If the NCAA started paying players..

[godkiller]

Little league baseball brings in millions of dollars too. That doesn't mean little Timmy should get a check for it.

Children can't work anyway but if Timmy's parents want to collectively bargain, I'm sure they are no monopolies like the NCAA stopping them from doing so. Child movie stars can demand pay and refuse participation if not paid, and there's no law saying little league baseball players can't. The difference between the NCAA and little league baseball is that little league baseball players are replaceable and there's no NCAA standing in the way of little league baseball parents demanding compensation.

If the NCAA didn't exist so be it, but then there wouldn't be college football or basketball as we know it for those schools wouldn't have teams to field and we wouldn't support a Minor league alternative. That's the big reason why you rarely ever see anyone attempt to buck the system. We hate semi-pro anything.

I have no such fears, and frankly the NCAA's existence has no bearing on whether players should be able to negotiate. The courts don't exist to preserve the NCAA's existence like they don't existence to preserve Lehman Brother's existence. Since college football and basketball bring in so cash flow--billions of dollars in fact, much of which ends up in Saban's pocket--it's likely the college system will continue with pay. If that doesn't happen the NFL and NBA will do something to ensure their business remains viable since a development pipeline to them is so crucial to their business. Soccer, baseball, and other sports succeed with development pipelines outside college sports. So in theory a basketball pipeline is entirely possible and already exists for European players. Any way you look at it, it's unjust that players can't negotiate for the rights out of some archaic legal principle based in corruption.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

Little league baseball brings in millions of dollars too. That doesn't mean little Timmy should get a check for it.

If the NCAA didn't exist so be it, but then there wouldn't be college football or basketball as we know it for those schools wouldn't have teams to field and we wouldn't support a Minor league alternative. That's the big reason why you rarely ever see anyone attempt to buck the system. We hate semi-pro anything.

Little league brings millions in to whom?

 

[godkiller]

It practically destroys a significant chunk of the inventory (by that I mean most schools would just shut it down, which is not what the intent is.) Schools would just stick to the way it is and maintain relative health since people root for laundry.

If schools want to shut down football and basketball programs--and lose millions of dollars in doing so--schools have the prerogative to do so. This possibility has no bearing on whether players should have the right to make money for their labor. Similarly the possibility that Goldman Sachs might fire some people should have no bearing on whether people should be paid for working at Goldman Sachs. If Goldman Sachs wants to destroy its business because executives don't want to pay people, that's GS' prerogative. But I have a hunch GS would rather pay people and keep making money than not pay people and destroy its business. Likewise developmental football and basketball will live on.

 

[tremonthustler1]

If schools want to shut down football and basketball programs--and lose millions of dollars in doing so--they are free to do so. This possibility has no bearing on whether players should have the right to make money for their labor. Similarly the possibility that Goldman Sachs might fire some people should have no bearing on whether people should be paid for working at Goldman Sachs.

First of all, some schools lose money regardless based on sports programs. Paying players on top of that will undoubtedly undercut some conferences let alone schools.

But players CAN make money for their labor, but players would rather be Dakari Johnson than Norvel Pelle, and that is based on our indifference to the alternative

 

[Big Blue]

I don't see why the NCAA or schools would be obligated to make players pay for their tuition or board. But even if this were the case, I don't see how this arrangement is much different from the typical employer-employer relationship. Employers expect employees to use their income to pay for expenses and boards. This happens and everybody comes to work the next day. The NCAA could simply expect players to put their income towards tuition and board, with players in response asking their union to demand the NCAA cover the tuition and board costs. Alternatively the players could just pay tuition and board, and play football. You pro-indentured slave college people are the masters of red herrings and non-sequitars. All your arguments basically reduce to "it's impossible to implement a pay-for-play system". No it isn't. There is a pay-for-play system for any number of sports all across the world. The NCAA has the money to hired employment lawyers from Harvard and Physics professors from Caltech to figure it out if you can't comprehend it, OP.

I was just asking a task question breh. I'm not pro-NCAA at all

 

[godkiller]

First of all, some schools lose money regardless based on sports programs..

And it is not the court's interest to protect college sports; not all colleges have basketball or football programs and there's nothing wrong with that. But for the most part, college football and basketball is a gross money maker for colleges. This article excerpt parses out just how much money is in college football:

"Revenues derived from college athletics is greater than the aggregate revenues of the NBA and the NHL," said Marc Edelman, an associate professor at City University of New York who specializes in sports and antitrust law. He also noted that Alabama's athletic revenues last year, which totaled $143 million, exceeded those of all 30 NHL teams and 25 of the 30 NBA teams.

Texas is the largest athletic department, earning more than $165 million last year in revenue — with $109 million coming from football, according to Education Department data. The university netted $27 million after expenses.""

Profit is defined as revenue-expenses. When many schools say they break even or go into red, what they really mean is that they spend their all their revenue on "expenses", and so have no more money to potentailly pay players. What constitutes these expenses? Unnecessarily large and bloated coach salaries like Saban's 7 fukking million, upgrading the marble tables that don't need upgrading and paying the worthless athletic director. These are what constitute the "expenses" several colleges have. This state of affairs makes clear that colleges do in fact have the raw revenue to pay players, colleges simply choose to allocate their money elsewhere and pay dumb about where it goes. The NCAA grossed MORE than the fukking NBA.

playing players on top of that will undoubtedly undercut some conferences let alone schools.

This already happens. Top conferences and schools already undercut lesser conferences and schools. Nothing about this essential fact changes in a pay-for-play scheme except players are justly compensated for their labor.

But players CAN make money for their labor, but players would rather be Dakari Johnson than Norvel Pelle, and that is based on our indifference to the alternative

As of right now, players can't demand pay for the labor in the NCAA. This is because the courts have dragged their feet in applying the same anti-trust standards to the NCAA as is applied everywhere else. The time has come.