This Isn't That Hard, David Shaw
Not a giant check, but it might as well be (via)
Stanford head football coach David Shaw said a bunch of seemingly insightful stuff about the potential pitfalls of paying student-athletes to Fox Sports' Bruce Feldman. Actually, that's not totally fair—he made a couple actually insightful points in here amid the opinion that his players shouldn't be paid [emphasis mine]:
"I think where people don't completely understand it, is that there is a hard line in the difference between unionization and paying players and using the player's image," Shaw told FOX Sports. "Those are two completely different worlds. I don't believe at all that we should be paying student-athletes. I think they should remain student-athletes. I think they should remain amateurs. I do think we should do more for them and make their lives better, which I'm excited about doing. On the other side, I think there are a lot of things that we have to work on with players' images and what they can do with their own image and what we can do with their own image, and that is going to bear out in the courts. A lot of people have mixed all those things in together, but I think there is hard line between those two worlds.
The stuff is bold is all true, and while he maintains the party line of not wanting to pay players directly, he leaves it open for athletes to at least profit off the use of their own likenesses, which is a pretty good start.
My problem comes with what he said next. The NCAA and its proponents have made an art form out of presenting an issue as an unconquerable barrier when a simple solution is either apparent or already in place, and Shaw is no exception here:
"One is truly an individual thing, 'This is my face. This is my body. This is me, and no one should be able to make money off my image. And I completely understand that. But at the same time, you're a student-athlete. If we're going to pay for your education, if we're paying for your schooling, if we're paying for room and board and if we're paying for all those other things -- to say that we need to pay you more money on top of that just because we have a TV contract to me is a little bit different because now you're skewing what they're there for, which is to play great football, yes, but it's also is to go to school to learn and to learn how make a living. I've been saying this for years: It's our job to teach them how to make a living at the university and not to give them their living at the university. Then, we're not teaching the proper lessons at the school."
It's our job to teach them how to make a living at the university and not to give them their living at the university.
Says who, exactly? I've yet to read a compelling argument that college athletes with extra money will bring down the entire enterprise.* Is the concern about a paid college athlete's motivation to stay on top of academics, as Shaw goes on to state later in the article? Funny, because the NCAA already has academic standards in place that require athletes to at least play some school at a passable level, and every institution has their own academic requirements for students to remain on scholarship—if anybody should know this, it's David Shaw. If an athlete chooses to live it up instead of go to class, they will soon find themselves looking for another place to not go to class.
Is the concern that college students can't handle the balance between wealth and responsibility? Because there are easy solutions to that, too. The O'Bannon case could very well end in a settlement that sets up athletes getting paid via trust fund, so they won't touch that extra money until after they've graduated or exhausted their eligibility. Problem solved.
There's also the fact that schools such as Stanford and Michigan already boast a large population of rich students, and these students somehow manage to find the right balance between throwing around their (parents') cash and earning a diploma. Stanford's tuition is currently $14,230... per quarter. Michigan's out-of-state tuition is $40,496, and those students now make up around 40% of the student body.
I went to U-M. I walked through fraternity and sorority parking lots filled with BMWs and Mercedes and Lexuses bearing New York license plates. The students driving those cars have to show up to class and get decent grades just like any other student, and the vast majority seem to manage this just fine. If we're living in fear of rich college students, we've already lost the war.
Meanwhile, there's this:
Stanford's success on the football field — and its desire to maintain that success — resulted in the university nearly doubling the pay of its head coach to more than $2 million from 2010 to 2012, new federal tax records show.
David Shaw was credited with just over $2 million in total compensation during the 2012 calendar year nearly $950,000 more than the amount the school reported paying Jim Harbaugh in 2010.
...
His total compensation included a little more than $1.175 million in base pay; $290,000 in bonuses and more than $470,000 in retirement or other deferred compensation. In December 2012, the university announced that he received a contract extension, so he is likely making much more now.
The system has been very good to David Shaw. It's time David Shaw and the others that have profited so extravagantly off the enterprise of college sports stop acting like it's a failure if the athletes actually playing those sports get the living they've earned, not just some vague promise that it'll all pay off eventually if they stop complaining and keep playing for the millionaires.
----------------
*Especially since—surprise!—a lot of them are already getting a healthy amount of cash on the side, and yet the world still turns.
Working as a theater tech. When it was a school production, I worked for free as part of my schooling. But when an outside production came in and paid rent to use the theater and we worked lights or sound for them, then I and my colleagues got a check through the school.
I did not feel like I was being taken advantage of when I made sure that our drama department's Henry IV/2 went off without a hitch, and I did not feel like my education was diminished by getting paid to run sound for a local nonprofit's fundraiser at which I mic'd up Spike Lee.
Teaching someone to make a living does not preclude you from compensating them when their work helps you make your living, Coach. That's why I pay my interns today.
I really liked what he had to say on Mike and Mike this morning...which was basically if we call athletes employees there is a certain relationship that gets formed. Why should football players go to school when their "job" is football, they get paid for football, and will leave in hopes to keep playing and getting paid for football.
Coach Shaw did recognize that his perspective on the issue is different because he coaches at Stanford, where the education is actually worth more in the long run than what payment would most likely be.
There are lots of people who have jobs while going to school. Does a student who works in the Admissions Office in the afternoons care less about studying because her "job" is at the Admissions Office?
And as far as whether "the education is actually worth more in the long run than what payment would most likely be," why does that matter? This isn't an either/or proposition. Can't they get that education AND get paid for their likenesses?
I agree with everything you had to say, but I think Shaw has a valid point in that they need to teach them how to make a living. Sure, plenty of athletes with pro potential have only professional sports on their mind, but realistically what percentage of the players really have pro potential? And of those players with pro potential, what percent last long enough in the NFL to actually collect a decent paycheck? If they don't make it or flame out early, then what? The university is doing them a disservice if all they are doing is paying them without actually teaching/giving them the tools to be successful beyond professional sports.
Cope summed up Shaw's point very well. Just to add though...Coach shaw said he wants a small stipend and the ability to pay for the athletes to go home a couple times a year and the ability to fly families out a couple times a year.
I think he meant these guys are working on Wall Street, starting internet companies, going to grad schools, etc. A free education at Stanford is well worth the compensation they have already (again, Shaw still advocated for more benefits just not cut a check/salary situation (and I agree with him)).
Also, no way any Admissions intern/student puts in the same hours/workload as a football player (and I worked a university job all 4 years and know how much of a joke a lot of them are).
It was directed to Mike and Mike's point. People exclaim a fundamental difference between athletes getting paid and anyone else (GAs, interns, etc.) getting paid, and I don't see it.
"This is the equivalent to a person applying to a university for an admissions job off of the street, being hired, and then being told they have to take 12 credit hours of classes and maintain a qualifying GPA in subjects that have no relationship to the job they've applied to in order to be eligible to make that money. "
That is incorrect. There is no bait and switch going on, every player understands that there are conditions of playing at a university while under scholarship. This is known up front, and if the student/athelte doesn't know and understand, then shame on them.
one of the changes over the last decades is that players CANNOT take side jobs, or summer jobs, their time is all committed. So the University says, in effect, we pay the scholarship, but you cannot have any other income. And then, makes money off of the players.
Jehu Chesson, Ryan Glasgow, Chris Wormley, and Devin Gardner are all interning. I don't know if they're getting paid or not, but they are all accumulating experience that they could never get at Flip a Burger or riding around with Chuck with his Truck.
You can have an outside job but you're not allowed to earn more than $2,000 over any academic year if you're a full-ride athletic scholarship student.
of the revenue they're generating. In a free market with independant entities (universities) bidding against each other for their services, the players would get most of it. Maybe all. Right now they get almost none of it.
Why would they go to school if the distribution changed? Why do they go to school now? To generate fan interest, of course. Nothing about that sham would change.
gone from being willing and ready to actively debate the "paying players" issue to literally being like "whatever the Judges decide, just hurry up already." The debate has really gone on for so long and at such a feverish pitch now that you almost can't talk about college football without it becomming a central topic. It is kind of swallowing the sport. At this point, like whatever dude starts to come into play.
the amateurism in college football is one of its most attractive parts.
why?
I used to think this too, but upon actually thinking about it, changed my mind
probably beyond what you claim to enjoy. If you really felt that way, you probably wouldn't have been a Michigan football fan for quite some time, and would instead focus on Michigan club sports or some of the really unpopular nonrevenue sports (although even there many of the athletes are competing to obtain or keep scholarships ($$), so even that's problematic for you).
We appear to agree though that, on the macro level, most fans' revealed preferences' show that they don't feel like that at all. They can't get enough of Cam Newton, Chad Johnson, T. OwensCristiano Ronaldo, etc. It's not what people like to hear but mercs usually slaughter earnest patriots...,
Your question is a good one, but I agree with Cope's comments. Of course, amateurism, by itself, dosen't include all of the stuff we love about football Saturdays. But, that stuff is already under attack by athletic departments commercializing the sport. Turning the players into paid professional athletes kills what's left.
Admittedly, that's just, like, my opinion man.
(And it is) Just wait until they get paychecks, then all bets are off. I'm NOT claiming this is any sort of definitive point, but this will be one of the IMO many negative outcomes of making players employees making large amounts of money. Many fans will lose the sense that these are kids, kids playing their hearts out for the university and their teammates. As it stands now we can identify with and root for these kids, and wheh they make mistakes we treat that MUCH differently than we do for pros. This emotional component is admittedely difficult to measure and doesn't apply to all fans, but to deny it's existence is foolish.
Brian is always talking about how the Michigan football experience is different than the pros and that Brandon does not understand this. I wholeheartedely agree with that. But mgoblog's position on this issue will eliminate one of the chief elements that seperate Michigan football and the pros forever.
Wouldn't teaching them to seek fair compensation be an integral part of "preparing students to make a living"?
What would paying nonrevenue sports teams teach them? In all seriousness most of the student athletes at universities have a pretty solid deal overall. Again, there are exceptions like Johnny Manziel and Denard Robinson etc.
about paying nonrevenue sports teams more? Has anyone taken said comments seriously? They don't make money for their university; they don't deserve higher compensation.
Manziel and Denard are not players playing for nonrevenue sports teams.
Who decides that? A committee? More importantly, who says what athletes are getting right now (at M 50k a year plus more in value) isn't entirely fair? Why isn't it?
Generally, "the market" determines what is fair compensation for a player. That is, you are worth what you can convince someone to pay you.
That's problematic in a lot of realms for a lot of reasons, but in College Football it would probably not be incredibly impactful. To be clear: it's already happening, it's just that right now it's happing in ways that are either actually illegal or dubiously legal (most of these kids are probably at Al Capone levels of tax evasion for the stuff they're receiving from the Bag Men). Moving that above ground and into a place where it could be regulated would be a huge step forward toward a system that's ethically defensible.
that was literally used to keep working class people out of athletics, and has only gone downhill since. College football has probably never been "amateur" and certainly has not been so by any meaningful definition since the 1950s. Further, your statement is self-contradictory; if college football were truly "amateur," it would be run by amateurs and would not generate large amounts of revenue.
There's nothing mutually incompatiable about providing educational benefits to players and giving them monetary compensation. It's a ridiculous assertion.
In one post you demonstrate both that good and ridiculous elments that make this a better blog than most schools.
How is Stanford able to get David Shaw to show up for work with all that money he has in his bank account? Or is that, somehow, a totally unrelated thing?
"It's our job to teach them how to make a living at the university and not to give them their living at the university."
Says the guy who makes $2 mil a year from said University? I went to Michigan on a (partial) academic scholarship, and majored in biology. Did that scholarship money prevent me from working in one of the labs there? No, that would be nuts, but it's what is happening to some athlethes.
I think one point that gets lost is the fact that the student-athletes are already getting paid.
I think it's important to continue the "student-athlete" moniker (we don't want 17-year old kids having agents, do we?), but I also think it's clear that since the student-athletes are esentially forced to spend most of their time on sport than school, they should be compensated for that (notwithstanding all the money generated through their work).
I do believe we can have both by relaxing NCAA enforcement, which I honestly think will be part of the solution.
So, basically, let the kids continue to be paid underground - just don't punish them/the schools for it.
I find it hard to reconcile the NCAA's twin arguments that (a) they give these athletes lots of compensation, including a free education, room and board, food, and Bill Walton, and yet (b) compensating athletes would somehow undercut the very fabric of the NCAA.
Your post gave me an thought. (I know, on a Friday even!) This debate is getting nowhere because people are using the word "compensation" to mean different things. The pro-status quo group seems to view the word compensation to mean "wide-ass free market no rules anymore" craziness. The pro-change folks seem to use this term to mean "for the love of God break off a bit of cash for these kids" kind of thing. If people defined how they are using this term, we might get somewhere.
Yeah, and I'm not counting the scholarship stuff as "compensation" (although I agree with BiSB's point re the NCAA's double-talk). What I'm talking about are the "money shakes." Just let them happen, and don't punish anyone for it. That way, the kids are getting paid, and you can keep the "student-athlete" fantasy going that people (including myself) love.
This is well written, Ace, and you make lots of good points.
The trouble is--whether we like it or not--the money just isn't there to pay the players directly.
If direct payments to athletes from universities starts to happen, you WILL see Olympic and non-revenue sports (pretty much everything that's not football or men's and women's basketball) start to get an even shorter end of the stick. If those all sports fall apart, are those in favor of direct payments ready to take some of the blame for that?
Yes, football brings in gobs of cash at some schools, but most of those schools use that money to fund the rest of the athletic department, which hemorrhages money. Furthermore, those schools are spending about $750K per player, per year on their football programs. No small amount.
Paying players isn't a problem because the kids shouldn't have money, it's a problem because they're already highly-compensated and the money isn't there.
Letting players use their likeness to make money in advertising and in other ways, I am completely in favor of. In fact, if the NCAA were smart, they would turn this into an opportunity, requiring that every athlete that wants to make $$$ off his/her likeness take a course on how to do so effectively and make sure you don't get fleeced. They could put enforceable rules in place that helped direct the kids to properly managing the business of marketing themselves. This would be invaluable real world education that could help players understand business before they graduate or go pro.
As for the NCAA, they should not be profiting from players' images either, or really profiting from anything. They should be a non-profit dedicated to the well-being of student athletes, and they are not that right now. They have turned into a money-grubbing profit machine that does little to help progress the caues of the student-athlete, and they should be blamed for that.
The system needs fixing, but having universities pay the players is not the solution. And if that happens, and you were one of the people calling for direct payments to players, watch the demise of the other sports in the follwing decade, and be man enough to take some of the blame for causing that.
with what you mention is will there just be a separate division for football (the schools that can afford to raise the compensation for the football team), or could this separation of 50-60 schools from the rest affect other sports too? Would March Madness as we know it come to an end? Would Big Ten hockey be isolated and on an island of it's own? Of the 'Big 6' confernces the Big Ten is the only one that has D1 hockey teams.
Then where does the money come from?
It is a fact that most athletic departments are barely getting by or losing money. Where will the extra cash come from? You said it best yourself: if the dollars aren't there, schools will leave the game...that will apply to ALL sports, not just football.
They'll either have to raise ticket prices further or cut sports. Money doesn't just appear because someone has decided it's the fair thing to do.
Revenue for non-revenue sports generally comes from the student body at large, right now. Most students at most universities have line items in their tuition to pay for athletics regardless of whether or not they ever participate in them either as a player or spectator.
it wouldn't cost the small schools very much. MAC schools take in less than $80,000 a year from their TV contract. Most small schools are probably in the same ballpark.
I read him to be offering some pretty reasonable considerations. He seems to be willing to allow for payment for use of a player's image, but not direct payment from the university. He is in total agreement that the players need to get more. (Note all these things will cut into his budget and probably his paycheck.)
He did express concern about giving a 18 year old kid a ton of money to play football. That seems to be a reasonable concern. If you start paying them as if it were a full-time job, then you have a minor league fooball team that has a loose affliation with a university. Is that such an unreasonable concern he gets called a greedy bastard for making the market will pay him? I missed where he said all college kids need to be broke.
At some point you have to find common ground with reasonable people. Ideological purity is great and all, but it doesn't really move things forward.
Very well put. I wonder how much Shaw made as a GA or a regular assistent while he worked his way up to where he is today. He didn't make $2 mil as soon as he became a coach. I think it is reasonable to discuss whether we should start handing kids payment because they are high profile recruits, etc.
I don't understand what the concern is with having a minor league football team loosely associated with a university. Is it what everyone is used to? No. Does it seem like a weird concept based on the current system? Sure. I just don't understand what's so noble or great about amateurism. It's a concept that, at least according to some accounts, was invented to allow the wealthy who attended universities to continue playing sports they enjoyed by eliminating the ability of professionals to play in their stead. In every other aspect of our society we encourage people to get paid for things they are good at. I have yet to see a reasonable justification for amateurism. Most are something related to: (1) maintenance of the status quo, (2) because people who watch college football like it, or (3) compensating students means they can't be students (or good students).
And yes, I do think it is greedy and unreasonable to say "I should get what the market says I should get, but people who could detract from the labor budget from which I am paid should get their compensation set by a cartel."
No cartel, no rules, free market, ideologically pure.
Enjoy it, because I have no interest in watching a minor League NFL will all the BS but a much lower caliber of play. My bet is that system lasts for about 5 years before falling apart for lack of fan interest.
They already receive tens of thousands of dollars off of scholarships and room and board. Regardless of what anyone tells you this is a lot that they're being compensated. Also we need to remember that few schools have Michigan's athletic department and many colleges are constantly cutting sports. Paying players would destroy everything except for football or basketball. That being said, the NCAA could do more providing medical care and various other things.
Hypothetical: "Oh, Michigan's school rankings went up while I was a student and some administrators made some extra $ in bonuses...where is my check from UofM then?"
Isn't that similar to saying David Shaw and other coaches should pay players because they make a lot? Should AD's also cut their salaries to players?
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.
If a ritzy student from New York blows through the money they received from daddy, he/she can run right back to daddy and ask for more.
Where's an athlete going to go when he blows through his pay for play? Right back to the bag-men,
Ace, I think this is a lot less black and white than you think and I believe Shaw brings up some reasonable points regarding paying players.
Comments