Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Veto session preview
Posted in:
* From the governor’s daily public schedule…
What: Gov. Pritzker to announce his support for legislation requiring that Illinois college athletes be compensated for their likenesses.
Where: Illinois State Capitol, Governor’s Office, Springfield
When: 9 a.m.
* Pritzker announced his support on Rick Pearson’s WGN Radio show yesterday…
“Student athletes are the backbone of the college sports industry, and they deserve the same opportunity as everyone else to earn compensation based on the use of their name and their image and likeness,” Pritzker said on WGN AM-720. […]
The California law allows college athletes to hire agents and make money from endorsement deals with sponsors, despite objections from the NCAA. The move would take effect in 2023, the same time frame in the Illinois legislation. […]
“I just have this problem with the commercialization of undergraduate and collegiate sports. I still believe in the concept, even though it seems to be waning, of the scholar athlete,” [House Republican Leader Jim Durkin] said.
* The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Welch, responded to Leader Durkin via a press release…
Leader Durkin either hasn’t read the bill or confused over the reality of NCAA, a heavily “commercialized” multi-billion dollar business that has benefited nearly everyone except for the student athletes. He is clearly out of step with Republicans across the country like Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Congressman Mark Walker (R-NC) demanding Congressional action to get College athletes paid.
* He also provided a list of dot points…
* The bill does NOT require schools to pay players or give them a cut of ticket sales. Rather, it allows then to earn money by selling the rights to their own name, image and likeness - same rights and opportunities that every American should have in a free-market economy.
* Student athletes would NOT be able to sign endorsement deals that conflict with their team’s sponsors.
HB3904 brings equity to student-athletes whose talent and labor generates significant revenue for the colleges and universities that they serve. This legislation won’t cost the NCAA or our schools a single dollar while creating a strong recruitment practice for Illinois schools. While colleges have been quick to create support systems to help tech titans like Michael Dell and Mark Zuckerberg turn their ideas into multi-billion dollar money making businesses, young men and women who stimulate the economics of the NCAA should also be able to secure their own economic well-being. I am proud to be the chief sponsor of this legislation to advance educational and financial equity for student athletes.
Welch also noted on Rick’s program that music students at universities like Northwestern can earn money by playing music when they’re not studying. Athletes should be given the same sort of right.
The bill is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Veto session preview
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It might be inevitable. But, as college sports inch closer to being like pro sports in compensation: there will probably be less college sports teams. Just something to think about.
Comment by Steve Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:20 am
I support the concept but ultimately think it will have to be regulated federally to level the playing field. I also have concerns that an unlimited ability to earn income from endorsements while in college will cause a rich get richer effect as endorsers steer elite athletes to programs where they can get the most exposure. That already happens to some extent, but I worry that for example the influence of the shoe companies in basketball will only grow.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:23 am
Horrible idea. Cute example that isn’t analogous. The music student isn’t using the exclusive licensing of the schools branding and market base. Are the athletes going to be paying us taxpayers back for the the licensing of the logo of our public schools? We would be entitled to that money.
Comment by YourMove Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:23 am
The music student analogy is not comparing apples to apples. The musician has to go out and get a separate gig that requires a separate practice and preparation. Much different than selling a photo of yourself for an advertisement.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:34 am
I’ve turned a corner, these bills are a terrible idea;
College athletics is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, why can’t I play quarterback at Notre Dame, or forward on Duke’s basketball team?
If I’m the NCAA I would try to institute the following…
No more freshmen in varsity athletics. You are required to pass 30 hours of academics to be legible for your sophomore athletic scholarship. Also, universities can institute freshman teams as they have in the past.
No more immediate transfer of *any* kind, you are required to sit a whole athletic season, unless you’re a graduate transfer.
No more redshirts, medical or otherwise. You have THREE concurrent years upon your Freshmen wait to play. No exceptions, and you still lose that year of eligibility, if you transfer, so you are now down to two or one year.
You want a scholarship, you want “pay”, … ok…
What these laws are going to do they are going to force student athletes in tighter windows and offer less opportunity to gifted athletes.
States that allow pay and schools accepting? They no longer can participate in championships, even if their conferences are participating in the NCAA basketball tournament.
Now, not all sulfur, here’s the molasses;
Remove the meal stipend, with food available 24/7 via dining hall and facilities built by universities. To participate in D-1 athletics, you must have the unlimited food tenet.
Dollar for Dollar repayment of the scholarship. What this does it does not enrich the Heisman QB, while the second string Right Tackle faces hardship but isn’t worried, because of position and popularity and he is marginalized.
You also must worry about “corporate” influence, even as Oregon athletics is now “wholly” subsidized by Nike, or Maryland by Under Armor.
The have and have nots will be measured not by blue blood history but solely by media markets, where West Virginia might lose a recruit to USC because… “look at the outside income i can get in Los Angeles.”
Finally, the clothing stipend, gifts and such, coaches are getting millions for logo, not clothing and shoe companies can still endorse coaches, and subsequently the schools, but the limit students can accept will be unlimited, but limited to sole athlete use; need a coat? done. how about other clothes? Nike will handle it.
Food, clothing, dollar to dollar repayment for scholarships, this idea of pay is too far when you have students, talented as *they* are have student loans, and the privilege of playing athletics is lost as the *right* seems like a paper tiger of “they owe me”.
College baseball vs. minor league baseball is the best marriage, a choice athletes make, in a sport, you hope is revenue neutral but in most cases isn’t, but that choice is about athletes wanting to be educated.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:37 am
Steve,
Read. The. Bill. Colleges will not be compensating student athletes.
No idea on what basis you make the contention that this bill will result in fewer college sports teams.
Comment by The Doc Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:38 am
=== will result in fewer college sports teams.===
There is a reality that places that can compensate players will outmuscle schools like West Virginia, Utah, or Kansas for that matter.
There’s a reason in professional athletics (except in baseball) there are ceilings and floors, or a combination of the two.
The Utah Jazz immediately comes to mind.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:42 am
If they get paid, Illinois gets tax dollars? Win, Win.
Comment by Bruce (no not him) Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:43 am
And this must be quickly passed during veto session because why?
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:45 am
I’m just talking about the competitive pressures over time . I realize the schools themselves aren’t shelling out the money. But, it’s the camel’s nose under the tent. Their scholarship is a form of compensation.
Comment by Steve Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:46 am
=== And this must be quickly passed during veto session because why?===
In this narrow question of yours, and in that context, it’s pandering.
Can’t wait for the NCAA to respond to California’s law(s)?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:49 am
===“I just have this problem with the commercialization of undergraduate and collegiate sports.===
In case Leader Durkin hasn’t noticed, college athletics has been commercialized. For decades. And everybody benefits, except the athletes themselves - the people who make it all possible.
“But what about their scholarships?”
An athletic scholarship is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions big schools rake in from TV contracts, merchandising, and on, including, yes, athletes’ likenesses, which are licensed to video game companies, among other things.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:51 am
Is an athletic scholarship a privilege or a right?
If athletic scholarships are a right…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:53 am
What a way to start the week. I find myself actually in agreement with Oswego WIllie on an issue.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 9:56 am
Louie, you still can’t spell, but…
There was a time where the NCAA basketball tournament was the little brother and less prestigious then the National Invitational Tournament. ESPN told of the story of CUNY, basketball, money, and evolution.
If Nike wants to hosts the College Football Championship, or the Collegiate Basketball Tournament.., but why would they? The infrastructure and sponsorship is still cheaper than hosting.
I’d like to see the NCAA come down hard here.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:02 am
Athletic scholarships are earned, unless your last name is Huffman, etc.
The NCAA cannot win this argument or this fight.
The NCAA is a $1 billion a year “nonprofit” whose white President from Louisiana is paid $2 million a year. Over 80 percent of that revenue comes from the NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament, aka “March Madness.”
60% of March Madness players are black, many from impoverished urban neighborhoods. They are paid nothing for their work, while the mostly male, mostly white men at the top of this pyramid scheme rake in millions.
This is not socially, economically, or politically sustainable, and it exists only because the NCAA has been granted a monopoly fiefdom. It’s state-backed indentured servitude, and we should not defend it with the language or morality of 19th century barons.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:12 am
A State can say it’s allowable for college athletes to do whatever they want. But, what allows for a State to mandate to a private entity (ncaa) that they have to allow it In their rules? That’s my biggest concern.
To Willy’s point about market driven. While true, it’s going to be driven by conferences more than the location of the school. The smaller conference schools in Chicago aren’t going to start pulling in five star recruits over Illinois or Indiana because they’re in Chicago vs Urbana or Bloomington. This will put a nail in the coffin of mid major basketball, which is a shame. No more Loyola runs, but more Big 10 schools with losing records in the tournament. Yay.
Comment by FS Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:17 am
- Thomas Paine -
=== No more freshmen in varsity athletics. You are required to pass 30 hours of academics to be legible for your sophomore athletic scholarship. Also, universities can institute freshman teams as they have in the past.
No more immediate transfer of *any* kind, you are required to sit a whole athletic season, unless you’re a graduate transfer.
No more redshirts, medical or otherwise. You have THREE concurrent years upon your Freshmen wait to play. No exceptions, and you still lose that year of eligibility, so you are now down to two or one year.===
They don’t need to win, just make it impossible for the 2-3% that will benefit.
You tell an athlete they can’t play freshman year, no transfer, and, heaven forbid, you get hurt, no redshirt…
This is about the second string pulling guard on the football team, who can’t eat, has no clothes, and not the Heisman nominee.
Do you care about the athletes or who looks good in print or television advertising?
Is a college athletic scholarship a right, or a privilege?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:18 am
OW It’s not about whether a college scholarship is a right or a privilege. Student athletes have no bargaining power because they are not allowed to play unless they accept the scholarship and little else, an adverse bargaining position created by the monopoly power of the NCAA.
The only question is whether or not you think that monopoly power is just or is used justly.
If not, we should at the very least tweak those monopoly rules. That is all that is suggested here.
The “scholarship” such as it is, works reasonably well for student athletes in the non-revenue generating sports. But Football and men’s basketball are, in the well-articulated view of many including Taylor Branch, brutally exploitative.
If that assessment is correct, it is perfectly legitimate for this republic to change the rules.
I would go much further. I’m not sure who died and left the NCAA in charge of anything, but in practice they are coercive and parasitical, and they empower the parasitical behavior of A.D.s and coaches.
In a republic, we the people get to decide when and whether to grant monopolies. (Think patent law.) The NCAA has no rights we as a republic are bound to respect.
You can argue that the current rules are fair if you like. (Best of luck.) But you can’t argue that it is illegitimate to change them.
Comment by histprof Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:23 am
“fewer college sports teams”
Just how far deep into your *** do you have to reach to pull this stuff out?
Comment by efudd Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:26 am
=== The smaller conference schools in Chicago aren’t going to start pulling in five star recruits over Illinois or Indiana because they’re in Chicago vs Urbana or Bloomington. This will put a nail in the coffin of mid major basketball, which is a shame.===
You’re on it, and my point too…
The sport and the skills of the athlete make the outside dollars, you need a platform of higher caliber playing fields to get the bigger bucks.
However, the West Virginia example remains.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:32 am
=== It’s not about whether a college scholarship is a right or a privilege.===
Yeah, I’m gonna stop you there.
No one, not one person has a right to play D-1 athletics.
Nope. Sorry. No.
If you begin there, then this is about “my privilege is also my right.”
Nope. Still a privilege.
=== Student athletes have no bargaining power because they are not allowed to play unless they accept the scholarship and little else, an adverse bargaining position created by the monopoly power of the NCAA.===
Or they can choose not to play. Not one athlete is forced to play. They are choosing schools, watch signing day, that’s a thing…
=== In a republic, we the people get to decide when and whether to grant monopolies. (Think patent law.) The NCAA has no rights we as a republic are bound to respect.===
You think a time is gonna put the billions into hosting the NCAA football and basketball postseasons?
Yet to hear of a group wanting to stage these events.
If it’s a right, I expect to be the QB of Notre Dame, I have that right, it’s not a privilege.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:37 am
Who is this for? Exactly how many student-athletes are there that attend a college in this state that has enough promotional interest that a corporation would be willing to pay them big money to endorse their products?
And if the NCAA, which is a voluntary association, decides to remove the endorsement ban on its own, why would the State need to pass any law?
Comment by Occam Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:43 am
The money is VERY professional. Clemson had to spend their money on slides for the “student-athletes” football players for crying out loud. Strength coaches are making $500k a season now. Who cares if small schools lose teams. I’d prefer the professional leagues start their own minor leagues/clubs for these kids, but the money is too insane to call this amateurism any longer. When football or basketball coaches that make over $5M a season also have their golf memberships paid for (albeit perhaps by the booster club), then it’s broken. Pay the kids all day. They’re not there for the student part. Also, it’s rich when coaches purposely get in the kids’ way from taking harder courses for the sake of practice.
Comment by Jose Abreu's Next Homerun Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:46 am
==I expect to be the QB of Notre Dame==
Truth be told, you couldn’t do much worse than the current qb did this past weekend.
Comment by fs Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:51 am
Sports is entertainment and schools sell this entertainment for revenue. Either you believe players are entitled to a piece of the revenue their sport generates or you don’t. Eligibility requirements are only going to dilute the product (quality of play) and not change the fundamental system that’s set up. For most sports, an athletic scholarship is more than they would provide in return but for the revenue generating sports it’s a drop in the bucket of the value they are generating.
A real fix would be to eliminate athletic scholarships across the board and pay athletes equally based on what their team generates, but then only Power 5 D1 football and basketball players would be able to finance their education this way because currently the financing of the whole system is built on maybe 10k people.
Comment by Randomly Selected Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:51 am
=== Also, it’s rich when coaches purposely get in the kids’ way from taking harder courses for the sake of practice.===
Cite, please.
=== Who cares if small schools lose teams.===
The tens of thousands of athletes cited by the NCAA in advertising that “won’t go pro”… Jerry Rice is in the ad.
Athletics opens doors. Letting the horse out the open barn door will help 2-3% of the revenue sports… but what else?
Coaches pay?
Players choose both the schools and the coaches. Recruiting a still retail and a resume. You want top athletes to want to go to your school, coaches close the deal. Winning is another matter, as Dabo at Clemson has the most football championships (2) then all other active coaches… less Nick Saban… who has 6
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:52 am
=== you couldn’t do much worse than the current qb did this past weekend.===
(Sigh)
Ain’t that the truth. #LostBigInTheBigHouse
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:53 am
The music students don’t have an extensive support system like the athletes do. That is a ridiculous analogy. For example, Football is 85 full academic scholarships, training table, lots of clothing including business suits and shirts and ties, academic advising and assistance, AND an extensive formal internship and advising system from corporate sources. There is nothing remotely like that for any other students.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:54 am
Oswego Willy: after that Michigan game you might have a shot at quarterback for the Irish
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:56 am
OW, I agree with pretty much all points noted.
However, there is still a difficult marriage for college and pro football. Athletes have shorter careers and absorb additional damages. Maurice Clarett comes to mind.
Comment by njt Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:57 am
- DuPage Saint -
I fancy myself your typical “R-P-O” system QB… I have tape, imagine Uncle Rico, but wearing a Carhartt coat…
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 10:58 am
- njt -
Thanks, and great point, Clarrett.
To Clarrett,
The NFL has the 3 full year after High School rule? Why?
Body development.
A nineteen year old versus a 28 year old man?
It’s a safety issue to allow football bodies to develop via the aging process too, not just athletic rigors.
“Basketball 19” and being a pro, versus “Football 19” is far different, physically.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:02 am
===The only question is whether or not you think that monopoly power is just or is used justly.===
Have you ever been to Oklahoma City to watch the annual NCAA Women’s Softball tournament? What about Cross Country or wrestling? Don’t these sports deserve first-class championship events in all divisions?
That’s what the NCAA pays for with it’s billion dollars made from the Men’s Basketball Tournament. That’s how it uses its monopoly power, unlike say, the NFL or Major League Baseball, which use monopoly power to enrich team owners.
The NCAA is the bogeyman for a lot of people, but this bill is still misguided and probably a violation of interstate commerce. California’s law will be challenged. I’d expect Illinois to be added as a defendant if this bill passes.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:04 am
Maybe the IHSA can take notice. I cant wait to negotiate a deal or two for my grandkids.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:09 am
47th,
You are right to point out that the non-revenue sports benefit from the current system. I actually conceded that in my comment. If you think these sports “deserve” first class championship events in all divisions, great. Find a funding model that doesn’t leave athletes who earn the money without workmen’s comp even if they are permanently damaged. Find a funding model that does not rely on the coercive power of a monopoly to deprive young athletes of the roughly 50% (more or less) of gross revenue that athletes in all leagues around the world earn. (Let’s call that the natural wage.)
Comment by histprof Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:20 am
From the perspective of college sports, the problem with this proposal is the strong likelihood that it will be used to ‘pay’ athletes to attend a school rather than a true endorsement.
Comment by anon Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:25 am
=== Find a funding model===
The NCAA. Ok, that’s done.
=== Find a funding model that does not rely on the coercive power of a monopoly to deprive young athletes of the roughly 50% (more or less) of gross revenue that athletes in all leagues around the world earn. (Let’s call that the natural wage.)===
They ain’t professionals. Your model is a professional league.
Not one person, male, female, any and all sports, has a right to play D-1 athletics. It’s a privilege.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:26 am
Professor, there is a perfectly fine funding model currently in place. It consists of talented Men’s Basketball players earning so much money in one tournament that the NCAA pays for every other tournament it operates. Talented young men are subsidizing talented women athletes and giving them a chance to shine in the spot light.
Nobody is stopping any athlete from turning professional. The best baseball players, for example, rarely attend college. Same with ice hockey. The NBA and NFL need to take a look at creating their own developmental leagues instead of relying on the NCAA to train their employees for them.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 11:26 am
==The NBA and NFL need to take a look at creating their own developmental leagues===
This is probably the best suggestion because it requires the fewest changes to college athletics but breaks the NCAA monopoly. Let players earn money and bypass college if they are uninterested. This increases integrity in the college experience because only those who want an education will choose it, and the current system can continue with a few tweaks as per earlier suggestions.
More intensive reform of college athletics might revolve around ending wasteful intercollegiate athletics, but I know I am in the minority there.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 12:46 pm
47th,
That’s fine if you are comfortable with that. My only point was that it came down to a value judgment.
I’m not sure I agree that “nobody is stopping any athlete from turning professional.” Most of them won’t be afforded that opportunity, and if they smash their joints, they won’t even be given the rest of their scholarship.
But Ok; even if we can justify involuntarily using predominantly black males to fund predominantly suburban females, how does that justify my A.D.s salary?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 1:57 pm
Let’s forget the revenue sports where each player receives 100% funding for schooling. Football.
Men’s Basketball.
Women’s Basketball.
Women’s Gymnastics.
Tennis.
Volleyball.
Per the NCAA website, 51% of DI student-athletes receive financial aid.
So the rest of those student-athletes, why not let them make money on their own picture. If the local car dealer wants to show a swimmer in the background of their ad and pay them $100, why not let them. If that swimmer plays basketball in the advertisement, the car dealer can NOW pay them - but not if it’s their own sport. The majority of student-athletes aren’t being paid very much in scholarships. Treat them like other students and allow them to use their talent for payment.
Comment by Saluki64 Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 2:06 pm
=== Not one person….has a right to play D-1 athletics. ===
Everyone has some right to control their own image, likeness and opinions.
The question here is whether the NCAA through the universities can place restrictions on the expression of those rights as a condition of academic participation, and at what point those restrictions become unreasonable.
It is pure fantasy to think that, having granted the NCAA a monopoly for over 100 years, we can simply declare the post high school market place open and tell athletes who dream of playing pro-basketball to start their own league. The NCAA has tremendous resources locked in that would put everyone locked out at tremendous disadvantage.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 2:11 pm
Professor Anonymous,
I’m not sure why you think race is an issue, but OK. I would also argue that talented black men’s basketball and football players are helping to support other black, white, brown and yellow athletes, women and men. Unless you think only Nike will pay to host a national track and field championship.
I’d justify your AD’s salary by noting that many athletics directors are running multi-million dollar programs, with dozens of employees and hundreds of students. They are the chief administrators for important institutional programs that boost school affinity, alumni support, community support and philanthropic support.
If your AD is doing a good job, I’d say that justifies the salary (which at many Division 1 schools is far less than superstar coaches make.
Finally, if an athlete wants to be paid to perform athletically, there are professional leagues that she may join. MLB and the NFL have rules that force prospective employees to be out of high school for a designated period before they can be drafted. That’s unfortunate, but that’s not the fault of the NCAA, nor is it addressed by this misguided legislation.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 2:14 pm
=== Everyone has some right to control their own image, likeness and opinions.===
Ironically, scholarship recipients also sign away things, like their story or likeness, at times, to promote the university.
You’d be surprised what you waive for a scholarship.
Getting a D-1 scholarship has things that aren’t great too. No one is forced to be a D-1 athlete.
=== The question here is whether the NCAA through the universities can place restrictions on the expression of those rights as a condition of academic participation, and at what point those restrictions become unreasonable.===
They aren’t required to accept a scholarship or be a D-1 scholar athlete.
Your argument is that these scholarships are rights.
They can play D-1A, even D-III. No is forcing anyone to play a sport.
=== It is pure fantasy to think that, having granted the NCAA a monopoly for over 100 years, we can simply declare the post high school market place open and tell athletes who dream of playing pro-basketball to start their own league.===
You just described American entrepreneurism.
They can play in Europe, Israel, “Russia”, even China.
There are choices.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 2:17 pm
=== The NCAA has tremendous resources locked in that would put everyone locked out at tremendous disadvantage.===
No.
It only locks out those wanting a privilege without following current rules.
=== using predominantly black males to fund predominantly suburban females===
Why is race a factor? When, until you made it so, has this been racial?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 2:20 pm
== Why is race a factor? When, until you made it so, has this been racial?==
Race is a factor because any revenue generating sport for colleges is made up of predominately black players and predominately white coaches, the latter being paid exorbitant amounts of money that is only available bc of the kids they are coaching who receive nothing for their services. A very specific demographic of people provide most of the labor that finances the NCAA.
Comment by Randomly Selected Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 4:33 pm
=== Race is a factor because any revenue generating sport for colleges is made up of predominately black players and predominately white coaches, the latter being paid exorbitant amounts of money that is only available bc of the kids they are coaching who receive nothing for their services. A very specific demographic of people provide most of the labor that finances the NCAA.===
Then make this a civil rights issue.
Again, the NCAA could decide…
No more freshmen in varsity athletics. You are required to pass 30 hours of academics to be eligible for your sophomore athletic scholarship. Also, universities can institute freshman teams as they have in the past.
No more immediate transfer of *any* kind, you are required to sit a whole athletic season, unless you’re a graduate transfer.
No more redshirts, medical or otherwise. You have THREE concurrent years upon your Freshmen wait to play. No exceptions, and you still lose that year of eligibility, if you transfer, so you are now down to two or one year.
You want a scholarship, you want “pay”, … ok…
That’s not racial, that’s recognizing the difference between a right and a privilege.
Are you also saying everyone has a right to be a D-1 athlete and race is the mitigating factor?
Hmm.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 4:37 pm
== Then make this a civil rights issue.==
This already happened, which is why the Northwestern Football case was seen by the NLRB. This is a labor dispute at heart and not being paid for services is a violation of civil rights.
== That’s not racial, that’s recognizing the difference between a right and a privilege.
Are you also saying everyone has a right to be a D-1 athlete and race is the mitigating factor?==
Nice straw man, but no one has said playing collegiate sports is a right. This is a question about whether or not labor is being fairly compensated. All your suggestions of qualifying when someone can provide labor, restricting freedom of an individual to move their labor, and limiting the amount of labor an individual can provide all clearly acknowledge that the value a revenue generating athlete produces is worth more than they are given for that labor. That is a non racial point. Race comes into it because studies and polls on this show that people ideas on whether or not revenue generating athletes should be paid or not closely correlate to feelings on race and the racial demographic of the respondent.
Re: any google search on race and paying college athletes
Comment by Randomly Selected Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 5:06 pm
=== This already happened, which is why the Northwestern Football case was seen by the NLRB. This is a labor dispute at heart and not being paid for services is a violation of civil rights.===
What was the result?
=== Nice straw man, but no one has said playing collegiate sports is a right.===
Nope. Not a straw man, since it’s a privilege, privileges have certain conditions. That’s the point of the exercise.
=== This is a question about whether or not labor is being fairly compensated.===
Again, it’s a privilege to play D-1 athletics. Compensation for the privilege is spelled out. No one is required to play college athletics. If you feel you’re not getting enough, don’t play, no one is forcing you, and if this idea then becomes about pay, then they must show academic achievement, no more freshmen eligibility, since they chose that school to learn as well.
=== Race comes into it because studies and polls on this show that people ideas on whether or not revenue generating athletes should be paid or not closely correlate to feelings on race and the racial demographic of the respondent.===
Polling? That’s it? Ugh.
“But look at who responds?”
Yikes.
=== All your suggestions of qualifying when someone can provide labor, restricting freedom of an individual to move their labor, and limiting the amount of labor an individual can provide all clearly acknowledge that the value a revenue generating athlete produces is worth more than they are given for that labor.===
No. Something “of value”, the education, is the motivating factor.
Noticing, not once you mention education is *exactly* why educational rigors and limited transfer (none) options should be part and parcel.
Otherwise, you’re describing professional athletics, and in that free agency.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 5:14 pm
“Mother Jones” on the NU Labor case;
=== The board punted on whether athletes are employees—and that shows how wide-reaching this case was: The crux of the NRLB’s decision came down to whether the athletes were considered university employees and therefore had the right to unionize. The board chose not to “assert jurisdiction,” meaning it would not make a decision in this particular case. Weighing in, the board argued, would “not serve to promote stability in labor relations.”
Instead, the NLRB noted that a union at Northwestern, the only private school in the Big Ten Conference, would’ve disrupted the structure of the NCAA, which is made up mostly of public universities outside the board’s jurisdiction. A decision to allow unionization at one private school would have given athletes there the chance to collectively bargain over employment benefits—and that, LeRoy argued, would have given Northwestern a competitive advantage in recruiting athletes over other teams===
With limited states and pay, tough to see these limited states overturning the NCAA governing.
Further, the NCAA has the right to institute strict guidelines for the privilege.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 28, 19 @ 5:19 pm