Oct 24, 2014
11:13:09am
11:13:09am
What college football players already get from their universities:
1. Education
2. Books
3. Monthly stipend
4. Swag
5. Chicks (half TIC)
6. World-class coaching
7. World-class athletic trainers
8. World-class training facilities
9. National exposure by playing in expensive stadiums they didn't pay for
10. National exposure by being broadcast on TV that would never come without the university's infrastructure and brand
All of the above benefit the athlete, and most of these would be completely inaccessible to an athlete if he had to pay for them on his own. But he already gets them all in exchange for being on the football team, and the university picks up the tab.
So pardon me if I fail to see how these athletes are being exploited.
The only athletes who bring in any meaningful incremental revenue for their universities are the stars ... and the stars are the ones who already disproportionately benefit from items 5 through 10 above. That is, they are the ones who can parlay their university's investment in coaching, trainers, facilities, and exposure into an NFL paycheck.
You may argue that most college football players don't go to the NFL. I agree. And these players who aren't good enough to go to the NFL are the same college football players who don't meaningfully contribute to their university's bottom line. Further, many of these non-star athletes parlay the exposure and notoriety they achieved in college (largely thanks to what the university did for them) into careers in other fields (e.g., broadcasting, coaching, insurance).
The reality is that for many college football programs, what sells is the brand ... the name on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back of the jersey. Of course there are exceptions. But my point is the players who are the exceptions gain access to a big NFL payday, partly thanks to what they are getting from the university ... already.
The ongoing discussions about whether to pay college players is an attempt to solve a problem that largely doesn't exist.
(Note that the O'Bannon case, regarding the rights to profit from your own likeness, is a completely separate issue.)
2. Books
3. Monthly stipend
4. Swag
5. Chicks (half TIC)
6. World-class coaching
7. World-class athletic trainers
8. World-class training facilities
9. National exposure by playing in expensive stadiums they didn't pay for
10. National exposure by being broadcast on TV that would never come without the university's infrastructure and brand
All of the above benefit the athlete, and most of these would be completely inaccessible to an athlete if he had to pay for them on his own. But he already gets them all in exchange for being on the football team, and the university picks up the tab.
So pardon me if I fail to see how these athletes are being exploited.
The only athletes who bring in any meaningful incremental revenue for their universities are the stars ... and the stars are the ones who already disproportionately benefit from items 5 through 10 above. That is, they are the ones who can parlay their university's investment in coaching, trainers, facilities, and exposure into an NFL paycheck.
You may argue that most college football players don't go to the NFL. I agree. And these players who aren't good enough to go to the NFL are the same college football players who don't meaningfully contribute to their university's bottom line. Further, many of these non-star athletes parlay the exposure and notoriety they achieved in college (largely thanks to what the university did for them) into careers in other fields (e.g., broadcasting, coaching, insurance).
The reality is that for many college football programs, what sells is the brand ... the name on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back of the jersey. Of course there are exceptions. But my point is the players who are the exceptions gain access to a big NFL payday, partly thanks to what they are getting from the university ... already.
The ongoing discussions about whether to pay college players is an attempt to solve a problem that largely doesn't exist.
(Note that the O'Bannon case, regarding the rights to profit from your own likeness, is a completely separate issue.)
- Bio page
- garyfan
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2013
- Last login
- May 10, 2024
- Total posts
- 37,694 (3,864 FO)
