Having served churches in two SEC towns (Starkville, MS and College Station, TX) and having both athletes and coaches (mainly assistants or trainers) in my congregations, it has been interesting to hear from both groups. Surprising (at least to me) was most athletes didn't want to be paid by the university but did want to be able to make money in other ways, such as use of their likeness or being sponsored. And most of the coaches had no issue with students being allowed to do that. Small sample size (only two schools and a handful of athletes and coaches) but it does cast the NCAA in a poor light if the two major components of their "product" (players and coaches) are ok with it but the powers that be seem intent on keeping it from happening.
That’s not surprising to hear, especially given how intimately these coaches know the player (and their backgrounds) as well as many of them being former players. I don’t think you’re going to find many n agreement with the NCAA, frankly.
The machine that is the NCAA relies heavily on two things: men’s football and basketball.
The University of Alabama’s football team is home to arguably the best college football in the country, and it’s been that way for the last decade. “Of the $164 million in revenue for Alabama athletics, 59.8% came from football. The only other profitable program was men’s basketball with $66,921 more revenue than expenses.”* The money generated by football and basketball help to offset the expenses of every other program within an athletic department. A volleyball player from Texas Tech and a wrestler from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga do benefit from the obscene revenue generated by two specific sports, even though they don’t provide an economic benefit to the university.
The NCAA boasts 480,000 student-athletes from across its three divisions. In fairness to the NCAA, we are talking about a handful of athletes that serve as the “economic driver to this money-producing engine.” With that being said, the NCAA’s argument that I watch solely because the athletes are not paid is worth less than the paper it’s printed on. If Joe Burrow was making $150,000 to play QB for LSU during their championship run in 2019, I would’ve still watched. I watch college sports (primarily football and basketball) because they’re exciting, the future of the NFL and NBA are on hand, and because it’s always fun to root for the underdog.
The chief question is whether the NCAA system is just. I agree that the answer is no. Let the small percentage of college athletes that can profit off their likeness do so.
Well said, David. My hunch is that there aren't a lot of schools/sports that would be able to pay their athletes, but the point is that they could...and they could allow athletes to profit on their ability on IG/TikTok sponsorships like every other student at the institution.
I think the issue is important, but I think Lukas' proposal is going in the wrong direction, vis-a-vis money.
If colleges and universities should continue to have sports teams (a related but different question, and pretty much unheard-of in Europe):
Let the coaches receive the salary of a tenured professor at their university, with no more than the usual step increases for time employed, etc. - not based on how many games are won. Require that they actually have at least a minimal teaching schedule. No outside funding of any kind. This is how it used to be back at the beginning, before games were broadcast and sponsors got into the act.
Let the athletes receive a full tuition scholarship to the universities they attend, subject to keeping their grades at the level the university requires from all students for graduation - and perhaps the university should require that they graduate. They are there, after all, to get an education. In elite institutions, that amount is at least $50,000 per year. To me, that's more than fair compensation, along with the attention top players get from pro team scouts who will offer them lots of money to play on the pro teams later on. No outside funding of any kind: endorsements, sponsorships, etc. If the schools are going to have sports teams, the athletes need to be students first.
The highest paid employee this year in the state of Alabama currently serves as the head coach at the University of Central Florida. Auburn had to pay Gus Malzahn $21.45 million to fire him. That's a far cry from the $132,000 average of a tenured professor.
While the salaries of a handful of coaches are astronomical, we are really only talking about about a fraction of a percentage. I would disagree that coaches need to maintain any type of teaching schedule. The demands of a college coach do not respect the boundaries of a typical job. Recruiting takes place 24/7/365. Decisions made by college coaches are routinely scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized. Professors get the luxury of walking out of class without 10 media members to speak with (although I'm sure they'd be willing to put up with that for a couple more zeroes on their paycheck).
For me, this is a both/and issue. Pay the coaches whatever you want, but allow the student-athlete to make a profit for themselves.
In an ideal athletic world, I agree with you, and the world you described is probably close to what college sports looked like a century ago.
Unfortunately, the toothpaste isn't going back in the tube since college sports now enormous business. March Madness (the NCAA's biggest money-making event) is going to generate a lot of revenue...where else is that revenue going to go? And that revenue is generated because of the talent of the players, so it's only fair they get a large piece of that.
Before college sports generated the revenue that they did, I think your proposal seems practical, but we've moved on from that now. College sports are a business and need to be treated as such on all sides.
Your argument is logical. You're on the inside and your opinion is germane. There wasn't a problem until money got involved. People with balls (pun intended) could change the situation, but I don't have any hope that will happen... This is an outsized thing among other things that are threatening the ability of American universities to actually educate; I know most college athletes don't graduate from their schools. It's all a sorry state of affairs. Thanks for writing.
Yeah, broken system to be sure, and it's hurt a large number of quality academic institutions trying to keep players eligible. Like most everything in the world, everything went sideways when money got involved!
Having served churches in two SEC towns (Starkville, MS and College Station, TX) and having both athletes and coaches (mainly assistants or trainers) in my congregations, it has been interesting to hear from both groups. Surprising (at least to me) was most athletes didn't want to be paid by the university but did want to be able to make money in other ways, such as use of their likeness or being sponsored. And most of the coaches had no issue with students being allowed to do that. Small sample size (only two schools and a handful of athletes and coaches) but it does cast the NCAA in a poor light if the two major components of their "product" (players and coaches) are ok with it but the powers that be seem intent on keeping it from happening.
That’s not surprising to hear, especially given how intimately these coaches know the player (and their backgrounds) as well as many of them being former players. I don’t think you’re going to find many n agreement with the NCAA, frankly.
The machine that is the NCAA relies heavily on two things: men’s football and basketball.
The University of Alabama’s football team is home to arguably the best college football in the country, and it’s been that way for the last decade. “Of the $164 million in revenue for Alabama athletics, 59.8% came from football. The only other profitable program was men’s basketball with $66,921 more revenue than expenses.”* The money generated by football and basketball help to offset the expenses of every other program within an athletic department. A volleyball player from Texas Tech and a wrestler from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga do benefit from the obscene revenue generated by two specific sports, even though they don’t provide an economic benefit to the university.
The NCAA boasts 480,000 student-athletes from across its three divisions. In fairness to the NCAA, we are talking about a handful of athletes that serve as the “economic driver to this money-producing engine.” With that being said, the NCAA’s argument that I watch solely because the athletes are not paid is worth less than the paper it’s printed on. If Joe Burrow was making $150,000 to play QB for LSU during their championship run in 2019, I would’ve still watched. I watch college sports (primarily football and basketball) because they’re exciting, the future of the NFL and NBA are on hand, and because it’s always fun to root for the underdog.
The chief question is whether the NCAA system is just. I agree that the answer is no. Let the small percentage of college athletes that can profit off their likeness do so.
*(https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2020/01/the-things-you-learn-reading-alabamas-164-million-athletics-budget-closely.html)
Well said, David. My hunch is that there aren't a lot of schools/sports that would be able to pay their athletes, but the point is that they could...and they could allow athletes to profit on their ability on IG/TikTok sponsorships like every other student at the institution.
Great thoughts and anecdotal nuggets there, BTW.
I think the issue is important, but I think Lukas' proposal is going in the wrong direction, vis-a-vis money.
If colleges and universities should continue to have sports teams (a related but different question, and pretty much unheard-of in Europe):
Let the coaches receive the salary of a tenured professor at their university, with no more than the usual step increases for time employed, etc. - not based on how many games are won. Require that they actually have at least a minimal teaching schedule. No outside funding of any kind. This is how it used to be back at the beginning, before games were broadcast and sponsors got into the act.
Let the athletes receive a full tuition scholarship to the universities they attend, subject to keeping their grades at the level the university requires from all students for graduation - and perhaps the university should require that they graduate. They are there, after all, to get an education. In elite institutions, that amount is at least $50,000 per year. To me, that's more than fair compensation, along with the attention top players get from pro team scouts who will offer them lots of money to play on the pro teams later on. No outside funding of any kind: endorsements, sponsorships, etc. If the schools are going to have sports teams, the athletes need to be students first.
Dana
Dana, interesting perspective.
The highest paid employee this year in the state of Alabama currently serves as the head coach at the University of Central Florida. Auburn had to pay Gus Malzahn $21.45 million to fire him. That's a far cry from the $132,000 average of a tenured professor.
While the salaries of a handful of coaches are astronomical, we are really only talking about about a fraction of a percentage. I would disagree that coaches need to maintain any type of teaching schedule. The demands of a college coach do not respect the boundaries of a typical job. Recruiting takes place 24/7/365. Decisions made by college coaches are routinely scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized. Professors get the luxury of walking out of class without 10 media members to speak with (although I'm sure they'd be willing to put up with that for a couple more zeroes on their paycheck).
For me, this is a both/and issue. Pay the coaches whatever you want, but allow the student-athlete to make a profit for themselves.
Hey Dana-
Thanks for the note and engaging here.
In an ideal athletic world, I agree with you, and the world you described is probably close to what college sports looked like a century ago.
Unfortunately, the toothpaste isn't going back in the tube since college sports now enormous business. March Madness (the NCAA's biggest money-making event) is going to generate a lot of revenue...where else is that revenue going to go? And that revenue is generated because of the talent of the players, so it's only fair they get a large piece of that.
Before college sports generated the revenue that they did, I think your proposal seems practical, but we've moved on from that now. College sports are a business and need to be treated as such on all sides.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
Your argument is logical. You're on the inside and your opinion is germane. There wasn't a problem until money got involved. People with balls (pun intended) could change the situation, but I don't have any hope that will happen... This is an outsized thing among other things that are threatening the ability of American universities to actually educate; I know most college athletes don't graduate from their schools. It's all a sorry state of affairs. Thanks for writing.
Dana
Yeah, broken system to be sure, and it's hurt a large number of quality academic institutions trying to keep players eligible. Like most everything in the world, everything went sideways when money got involved!
Lots to think about here. Thanks for the post!