Forbes Magazine: College Athletes are already paid

[ChicosBailBonds]

They were smart enough not to put this on the cover, but the article came out last week.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/29/pay-college-athletes-theyre-already-paid-up-to-125000year/


Title IX, smaller schools, most schools in the red, non revenue sports, etc....all at lease acknowledged, which is rarely if ever done by the Pay the Students articles.

Until one of these articles or ideas gets around to how to deal with Title IX, non-revenue sports, etc as if they don't exist, it is hard to take these ideas seriously.  Yes, we all get SOME college programs make a lot of money and have big crowds for their football or basketball games.  That's all nice and good.  Those same schools have a women's volleyball team, a track team, tennis and golf teams, etc, that don't make squat and are student athletes also.  How do you address them, especially the women's programs?  It's hard to take these articles seriously without a serious proposal on how to deal with non-revenue sports, TitleIX implications, smaller schools, etc.  Fluff pieces only IMO.

[brandx]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

[MerrittsMustache]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

The ideal scenario for basketball players would be for the NBDL to become the equivalent to the minor leagues in MLB. Players can be drafted directly from high school, knowing that they'll likely spend a couple years in the D-league making $25k before being called up the to the NBA (if they're called up at all) or they can go to college for 3 years before becoming draft-eligible again.

The obvious issue with this system is that college basketball already acts as a FREE minor league system to the NBA. Not to mention, the NCAA isn't going to want to miss out on the top HS players. While it would be in the best interest of the players, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the people raking in big money off of these players and unfortunately, they're the decision-makers.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The ideal scenario for basketball players would be for the NBDL to become the equivalent to the minor leagues in MLB. Players can be drafted directly from high school, knowing that they'll likely spend a couple years in the D-league making $25k before being called up the to the NBA (if they're called up at all) or they can go to college for 3 years before becoming draft-eligible again.

The obvious issue with this system is that college basketball already acts as a FREE minor league system to the NBA. Not to mention, the NCAA isn't going to want to miss out on the top HS players. While it would be in the best interest of the players, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the people raking in big money off of these players and unfortunately, they're the decision-makers.

This really gets to it. The existing system makes way too much money for people in power for any kind of changes to occur. Elite basketball programs love it because it enables huge tax shelter athletic departments, and the NBA loves it because they don't want to have to create a real, costly minor league system.

[Sunbelt15]

That article means nothing. A scholarship doesn't help a kid buy clothes. It doesn't help with normal, everyday hardships like car repairs, haircuts, travel, etc. You don't have to pay them, but at least let them get a job. This would kill all the "pay the players" talk.

[GGGG]

Free market.  If a football or basketball player is getting money under the table, its because the market is declaring that he is worth more than a simple scholarship.

[StillAWarrior]

Free market.  If a football or basketball player is getting money under the table, its because the market is declaring that he is worth more than a simple scholarship.

That's very, very true.  But one issue that needs to be considered is that Title IX is seriously screwing with the free market.  If football and basketball players get paid, the girls will have to get paid too.  Suddenly, the "free" market doesn't look so free.

There are really two ways to look at this.  If the argument is that schools are making a lot of money off of these players, then there is only a relatively small group of players who should be getting paid - men's football and basketball players at a minority of schools.  This creates a Title IX problem, I believe.  If the argument is that student athletes deserve to get paid irrespective of whether their program turns a profit, then schools won't have enough money to pay everyone.

I think one free market solution to this would be for the NCAA to simply allow athletes to earn money off their own name.  I'm not sure this would implicate Title IX because it would not be the university doing it.

[jesmu84]

This really gets to it. The existing system makes way too much money for people in power for any kind of changes to occur.

Oh. Just like the rest of life. Things like this don't change without either severe PR nightmares for the people in power or some sort of large-scale protest, holdout, etc.

[GGGG]

That's very, very true.  But one issue that needs to be considered is that Title IX is seriously screwing with the free market.  If football and basketball players get paid, the girls will have to get paid too.  Suddenly, the "free" market doesn't look so free.

Title IX only addresses what the school gives them for direct aid.  It doesn't address what they earn otherwise.  The free market would allow athletes to earn money on their name from sources outside the university.

[StillAWarrior]

Title IX only addresses what the school gives them for direct aid.  It doesn't address what they earn otherwise.  The free market would allow athletes to earn money on their name from sources outside the university.

Agreed, and that is one of the most viable solutions to the issue.  I think the NCAA will still probably be involved in policing because of boosterism issues, but I think that this will eventually happen.

Edited to add another thought:  I think if this is the way the issue ultimately gets resolved, there are going to be a lot of disappointed athletes.  I don't think the market cares much about the third string offensive guard in most programs.  I think it will be a relatively few players with meaningful earning potential.  I think many of the advocates of paying players want wide-spread payment of athletes.  I think it left to the market -- through endorsements -- then it won't be particularly wide-spread.  But maybe I'm wrong.

[Pakuni]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

I think the rule not allowing kids to go straight to the pros from high school is stupid, but keep in mind that's an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule.

And the rule only says that Andrew Wiggins can't use his talents to make money in the NBA, not that he can't use his talents to make money. D-League and Europe are options for him and every other kid. Kinda sh*tty options, but one would think better than the horrid exploitation of the NCAA.

[Pakuni]

The ideal scenario for basketball players would be for the NBDL to become the equivalent to the minor leagues in MLB. Players can be drafted directly from high school, knowing that they'll likely spend a couple years in the D-league making $25k before being called up the to the NBA (if they're called up at all) or they can go to college for 3 years before becoming draft-eligible again.

This already is an option for all players. Kids can go straight from high school to the NBDL if they choose.
Why do so few do that? Free market. The vast majority of kids have decided that despite its horribly exploitative nature, spending time in college - with better coaching, facilities, travel, etc. - is better for their development and future prospects than riding buses from Boise to Bakersfield to Sioux Falls and playing before a couple thousand fans.

[MerrittsMustache]

This already is an option for all players. Kids can go straight from high school to the NBDL if they choose.
Why do so few do that? Free market. The vast majority of kids have decided that despite its horribly exploitative nature, spending time in college - with better coaching, facilities, travel, etc. - is better for their development and future prospects than riding buses from Boise to Bakersfield to Sioux Falls and playing before a couple thousand fans.

Can't argue with that. However, I don't think that most athletes view the NCAA as "horribly exploitative." College basketball provides them with the opportunity to play games on national TV, it gives them free shoes and clothes, garners them national attention, makes them a "big man on campus" and a local celebrity. To a lot of 19-year-olds, that stuff is more important than getting 200 bucks a month.

[StillAWarrior]

Can't argue with that. However, I don't think that most athletes view the NCAA as "horribly exploitative." College basketball provides them with the opportunity to play games on national TV, it gives them free shoes and clothes, garners them national attention, makes them a "big man on campus" and a local celebrity. To a lot of 19-year-olds, that stuff is more important than getting 200 bucks a month.

That was my point in a post in the other thread.  Lots of people who try to make the case for college athletes getting paid argue that they are being exploited by the universities who are making tons of cash.  But year after year we see kids (and parents) hold press conferences on the happiest day of their lives -- the day they sign up to be exploited.  Speaking solely for myself, I hope and pray that some university somewhere will offer my kids an opportunity to be exploited in this way.

[Pakuni]

Can't argue with that. However, I don't think that most athletes view the NCAA as "horribly exploitative." College basketball provides them with the opportunity to play games on national TV, it gives them free shoes and clothes, garners them national attention, makes them a "big man on campus" and a local celebrity. To a lot of 19-year-olds, that stuff is more important than getting 200 bucks a month.

I was using "horribly exploited" sarcastically.
The reality is its a voluntary exchange.
The player exchanges his work and talent to the university, which has an opportunity to turn that work and talent into revenue. In return, the university provides a place to live, meals, some clothing, (usually) quality coaching and facilities and an environment in which a willing individual can maximize his/her ability to become a professional. And if that ability isn't good enough to make it as a professional, the player also gets the opportunity to receive a college education.

It seems to me that most of the people who think these kids are being unjustly exploited aren't of the opinion that the players aren't getting anything in return, but rather they're outraged that universities are able to profit off the kids at all, as if that's somehow unseemly.

[Sunbelt15]

That was my point in a post in the other thread.  Lots of people who try to make the case for college athletes getting paid argue that they are being exploited by the universities who are making tons of cash.  But year after year we see kids (and parents) hold press conferences on the happiest day of their lives -- the day they sign up to be exploited.  Speaking solely for myself, I hope and pray that some university somewhere will offer my kids an opportunity to be exploited in this way.

They're happy because of their future possibilities after college. We are talking about the happenings while in college and the inability of a student athlete to profit monetarily.

[LAZER]

Free market.  If a football or basketball player is getting money under the table, its because the market is declaring that he is worth more than a simple scholarship.

For this reason, I find it surprising more kids haven't gone to Europe, especially after it worked out well for Jennings.

[Eldon]

I was using "horribly exploited" sarcastically.
The reality is its a voluntary exchange.
The player exchanges his work and talent to the university, which has an opportunity to turn that work and talent into revenue. In return, the university provides a place to live, meals, some clothing, (usually) quality coaching and facilities and an environment in which a willing individual can maximize his/her ability to become a professional. And if that ability isn't good enough to make it as a professional, the player also gets the opportunity to receive a college education.

It seems to me that most of the people who think these kids are being unjustly exploited aren't of the opinion that the players aren't getting anything in return, but rather they're outraged that universities are able to profit off the kids at all, as if that's somehow unseemly.

As the great Robert Nozick once said
Did the agents have an equal opportunity to choose a different alternative?  Was there coercion?  Were all agents fully-informed (ie know that the monetary salary is zero)?

If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes," then there is nothing more that can be gleaned from an (economic) exchange.

If student-athletes are "exploited," then I suppose one could argue that the graduate students at a university are also exploited--if I go present at an academic conference, the name of my university is under my name and hence gets (some) the credit, yet I am not paid for the work.  I disagree that this is exploitation--money is not the only form of payment, as several posters have already pointed out. 

Exploitation is knowing someone else's situation and strategically using it against them.  Nobody forces students to go to college.  Student-athletes are well-aware they will not be getting any monetary benefit.  They had outside options.  Case closed.

[MerrittsMustache]

As the great Robert Nozick once said
Did the agents have an equal opportunity to choose a different alternative?  Was there coercion?  Were all agents fully-informed (ie know that the monetary salary is zero)?

If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes," then there is nothing more that can be gleaned from an (economic) exchange.

If student-athletes are "exploited," then I suppose one could argue that the graduate students at a university are also exploited--if I go present at an academic conference, the name of my university is under my name and hence gets (some) the credit, yet I am not paid for the work.  I disagree that this is exploitation--money is not the only form of payment, as several posters have already pointed out. 

Exploitation is knowing someone else's situation and strategically using it against them.  Nobody forces students to go to college.  Student-athletes are well-aware they will not be getting any monetary benefit.  They had outside options.  Case closed.

(Playing devil's advocate) - In terms of basketball they have other options. What about football?

[Tugg Speedman]

For this reason, I find it surprising more kids haven't gone to Europe, especially after it worked out well for Jennings.

Because the market works!  one year Scholarship, all in, is worth $25k to $50k/year (depending on school, one's view of education, etc.)  Europe will not pay that much except for a small handful of HS players each year.

[GGGG]

Edited to add another thought:  I think if this is the way the issue ultimately gets resolved, there are going to be a lot of disappointed athletes.  I don't think the market cares much about the third string offensive guard in most programs.  I think it will be a relatively few players with meaningful earning potential.  I think many of the advocates of paying players want wide-spread payment of athletes.  I think it left to the market -- through endorsements -- then it won't be particularly wide-spread.  But maybe I'm wrong.

I think you are spot on.  That is why you give a smallish stipend on top of the scholarship.  The only ones that would make any $$ are the stars.  Really, how many endorsement deals or autograph signings are any of the current MU players going to get?

[MerrittsMustache]

I think you are spot on.  That is why you give a smallish stipend on top of the scholarship.  The only ones that would make any $$ are the stars.  Really, how many endorsement deals or autograph signings are any of the current MU players going to get?

I'd pay Davante 100 bucks to hang out at my 4-yo sons' birthday party so the kids could climb on him and he could throw them in the pool. Does that count?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I'd pay Davante 100 bucks to hang out at my 4-yo sons' birthday party so the kids could climb on him and he could throw them in the pool. Does that count?

I'd pay Big SHEESH just to come to my crib, play some video games and bechillendoe.

[Tugg Speedman]

I think you are spot on.  That is why you give a smallish stipend on top of the scholarship.  The only ones that would make any $$ are the stars.  Really, how many endorsement deals or autograph signings are any of the current MU players going to get?

Watch/listen/observe the endorsement deals at an MU game.  Everyone that does radio/TV spot, print add would consider a player.  It would cut into Buzz's income as his players would compete with him.

Milwaukee is a larger market than, say, Madison so the deals we generate more $$$ for the endorser.

[StillAWarrior]

Watch/listen/observe the endorsement deals at an MU game.  Everyone that does radio/TV spot, print add would consider a player.  It would cut into Buzz's income as his players would compete with him.

Milwaukee is a larger market than, say, Madison so the deals we generate more $$$ for the endorser.

If they make a change like this, I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.  It's not entirely clear to me that the size of the market will be the primary driving force.  It depends totally on how the NCAA changes the rule.  The reality is that boosters who own businesses will be all over this.  For example, will the NCAA prevent a Norman car dealer from paying a Sooner QB $75,000 for a print ad?  Better yet, will they stop a Cleveland car dealer (who happens to be a UW alum) from paying a Badger point guard $50,000 for a print ad?

While I do think that the NCAA is eventually going to let athletes do this sort of thing, it's going to raise some very interesting issues.  It will open up a can of worms if the NCAA is going to do some sort of review of such deals to ensure that they're commercially reasonable for the business or if it is purely boosters making cash payments to athletes.  It's a similar issue we've had for many, many years with bogus jobs provided by boosters.