Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't care how they "find the money." The fact is it's there and the players aren't getting fairly compensated for what they bring to the program. And I don't care about the tax implications. If players are being paid what they're worth, then they'll figure out the taxes. The money that they have to "come up with" can come from income withholding, just like everyone else in this country.

I see. Yeah, it's clear that you don't really care so long as the Unions are linked in. What is fairly compensated to you? Clearly, a 75K education for free is not enough. What is enough? Whatever it is, I'm afraid it will still be too much for the smaller programs.

You're trolling now right...? Only a true imbecile would claim that coaches salaries have nothing to do with this issue. Are you an imbecile?

Be careful counselor, your highly educated persona is slipping here.

Just so we are very clear, are you calling me an imbecile? I'm pretty sure you are not. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are going to back track that right?

Coaches salaries have nothing at all to do with this.

No... the flawed idea is that you can sit here time and time again and claim that essentially every single coach that coached D1 (FBS) football can make a million dollars a year, but the athletes who the fans actually pay to watch can't get paid anything... other than that non-transferrable tuition. Not to mention the money being paid to assistants, trainers, equipment managers, etc. etc. EVERYONE but the players gets compensated fairly. And that's totally fine with you because the players have the opportunity to go take underwater basket weaving and work at McDonald's when they don't make it to the league. It's so aggravating that you just continually ignore that.

I never claimed any of this. This is all your creation. I'm simply saying that coaching salaries do not effect this. Further, I'm saying that FBS is not really a part of this but, D1 (you do realize that FBS is like 70 schools but D1 contains approximately 350 schools and that there are actually 1000 NCAA members right?) will be drastically effected. If your contention is that a person who receives a 4 year scholarship from Northwestern is destined for bbstacking classes and a high point of the fry guy at McDonalds, then I don't think the problem is with me. This really comes down to a question of how much you value an education. The player is being compensated to the tune of 300K, over a 4 year period, regardless of whether you decide to acknowledge that or not.

READ THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, the top 100 football programs all had an annual revenue of $20mil + in 2008. And they all magically have expenses of $20mil + in 2008. That includes power conferences and mid-majors.

Here is a link that outlines profitability of NCAA schools.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Here is a link that provides statistics, as of 2012 (most current I could find), for how top heavy the profitability actually is:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/ncaa-college-athletics-statistics/

Do you really not see what's going on here? Just because they spend all the revenue they bring in doesn't mean that they don't have the money to pay their athletes who bring in the fans and sell the merchandise.

It's a generally accepted point that BBall and Football basically pay for most, if not all, of the other athletic programs. I get that you see black helicopters circling but I would ask that you provide some sort of reference point as to why you believe schools are scamming everyone on their expenditures.

If the smaller schools don't want to pay their recruits, then they don't have to. That's the part of this conversation that you're not getting. If the schools don't want to pay their athletes anything other than the scholarships, and the market doesn't take away those recruits they go after, because they wouldn't get anything more than a scholarship anywhere else, then they can do what they want. The small schools wouldn't get the level of recruits that the big boys would, but that's already happening.

Smaller schools can't pay them. It's not as simple as just being able to offer a scholarship and continue on as if nothing happened. How can you not understand this. If Unionization is approved, it will be approved for all students who play sports. It won't be just for certain athletes or certain schools. This means that every single school that has an athletic program will have to follow the laws in this country, with regards to Employees. Do you not get that? That means that they must pay them and they must provide healthcare and benefits and disability and all the rest. Do you not get this? It's not an alacarte kind of deal.

I'm ONLY against artificially stifling the market for these players' services. If the market doesn't demand that the less touted recruits get paid a salary, then they won't get a salary. If it demands they just get scholarships, then they just get scholarships. Therefore, the smaller schools that you're so concerned about (another anti-union piece of propaganda) wouldn't have to change a thing

.

Do you not understand that salary not all that goes into this process? According to a study from MIT, Benefits for the average employee, never mind employees who are at greater risk (such as athletes), the annual cost is in the area of 1.25 to 1.4 times the cost of salary and even higher for Union members. This is going to project over all athletes because if Unionization is accepted, it will apply to all athletes which will, in turn, drive the Universities to cover them as they would any of their other employees accept these will be Union members which means they will eventually demand Union benefits and wages. Do the math here. You have a relatively small percentage of FBS athletes involved here but in actuality, what you are talking about is 420,000 athletes who will all become employees in the eyes of the law, if this decision is upheld.

How can these schools absorb those kinds of costs?

What's so hard about that?

What I've explained above is what is so hard about that.

I don't care about benefiting the top programs, or whether big or small schools get screwed. I care about the student-athletes being fairly compensated for their services, instead of a bunch of old, out-of-touch dudes, live high off the hog on the backs of student-athletes who are confined to a dorm and a practice facility with nothing to show for it when they're done.

What you should care about is the opportunity for young people to get an education. At least if they have that, then they have a chance to make a life for themselves. Only a very small percentage of athletes, specifically, less then 1% of all college athletes, go on to make a living in professional sports. Consider that, if these students become employees, what is the driving force behind Universities giving these athletes scholarships? Why would they continue to educate them at all? Why wouldn't they just walk away from that and just say, "OK, you are employees now and we are going to pay you X to play but that's it."? What happens if that is how it works? That means that more then 99% of all athletes will have a job for a period of a few years (perhaps) to get paid and after that, nothing to fall back on. They won't even be able to say that they have practical job experience because playing sports doesn't really provide that for real world jobs. Then they truly would be looking at head fry cook at McD's, if they were lucky. You don't care about it. You only care that they get paid, I get it.

I suppose everybody is entitled to their own opinions but I hope very few share yours because if that's how it works, then those young people have a very poor future ahead of them indeed.

 

[peplaw06]

I see. Yeah, it's clear that you don't really care so long as the Unions are linked in. What is fairly compensated to you? Clearly, a 75K education for free is not enough. What is enough? Whatever it is, I'm afraid it will still be too much for the smaller programs.

Wrong again. I don't care about union either. I care about free market principles that we apply to everything else in this country, being applied equally to everyone. And "fairly compensated" means compensated according to those principles. I no confusin rite?

Be careful counselor, your highly educated persona is slipping here.

i could give a damn about what you think my persona is.

Just so we are very clear, are you calling me an imbecile? I'm pretty sure you are not. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are going to back track that right?

Coaches salaries have nothing at all to do with this.

If you think that coaches salaries... which are included in "expenses" of the programs in the articles you cite below... have nothing to do with this, then I guess the shoe fits. Of course, you could admit that you're talking out of your *** to fit things into your little predetermined argument... but I doubt you'll do that.

I never claimed any of this. This is all your creation. I'm simply saying that coaching salaries do not effect this. Further, I'm saying that FBS is not really a part of this but, D1 (you do realize that FBS is like 70 schools but D1 contains approximately 350 schools and that there are actually 1000 NCAA members right?) will be drastically effected. If your contention is that a person who receives a 4 year scholarship from Northwestern is destined for bbstacking classes and a high point of the fry guy at McDonalds, then I don't think the problem is with me. This really comes down to a question of how much you value an education. The player is being compensated to the tune of 300K, over a 4 year period, regardless of whether you decide to acknowledge that or not.

you haven't claimed that players shouldn't be paid?? Jesus man... It's becoming indisputable that I'm wasting my time. You can't keep track of more than one point being made at a time.

Do you understand that because the players aren't being paid in something that is negotiable, that its really the same as no compensation? They can't take their education and pay for a Subway sandwich. The value of an education is only worth what you get out of it... but these schools don't care. And claiming that it's worth 300k is just horse hockey. I'm sure the university presidents love your line of thinking though... "Let's just continue to inflate the cost of education, so these athletes can be deemed to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, we can prevent having to pay them, and we can continue to make the big bucks."

Here is a link that outlines profitability of NCAA schools.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Here is a link that provides statistics, as of 2012 (most current I could find), for how top heavy the profitability actually is:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/ncaa-college-athletics-statistics/

Um, this second article says there are 120 FBS schools.... wrong again.

And forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to think that these schools are being completely forthcoming and honest with their revenues and expenses. Why do you always believe that owners and now schools are only capable of doing what these "financials" dictate?

It's a generally accepted point that BBall and Football basically pay for most, if not all, of the other athletic programs. I get that you see black helicopters circling but I would ask that you provide some sort of reference point as to why you believe schools are scamming everyone on their expenditures.

I'm not saying they're scamming anyone. I just know the realities of the situation... businesses always do their expenses and revenues this way. When you see astronomical revenues, you see astronomical expenses. It's in the school's best interest to spend football and basketball revenues on to other sports and give them the best of the best so they don't have to report all that revenue as income.

It's how every business runs.

Smaller schools can't pay them. It's not as simple as just being able to offer a scholarship and continue on as if nothing happened.

Why not?

How can you not understand this. If Unionization is approved, it will be approved for all students who play sports. It won't be just for certain athletes or certain schools. This means that every single school that has an athletic program will have to follow the laws in this country, with regards to Employees. Do you not get that? That means that they must pay them and they must provide healthcare and benefits and disability and all the rest. Do you not get this? It's not an alacarte kind of deal.

Just because unionization has been approved it doesn't mean all student-athletes will get paid in forms other than scholarships. Some schools will be able to put together "compensation packages" that only include a scholarship, room & board, books, and leave it at that. If the school doesn't want to offer other benefits, no one is saying that they have to. You're just assuming worst case scenario everywhere to prop up your crumbling position.

Even unions in the private employers sector if they provide health insurance benefits and disability can require the employees to pay for those benefits... They can certainly do that here... and if the athletes want the benefits as part of their package, great... if not, they can find their own.

Do you not understand that salary not all that goes into this process? According to a study from MIT, Benefits for the average employee, never mind employees who are at greater risk (such as athletes), the annual cost is in the area of 1.25 to 1.4 times the cost of salary and even higher for Union members. This is going to project over all athletes because if Unionization is accepted, it will apply to all athletes which will, in turn, drive the Universities to cover them as they would any of their other employees accept these will be Union members which means they will eventually demand Union benefits and wages. Do the math here. You have a relatively small percentage of FBS athletes involved here but in actuality, what you are talking about is 420,000 athletes who will all become employees in the eyes of the law, if this decision is upheld.

How can these schools absorb those kinds of costs?

Again, "benefits" can be paid for by the employees, or they can be part of the employers' offer of compensation. There's no cookie cutter model that has to be followed.

What you should care about is the opportunity for young people to get an education. At least if they have that, then they have a chance to make a life for themselves. Only a very small percentage of athletes, specifically, less then 1% of all college athletes, go on to make a living in professional sports. Consider that, if these students become employees, what is the driving force behind Universities giving these athletes scholarships? Why would they continue to educate them at all? Why wouldn't they just walk away from that and just say, "OK, you are employees now and we are going to pay you X to play but that's it."? What happens if that is how it works? That means that more then 99% of all athletes will have a job for a period of a few years (perhaps) to get paid and after that, nothing to fall back on. They won't even be able to say that they have practical job experience because playing sports doesn't really provide that for real world jobs. Then they truly would be looking at head fry cook at McD's, if they were lucky. You don't care about it. You only care that they get paid, I get it.

I suppose everybody is entitled to their own opinions but I hope very few share yours because if that's how it works, then those young people have a very poor future ahead of them indeed.

I do care about the athletes getting an education, AND I care about them being treated fairly. Now, it's not happening consistently enough. If you doubt this, go watch last week's Real Sports episode on HBO Go.

Right now, student-athletes who have no business being students are being brought in because they are talented athletes... and they are being put into classes tat are blow offs so they can keep their "grades" up. They're getting educations in "interdisciplinary studies" and playing their sports. When they are finished with their playing careers, they are ending up working at WalMart or McDonald's with no education, and having spent 4-5 years working their butts off with nothing to show for it. You think that's best? You can't dictate that every athlete take such and such classes, and you can't convince them all to take advantage of it... some of them just don't have the smarts. At least this way, they can save up some of their salaries to cushion the blow of being unemployed for months when they get out.

The ones who are smart enough to utilize their education would still have that benefit. Win win.

But I assume you'll continue to ignore all this because ZOMG UNIONS!!! I'm done trying to convince you... you're beyond all help.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wrong again. I don't care about union either. I care about free market principles that we apply to everything else in this country, being applied equally to everyone. And "fairly compensated" means compensated according to those principles. I no confusin rite?

i could give a damn about what you think my persona is.

If you think that coaches salaries... which are included in "expenses" of the programs in the articles you cite below... have nothing to do with this, then I guess the shoe fits. Of course, you could admit that you're talking out of your *** to fit things into your little predetermined argument... but I doubt you'll do that.

you haven't claimed that players shouldn't be paid?? Jesus man... It's becoming indisputable that I'm wasting my time. You can't keep track of more than one point being made at a time.

Do you understand that because the players aren't being paid in something that is negotiable, that its really the same as no compensation? They can't take their education and pay for a Subway sandwich. The value of an education is only worth what you get out of it... but these schools don't care. And claiming that it's worth 300k is just horse hockey. I'm sure the university presidents love your line of thinking though... "Let's just continue to inflate the cost of education, so these athletes can be deemed to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, we can prevent having to pay them, and we can continue to make the big bucks."

Um, this second article says there are 120 FBS schools.... wrong again.

And forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to think that these schools are being completely forthcoming and honest with their revenues and expenses. Why do you always believe that owners and now schools are only capable of doing what these "financials" dictate?

I'm not saying they're scamming anyone. I just know the realities of the situation... businesses always do their expenses and revenues this way. When you see astronomical revenues, you see astronomical expenses. It's in the school's best interest to spend football and basketball revenues on to other sports and give them the best of the best so they don't have to report all that revenue as income.

It's how every business runs.

Why not? Just because unionization has been approved it doesn't mean all student-athletes will get paid in forms other than scholarships. Some schools will be able to put together "compensation packages" that only include a scholarship, room & board, books, and leave it at that. If the school doesn't want to offer other benefits, no one is saying that they have to. You're just assuming worst case scenario everywhere to prop up your crumbling position.

Even unions in the private employers sector if they provide health insurance benefits and disability can require the employees to pay for those benefits... They can certainly do that here... and if the athletes want the benefits as part of their package, great... if not, they can find their own.

Again, "benefits" can be paid for by the employees, or they can be part of the employers' offer of compensation. There's no cookie cutter model that has to be followed.


I do care about the athletes getting an education, AND I care about them being treated fairly. Now, it's not happening consistently enough. If you doubt this, go watch last week's Real Sports episode on HBO Go.

Right now, student-athletes who have no business being students are being brought in because they are talented athletes... and they are being put into classes tat are blow offs so they can keep their "grades" up. They're getting educations in "interdisciplinary studies" and playing their sports. When they are finished with their playing careers, they are ending up working at WalMart or McDonald's with no education, and having spent 4-5 years working their butts off with nothing to show for it. You think that's best? You can't dictate that every athlete take such and such classes, and you can't convince them all to take advantage of it... some of them just don't have the smarts. At least this way, they can save up some of their salaries to cushion the blow of being unemployed for months when they get out.

The ones who are smart enough to utilize their education would still have that benefit. Win win.

But I assume you'll continue to ignore all this because ZOMG UNIONS!!! I'm done trying to convince you... you're beyond all help.

You've allowed this to get to personal. That's unfortunate.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think this thread has gone far enough.

I would also caution any other threads on this topic that nobody gets personal again or they will get a vacation.