There's No Money For The Players: 69 Million In Buyouts This Year

Submitted by HelloHeisman91 on

It's time for everyone involved in college football to admit that it has changed.  

 

 

Power 5 programs are paying a combined $69.01 Million in buyouts this year alone...you could give every Power 5 football player around $10,000 with that money...Institutions of higher education are paying $69,010,000 to seven individuals for them to not work #crazy

— Joel Klatt (@joelklatt) December 12, 2017
MGoBoard
Football

We are back

December 13th, 2017 at 6:45 PM ^

You can’t just do football, if one sport gets paid they all do. Also that’s donor money if donors were in charge of players payroll shit would be out of control. Do some thinking of your own stop going off of what idiots put on Twitter

Joined: 12/17/2015

MGoPoints: 13338

Human Torpedo

December 14th, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^

In lobbying to get football exempt from that law (again, I am not claiming the law is unnecessary, especially back then, although it does get abused a lot of the time now). After all, it really puts all the other non-football men's sports in a bind when football's scholarship count is as high as 85

Joined: 01/15/2016

MGoPoints: 2195

Hail-Storm

December 13th, 2017 at 8:33 PM ^

coaches make today. Bo changed with the times, but he also did not make a huge salary.  I remember in one of his books, there was some lawyer that had him on a stand ready to do a gotcha moment, and when his salary came up, it wasn't near what was expected.

Like you say, Bo changed (he passed the ball when he had a player to good not to pass too). I could imagine if he was getting paid what coaches are getting paid now, he'd think players could get paid too.

Joined: 06/07/2010

MGoPoints: 9776

MGoCali

December 14th, 2017 at 12:19 AM ^

The money doesn't all go back to the school. The money goes back to the athletic department. There is a reason the lecture hall I frequented in West Hall a few years ago had 1/4 of its chairs broken while Michigan Stadium was growing in size, Crisler was becoming a center rather than an arena, the new indoor practice field was being erected, women's field hockey was getting a huge upgrade, and Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke were getting paid more than anyone else in the state. All of the revenue stays on south campus. 

I think the money should go back to the general fund, or at least some portion of it. Athletics should not be growing for the sake of growing without a cap. Coaches shouldn't be making several million dollars per year.

However, given that all of the above is true and unlikely to ever change, the players deserve a cut - a substantial cut.

Joined: 01/28/2014

MGoPoints: 2115

Hail-Storm

December 13th, 2017 at 8:39 PM ^

Water polo player is easy, no additional stipend. Thier sport does not bring in millions to support other sports.

Football and basketball? I'd say that $10,000-$15,000 a year on top of what they currently get is a reasonable amount.  I doubt that would blow up the system for power 5 conferences that have record setting coaching payouts, TV deals, and apparrel (sp?) deals.  

 

Joined: 06/07/2010

MGoPoints: 9776

taistreetsmyhero

December 13th, 2017 at 9:36 PM ^

Before the money of college sports blew up. I don’t understand why so many people think Title IX can’t be updated. The whole point of the law is to make opportunities for college sports more fair. Updating Title IX to allow fair payment of players is perfectly consistent with the initial overarching intent of the law.

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

Cali's Goin' Blue

December 13th, 2017 at 9:29 PM ^

Is that the players should obviously be able to make money off of their likeness. It is that simple. Don't pay players any actual cash, but allow them to sell autographs, have sponsorships, etc... The water polo players and swimming athletes don't get paid money unless they are good enough that they actually bring money into the program. Football players like Deshaun Watson should be allowed to sell his likeness and make actual money when the athletic program is making millions off his bringing people to the crowds, selling jerseys, and more importantly the publicity and the TV Rights Deals. Or they could get a % of the money made from their jerseys being sold, or the revenue from selling tickets on behalf of their being there and there being no revenue without them.

Supporting a system in which the work force's only compensation(college education) is something that might not even matter to them or appeal to them is ridiculous when they are almost forced into that field. Saying that they get $40-50k per year in education is only worth that much if THEY value it at that. And honestly, many of the kids who are going to college for athletics(at least the 5 stars in football and basketball) don't value it at that much. They could easily be getting paid much more than that in the NFL or NBA if they weren't forced to go to college already. The main point is that if you are going to limit someone's ability to pursue the career they want, there should be a way to compensate that THEY DEEM VALUABLE. NOT WHAT YOU OR THE NCAA DEEMS VALUABLE. And it should be a fair amount of compensation, but that should be obvious. 

Joined: 02/02/2015

MGoPoints: 1880

grumbler

December 13th, 2017 at 10:59 PM ^

The way capitalism works is that, if there is a demand for a product, then the product will be provided at an equilibrium price.  If these players are worth milllions, then they should quit school and collect their millions from those willing to pay them millions.  Where is that market?  It's not in college.  So, capitalism would say that the players shouldn't get paid more than they already are.

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14112

ST3

December 13th, 2017 at 11:40 PM ^

The NFL is a legal monopoly. The NFL has decided that they won't take players until they are 3 years out of high school. I would hardly call that capitalism. The NCAA member schools are colluding to keep wages down (to zero,) well below market value. Denying the players the right to earn money based on their own likeness is morally reprehensible.

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52559

ST3

December 14th, 2017 at 12:00 AM ^

The counter-argument I make to myself is that there are professions where you must go to school first, learn your trade and pass a test before you can earn money in your field. Think doctors or lawyers. The difference is, people are not willing to buy a ticket to watch you go to Medical School or participate in a mock trial.

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52559

taistreetsmyhero

December 14th, 2017 at 12:14 AM ^

except the timeline is different:

Doctors do college, then medical school, then residency, then become full-fledged doctors.

College football is a lot more like residency than medical school here. And doctors make some money during residency (although they are still cheap labor). But I think the analogy there points to the college players deserving some monetary compensation.

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

pescadero

December 14th, 2017 at 9:17 AM ^

"The NFL is a legal monopoly."

 

Not from an employment angle.

 

Football players can play in te CFL and numerous "semi-pro" leagues straight out of HS.

 

They choose not to - because they believe the renumeration provided by college football is better than that provided by the alternatives.

 

...but they absolutely DO have alternatives.

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 12081

ST3

December 14th, 2017 at 11:34 AM ^

per the courts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

What the jury decided, after 31 hours of deliberation over five days, was that not only does the NFL enjoy monopoly power, but it also unfairly conspired to gain its competitive edge and did in fact violate antitrust law--"to exclude competition within major league football."

Granted, the jury awarded the USFL $1 (damages were tripled to $3 per the law.) My comment that it's a legal monopoly refers to the fact that a jury determined they were a monopoly, but they were basically fine with that, hence, the $1 fine.

Your answer is that players can go to Canada. Um, OK. That doesn't sound fair to me, but I'm not one of those folks who complain when life isn't fair. This seems particularly unfair, though. And you do realize that semi-pro players have regular jobs, practice after work, and play games on weekends. If they raise any money from their games, it goes to field rental and such. I suspect no one is making a living off of playing semi-pro ball.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/sports/sp-18643_1_jury-finds-nfl…

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52559

pescadero

December 14th, 2017 at 1:25 PM ^

"The NFL is a monopoly"

 

Not from an employment perspective.

 

"And you do realize that semi-pro players have regular jobs, practice after work, and play games on weekends."

 

Yes - because that is what the market for their services supports.

 

Players CHOOSE the NCAA compensation because it is BETTER than what they are offered by other market options.

 

 

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 12081

Cali's Goin' Blue

December 13th, 2017 at 9:34 PM ^

Is not to avoid backlash though. There already is a bunch of backlash. The point is to do what is right and fair to these kids and players, whom many of the time come from situations where this is their only or best opportunity to get a college education/degree. And it also happens to be their only or best opportunity to make money in the short term. We should allow them to receive compensation that they actually value, not force them to accept that a college education is fair compensation. 

Joined: 02/02/2015

MGoPoints: 1880