paying the players.

Then what ridiculous spending would you suggest cutting? Because it is all related, you know. The big time schools are the ones that make the big-time money. How do they get to be big-time? By spending 'ridiculous' amounts of money - on facilities, marketing, coaches salaries, more facilities, etc.

There are plenty of schools that don't spend so much money on those things. Unfortunately, those schools are in smaller conferences, lower divisions, etc. - so, they don't bring in the huge dollars.

Either way - spend more-make more, or spend less-make less - there is not a lot left over at the end of the day.

It is a vicious circle of related factors.

 

[sailordeac]

If you can find cheaper labor that is willing to work you do not have to pay more. There are plenty of people who want these opportunities. How can you not understand that.

I also disagree that there are huge profits being made, show me the list of all the D1 schools who made money on their athletics last year. Do not come with football numbers - all sports - there is still a Title IX requirement.

It seems pretty simple: others are getting rich from my efforts. I want a larger piece of the action and deserve a larger part. So, I'm gonna go and get it. With the amount of money changing hands, you can't expect the athletes to just sit still and not want a part of it. Maybe when the amounts were a lot more modest, you could justify amaturism but that's no longer true with the size of these TV contracts and the millions flowing into athletic departments.

 

[BillBrasky]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a definitive amount that these kids deserve. What's there chunk? Because as others have argued almost ever single one of them could be easily replaced. What's an athlete's actual value and how much of there value is based on the school they represent?

Until you can answer these questions your arguments have zero basis.

That being said the real legal battle needs to be these kids and the NFL,NBA,MLB, etc. Its their rules which prevent them from getting their perceived worth as an 18 year old.

 

[olddke]

It seems pretty simple: others are getting rich from my efforts. I want a larger piece of the action and deserve a larger part. So, I'm gonna go and get it. With the amount of money changing hands, you can't expect the athletes to just sit still and not want a part of it. Maybe when the amounts were a lot more modest, you could justify amaturism but that's no longer true with the size of these TV contracts and the millions flowing into athletic departments.

Until there is no replacement labor willing to take their place they have no negociating leverage. Hence the lawsuit, ask the court to step in and overrule the marketplace. In this case I do not see the justification for the courts to step in.

But since the case is in court in CA, who knows what will be ruled. CA courts and the ninth district in general seem to have more strange rulings that eventualy get overturned than other courts but I have no facts to back up that opinion.

 

[sailordeac]

It is easy to dispute on many fronts. First of all - what profits? It has already been established many times that few athletic departments actually turn a profit. Secondly, they are already receiving their portion of the proceeds - as discussed ad nauseum - free education, healthcare, training, room and board, exposure, etc. etc. For many of them, the education they are receiving is one they otherwise would not have access to at all - since they would not even be able to gain admittance without their athletic talent. How do you put a price on that?

The cost of the benefits they are already receiving is one reason most athletic departments do not turn a profit.

It is a market economy, if they think they are worth more than they are getting - don't go to college - go play pro ball somewhere.

The free education and the benefits that they get is often a paltry sum compared to the amount of money the athletes generate. It's an old story. A group of people don't think that they are getting a fair shake, and so they try to get a larger share for their efforts. It's happened before, and it will happen again.