Costs of unionization are not things paid by employers, and health insurance and other benefits are paid by employers. It's not semantics. Say what you mean.
I said what I mean. My advice to you, read the thread.
I'm not entirely sure you know what's being discussed, at least it doesn't seem like it. You've basically devolved this thread into bickering of off-topic minutiae.
Yep, that's typical. Your not sure we know what we are talking about. OK. I've personally driven this thread into a ditch. OK, whatever you say.
Yeah, I replied to your post that made an absolute distinction between the term student-athlete and employee by saying the terms aren't mutually exclusive... do you know what mutually exclusive means?
No, I think you are wrong here. If the employee was a Student Athlete, then they would not be able to Unionize. The fact that they have been found to be employees is the reason they can discuss unionization. In terms of this decision, they are mutually exclusive. Perhaps this is a question better answered by you.
I didn't say screw them, you did. If you think players who are on full educational scholarships are being screwed, then I suppose you think 100% of scholarship athletes are getting screwed right now. I suppose it's ok for athletes to get screwed, so long as they're all getting screwed equally?
Yeah, you pretty much did. Own it, it's yours.
As to student athletes getting screwed, I think that the term STUDENT, basically negates your idea of athletes getting screwed. They don't have to sign a scholarship intent letter. They can go out and obtain education by some other means. They are getting something that I consider to be vary valuable in exchange for their athletic participation. What Unionization will do, what you support apparently, will IMO destroy that opportunity for millions of young people. So in my eyes, a system that may be imperfect but offers a chance at an education is better then one that kills that opportunity for many, many young people while benefiting a few select athletes.
It's not going to be equal, that's not what free market principles suggest. If you think that's the ideal, then do you advocate that everyone on the Cowboys roster should make the same salary/bonuses?
No, it's not going to be equal. Some will get paid, most will not be receiving a scholarship or a check so yeah, I think this is something we can definitely agree upon. As far as free market, that has no business in this discussion. Unionization kills those concepts.
I'm saying why can the schools afford to literally everyone involved in a football or basketball program -- altogether millions of dollars -- and not bankrupt the programs. Brian Harsin at Boise State (non "Power 6" conference), just signed his first contract as a head coach that pays an average of more than one million per year. The school charters flights all over the country for its football program. If they can pay out those types of salaries, and pay for those types of expenses, then paying players their market value (which, surprisingly enough, they would be able to have some say in) will not bankrupt the program
Prove your statement. Show that the majority of football and basketball programs make enough money to pay players and afford long term benefits. This pie in the sky idea that colleges are making enough money to afford to pay players and long term benefits is all good theater but it's not factual. Show me data that suggest this can happen. don't just show the top 5 or 6 schools. In fact, according to studies, only 7 programs in D1 were showing a profit, at all, without subsidies. The rest, not so much. Where is this money going to come from?
You haven't seen anything for yourself that is relevant to this particular issue, because it's never happened. If the school is making profits in the education arena off the back of its highly visible sports athletes without adequate compensation, then THAT'S WRONG!
Not sure what you are trying to say here. However, I think the post just previous to this will settle the argument. Show me how programs are going to afford this, going forward. This isn't about what you think is right or wrong. It's about what is best for these young kids. What is better, a few select athletes getting paid or a lot of young people getting scholarships and education opportunity?
Still no legit points. You've got a functional misunderstanding of the issues or you're afraid to discuss them.
Yeah, I know. I just don't understand, again. Look, show how it works financially. Do that and explain how benefits, going forward are going to be covered and that will end the discussion.
What are the different dynamics? Spell them out. You can't just say, "there are different dynamics from the NFL because there's more teams" and therefore, these athletes can't get paid and expect it to end the conversation. The fact that schools also have education costs doesn't give them the right to not pay fair compensation to athletes bringing record revenues into athletic departments.
This is funny. I've repeatedly asked you to show me how the money aspects will work and you've avoided that like the plague yet you ask me to spell out something for you? In actuality, I've already done this in an earlier post but since you want to hear them again, I'll do that for you. Then, you can address them.
NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL are all professional sports who drive revenue and profits from only sports. They are, for the most part, all profitable. They revenue share based on that. Not so with Universities. Each University have their own specific rules that govern things like employment, benefits, Salaries workmans comp, all sorts of things like this that are all separately governed.
Title IX. That basically says that whatever additional medical and educational benefits Northwestern football players—and those at other universities forming unions negotiate—be extended to athletes in other sports with equal aggregate amounts spent on men and women. The expense could easily destroy the financial viability of many athletic programs, and cause universities to drop many more men’s sports to maintain gender balance. (Again, how are you going to pay for this?)
If college students unionize, what happens when an employee commits legal or team offenses that force a player to be benched, suspended or dismissed? Do we then see Union Officials step in to try and protect the player? How is that going to work with 1000 different schools, each with their own specific Dean and ADs and over 420,000.00 potential employees?
When you make all of these athletes employees, how are they going to handle the expense of taxes, associated with all that goes along with being a Student Athlete? Things like the cost of their education. Lets say 30K a year for education but their is more. Healthcare benefits will also not be free. They too will be taxed. Strength and conditioning that is now free to all athletes could also be taxed. Food and supplements needed could also be taxed and that's not cheap. I was listening to a report that said, on average, the cost of advanced weight training is upwards of 9K a year. More taxes. There are all sorts of hidden costs that are going to be taxable for these athletes. How do they deal with those expenses?
What happens with schools that are in Right to Work States? Let's say the SEC, for example. What happens if only Missouri votes to Unionize? Does the SEC then vote to exclude Missouri from the SEC?
Tuition for in state, out of state, private, State University, do these effect recruiting?
These are just off the top of my head, there literally thousands more issues that we haven't even started to consider.
I'm not saying it "will work" because pro unions work. I'm contradicting your assertion that because Detroit went bankrupt then college athletic unions won't work. Do you see the difference? You tried to claim that because Detroit unions allegedly caused bankruptcy, then this wouldn't work. That's is a conclusory, lazy argument. My response to you is only to make a point that you can't base a judgment on this union by one unrelated example... but if you wanted to be lazy and leave at that, then you should look at more comparable unions, such as the professional athletes' unions.
Of course not. That's kind of the problem right? Your asking me if I see the difference. Well, if it were as you say, of course. However, the problem here is that you can't know that there will be a difference. It's much like you saying it works in other Sports. Well, this is not like other sports. In fact, it's completely different. Do you see the difference? No, you don't? I guess I can only conclude that because you can't see the difference, that it's because you are resorting to a conclusory, lazy argument. Conversely, my response in turn, is that you can't make a judgement based on other Pro Sports. Collegiate Sports are not the same as Professional Sports. Further, you can't say that what happened in Detroit or many other Union Based industries will not happen here either. The difference between our two positions are that if you are wrong, a lot of Student Athletes are going to suffer. I think I've explained to you, why Professional Unions are not the same as what we would have here. That's not lazy, that's the truth. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this point says a great deal about what you are trying to defend IMO.
What could you possibly be confused about pep?
You said:
"The unions you're talking about in Detroit are not sports unions. The only similarity is that they're unions. That's literally it. That's about as weak of an argument you can make, and it assumes all unions are the same. Why would you allude to that without considering the much more closely related sports unions in the professional ranks? Because they don't fit your narrative. You're using this one unrelated example to distract from the real issue. Red herring."
I responded with:
"Neither is this one. It's the USW. Talk about Red Herring discussions."
The Union that is representing Northwestern is not a Sports Union. It is the United Steel Workers of America. That's not a Sports Union. It's basically, the same kinds of Unions you saw in Detroit.
