College Football Players starting a Union

how can you start a union when you don't get paid?

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/st...ing-join-labor-union

 

Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association, filed a petition in Chicago on behalf of football players at Northwestern University, submitting the form at the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board.

Backed by the United Steelworkers union, Huma also filed union cards signed by an undisclosed number of Northwestern players with the NLRB -- the federal statutory body that recognizes groups that seek collective bargaining rights.

Isn't a scholarship like getting paid?

What took them so long? 

They are being paid - room, board and tuition.  I'm sure actual salaries and such will be on the list in the future if all of this happens.  

 

I can honestly see the big schools in the big football - and perhaps basketball - conferences telling the NCAA to go piss up a frozen rope and then starting their own association.  One school wouldn't drop out of the NCAA, because it wouldn't be able to play anyone else.  But what if duh $EC, the Pac-12, the B1G, the Big 12 and the ACC schools all left and played only each other?  That'd be the end of the NCAA.

 

I'm not sure this unionization effort is the proper step to take, as it'll depend on how it all shakes out, but I can tell you from several different types of experience that the NCAA truly is a cartel in the legal sense of the word.  It's about as corrupt and inept as an organization can get.  

Don't plan on a union in Madison, Walker will break them.

Something needs to change. These college athletes are making the schools millions & millions of dollars every year.

 

JJSD, Interesting thoughts about NCAA

Respectfully disagree.

Student Athletes trade their services for a free/cheap education AND the opportunity to learn a skill that they might get paid millions for once they leave

 

Lots of students invent things in science & technology and those inventions are the property of the university, who may make millions off of those patents with limited or no compensation to the students. Why are athletes any different ?

 

If you wanna get paid to play, there is no better training than by going to college and using their marketing muscle, TV contracts and exposure to enhance your chances of making it big.

 

That's the other payday they get - literally a Golden Opportunity

 

And since the vast majority of college athletes (85 % ?) won't make it in the pro's their focus should be on getting an education that will serve them for 50+ years.

 

Give them stipends to survive ? Sure, anything is better than donating plasma

Paying them to play ? No effing way.

 

Free education for the vast majority who won't go pro

 

For those that do want to go pro:

 

Free coaching

Free weight training and conditioning and skills development

Free medical evaluations and advice and opinions

Free experience on a team in a near professional, high pressure environment 

Free marketing and publicity, exposure to the NFL and the world

While the athletes are receiving "something"... it's fair for the schools to get paid obscene amounts of money? Legal exploitation at it's finest....

 

Ok... got it!

 

This reminds me of a Tesla song....Lyrics go like this....

 

"I can't believe this ****ed up world in which we're living in....still I do the best that I caaaannnn...."

 

Good points from several different perspectives here.  The system is broken because the NCAA did not come about to maximize revenue and profits.  Teddy Roosevelt actually got the ball rolling towards the formation of the NCAA because dozens of guys every season were literally getting killed playing football.  

 

TR used the bully pulpit to bring about an association between colleges that, once formed, put safety regulations in place including the legalization of the forward pass and rules regarding tackling.  The NCAA was borne of a necessity to make the game safer, not to make it more profitable.  It was also basically given carte blanche to rule over all of the sports however it wanted to - there are literally almost no outlets for recourse for athletes who are getting hosed.  

 

What private industries out there are forbidden from hiring talent until they remain on campus for one-three years?  I don't blame the athletes for wanting to do something, especially with regards to concussion treatments and future medical care.  I'm just not sure unionizing is the way to go.  

 

Let's not forget the Johnny Football aspect of it too, that many orgs/people make plenty of coin off of players, but that player doesn't get a dime.  The NCAA for years made how much money off the rights to NCAA Football and Basketball, and the players who likeness was used, got how much $$ out of that deal?  

 

Boris, is right on, the NCAA is legal exploitation at it's finest.  

 

The unionization of football and basketball players will take decades to run through the courts.  

 

With respect to the Big 5 conferences breaking away, that is a valid point, and one that is gaining momentum in the NCAA, (story about it a couple of weeks ago) at the NCAA winter meetings.  The lynchpin on creating another "division" is how does the NCAA institute equality in the Final Four.  Many smaller schools, can and do compete with larger schools in the bracket, but if the Big 5 conferences start paying players in BB, how do the smaller schools compete?   

Has anybody ever published the profit made by a football program for example?

 

Money left over after paying full scholorships for X number of players, coaches, doctors, facilities, equipment, security, insurance, etc...?

If the football team getting 100,000 people to buy nacho's benefits the medical training facility, I can live with that.  Let's not pretend that the athletes (at least from the 'big' sports) eat spam and ramen noodles every day, they are treated very, very well, all the while being given an education.

 

The point about requiring time in college before you can pursue a career is dead on though.  Some kids (Brandon Jennings, for example) have to go to Europe to earn a living because the rules of the league insist they have to attend college (or, in his case, his class...).  From my own selfish standpoint, I like it because I get a better product on both ends, but I get why a college kid is pissed his likeness is on an EA sports game selling for millions, and he can't even try and get a job until a year of college has passed.  Follow that up, who here has to go to the city and state to demonstrate your skill because of a school yard "pick 'em" process.  I love the draft, but I get why a kid, who may want to be in some specific location, has no choice but to go where he is drafted. 

 

But ultimately those kids are treated very, very well, and the schools are making millions and millions of dollars, so it comes down to what I arbitrarily like, and that is a system where kids get trained in college, get drafted, and win a title for my team. 

 

 

Texas tops in revenue

 

Search for a schools revenue, expenses, & profits via the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA)     here's UW

 

A bit old, but I'm sure those numbers still look largely the same:

 

Profits

Not sure on the profit, but if you look at the most recent ESPN/SEC media deal it was for 1B, distributing $20M+ to schools/year.    

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/po...7-million-in-revenue

 

Most schools make a profit, because they don't have to pay Saban's salary of 5M/year, you know who does?  Boosters.  So, big schools, with wealthy donors don't have to worry about admin costs, so they are making huge profits.  Look at the close to $500M that Pickens has given to the Ok St. for facilities.  That money isn't accounted for, and the school rakes in all of the extra $$$ that would have gone to the facility, but has been paid for by outside sources.  

 

 

The link I provided is updated annually - last reporting was from last school year (Reporting Year: 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013). They should get updated in June of this year.

Sure, the athletes could get paid but then they should give up some/most of the perks: the training tables, the "academic advisors," the free clothing, the books and stuff they get on scholarship, the access to the posh training facilities, etc., etc. If they want to get paid, then they should live more like "regular" college students and less like pampered twenty-somethings who have had everything handed to them by schools and boosters and now greedily want more. Big-time university athletes get paid in a lot of other ways, including, for many, an easier path to a job after college if they don't go pro. 

 

And yes, the NCAA should stop putting the kids' names on jerseys and using their likenesses on EA Sports, etc. If a big-time, successful athletic program really helps a university in terms of exposure as many say it does, then just put the name of the university out there not the athletes' names. But then I bet the athletes would whine about that... 

Thanks H5.

Football is ordinarily an athletic department’s biggest revenue driver, and that income is required to support non-revenue sports like golf and swimming. If a team is profitable enough to cover those costs and still put its athletic department in the black, then revenue can be directed back to the parent university to support academic programming.

This is particularly true for the top SEC schools. Florida led the way last year, contributing $7.2 million to academic programming, with $1.5 million of that earmarked for non-athletic scholarships. Alabama wasn’t far behind, providing nearly $6.5 million to the university to help pay for scholarships, faculty support and the school’s Acts of Kindness fund. Other big donors were Ohio State ($5 million) and Georgia ($4 million).

In fact, Tennessee took the biggest fall on our list, down 25% to $63 million, because its academic contributions were significantly curtailed last year. Firing former head coach Derek Dooley turned out to be an expensive affair, and his staff’s buyout costs forced the Tennessee athletic department to stabilize its other expenses. As a result, Volunteers athletics went from being one of the nation’s biggest academic supporters, regularly contributing over $6 million annually, to providing just $1.3 million last year.

So the profit last year, money left over after expenses that is returned to the university where it is often used to fund non-athletic scholarships, was highest at Florida with $7.2M.

 

Most schools have far less money left over and the amounts can vary wildly year to year as shown by Tennessee's recent numbers.

 

Hardly obscene profits on average and what is left over seems to go toward good causes.

 

According to H5's link that doesn't appear to be true at all.

The missing part of the pie there is how much the University is paying its coaches. After seeing the deal Saban just re-upped for, the scrutiny may need to a little more for them.

My bad, I should have been more precise.  Of course schools will have to worry about Admin costs, but when Football coaches are being paid 5-6M/year, most of that money is coming from athletic boosters, not the school profits.  Saban might take a $500K/salary from the Alabama, but the athletic department gets 5M in booster contributions that would be to "help accommodate our great coach".  

 

Sure, the AD can use that $$ for facilities, or other uses, but what's going to happen, when the President or AD go back to the booster for fund raising?  "I gave you money, for a purpose that I stated, you didn't use it that way, and now you want more".  

 

http://chronicle.com/blogs/pla...-ncaa-proposal/30983

 

Coaches are already allowed to sign endorsement deals with companies. But an NCAA rule prohibits them from taking money earmarked by boosters to supplement their pay. Colleges can choose to use such payments for coaches’ bonuses or other compensation, but they must make those decisions on their own

If college football unionize, union bosses and the mob will make a fortune, everyone else losses.

If the college pay players  to play then the relationship changes form college to student to changes college to employee.  There a whole can of worms that is open with this move.

The relationship between college sports changes to a competitive business model. Relationship between college conference become business rivals.

Unions in college sports would mean the current system collapses.

The worst result is since many of these school are public intuitions government gets deeply involved in the private sector, that is  fascism.  

Not sure I would be against it, return to the days of college sports being armature  were students participate as armatures.

As hard as I study in college I could not see myself spending as much time on sports as I did in high school. My brother lost his scholarship because he was more interested in studying then practicing , best thing that every happen to him.

These kids are getting raped every day....and no one is willing to step up and be chivalric.

Right, big donors like OkSt with Pickens, that $$ goes to facilities, never annual expenses. So while the schools with big $$ boosters benefit from these updated facilities, they still have to deal with the year-over-year expenses.

 

 

I found the site I referenced somewhat by accident. My oldest is a HS Jr and we are looking into colleges. Luke is a swimmer and pretty good one, but not good enough for an elite school (i.e. SMU, Texas, Stanford) swimming scholarship. We started here and as part of our research I found the Equity in Athletics Data.

 

 

Been meaning to address that, "chivalric".

 

13 seconds to post, but how long to research / use a thesaurus to come up with that one? Gebins!

 

 

 

 H5, 

 

NICE!  I updated my post with an article, that potentially, could allow boosters to direct payments to coaches.  Having said that, I find it hard to believe that a booster gives a financial gift and "winks" and says "use it how you wish", which in turn is code for pay the coaches.  It's not an "earmark" and prohibited by the NCAA.  

He just wanted to use it, how often does one  get to use that word out side of high school papers on King Arthur.

 

Link?

 

I asked if anybody knew of any published profits because the info I could find was similar to the Forbes info that H5 posted. Which says after the money is used to fund the rest of the athletic departments, there are NOT huge, obscene profits left over. And what is left over goes to the university for specific scholarship funds and other types of academic uses. 

 

You've now made the claim that "big schools...are making huge profits".

 

And the claim "when Football coaches are being paid 5-6M/year, most of that money is coming from athletic boosters, not the school profits."

 

Where are you getting this info?

At first blush, I agree that it doesn't seem right that coaches and the NCAA make millions while players don't directly share the in that pie.

But I think this is a much more complicated issue that goes beyond first impressions.

 

For starters, I think there's a real question of how much the athletes are contributing to the revenue stream. Yes, they are the product...but if you repackage that product in the form of minor league teams completely unaffiliated with universities (and their built in audience of students and alumni), how much is that worth? The NBA D-League has better talent than your average DI college program. But the revenue potential is a fraction of the NCAA.

 

Second, as others have noted, how do you decide who gets paid and who doesn't? Basically football and basketball revenues fund the rest of the womens and mens sports at a university. Even within a sport, does Johnny Manziel get paid the same as the walk-on fourth string kicker? Coming up with a solution that's equitable and doesn't negatively impact other sports is not that easy.

 

Rather than focusing on paying athletes, I'd prefer to see greater attention on universities fulfilling their promises to student athletes. A scholarship is worthless if an athlete never goes to class or never graduates. I'd like to see the NCAA set the expectation that if you are recruited to play college athletics, the university has a responsibility to educate you. If the university fails to do so, then they shouldn't be given scholarships.

Huge, Obscene Profits

 

Not bad for a so-called 'non-profit' organization that only exists 'to ensure the protection of the student-athlete' or whatever BS they're shoveling.

Agree.

 

If the NCAA itself is hoarding money, that is BS. All extra money should go to the universities. 

FS, 

 

"Huge" is relative, I apologize for being obtuse.  Here's a link from 2008, so it's 5 years old.  http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue

 

In that link some of those schools, try to "zero" out revenues/expenses.  Some of those schools had approx 10M more in revenues than expenses.  Over a decade there's a cool 100M in "profits".  I'm not completely sure on this, but I believe that most university's are non-profit and are granted tax exempt status.  Therefore, it's in the University's best interest to not "show" a profit.  

 

As for the college coaches being paid by boosters, here is a link.  

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...ries-rise/51242232/1

 

Here is a quote out of that link.  

"Florida State pays football coaches' salaries out of funds raised by its booster club."

 

If you think FSU is any different than the other major schools, then I have some land in So. FL to sell you.  

 

 It is a very complex issue indeed and lots of different points of view

Quick question on your comment above:

 

If he/she doesn't go to class or fails to do the work- why is that the fault of the university ?

Doesn't the scholar bear some responsibility for getting out of bed ?

 

And that was my original point - the NCAA is a cartel:

 

Cartel

A combination of producers of any product joined together to control its production, sale, and price, so as to obtain a Monopoly and restrict competition in any particular industry or commodity. Cartels exist primarily in Europe, being illegal in the United States under antitrust laws.

 

Good thing for the NCAA that they have an antitrust exemption.  

It's a dirty, complicated situation all around.  

 

There are no quick easy answers.  I agree with most, that a scholarship and a spending $$$, plus a free education is fair.  What is not "fair", is the exploitation of these athletes for monetary purposes in which they are unable to benefit from.  Will a union help, who knows.  

 

What we do know is that the NCAA is flush in cash, the major conference schools are flush in cash (due to boosters, revenue streams, conference affiliation, etc).  And NCAA "student-athletes" are punished for getting a job, or selling their possessions, etc.  

In this discussion only a few big school bring in the big bucks, for most schools football is a big money loser that is why many School have completely dropped football.  And do not just look  at revenue, there are 2 sides to a income statement, income and expenses. College football programs are expensive and it not what you make but what you keep.  Then understand a lot of the money that comes into a school is booster money, if college football is professionalized then that money may go away. Years ago there was a great investigative report on college football, for all except a few big programs it is not as rich source of revenue for the school as everyone thinks. I will try to find a link to that report if it is on the internet.