CA college athletes can now get paid$$
- Thread starter oh canada
- Start date
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
If you go that route, then it'll be interesting to see how it's handled... because #5 for Duke basketball maybe only be there for a single year and #12 for USC football may only be for 2 years. And what do you when a football team has a #8 on offense AND defense? Who gets paid and how much? How do you determine who gets paid what percentage? I don't see it... I think it's a giant cluster fuck.
How about pay some to the young girls who helped clubs win National Championships and the big club can now promote it to recruit more young goats to the big club? The Girls should get paid some tooLet's ALL share some of the billions going around to only a few.
Is anyone actually reading what the law is? Nobody is getting paid by the school. It allows them to profit off their name and likeness.
And if they were getting paid (which I favor), somehow we can determine what coaches, assistants, AD's, staff members, trainers, etc. get paid, but determining it for athletes would be a giant cluster fuck? Do you object to chemists at these schools being paid for research or a drummer in the school band being allowed to play a gig at a bar?
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
Your comprehension isn't what you think it is. Everyone else is paid a salary and bonus structure. And nobody said the school is doing the paying. You obviously think this will have a simple solution... one that equates to your simple mind.
oh canada
GOLD
The devil will be in the details of this...depending on how it plays out, it could be a big negative for men's sports other than football and basketball -- like, eliminating men's soccer negative. Have read a lot of opinions from SF to LA to SD since this was passed yesterday. Here's one of the better articles imo
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...mage-likeness-college-sports-student-athletes
and a couple excerpts:
The impression is college sports are rolling in the dough.
The reality: They’re not.
A 2015 NCAA study found that only 24 athletic departments turned a profit and the median loss among 129 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision — the sport’s highest college level with the highest revenue streams — was $18 million. At San Diego State, more than 40 percent of its $54 million budget comes from public subsidies, either general fund payments (read: your tax dollars) for salaries and scholarships or mandatory student athletic fees.
One reason is schools don’t just play football and basketball. All those other sports lose money, lots and lots of it, and something has to pay for it.
---------------
Under Armour has a 15-year, $280 million apparel contract with UCLA. That’s not for marketing exposure from the golf or tennis teams; that’s from the starting quarterback or star point guard. What happens if Under Armour realizes, hey, we can just pay the quarterback and point guard $100,000 each? What happens if the next 15-year deal is worth only $100 million?
Or what happens when the booster overpays a running back $50,000 to endorse his car dealership in a TV ad to keep up with what guys are getting at their rival school? That’s $50,000 less he’s giving in donations to the athletic department.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...mage-likeness-college-sports-student-athletes
and a couple excerpts:
The impression is college sports are rolling in the dough.
The reality: They’re not.
A 2015 NCAA study found that only 24 athletic departments turned a profit and the median loss among 129 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision — the sport’s highest college level with the highest revenue streams — was $18 million. At San Diego State, more than 40 percent of its $54 million budget comes from public subsidies, either general fund payments (read: your tax dollars) for salaries and scholarships or mandatory student athletic fees.
One reason is schools don’t just play football and basketball. All those other sports lose money, lots and lots of it, and something has to pay for it.
---------------
Under Armour has a 15-year, $280 million apparel contract with UCLA. That’s not for marketing exposure from the golf or tennis teams; that’s from the starting quarterback or star point guard. What happens if Under Armour realizes, hey, we can just pay the quarterback and point guard $100,000 each? What happens if the next 15-year deal is worth only $100 million?
Or what happens when the booster overpays a running back $50,000 to endorse his car dealership in a TV ad to keep up with what guys are getting at their rival school? That’s $50,000 less he’s giving in donations to the athletic department.
oh canada
GOLD
Thanks for posting. From the Yahoo article, I find these two sentences most relevant re men's women's soccer and the other "olympic" sports:
If those players get their money (men's football and basketball), the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? Why is that their obligation?
In other words, he doesn't disagree that programs will be eliminated, just that men's football and basketball players shouldn't be on the hook to subsidize all the other non-revenue generating sports programs. Not a surprising opinion coming from a national sports writer who likely has written 99% of his college stories about men's football and basketball. Whether you agree with this or not, the end result is the same...elimination of mens and womens sports programs. It is a huge win for the Zions and Lebron Jr's of the World. But while your college kid may be able to make money starting a summer camp, she may not have a team to play for at her university.
You are adorable. You said "How do you determine who gets paid what percentage?" It's not hard to Nike to decide what they want to pay and not your concern. Not hard for a car dealer to determine what they want to pay and not your concern. Are you stressed over the complexities of what players on the Chargers get paid for autographs or commercials? Of course not. Because it's the exact same thing. Best of luck to you sweetheart.
Justus
GOLD
Share the soccer loot with all!!! School gives full ride which is good enough for 18 kids to share. Sharing that with 29 others is the problem. No college will pay but these clubs are promoting all the hard our kids did over the years and they get the revenue from new sign ups for the 2010 and younger age. Big business at the Big club level right now.
Why would schools shut down other sports? This is the same nonsense they said about the Olympics going away if athletes got paid. It didn't happen and wouldn't happen here. This costs the schools no money.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
You trying to sound like my dead grandmother doesn't raise your IQ. You favor paying them... that's fine, but clearly you've oversimplified everything and haven't considered any implications. It's kind of like Mr. Magoo, Bernie Sanders. Say it with me now, "free everything... we'll figure out all the details later!"
oh canada
GOLD
Um, because the schools have to fund those sports from the revenue they make from football and basketball and boosters. Colleges are required to have 16 sports--minimum of 6 mens and 8 womens (so, e.g., 8 &8 or 6&9), therefore all sports other than F and B will not be eliminated. But, if the money coming in from football, basketball and boosters is reduced because it is now going directly to the players, how do you think ADs are going to make budget? Reduce their salaries? Fire an assistant AD? Nah, eliminate men's soccer or women's water polo will be what happens.
UofAlabama is swimming in cash and could fund 40 sports programs and still turn a profit. But guess how many they have? Yep, the minimum...16. Take away $$ from the universities and the same will happen at other schools.
These sports are funded, mostly, from ticket revenue and the massive TV rights deals. There's more than enough money to go around. I get the fears people have about smaller sports, but the arguments against this are absurd. There's always enough money until players might get a piece.
One of our team grandparents absolutely would buy his granddaughter a pair of Moultrie cleats. And a second pair a half size up if she asked.
It is not quite as outrageous as I’d like to think.
oh canada
GOLD
Best case scenario is that this law forces NCAA to make adjustments to their current "no pay" stance, and allows players to make up to a certain small sum with a cap -- e.g., $25K per player per year. Then the schools can still provide meaningful scholarships to many sports, players with "value" can use the extra money for food, clothes, a car, etc. to keep them comfortable for a couple years in college, your daughter can coach at a summer soccer camp and get paid, and we haven't completely professionalized college football and basketball.
Agree. This is just a starting point because up until now absolutely nothing has been done. The NCAA needs to address this and now they have to.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
It's not about the amount of money and never has been. It's about amateur vs. professional and the ability of money to corrupt college sports more than it already has. The subject is far more complicated than "stop being greedy".
Not expressing a personal belief here, but if true, US Soccer wouldn't necessarily consider that a bad thing. Very talented kids who are on the fence (or their parents) between either going for an MLS (or European career) v. the safety of a college degree might be encouraged to take a roll at the dice (particularly if there is a reduction in the amount of college men's soccer programs) on the pro track. It seems pretty clear that one of the things holding back developing a world class men's team is that while the rest of the world sets out to create professionals, we are aimed at creating college athletes (and when they get there they don't get as much by way of training, length of season, or competition in comparison to other young adults the same age around the world). If your goal is solely to create a competitive men's side, if the effects are as you think they are, it would be regarded as a positive by the US soccer leadership.
On the other hand, the Olympic committees outside of the big draws like gymnastics and ice skating, not so much.
I tend to agree with @oh canada on this point. There is a "finite" amount of money that advertisers are willing to spend on college athletics to gain exposure and goodwill for their products. Everything is related to eyeballs. Under-armor pays UCLA $18.6M dollars/year because its men's basketball team and football team are on t.v. X amount of times with an average viewership of Y, meaning its paying Z dollars for each eyeball or impression.
The school gets $18.6M/year from UnderArmor, 29.5M from the PAC 12 tv deals. Note, almost every college (excluding Notre Dame) receives TV deal revenue from the conference (SEC, ACC, PAC12, etc.). Ticket revenues tend to be break even after accounting for costs to operate the stadium. That money is then allocated to the programs that generate the money (football and basketball) to prop those sports up, and then distributed to the other sports to subsidize those sports.
Some conferences like the SEC have virtually eliminated non-money "mens" sports, such as soccer due to Title IX requirements that force an equal number of scholarships for women. Since the men's money sports are not going away (football and basketball), programs like mens soccer have too. (see this article for an explanation, http://www.uatrav.com/sports/article_8f3a7294-b193-11e8-95a8-cf2116b75693.html)
This law will only benefit the superstars. The blue-chip, 4 star recruits.
Its a finite pool every year with only so many marketing dollars in the hands of the potential sponsors. The only people that are going to benefit are the superstar college quarterbacks, running backs, and basketball players, which will cause the schools to receive less sponsorship dollars and create hardships for the non-money sports.
I'm sure coaches and directors from the mega ECNL and DA clubs will freak out that their bubble has burst if this law creates a hardship on non money college sports and affects scholorships. They will go back to the sales pitch of "you won't be able to make your high school team if you don't play for my club."