OT: College football and paying college athletes

[chicowalker]

You can find a discussion of the common law test (i.e., facts and circumstances focused on whether the person is subject to the control of the person he is working for) and the factors the IRS looks at her...
There is some law on graduate assistants (they are not employees because their "work" for the school is part of their graduation requirements). Applying that law to football players, arguably they are more likely to be found to be employees because playing football does not fulfill any graduation requirements, rather it is part of a profit-making business of the university.

Again, this is a substance over form issue. In form, they are students - they receive scholarships, they purport to go to class, etc., but in substance they are employees - they perform labor (in many cases long hours) for the benefit of the universities, they are subject to the control of the coaches, they can lose their scholarships and be kicked off the team and out of school if they don't comply with team rules/coaches' wishes, etc.

Ok, but does this mean you believe all college athletes are employees and should be paid? All participants in extracurriculars? (div III wrestlers? Flautusts in a school's musical program?)

or is profitability a critical factor?

(btw, why are we pretending college football players aren't paid? )

 

[letekro]

What can I tell you? We both went over the numbers and again we disagree. I show the numbers as a loss when you include the university's contributions and subsidies.

As for programs being a drain, I'm not against schools losing money for football. I think football is good for campus atmosphere. Football is good for the same reason that a host of other money-losing activities on campus are good. I'm against schools losing a hole bundle of money because of football. Look at Rutgers, they just bonded a $120 million stadium expansion of 12,000 seats. Do the math. 12,000 seats is not going to pay for $120 million expansion. And meanwhile the school is sliding in the rankings because they haev gotten rid of academic departments that are central to their mission. According to Andrew Zimbalist, who is a nationally known economist on college sports, Rutgers has bought some snake oil. He seems to think that 90% of the expansions will never see black even if you paint the rosiest picture about contributions.



I have no idea what you mean by this. no one pays. The market rate for these guys on average is peanuts. Maybe $500? I dont know what it is, but your statement is false because no one pays now, and so... what is your point here, I'm struggling to figure it out. Hypothetically, lets assume that schools do what the author in the link is advising: cut funding to football programs so that the football programs fund themselves. If that means the football program starts losing, you think that will impact the university as a whole? Then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of our top 100 universities do not have div. 1 football teams? The schools with the biggest endowments and alumni contributions don't have winning football teams.

They aren't employees. Show me any law that says they are. I'll say it again: schools are non-profit institutions. Students receive scholarships. You're saying this term was made up by the NCAA when the fact is the term was in use long before the NCAA came into existence. There is no category in employment law for student athlete, by the way, and that's because being a student and engaging in student activities is not considered employment in any legal sense. In fact, it's quite the opposite: you can get out of paying back student loans, for instance, if you show that you're still a student. But as soon as you become employable, you must pay them back. So the law recognizes that students have all sorts of privileges that working people don't.

I'll say this again to you: the man in the link argues that the people who are bringing much more money and value to the university and the local community are experiencing cuts in support. So even if I agree with you on everything else, the argument goes that football programs are bringing a lot less in revenue than the core parts of the university, and yet football isn't cutting, while the core mission is cutting. That's the argument.

The numbers that the Texas guy lays out should convince you, since the whole of the athletic department taken together doesn't even produce 5% of university revenue.

This short piece points out just some of the numerous blatant falsehoods running rampant through the above:

http://www.thedrakegroup.org/Splitt_The_Student_Athlete.pdf The article by the Michigan state law professors cited therein discusses the relevant law.

 

[upstater1]

1. You're right it is not a requirement, but my understanding is they get graduation credits, so it clearly has an academic component, while football has no such component.

2. How do you make less money than zero?

No grad credits at all for fulfilling the duties of your grad assistantship. None whatsoever. It doesn't count toward graduation. it is, simply, labor, in a much clearer sense than that provided by football players. I mean, football players play a sport. Teaching classes and correcting papers is labor. Trust me, no one has ever sat down to correct student papers with great enthusiasm. The same cannot be said of playing football.

As for less than zero, football players get room & board, a per diem stipend, they get their student fees and books paid for, and so, their living expenses are covered. Not so for grad assistants. They make less than football players.

 

[upstater1]

This short piece points out just some of the numerous blatant falsehoods running rampant through the above:

http://www.thedrakegroup.org/Splitt_The_Student_Athlete.pdf The article by the Michigan state law professors cited therein discusses the relevant law.

What blatant falsehoods? Go ahead and show me.

You also realize, I hope, that the Drake Group is a group whose primary goal is to destroy college sports and secondly they make arguments like this all the time about graduate students. The net result of their efforts is that college tuition would increase 1000% in one year (if any of their plans came to fruition) and that the arguments cited have been rejected in courts of law. The NCAA has been sued, and the people suing lost. How does the NCAA know that students are receiving educations? It doesn't. The NCAA is a sports organization. It has no business with the education side. The only ones who have interest in whether a school has a sham program are accreditors, and they spend many millions investigating other schools. That's the job of academia. The NCAA can institute penalties however on schools that perpetrate these scams, and the NCAA has instituted those penalties by taking scholarships away from schools who don't graduate players. By the way, why wouldn't the Drake's groups criteria apply to average students? How does anyone know that a whole class of students (say, in education) is being properly educated? Maybe some schools are just taking tuition money and giving students nothing but a worthless diploma.

But you have nothing to say about this below?

The man in the Texas link argues that the people who are bringing much more money and value to the university and the local community are experiencing cuts in support. So even if I agree with you on everything else, the argument goes that football programs are bringing a lot less in revenue than the core parts of the university, and yet football isn't cutting, while the core mission is cutting. That's the argument.

The numbers that the Texas guy lays out should convince you, since the whole of the athletic department taken together doesn't even produce 5% of university revenue.

 

[letekro]

Ok, but does this mean you believe all college athletes are employees and should be paid? All participants in extracurriculars? (div III wrestlers? Flautusts in a school's musical program?)

or is profitability a critical factor?

(btw, why are we pretending college football players aren't paid? )

Right, they are getting paid in one way or another, which undermines upstater's ludicrous claim that there is no market for these guys' services.

I think they should folks on athletic scholarships should be treated as employees - that gives them certain rights to unionize, receive workers compensation, and other protections under the law relating to employees.

As to whether they should be paid - the market should be able to determine that. In most cases, they don't make any money for the school, so there probably will be no market for their services. Football players are an exception to this general rule.

 

[letekro]

The Drake Group is an advocacy group but the facts and law cited and alluded to in that piece exist nevertheless.

As for the quoted portion, 1. how do you determine value? With respect to professors, the free market determines value. With respect to football players, there is no market, not because the market has so determined, but because the market has been artificially eliminated, so it's an impossible comparison; and 2. Perhaps college football accounts for only 5% of UT's revenues, but how do you account for the students that choose to attend UT in part because of its football program, how do you account for alumni contributions that are inextricably linked to football performance? These are all good questions.

 

[letekro]

No grad credits at all for fulfilling the duties of your grad assistantship. None whatsoever. It doesn't count toward graduation. it is, simply, labor, in a much clearer sense than that provided by football players. I mean, football players play a sport. Teaching classes and correcting papers is labor. Trust me, no one has ever sat down to correct student papers with great enthusiasm. The same cannot be said of playing football.

As for less than zero, football players get room & board, a per diem stipend, they get their student fees and books paid for, and so, their living expenses are covered. Not so for grad assistants. They make less than football players.

1. If it is labor, I'm not understanding why courts have held that they are not employees. BTW, pro football players play a sport too, and they're paid handsomely. So, correcting papers and teaching classes is labor, but learning a 500 page playbook, attending meetings, studying film, participating in mandatory, grueling strengh training and practice regimes, traveling hours and hours a week, and then getting smashed around for three hours a week is not labor? Really??? I submit that you are allowing labels obfuscate the substance of the matter.

2. A jet ski has a lot more value to someone living in Miami Beach than in Saskatchewan. In other words, a college education has limited value for a lot of these guys. In large part, they take the scholarship for the chance to make it to the pros.

 

[upstater1]

The Drake Group is an advocacy group but the facts and law cited and alluded to in that piece exist nevertheless.

As for the quoted portion, 1. how do you determine value? With respect to professors, the free market determines value. With respect to football players, there is no market, not because the market has so determined, but because the market has been artificially eliminated, so it's an impossible comparison; and 2. Perhaps college football accounts for only 5% of UT's revenues, but how do you account for the students that choose to attend UT in part because of its football program, how do you account for alumni contributions that are inextricably linked to football performance? These are all good questions.

Students choose UT for football program? Really? As for alumni, you do realize that the article I linked already addressed that inept argument, I hope. And we're counting contributions into the net revenues for football already. Unless you're claiming that football fans are contributing to the academic side instead of football because, well, they love football?

The law cited, as applied, was a big loser in court. The lawsuit happened. They lost.

The free market determines value for professors but not athletes? Where did you come up with that? There's the NFL, isn't there? There's the CFL too. They can play ball in Europe. How has the market been eliminated? Since you're calling my sound arguments ludicrous, let me be a little bit more harsh on you: the idea that people would come out to see these football players if they weren't affiliated with dear old state is laughable at best. Heck, people don't even come out to watch the Jaguars. You honestly think fans have an interest in football minor leagues? No way. That's the free market.

You're not addressing the main point of the article. Since UT has much more profitable programs than the football program, and those programs are being cut back, then why shouldn't the football program cut back as well? That was the main point. Let me say this again: programs at the university that are a LOT more profitable than football are exploiting labor (grad students and lecturers) to a much larger degree than the football players are being exploited.

Let's pretend that NO football player gets an education (which is a ludicrous idea). They still get housing ($10,000), they still get food ($10,000 when you include the per diem stipend), they still get health insurance ($2,000), they still get football training (at UT, that amounts to $22,000 per player). They would never get $44,000 on the free market, and that's not counting the cost of education ($45,000) or the fees for services ($3,000).

Much more profitable programs at UT exploit their labor much much worse than that.

Finally, the whole idea you're peddling is bereft of logic since a good chunk of football players do actually take their studies seriously. I taught a number of players at Penn State, and trust me, it was not pleasurable to have to report to the football program which stayed on top of these kids and made sure they were taking their studies seriously. I can't recall exactly how many times a semester i had to fill out reports, but it was about 5 times. so, paying these kids would mean taking away their scholarships (no way you could justify to anyone in the university community that they should retain their $92,000 in perks AND get paid. They would become contracted professionals. Because of the money squeeze, you would effectively destroy college sports.

That's fine by me. If college sports are destroyed, these guys can go play for the NFL's version of the NBDL.

 

[upstater1]

1. If it is labor, I'm not understanding why courts have held that they are not employees. BTW, pro football players play a sport too, and they're paid handsomely. So, correcting papers and teaching classes is labor, but learning a 500 page playbook, attending meetings, studying film, participating in mandatory, grueling strengh training and practice regimes, traveling hours and hours a week, and then getting smashed around for three hours a week is not labor? Really??? I submit that you are allowing labels obfuscate the substance of the matter.

2. A jet ski has a lot more value to someone living in Miami Beach than in Saskatchewan. In other words, a college education has limited value for a lot of these guys. In large part, they take the scholarship for the chance to make it to the pros.

Some players like playing football. No one likes correcting papers. As for your labor argument, well, doing homework is labor too, but students don't get paid for it.