NIL is a SHAM.
I keep wondering how the two entities that have been profiting billions of dollars a year, the TV networks and the Universities, have somehow slithered out of being part of the monetization of college athletes? It has somehow fallen solely on outside support and donations from fans and donors, how TF did that happen?
ESPN, FOX, NBC etc ALL profiting BILLIONS of dollars a year off the backs of college athletes for 50-60 years. All the major universities, receiving hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years, building their athletic and educational infrastructure off the backs of college athletes who until recently would be kicked off the team if someone bought them a cheeseburger.
How have these two entities escaped even being part of, if not completely responsible for the monetization of college athletes? Why are we all sheep, not questioning this and accepting this as the new normal because now the athletes are at least making some money, even thought the two biggest profiteers get off scot-free?
Are they paid actors who should be compensated as such. How much do actors on sitcoms and other TV series get paid from the networks? Why are they different?
Just a thought, call me crazy.
Oh god, here we go. This is such a ridiculous argument it's painful. The corporations are making BILLIONS without compensating a single athlete/actor/employee a damn penny. Do you actually believe that a free education is comparative to the billions earned by the TV networks and universities? That's laughable, the actual cost of a four year education incurred by the university is probably less than $100k but the networks and universities profit billions a year.
What kind of economic system is that? It's not capitalism.
April 13th, 2024 at 10:27 AM ^
I'm amazed that people are still making stupid arguments like this. It is incredible, really.
Nope.
Players have always been getting paid. Michigan wasn’t going to operate like an SEC school so this at least helps somewhat level the playing field. I don’t think Michigan wins a national title without NIL. In that respect I am glad it happened, but yeah the whole thing is ridiculous and schools still aren’t following the rules. Next few years of big time college athletics will be interesting.
While I don't disagree with OP, this situation is temporary. The chaos that we are witnessing since the advent of NIL/unlimited transfers is a transitional phase on the way to student athletes being declared employees who must be compensated. Transitions are often messy and the powers that be often try to exploit them by executing a money grab.
But in the next 5-10 years as this continues to play out the B1G and SEC will move college football towards a super league while the other sports will be left with the scraps. While the basketball tournaments will continue to make money, the so-called olympic sports will have to learn to do more with less or die out (e.g. become NAIA/club sports).
Meanwhile as someone alluded to above, one of the problems with a super league is that it won't be viable without some mechanism that maintains relative parity. With no draft to allow the bad teams to improve, the Indianas and Mississippi States will go 3-9 every year and play in front of half empty stadiums because their fans will feel hopeless about things getting better.
IMHO we did truly win the last National Championship of what will be known in the future as the good ole' days.
April 12th, 2024 at 11:24 PM ^
Very well said JB. I am not overly bothered by this chaos you describe but I am bothered that the two entities involved seem to be avoiding the responsibility of paying these athletes/actors/employees because NIL has created a distraction of sorts.
I agree 100 with your other points especially that the business of college football will need to enact changes that will ensure competitive balance, imho, to reinvent itself from its core in order to provide some semblance of this competitive balance. I've said this before, there is a reason the pro sports leagues have salary caps and college football has essentially morphed into a pro sport so why not take some of the good from those leagues? The bottom line is college football needs to evolve or it will implode. People dont like change but the billion dollar profits have forced change.
and YES, I agree, we truly did win the last NC in the current form.
April 13th, 2024 at 10:30 AM ^
Well, you might be right and you might be wrong. Eventually, someone who "runs things" might realize that sports leagues need competitive balance. And then work to figure out how to make it more balanced.
I mean, it's kind of happening today. Look at how MSU could roll out so much $$$ to hire a great coach away from his alma mater. This is a direct result of Michigan and OSU driving up the value of the big ten. If money helps programs become more equal - a thing that hiring good coaches might do - it actually might be just fine.
Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs
Sorry. Not pertinent, just word association.
TV pays massive amounts to the athletic conferences. The conferences are controlled by University Presidents. Tv pays NFL, MLB, NBA, et al. same way.
Go after the Conferences and universities , not the tv guys.
Yeah because they aren't making any money right?
-ESPN generated more than $16 billion in revenue and $2.9 billion in operating profit in Disney's fiscal year 2022-
This is just one network, one of the dozens who dont pay the athlete/actor/employee a damn penny.
“one of the dozens who dont pay the athlete/actor/employee a damn penny.”
It is not the network’s job to pay another compan’s employees. It is never ANY company’s job to pay another company’s employees. This isn’t complicated.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:30 PM ^
Since when were you appointed "anointer of employees"?
Who has determined whose employees they are? YOU? Okay.
You seem to be fixated on a rather silly point that has yet to be decided. TV networks pay the employees who generate revenue for them, why cant they pay the players? Has it been determined the players are employees of the university? I'm positive the answer is no.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:35 PM ^
Once again, it’s clear the players are representatives of their respective schools. Not the TV networks.
If you run a company, you’re not paying the people who work for one of your vendors. You pay your vendor for the product/service and it is up to THEM to distribute that payment to their employees.
Players are not currently employees, but in the context of them being paid they would be employees at that point. Quite obviously employees of their respective universities, not the networks.
April 12th, 2024 at 11:32 PM ^
Why is is so obvious they are "employees of their respective universities, not the networks."? Because you have made this deceleration? HERE, HERE, Lord Jonny hath declared that college fb players are "Quite obviously employees of their respective universities, not the networks.", hence, it has been decided by Lord Jonny.
Oh wait, is this just how your brain is able to conceptualize this? Oh, okay, that's cool but Lord Jonny, sometimes it's not always about how YOU believe things should be, sometimes there are new concepts/ideas/inventions that revolutionize industries.
First of all, I said it’s clear they are REPRESENTATIVES of their respective universities. Learn to read.
They wake up on the school’s campus, go to class, eat in the cafeteria, work out in the school’s gym, put on the school athletics uniforms and play games. Let me know when you see Donovan Edwards out there wearing Fox uniforms and not University of Michigan ones.
Your condescending tone throughout this thread is hilarious considering it’s quite clear to everyone you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about or how the economy works.
Yep. The conferences and Universities can be considered "middle men" --- but the $$$ TV pays to broadcast the games does, in an indirect and non-zero way, eventually make its way down to the athletes. For both pro and college.
The pros do have an advantage, in that they collectively bargain to make sure the "middle men" can't keep over a set % of that money.
If someone wants to argue college athletes don't benefit from TV, let's just consider this --- what if, beginning with the 2024 season, TV COMPLETELY ceased broadcasting college football games. The only way to see a college game would be to attend one. Wouldn't both (1) awareness of the college game and (2) interest in the college game drop considerably in the years to come? Wouldn't that effect attendance, the amount of people buying college gear, etc? Wouldn't that mean both coaches and athletes get eventually paid considerably less? Ditto for pros?
Yes and what if the players stopped playing? They are symbiotic in a sense but the networks and NCAA do not exist without the player.
Yep, you're right. The players can stop playing.
But let's consider what happens then:
- they probably are greatly reducing the value, if not completely eliminating, the value of their NIL deal. Whatever $$$ they are getting - chop that by anywhere from 50% to 100% (most likely 100%).
- they would also lose their scholarships. For a lot of these athletes, that also means leaving the school entirely.
- there are undoubtedly tons of other 18-23 year old men and women who would gladly take the current deal. D-1 college athletes still get college scholarships --- admittedly, many of today's athletes don't value the scholarships anymore, but many people do. A LOT. Being able to graduate from college with both a degree and minimal debt? If you can do that, you're already ahead of 90%+ of other 23 year olds.
Net net: the current players would lose a lot, and the Universities would still be fielding teams anyway. Sure, the networks would probably pay considerably less to broadcast the games, as the players aren't quite as good, but I doubt any of them go out of business. There are 67,324 different TV channels these days as is --- even the ones who don't have many viewers still find a way to make a profit.
April 13th, 2024 at 12:44 AM ^
I'm confused, if they dont have players, how would ""the Universities would still be fielding teams anyway?"?
You said, “What if the players stopped playing?”
NitFan said, “Other people would take their place.”
Basically, replacement players. No one said they wouldn’t have players.
If what you really meant to say before is, “What if players stopped playing and no one would take their place?” then I think that’s not a realistic hypothetical.
April 13th, 2024 at 10:31 AM ^
I still don't get your point. "Players, bow down and thank your TV overlords, for giving you these mighty opportunities?"
Billionaire owners want tax-payer money to help fund the new arena or stadium.
Athletic departments want fans to help fund the NIL.
It really sucks but guess what, it works out for the owners and the AD.
Since we're in the realm of what should be...why not take the school out of the sport and charge the NFL for the development, or associate the teams with NFL franchises directly. We've been underwriting the minor leagues too long. The NFL can do their own monetization.
The NBA could endorse developmental leagues and AAU ball in a similar fashion. People could join clubs similar to the soccer model.
This would take the Title IX out of the economics. I like social justice but revenue sports are businesses. Let's let people play school without hindrances, or fees.
Good question Rad.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:33 PM ^
Thats a definite solution but do you think the universities are willing to kill the goose who laid the golden egg? The top NCAA schools generated nearly a quarter billion dollars each last year, a huge chunk coming from football. This revenue essentially funded the entire department. They aren't giving that money up without a fight.
As others have said elsewhere, there is no golden egg. There are tickets, merchandise, and broadcasting rights. That's it. Sports, for the majority of schools, are loss leaders indulged more to promote the brand and engender institutional loyalty than generate profit. On the very highest levels, these brands can take on divergent and odd meanings to their athletic fan bases (Walmart Wolverines, Ohio State fans, Ess Eee See, and others are examples). Servicing that brand and the profit based model (which is a fully functional segment of our entertainment economy) is distracting from the very real academic work at hand (solving and resolving our real world conflicts and concerns.)
Schools make money through tuition, intellectual property, foundations, and private funding. All that money is based on the value of the science and art that the school carries forward in the work done by students, faculty, and alums. This model has worked for the time being based on the value of science, technology, and art provided by higher education (and the hard work of poorly compensated grad students.)
Amidst the myriad challenges we face, it's crucial to remember that athletics, while present, is not a significant concern. The true essence lies in our academic pursuits, not the allure of professional sports. It's the student body that will forge ahead, not the NFL draftees.
We should separate athletic development from education and let the power conferences align with the NFL and professional leagues to remove the burden from academic pursuits. Though some schools have a net positive athletic budget, there's not enough to support a football team that compensates athletes at every school. There certainly aren’t enough arms to throw seams or 20 yard outs. The NFL, NBA and NHL are the best reservoirs to monetize that talent.
It's in the realm of academics where colleges should strive for equity, in both the economic and social justice sense of the word. Sport may preach fairness, but it's executed on competitive advantage. Some schools make money, most don't. Title IX may be a reality, but let's focus on the tangible-revenue sports as they should be self-sustaining, without detracting from academia.
Yeah, the fact that these universities are holding their hands out to fans expecting us to help pay for the players salary is some next level greed.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:34 PM ^
EXACTLY and the TV networks are hoping everyone forgets how much they are profiting off these unpaid workers.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:37 PM ^
Well it’s currently against the rules for the university to provide any of the funding so yeah… whether they can afford it or not is irrelevant at this time. They literally need donors and companies to contribute.
I’m sorry, but many people, including on this site are all about Capitalism until they have to pay for it. THE CUSTOMER ALWAYS PAYS FOR IT!!!
Many complained about cable and called for the great cord cutting. Woo Hoo!!! Now you complain you have to pay for streaming services to watch Michigan play.
Many complained about athletes having to follow ridiculous transfer rules. Anarchy! Now you complain about the portal and how hard it is to keep a team together.
Many complained about athletes not getting paid. Torch & pitch forks!!! Now you complain about NIL.
Many non-sports fans would say it’s finally the way it should be. College sports fans are footing the bill to enjoy the thing they love.
If you don’t like it, don’t give your money to it. But please don’t complain when you get what you want in a Capitalistic society.
Accepting market outcomes as the pinnacle of freedom overlooks the inequities capitalism creates. All of which belies the fact that we hardly live in a capitalist society, especially as it pertains to sport.
I do agree we should aim for that goal. To say that the changes we are seeing are getting us there is specious. The OP is speaking to that maybe. I agree with that and maybe you do too?
April 12th, 2024 at 10:12 PM ^
Count me as someone who wanted cord cutting and doesn’t complain about the options available to me now. That’s all I wanted. Options.
Also count me as someone who wanted free and open unlimited transfers with immediate eligibility. I am not complaining at all.
But I will continue to complain that college athletes don’t have a collectively bargained agreement and contracts. Because that is the obvious solution to solve everything.
My main problem is that college athletes still aren’t in the free market. They are the only segment of the population that is still not allowed to participate in a capatalistic society as you put it. And the only reason they aren’t is because “that’s how it’s always been, and we are afraid of change.”
April 12th, 2024 at 11:41 PM ^
I'm sorry you dont understand the point of the post. I am not against NIL, I simply believe it to be a sham or an opportunity to deceive by the NCAA and the TV networks. I simply believe that there are two entities rolling to money that have somehow escaped the responsibility of paying their employees, be it the NCAA or the TV networks. I dont care which, but one or both need to step up and stop hiding behind NIL. NIL is just another way these two entities get the fans to foot their bill. I'm saying stop the sham, force the two to figure it out and pay the athlete/actor/employee.
It’s not a sham. It is a business model. One in which businesses and individuals are able to give money to people they want to see play sports for their favorite college team. Simple. That is NIL. The big shift is all the boosters and bagmen are now legal, and they have figured out how to get the common fan to help carry the financial burden. Either take part or don’t.
I believe you are arguing the money earned from broadcasting the sporting events should also go to the players. What I’m not clear on is if this argument is because you want the players to get more money, or by doing this it would somehow diminish the requests/demands for NIL funds. If it’s the prior, sure great, although I could walk through the financials showing there would not be as much money to go around as people think. If it’s the later, that’s pretty amusing. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You are not putting it back in again because “more is more” as Harbaugh has said.
April 13th, 2024 at 12:02 PM ^
It IS a sham, at least how I perceive it to be and I'm fairly certain others here agree. My perception is my reality, your is yours but thank you for informing me how I should perceive an issue, only as you do.
Websters defines a sham as "a trick that deludes", I perceive NIL to be a sham because I believe the NCAA is attempting to delude the fans into believing the athletes are being paid so now they are off the hook. I do not find this acceptable.
The NCAA was legally forced to allow athletes to earn money from their Name Image and Likeness. LEGALLY FORCED, they fought this for decades. Why? Because their greed lead them to believe that THEY, the NCAA should receive that money, NOT the athlete. In hindsight, the NCAA probably sees it as the gift that keeps the golden goose alive.
The universities fund their entire athletic budgets from the TV revenue earned by a certain group of athletes and in return, the universities repay those athletes with an education and the ancillary benefits that come with an athletic scholarship which 40-60 years ago was fair compensation. It's not fair compensation now that the TV networks are earning billions and paying the NCAA billions. The needle has moved.
"I believe you are arguing the money earned from broadcasting the sporting events should also go to the players. What I’m not clear on is if this argument is because you want the players to get more money, or by doing this it would somehow diminish the requests/demands for NIL funds. If it’s the prior, sure great, although I could walk through the financials showing there would not be as much money to go around as people think"
I'm sorry you cant grasp this, others seem to have been able to. Yes, I believe the athletes should be fairly reimbursed for their part in this production. As it stands, only the TV networks and NCAA members profit (other than that ever so valuable "free education" the athletes receive). I love it when you so smugly offer to "walk through the financials" as if you posses this ability myself or others may not. It reminds me of the individuals who respond to topics by proclaiming "what you don't understand is...." I always find that to be an interesting trait, to actually believe that another individual doesn't know what you do. Anyhow, are you going to enlighten me how the TV networks pay billions of dollars to the NCAA member institutions but neither of the two entities are earning billions in return? If yes, then please walk me through this fairy tale financial you seem to be aware of.
If you are going to "walk me through" how the top 50 ish universities didnt earn billions of dollars last year from TV revenues that funded entire athletic departments, then please do. If you are going to "walk me through" how the dozens of TV networks paid out billions of dollars last year to the NCAA members without earning billions in return, then please do. The thing is, most of the universities are public, so they are required to provide this information to the public and the TV networks are publicly traded so this info is also easily accessible and guess what buddy, nobody is going broke.
Thanks for helping me see the light.
What do they call the person arguing with an idiot? I’m not that person.
When you figure out how Disney, Fox, etc. are going to maintain their stock price to pay shareholder dividends while also giving up a portion of their profits to transient college athletes, please let me know. There’s a reason the networks invest in brand recognized institutions, not individual athletes. Especially when the options for those athletes to progress in their aspirations basically require them to attend those institutions for a minimum of one-to-three years. Before you rush to a minimally thought out response, keep in mind, NIL just killed the G-league, college hockey is at an all time apex, and MLB owns their own minor league system. Dynamics which don’t exist in most other Olympic sports.
Until then, I’ll pass on a lesson I’ve taught my sons. There will always be someone smarter than you when you walk in the room. Better to let everyone else guess who it is, rather than leave no doubt who it is not.
Like most injustices, follow the money. I like the nature of this post, Op.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:43 PM ^
Thank you Mr. Hammer.
It's a bit of a rant and some are unable to grasp nuance of inference but I'm glad someone gets it. I make the point that there are two entities making billions in profits each year because I believe both these two entities need to shoulder the burden of compensating the athletes/actors/employees, I use those three terms because it has yet to be determined exactly what these players are, athletes/actors or employees and to whom they are involved with . So, in my humble opinion, both need to be considered responsible parties.
Thank you again.
Neither of those entities are making billions or anywhere close. In fact, the vast majority of universities are not even making money off their athletic departments. The universities have actually been taking what money they do make off football and essentially transferring it to the athletes in non revenue sports via scholarship money and athletic facilities. The TV companies are not doing well at all financially either, though football is clearly one of their best revenue generators.
Never confuse revenue for profits, they are very different things.
The fact that the OP keeps bringing up revenue shows they don’t understand the first thing about business. ESPN’s $2.9B profit is brought up ad nauseum, as if college football is the sole contributor to that. That ignores the fact that ESPN shows college football on Saturdays and a few weeknights in the fall. How much of the $2.9B is attributable to college football? We don’t know.
The fact is, ESPN is a business. ESPN takes a risk in purchasing broadcast rights to college football games. They have every right to expect to make a profit. If they aren’t getting a ROI better than a low risk mutual fund, they’d be better off closing shop and passively investing their capital.
So the real question is, are the Universities exploiting the players (for playing a game). It’s obvious that the Universities are not sharing the revenues with the players comparably to the professional leagues. If that were so, the universities wouldn’t have enough leftover to support the 20-30 non-revenue sports.
So what is the college football player to do? How does one exploit this market inefficiency? If there is this major profit opportunity, then the players should form their own league and sell the rights to the TV networks. But this hasn’t happened. It’s been attempted to some level (spring football,) but it has failed. Why? Because I don’t care to watch the Michigan Panthers. I do care to watch the Michigan Wolverines, both during times of greatness (2023) and during times of struggle (2008). Sad to say for the OP’s POV, the value proposition lies with the universities, not the players, because every season there’s a new cast of players but the same maize and blue winged helmets, the same Big House, and the same fight song. We’re consuming the traditions of college football.
If you want to pay the players for playing a game (and practice, etc.) I think you have to consider all forms of payment. Education, room and board, access to training facilities, etc. I guarantee, even with how little OP seems to value a college education*, the rest of the benefits amount to significantly more than minimum wage. So, sorry, I’m not nearly as offended by the current state of things as the OP appears to be.
*Average new college graduates make $22K more per year than new high school graduates. That’s why they charge what they do.
April 12th, 2024 at 11:10 PM ^
The fact that the OP keeps bringing up revenue shows they don’t understand the first thing about business. ESPN’s $2.9B profit is brought up ad nauseum, as if college football is the sole contributor to that. That ignores the fact that ESPN shows college football on Saturdays and a few weeknights in the fall. How much of the $2.9B is attributable to college football? We don’t know.
--The fact that you think you know something that I dont, is an interesting trait, the fact you are so sure you know more than I that you point out that I "dont understand the first thing about business" is even more revealing. Do you actually believe that you are the only one who knows that college football is not the only revenue generator the company has? That's fantastic. Do you actually think the fact that "ESPN shows college football on Saturdays and a few weeknights in the fall" means they aren't generating billions of dollars in revenue from this source? Why, then do they pay the universities billions of dollars to broadcast their product? I'm intrigued by your thought process. --
The fact is, ESPN is a business. ESPN takes a risk in purchasing broadcast rights to college football games. They have every right to expect to make a profit. If they aren’t getting a ROI better than a low risk mutual fund, they’d be better off closing shop and passively investing their capital.
-- WOW, that's profound. Who knew, corporations were in business to profit. I include the TV networks as part of this equation because in case you are not aware, the athletes are not considered employees of either entity and both entities are profiting billions from these unpaid athletes/actors/employees.---
So the real question is, are the Universities exploiting the players (for playing a game). It’s obvious that the Universities are not sharing the revenues with the players comparably to the professional leagues. If that were so, the universities wouldn’t have enough leftover to support the 20-30 non-revenue sports.
--Why is it "the universities exploiting the players", who determined they are the only responsible party? YOU? Okay, but it has not been determined yet, so.....yeah. The rest of your response essentially makes my point.
So what is the college football player to do? How does one exploit this market inefficiency? If there is this major profit opportunity, then the players should form their own league and sell the rights to the TV networks. But this hasn’t happened. It’s been attempted to some level (spring football,) but it has failed. Why? Because I don’t care to watch the Michigan Panthers. I do care to watch the Michigan Wolverines, both during times of greatness (2023) and during times of struggle (2008). Sad to say for the OP’s POV, the value proposition lies with the universities, not the players, because every season there’s a new cast of players but the same maize and blue winged helmets, the same Big House, and the same fight song. We’re consuming the traditions of college football.
--I do not disagree with your basic points here. I think that at one time, 30-50 years ago, the cost of an education and housing was fair compensation in return for what the athletes provided but that was before these athletes were a part of the equation in generating revenue in the billions that provided profits in the billions and financed entire athletic departments. I think we allowed this to continue unfettered because it was ingrained in our society. I think that it is now time to treat these athletes/actors/employees as such and allow them to share in the revenues they are part of driving, no different than a sales person who earns a commission or the AD earns a salary or the coach earns millions coaching these unpaid athletes/actors/employees.--
If you want to pay the players for playing a game (and practice, etc.) I think you have to consider all forms of payment. Education, room and board, access to training facilities, etc. I guarantee, even with how little OP seems to value a college education*, the rest of the benefits amount to significantly more than minimum wage. So, sorry, I’m not nearly as offended by the current state of things as the OP appears to be.
--I accept your apology, and IMHO, You should be sorry for not being offended by the current state of things because to me, it's damn disgusting that these corporations and the NCAA have become glutenous pigs from the earnings of these athletes/actors/employees.
*Average new college graduates make $22K more per year than new high school graduates. That’s why they charge what they do.
--The average HC in the NCAA makes over 1m a year, the average CEO of conglomerates similar to ESPN, makes tens of millions a year, the average athlete who is the only reason those individuals are earning such fantastic salaries earns ZERO for their performance. ZERO.
April 12th, 2024 at 11:48 PM ^
“both entities are profiting billions”
Just because ESPN made $2.9B of profit, that doesn’t necessarily mean they made billions from college football. When you exaggerate or dissemble to make your point, your argument loses weight.
The players are earning a lot more than ZERO. I’m spending $150K over 4 years for my son’s college education, room and board. Scholarship players receive tuition, room and board, training for the next level, access to weight rooms, tutoring support, and full cost of attendance stipends.
Players are working ~20 hours per week. That equates to $35/hour for my son’s situation, or $90/hour for USC. And here’s the major problem for your argument, if the individual player decides to go elsewhere, there’s no shortage of players that would gladly take their place. That’s how the marketplace works. Supply and demand.
--Never confuse revenue for profits, they are very different things. Wow, that's profound.--
FML. Great, another one who is positive he understand things that other do not, when in reality he is completely uninformed on the topic.
--In fact, the vast majority of universities are not even making money off their athletic departments. The universities have actually been taking what money they do make off football and essentially transferring it to the athletes in non revenue sports via scholarship money and athletic facilities.--
Yeah, no shit. The university is using the revenue generated by football to finance their entire athletic program while the players receive NOTHING and you see nothing wrong with that?. Take a look at the highest revenue generating schools, I didn't see many that were not profitable and if they weren't its because they over spent. I cant fix that.
And I wasn't referring to Weber State or UNLV, I was referring to the schools using NIL to buy players.
--The TV companies are not doing well at all financially either, though football is clearly one of their best revenue generators.--
Do you actually believe this? Its comical. ESPN profited almost 3b, the most lucrative entity in the Disney conglomerate. Do you actually believe these networks are bidding BILLIONS of dollars a year without profiting BILLIONS in return? That's awesome.
April 12th, 2024 at 10:20 PM ^
Expected to come in here and neg this. Lesson: read before jumping to conclusions. This post makes utterly perfect sense. Why haven't we discussed it before?
April 13th, 2024 at 10:01 AM ^
Yeah, I think for some, like yourself who have the ability to read an idea, comprehend that idea and then conceptualize that idea, it makes sense. To others who are unable to think outside of their conditioned beliefs, it's crazy AF. Some posters fixate on certain aspects of the posts which may have been made to simply make a point.
For example, I realize the athletes are not paid actors that should not be paid by the networks, but that's not really the point, the point is that the networks, along with the universities are profiting billions (collectively) from these players who play this game. Those two entities need to be part of the equation in resolving this disparity, not only the universities. I've stated several times that I believe 30-60 years ago that the price of an education along with housing etc was a fair cost in exchange for the goods provided by the the athlete, but that was before the two entities involved in the production of college football began profiting billions of dollars from these athletes. As my friend commented on the subject privately, "you cant hide the billions any longer".
I think that like so often in our society, things become ingrained and we don't question them, even the athletes have accepted it so that's made it even easier for us to rationalize. A sham is defined as "Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine." I called NIL a sham because I believe that it is exactly that, something false that is purported to be genuine. I think the NCAA would love for the athletes and fans to forget about reimbursing the athletes now that NIL has been forcibly allowed by the courts. Which by the way, the simple fact this was forced by the courts proves just how disgustingly greedy the NCAA is, they didn't want players to earn a penny that they thought they may have had a chance to earn. I'm all for capitalism but there is a reason gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins.
I think that certain aspects of college football have evolved beyond amateur sports and either the NCAA resolves it or free market will. The players, if given a chance would forgo the "free education" if given the opportunity to earn 100s of thousands and in some cases millions per year playing in a league that, similar to minor league baseball and hockey, is in place to do what the universities do today. I mean, lets face it, the NCAA is essentially the minor league system of the NFL, but the one thing that distinguishes this from a minor league is the the NCAA doesn't pay it's players a penny.
One thing that often goes forgotten with NIL is the increased responsibilities that the student athlete must take on. It is NOT free money. They need more agents, brand managers, accountants. It can become a huge time sink, and these are students who have precious little free time. Anecdotally, it also seems to be increasing eating disorders among student athletes since their appearance is now at a premium. It's really quite amazing that the true beneficiaries of college athletics (media companies) were able to roll over all the responsibilities onto fans and the student athletes. Imagine if they just, you know, paid the student athletes.
April 13th, 2024 at 10:11 AM ^
Dont get me started on AGENTS, if the NCAA is the slave owner in this equation, the agents are nothing more than the slave traders. Or in today's vernacular, agents are nothing more than pimps profiting from their stable of whores.
Agents, although not as directly involved in this, are the leaches making a shit ton of money for virtually nothing in return. How the agents have not been included in the NIL process is a mystery.
April 13th, 2024 at 10:36 AM ^
I like the OP's anger.
I am amazed there are still people who pop up here and are like "well the students get a free ride don't they?" wow.
I think that revenue sharing will happen. It's a matter of when, not if. ADs aren't leading the way because they know it will make their job much much harder.
April 13th, 2024 at 11:19 AM ^
Yeah, a "free ride" that's a fantastic fairy tale isnt it.
I've mentioned here that 40-60 years ago the price of an education was probably a fair repayment for what the student athlete provided but that was before these student athletes became the cash cow for the TV networks and the NCAA.
The "free education" many describe is a pittance when considering the profit being earned by the others involved in this production. The networks profit billions while the universities bankroll their entire athletic departments on these student athletes and some people believe that to be acceptable. I do not and I believe the NCAA should resolve this or the free market will.
It may not compare to what networks are making but a $300,000 education isn't nothing, and an education at a good school like Michigan is worth a lot if you know what to do with it. In fact, I'm starting to think scholarships shouldn't be offered if they're seen as so unimportant and meaningless.
Most of the kids that play major sports, at major universities, are not concerned with the education they are getting. They are all just looking to be a pro athlete. And the ones that do get some sort of degree, not all, but a lot of them get very generic degrees that are mostly worthless anyways