92% of Economists agree that NCAA Athletes should be paid

[Efficient Frontier]

NCAA Division I schools coordinate compensation for men’s basketball and football players (precluding actual pay and limiting non-monetary benefits), providing rents to member schools (which may be shared with others) at the expense of those players.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/the-ncaa

“A top NBA coach gets $7 million–$8 million per year, and a top player makes four times that. A top college coach gets $6 million, but the players get nothing.” - Austan Goolsbee

[tower912]

Tugg?

[warriorchick]

A University of Chicago economics professor wrote a paper in which he drew the conclusion that using slave labor was an efficient way to run a business. It doesn't mean anyone should ever actually practice it.

[Efficient Frontier]

A University of Chicago economics professor wrote a paper in which he drew the conclusion that using slave labor was an efficient way to run a business. It doesn't mean anyone should ever actually practice it.

Source?

Assuming you're referring to Robert Fogel? If so, your description doesn't seem like a fair characterization of his research as advocating slavery.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/robert-w-fogel-an-innovative-and-nobel-prize-winning-economic-historian-dies-at-86/2013/06/13/9b32543e-d43c-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html?utm_term=.f0e453284e64

“Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery” (1974), co-written with economic historian Stanley L. Engerman, postulated that slavery was a thriving institution on the eve of the Civil War. The authors challenged a widely held view that slavery as an economic institution was in decline and even on the precipice of collapse when the war began in 1861.

He initially began the project to explore how less-efficient slave labor was compared with wage labor. “A lot of us, including me, believed that a system as evil as slavery could not have been profitable,” he told the Cornell alumni magazine in 2008.

A quick calculation, based on census data, showed the opposite. So he did more in-depth research, which relied on historical data up to 1860 about the prices of slaves and cotton, and food consumption by slaves and the larger population, among other information.

“At various points, we were so stunned by the results of what the other was working on that Stan and I were each prepared to accuse the other of finally having succumbed to racism,” he told the Cornell publication.

Dr. Fogel and Engerman concluded that many slaves, considered economic assets by their owners, were fed far better and worked less than some free, often exploited industrial workers in the North. They also asserted that some plantations were far more efficient than their counterparts in the North, and that the practice of slavery would have kept going if not for the Civil War.

“Our conclusion was that slavery was ended not because it was morally repugnant,” he told the University of Chicago Chronicle in 1993. “The marketplace could not have ended slavery, because slavery was an efficient and profitable system. Slavery ended only through political intervention based on the evolving American ethic against slavery.”

Predictably, “Time on the Cross” ignited intense criticism from civil rights groups and reviewers who charged the authors with an ugly form of revisionism. Dr. Fogel’s most vociferous critics charged him with racism, despite the fact that he was married to an African American.

The book won the prestigious Bancroft Prize and continued to draw controversy over the decades. The fierce reaction prompted Dr. Fogel to write a second book, “Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery” (1989) to defend his work and include a moral censure of slavery.

[warriorchick]

Source?

Assuming you're referring to Robert Fogel? If so, your description doesn't seem like a fair characterization of his research as advocating slavery.

I reread what I wrote, and I don't see the word "advocate" anywhere.

My point is, anything other than presentation of data and drawing a conclusion based on that data is a personal
opinion.  And I am not sure why these economists' opinions on this are more important than anyone else's.

[Herman Cain]

Any  college sport that is a headcount sport such as Basketball, Football, Woman's Volleyball , ,Womans Tennis etc is getting paid very well. They are mandated to get a full scholarship, room and board, books .  The student athletes who are in equivalency sports such as track, soccer, baseball, lacrosse etc are not getting compensated well . In fact most of those are coming out of pocket in a big way.

Certain conferences such as the ACC and Big Ten mandate 4 year scholarships. So even if the kid gets hurt they continue to get the scholarship.

A team is the sum of all the players. The guys and gals who are the scout team players contribute just as much to the success as the stars, so where do you draw the line on the compensation.

I think the market will address the issue.  Eventually, there will be full access to professional sports for kids who want to go in that direction post high school. A kid from Syracuse just decommitted to play in the G League. Will be interesting to see how that works out.

[Eldon]

I reread what I wrote, and I don't see the word "advocate" anywhere.

My point is, anything other than presentation of data and drawing a conclusion based on that data is a personal
opinion.  And I am not sure why these economists' opinions on this are more important than anyone else's.

+1

[StillAWarrior]

Any  college sport that is a headcount sport such as Basketball, Football, Woman's Volleyball , ,Womans Tennis etc is getting paid very well. They are mandated to get a full scholarship, room and board, books.  The student athletes who are in equivalency sports such as track, soccer, baseball, lacrosse etc are not getting compensated well . In fact most of those are coming out of pocket in a big way.

Certain conferences such as the ACC and Big Ten mandate 4 year scholarships. So even if the kid gets hurt they continue to get the scholarship.

A team is the sum of all the players. The guys and gals who are the scout team players contribute just as much to the success as the stars, so where do you draw the line on the compensation.

I think the market will address the issue.  Eventually, there will be full access to professional sports for kids who want to go in that direction post high school. A kid from Syracuse just decommitted to play in the G League. Will be interesting to see how that works out.

Trying to stamp out this common misconception when I see it.  While it is true that most head count athletes receive full scholarships (and quite possibly all of them in revenue sports), it's not mandated.  It's true that the "scholarship" cannot be split in a head count sport -- meaning that anyone who receives any athletics financial aid at all counts for the whole scholarship.  So, if you have a scholarship limit of 13 (as in MBB), you can only have 13 athletes on scholarship no matter how much (or little) they receive.  But, there is nothing in the NCAA rules requiring each of those athletes to receive full "grant in aid" (i.e., tuition, fees, room and board, cost of living), although some major conferences have moved in that direction.  In some non-revenue head count sports, it is not uncommon for a program to not fully fund a program and offer partial scholarships to athletes.

That said, I agree with your underlying premise:  athletes who are on full scholarship are compensated quite well.  In the non-revenue sports, they are getting far more than they are bringing in.  And many athletes in equivalency sports are getting very little by way of athletics aid.

[GGGG]

Trying to stamp out this common misconception when I see it.  While it is true that most head count athletes receive full scholarships (and quite possibly all of them in revenue sports), it's not mandated.  It's true that the "scholarship" cannot be split in a head count sport -- meaning that anyone who receives any athletics financial aid at all counts for the whole scholarship.  So, if you have a scholarship limit of 13 (as in MBB), you can only have 13 athletes on scholarship no matter how much (or little) they receive.  But, there is nothing in the NCAA rules requiring each of those athletes to receive full "grant in aid" (i.e., tuition, fees, room and board, cost of living), although some major conferences have moved in that direction.  In some non-revenue head count sports, it is not uncommon for a program to not fully fund a program and offer partial scholarships to athletes.

That said, I agree with your underlying premise:  athletes who are on full scholarship are compensated quite well.  In the non-revenue sports, they are getting far more than they are bringing in.  And many athletes in equivalency sports are getting very little by way of athletics aid.

Many of them are getting compensated well.  Many of them are not or else under-the-table payments wouldn't be happening.

[StillAWarrior]

Many of them are getting compensated well.  Many of them are not or else under-the-table payments wouldn't be happening.

While I don't disagree, I'll argue that this is a case of semantics.  What is "many"?  There are 351 D1 basketball programs.  Let's assume 12 scholarships, on average, per program...how many of those 4000+ basketball players are getting under-the-table payments?  There are 128 FBS programs...how many of those 10,000+ football players are getting under-the-table payments?  I honestly don't know.  Maybe it's "many."  Depends on how you define that word, I guess.

[GGGG]

While I don't disagree, I'll argue that this is a case of semantics.  What is "many"?  There are 351 D1 basketball programs.  Let's assume 12 scholarships, on average, per program...how many of those 4000+ basketball players are getting under-the-table payments?  There are 128 FBS programs...how many of those 10,000+ football players are getting under-the-table payments?  I honestly don't know.  Maybe it's "many."  Depends on how you define that word, I guess.

I used many because I really don't know the answer.

Let them earn income, including profiting off their own likeness, and we would soon find out.

[StillAWarrior]

I used many because I really don't know the answer.

Let them earn income, including profiting off their own likeness, and we would soon find out.

Amen.

[MU82]

Source?

Assuming you're referring to Robert Fogel? If so, your description doesn't seem like a fair characterization of his research as advocating slavery.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/robert-w-fogel-an-innovative-and-nobel-prize-winning-economic-historian-dies-at-86/2013/06/13/9b32543e-d43c-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html?utm_term=.f0e453284e64

“Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery” (1974), co-written with economic historian Stanley L. Engerman, postulated that slavery was a thriving institution on the eve of the Civil War. The authors challenged a widely held view that slavery as an economic institution was in decline and even on the precipice of collapse when the war began in 1861.

He initially began the project to explore how less-efficient slave labor was compared with wage labor. “A lot of us, including me, believed that a system as evil as slavery could not have been profitable,” he told the Cornell alumni magazine in 2008.

A quick calculation, based on census data, showed the opposite. So he did more in-depth research, which relied on historical data up to 1860 about the prices of slaves and cotton, and food consumption by slaves and the larger population, among other information.

“At various points, we were so stunned by the results of what the other was working on that Stan and I were each prepared to accuse the other of finally having succumbed to racism,” he told the Cornell publication.

Dr. Fogel and Engerman concluded that many slaves, considered economic assets by their owners, were fed far better and worked less than some free, often exploited industrial workers in the North. They also asserted that some plantations were far more efficient than their counterparts in the North, and that the practice of slavery would have kept going if not for the Civil War.

“Our conclusion was that slavery was ended not because it was morally repugnant,” he told the University of Chicago Chronicle in 1993. “The marketplace could not have ended slavery, because slavery was an efficient and profitable system. Slavery ended only through political intervention based on the evolving American ethic against slavery.”

Predictably, “Time on the Cross” ignited intense criticism from civil rights groups and reviewers who charged the authors with an ugly form of revisionism. Dr. Fogel’s most vociferous critics charged him with racism, despite the fact that he was married to an African American.

The book won the prestigious Bancroft Prize and continued to draw controversy over the decades. The fierce reaction prompted Dr. Fogel to write a second book, “Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery” (1989) to defend his work and include a moral censure of slavery.

Welcome back, Smuggles.

[Benny B]

I reread what I wrote, and I don't see the word "advocate" anywhere.

My point is, anything other than presentation of data and drawing a conclusion based on that data is a personal
opinion.  And I am not sure why these economists' opinions on this are more important than anyone else's.

I reread what you wrote, too, and I can also confirm that you did not use "advocate."


And I agree with the assessment of the basis - this is a yes/no consensus determination, an opinion of economists, not anything based on data, stats, or objective figures of any nature befitting of an economic analysis.


Additionally, what do a bunch of top university economists (TUE's) know about college athletics?  Remember the game where you estimate how many 3rd graders you could take on in basketball at once... well the number of TUE's is double that.


Next thing is we'll be asking this year's Final Four participants what their opinion is on the economic impacts of subsidizing soybeans in the wake of Chinese tariffs.

[jutaw22mu]

I'm okay with paying them (semi-pro rate or below) as long as they then have to pay for tuition and housing.

[GGGG]

I'm okay with paying them (semi-pro rate or below) as long as they then have to pay for tuition and housing.

That's a pretty dumb take.

[StillAWarrior]

That's a pretty dumb take.

Dumb take or not, it could be the outcome of all this.  For those who have argued that they should be treated as employees, I often think, "be careful what you wish for."  If they are deemed employees, I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the schools switched over from scholarships to wages.  I also would not be terribly shocked if those wages were less than the value of the scholarship in a lot of places.  I think this would be a really unfortunate development.  I'd much rather see them keep their scholarships and be allowed to earn what they can from outside sources.

[GGGG]

Dumb take or not, it could be the outcome of all this.  For those who have argued that they should be treated as employees, I often think, "be careful what you wish for."  If they are deemed employees, I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the schools switched over from scholarships to wages.  I also would not be terribly shocked if those wages were less than the value of the scholarship in a lot of places.  I think this would be a really unfortunate development.  I'd much rather see them keep their scholarships and be allowed to earn what they can from outside sources.

Schools wouldn't likely switch to wages because the relative marginal cost of a scholarship is pretty minimal and certainly doesn't come close to its actual cash value.  It would be more cost effective to simply issue a 1099 for the value of the scholarship.

[StillAWarrior]

Schools wouldn't likely switch to wages because the relative marginal cost of a scholarship is pretty minimal and certainly doesn't come close to its actual cash value.  It would be more cost effective to simply issue a 1099 for the value of the scholarship.

I think schools will never willingly switch to wages.  I'm talking about the people who are arguing to various governmental agencies that athletes should be treated as employees.  If some people get their way, schools will have no choice in the matter.  And if that happens, it's quite possible that the majority of scholarship athletes will end up trading those full-rides for a minimum wage job.

[Jockey]

I'm okay with paying them (semi-pro rate or below) as long as they then have to pay for tuition and housing.

So you want to pay them less than their cost of going to school?

[WarriorDad]

NCAA Division I schools coordinate compensation for men’s basketball and football players (precluding actual pay and limiting non-monetary benefits), providing rents to member schools (which may be shared with others) at the expense of those players.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/the-ncaa

“A top NBA coach gets $7 million–$8 million per year, and a top player makes four times that. A top college coach gets $6 million, but the players get nothing.” - Austan Goolsbee

My favorite response

   
I would say "Strongly agree, Certainty 10," but noting that I know *nothing* about sports, I'm dialing this back to "Agree, Certainty 7"


How many of these economists know about the legality or Title IX implications associated with the question they were asked?  If they did and the financial ramifications that came with it, would that change their answers?

[GGGG]

My favorite response

   
I would say "Strongly agree, Certainty 10," but noting that I know *nothing* about sports, I'm dialing this back to "Agree, Certainty 7"


How many of these economists know about the legality or Title IX implications associated with the question they were asked?  If they did and the financial ramifications that came with it, would that change their answers?

Title IX isn't a problem if they would simply allow students to earn income outside of their scholarship.

[Benny B]

So you want to pay them less than their cost of going to school?

If you're paying athletes "what they're worth," I'd venture to say most are going to be paid less than the cost of attendance.


D-League salaries are what, like $30,000 tops?  I'd love to hear someone make the argument that college athletes are - on average - "worth" more than D-Leaguers.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

D-League salaries are what, like $30,000 tops?  I'd love to hear someone make the argument that college athletes are - on average - "worth" more than D-Leaguers.

I would imagine the revenue generated by the D-League on a per player basis is well below what is generated from D1 basketball on a per player basis.  Now probably the bottom 3/4 of D1 would be underwater in this type of scenario since the revenues are top heavy....but I dont know if the D League could pay more than a 'semi-pro' league where players are scarce due to the 4 year clock on eligibility.

[StillAWarrior]

If you're paying athletes "what they're worth," I'd venture to say most are going to be paid less than the cost of attendance.

Agreed.  Most would be paid a lot less than the cost of attendance.  In fact, if you're paying them "what they're worth," most would get nothing because they are costing the school money.

I found it kind of interesting to compare how the roles are reversed in some small D3 schools.  The schools use the sports programs to actually lure students and bring money in.  Coaches will offer roster spots to kids to get them help drive enrollment and tuition.  I've seen volleyball rosters with 20-25 players.  Obviously, there's no need for that many, but they know that some kids will come to the school because they were offered a spot on the team.  I would think that spread out over all the sports, a small D3 could attract several dozen additional students, which could be a meaningful percentage of their enrollment.