There's No Money For The Players: 69 Million In Buyouts This Year
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
December 13th, 2017 at 7:46 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:16 PM ^
$69,000,000 / 460,000 athletes = $150 per athlete.
if only D1 football players we're looking at 115 teams with 110 players which work out to roughly $5454 per football player.
I'm actually for some sort of monthly stipend for student athletes who are not allowed to have a part time job because it would impact their scholarships. $500-1000 per month during the school year would not be a bad idea and it could be rolled into their scholarship somehow. might need to be needs based but it would help the kids who are having trouble affording food/clothes/books etc...
December 13th, 2017 at 7:21 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:29 PM ^
good to know.
might need to bump it up a little.
December 13th, 2017 at 10:21 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 10:26 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 8:46 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 10:07 PM ^
There's a lot of different calculations in this article about the revenue generated for the conferences thanks to the bowls/playoffs, but taking the $70M/conference average across 10 FBS conferences, and you get $700M in revenue per year. That participation number isn't the same, I assume, as the total number of awarded scholarships; lots of sports share scholarships across players, and some don't receive any, and that's how it has always been. And that ignores D3 (which I assume this number counts), which doesn't allow athletic scholarships. But even if we assume all 460,000 athletes, based on that $700M revenue just from the bowl games, that means each athlete would receive about $1500 in additional money. And for most major P5 teams, they have other significant revenue streams that generate millions for the schools.
These are simplistic calculations I'll admit, ignoring overhead and costs for the schools to maintain these programs, travel to and from games, maintain facilities, etc. But CBS/Turner are paying over $1B a year for the next 7 years to televise March Madness; don't tell me there isn't money.
The money is there; people want to spend it different ways, and that's fine. I tend to feel that some of that money should be given to the athletes who generate it beyond the scholarships and small stipends they already receive. YMMV.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:52 AM ^
That 460K number must be all divisions. Just D1 that would be roughly 4,500 athletes per school? That sounds real high.
December 13th, 2017 at 7:24 PM ^
Also, a lot of G5 football programs aren't profitable either. EMU's football program needs regular subsidies. A lot of people tend to zero in on the richest programs and assume every school is like them, but they only make up part of the NCAA.
December 13th, 2017 at 9:50 PM ^
So the argument here is that because it would be somewhat difficult initially to make sure the schools complied with Title IX, we should eschew doing it and instead keep paying Charlie Weiss for being terrible at his job?
Don't pay players if you don't want to, but this lazy "it would require us to comply with Title IX", something schools have lots of experience complying with in all other respects, is just wasted cover. Say you don't want to pay players because you don't think they deserve it, that it ruins the mystique of college athletics, that you don't want NFL-lite. All of those are at least authentic arguments. But arguing over process isn't a strong one.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^
I have maintained and still believe football players should be paid, at least as "hazard" for the brain damage they WILL/and ARE currently sustaining, which does not vary from all sports, but certianly is of its own breed. Now, if said moneys are in the form of extended health care or whatever, fine. I have recommended, in the past, the pay be set aside in a 'trust' that the player receives upon their departure from the university, or is forfeited to the general scholarship fund if they are drafted/turn pro.
I also understand the title IX position, and there inlies the problem/red tape insitutions are able to use to justify not paying players. However, I feel that at this juncture it's apples to oranges in a system that, like our governmental institutions, have fallen behind the rapid advancements culturally/societally. I'm not a finance or legal guru, so I understand my opinon caries less weight that someone who is. I think it's easier to agree something is off, than on how to address it... Just thinking on my own
December 13th, 2017 at 6:46 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 6:47 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:02 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:05 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:30 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:56 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 8:14 PM ^
Sorry I didn’t get the movie reference...what’s it from?
December 13th, 2017 at 8:28 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 9:07 PM ^
If you split the football revenue 50/50 with the players, every athletic department - including Michigan - would be under water. In fact, most ADs are already in the red without giving half of the largest revenue earner away. Michigan only had a $2.4M surplus on a $170M revenue.
The only way to stay in the black will be:
1. to take institutional money from academics -- hard sell because that means sacrificing the core nature of a university (learning) and taking from the vast majority of the students
2. get more money from boosters -- schools are presumably already maximizing donations, difficult to assume even more would come, but possible.
3. cut costs -- either not reinvest in shiny new training facilities, stadium expansions, etc. OR shut down non-profitable sports. Men/womens lacrosse, mens golf, womens field hockey...all of the sports that make a university's student body diverse.
December 13th, 2017 at 7:51 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:59 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 8:05 PM ^
in the south (where football rules all), could pitch it that he is tired of black kids getting exploited?
there are plenty of politicians that are willing to step into the muddy waters of college sports...
December 13th, 2017 at 8:11 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 8:07 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:58 PM ^
So now all the top athletes go to the Michigan/OSU/Bama/Texas's of the world because they can pay the most....I can't see any issues occuring there. Not to mention the top non-revenue sport athletes would tend more towards the Football/Basketball world if they even have a chance due to the ability to make money.
Not to mention that revenue from the major sports funds other sports and many AD's are not rolling in the cash and in fact lose money.
So now we have killed:
Non classic powerhouse teams and any semblance of parity
Non revenue sports (basically everything besides Mens Football and Basketball)
Some student athlete's athletic futures who chose football over soccer because they could make money in college but couldnt make it in the pros.
December 13th, 2017 at 8:27 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 10:54 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:03 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:03 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:18 PM ^
Nothing. Do absolutely nothing. But don't actively step in and push everything underground to shady bagmen by punishing schools for compensating athletes however they see fit. Maybe it's just a scholarship. Maybe it's that plus a living stipend. Maybe it's more. Maybe it's nothing. But it should all be above the table and with total transparency.
At a minimum, stop enforcing rules against players being able to profit from their own likeness like every other American is entitled to do. If a company wants to pay a recognizable, photogenic athlete to do a TV commerical because she's recognizable and photogenic, that's a private transaction the NCAA has no business interfering in. That way, the market decides who gets what and how much, and the schools/NCAA stay neutral.
December 13th, 2017 at 9:36 PM ^
Spend less on candles.
December 13th, 2017 at 10:21 PM ^
It's funny - I see people complain about how it would destroy college athletics, yet they never provide any real evidence or arguments about why it is so unreasonable. Only veiled references to by-gone eras and some loss of "amaterism" that reads like "gourmet" marketing.
There have been numerous proposals for fair ways to compensate players; if you can type in the words "paying college athletes" into a search engine you'll see a wide variety of articles about it, with a variety of proposals.
1. You could just set a financial stipend (in addition to the one already awarded to athletes) and attach it to each scholarship. This would let you comply with Title IX. It would maybe be league- or school-dependent; if Michigan can give $15,000 per scholarship, and EMU only $5k, so be it. It's not like it would be functionally different in leveling or un-leveling the playing field as we have today.
2. Ignoring a straight check, provide graduation bonuses, long-term medical care, a 401k-type trust or investment package to players that grows while they remain enrolled and on the team, and is their's when they graduate.
3. An ability to license their names and likenesses for specific merchandise; if Nike wants to sell #16 jerseys, then Denard Robinson can get some piece of it, moreso if the jersey has his name on the back. Same with video games and other non-tangible goods. Similarly, let athletes get sponsorships, marketing via social media/Youtube, or other revenue streams they can seek out.
4. Allow athletes to get jobs during the off-season (maybe even make it mandatory that certain off-season months are treated as really breaks). This would have the added benefit of athletes being able to get useful skills during internships and jobs that would benefit them after graduation.
Again, off the top of my head. But there are options out there.
December 13th, 2017 at 11:12 PM ^
Players already get paid thousands of dollars in stipends, plus expenses, plus scholarships, so that item is checked off.
The problem with the "likelness" money is twofold: first, it opens a huge door for the bagmen to pay players to come to a particular school, which isn't in the players' best interests. Secondly, it creates a financial incentive for wnn-be star players to work against their competitors on the team and make them look bad, so the wanna-be stars can get more of their own jerseys sold. That's not in any team's best interests.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of players who want to play for universities under the current system. By the rules of capitalism, that indicates that the current system is working, and nobody is "getting screwed."
December 13th, 2017 at 11:25 PM ^
but who are you, or anybody, to decide what is in an adults' best interest?
December 14th, 2017 at 6:30 AM ^
Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:08 PM ^
& does eat oats
but little lambs eat ivy.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^
1. Most of the expenses are related to the team already - gear, travel, accomodations, etc. Saying "we have to pay for a hotel in Tampa so you can play a game" isn't an expense I'd tie to the whims of the players.
2. The stipend they get is between $2-$5k a year, which works out to between $166 and $466 dollars a month. That's below minimum wage by a country mile.
3. Yes they get scholarship money; so do people on academic and organization-sponsored scholarships, and I don't know of many, if any, restrictions on how they can generate money by other means.
4. Do you legitimately believe that "wanna-be stars" are going to (a) want to sabotage their teammates to sell more jerseys, and (b) that a coach would let said player sabotage the play of his team to do so? As for bagmen - they already have that problem. At least now it would be in the open.
5. Saying "there isn't a shortage of players for this system" is disingenuous because there isn't other viable systems. College sports isn't capitalism; the NBA sorta has a G-League and overseas, but college football is it for guys who want to play football. The NFL won't let you go straight out of HS. So no, in the monopoly on access to the professional leagues the NCAA holds, saying there are people who will accept that as the cost of going to the league isn't the same as proof the system works.
Finally, I don't see why giving college athletes money the schools already have is a problem. You point to these hypothetical issues about in-fighting and the continued existence of bagmen, but how do the financials really change? Who gets hurt? Do you not get to watch football because the guy who is out there gets an extra $25k a year in licensing money because he's an All American? I doubt it.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:29 PM ^
"but college football is it for guys who want to play football. "
The CFl doesn't exist?
Semi-pro leagues don't exist?
Arena football doesn't exist?
December 13th, 2017 at 11:23 PM ^
Ownership of your likeness. Whether you row or play football, what you sell with your name on it should be yours. Especially in America when you're not a minor.
Emancipated minors unite!
December 13th, 2017 at 6:49 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 6:49 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 6:49 PM ^
If a player gets paid, now he's an employee. Who pays the taxes on his scholarship?
December 13th, 2017 at 6:53 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 6:55 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 7:42 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 8:09 PM ^
is a very unfair characterization. there is a reason many of these kids wouldn't get into these colleges w/o their football talents. have you watched last chance u? some of those guys can barely read. what is the value of a college course that will go way over their head?
the connections are obviously huge regardless of how academically inclined they are, but I don't think it's fair to say that kids who had no business being in college are "pissing away" their opportunity when they were never in a position to succeed in the first place.
December 13th, 2017 at 10:08 PM ^
December 13th, 2017 at 6:53 PM ^
as soon as football players get accepted into UM just like regular student then football players should be paid.