It’s a problem. UCLA has a $5 billion or so endowment. Same as $C. Stanford is like $25 billion. The money is there to pay the athletes. UCLA should be leading the way, given the illustrious history of UCLA athletics. That it takes a lawsuit to point this out is really unforgivable.
Let's go the next step -- do you pay them the same rate you pay a graduate student researcher? Any NCAA limits on what salary Johnny Juzang can get while wearing UCLA colors? Or is it just going to be "what the market will bear" likes it's rapidly turning out to be in NIL endorsements.
Don't misinterpret what I'm asking, I fully support giving players a monthly stipend in addition to their housing, coaching, tuition, and books. Along the same lines that supported grad students get. You're not going to get rich, but you're not going to starve.
BTW, what are your ideas on paying players like Russell Stong IV (Whom we all love!). Awesome student, great team member, just not endowed with the same level of talent in Basketball as Jaime, Johnny and the others.
It's an interesting question with walk-on players. If you were to look at the way walk-ons work right now, you could almost consider them volunteers with benefits, as they don't get scholarships but do get some of the benefits of being a scholarship athlete. My guess would be that, if scholarship athletes get reclassified as employees, the benefits given to walk-ons would decrease, but similarly they'd become more volunteers and there'd either be limits on how often they can participate or what the program can and cannot demand of them (otherwise they would fall under the same employment designation as their scholar teammates).
One of the articles I linked from Athletic Director U advocates for something resembling a salary cap for athletic departments regarding what they can spend money on, and I imagine a similar salary cap would be the way to go for player employment. Thing is, though, that this would almost have to require the players to have a union to collectively bargain on their behalf, which the schools have been against. That said, the NCAA and member institutions have been eating court losses left and right and may decide to not take another loss should players choose to unionize again (especially with an NLRB that is much more amenable to athlete rights than previous iterations).
I care (a lot) about the non-Star players. I'd say it would be a travesty if the Russell Stongs of our collegiate athletics world were frozen out of opportunity because we need to pay the star (or stars) a six- or seven-figure salary. If the mistake is made to make it "just about the money," college athletics will get even weirder than it is - with rich "donors" having even more influence than they already do. One needs to be thoughtful about actual implementation and think about unintended consequences.
Same lines as a graduate student researcher? I was a TA, I taught, and paid my fees, etc and my own off-campus housing. Start paying them they will join a union and we won't even be able to bench a poor performing player. Is there still an academic eligibility standard?
Weirdly enough, pro athletes all have unions and they don’t have issues with being benched!
Edit: and to throw in there, they don’t have unions or pay now, and guys will transfer in search of a better opportunity, so again I’m not sure how adding a salary to the equation suddenly changes things.
Wierdly enough, Dmitri. But there is an overarching agreement negotiated regularly, the baseball players have an association. And the NFL is in negotiations with the players over a new CBT, or something, that sets restrictions on the players being treated as chattel.
The NCPA is trying to set itself up to transition into being a union for the players, which is part of their idea behind the complaint. That would solve that issue of collective bargaining fairly easily.
It’s a problem. UCLA has a $5 billion or so endowment. Same as $C. Stanford is like $25 billion. The money is there to pay the athletes. UCLA should be leading the way, given the illustrious history of UCLA athletics. That it takes a lawsuit to point this out is really unforgivable.
UCLA has a $5 billion endowment? False.
He's not far off. According to the 2021 Annual Report, it's $4.6 B.
And there’s actually a billion or so off the books. Don’t ask me how I know but I do.
Let's go the next step -- do you pay them the same rate you pay a graduate student researcher? Any NCAA limits on what salary Johnny Juzang can get while wearing UCLA colors? Or is it just going to be "what the market will bear" likes it's rapidly turning out to be in NIL endorsements.
Don't misinterpret what I'm asking, I fully support giving players a monthly stipend in addition to their housing, coaching, tuition, and books. Along the same lines that supported grad students get. You're not going to get rich, but you're not going to starve.
BTW, what are your ideas on paying players like Russell Stong IV (Whom we all love!). Awesome student, great team member, just not endowed with the same level of talent in Basketball as Jaime, Johnny and the others.
It's an interesting question with walk-on players. If you were to look at the way walk-ons work right now, you could almost consider them volunteers with benefits, as they don't get scholarships but do get some of the benefits of being a scholarship athlete. My guess would be that, if scholarship athletes get reclassified as employees, the benefits given to walk-ons would decrease, but similarly they'd become more volunteers and there'd either be limits on how often they can participate or what the program can and cannot demand of them (otherwise they would fall under the same employment designation as their scholar teammates).
One of the articles I linked from Athletic Director U advocates for something resembling a salary cap for athletic departments regarding what they can spend money on, and I imagine a similar salary cap would be the way to go for player employment. Thing is, though, that this would almost have to require the players to have a union to collectively bargain on their behalf, which the schools have been against. That said, the NCAA and member institutions have been eating court losses left and right and may decide to not take another loss should players choose to unionize again (especially with an NLRB that is much more amenable to athlete rights than previous iterations).
I care (a lot) about the non-Star players. I'd say it would be a travesty if the Russell Stongs of our collegiate athletics world were frozen out of opportunity because we need to pay the star (or stars) a six- or seven-figure salary. If the mistake is made to make it "just about the money," college athletics will get even weirder than it is - with rich "donors" having even more influence than they already do. One needs to be thoughtful about actual implementation and think about unintended consequences.
Same lines as a graduate student researcher? I was a TA, I taught, and paid my fees, etc and my own off-campus housing. Start paying them they will join a union and we won't even be able to bench a poor performing player. Is there still an academic eligibility standard?
Weirdly enough, pro athletes all have unions and they don’t have issues with being benched!
Edit: and to throw in there, they don’t have unions or pay now, and guys will transfer in search of a better opportunity, so again I’m not sure how adding a salary to the equation suddenly changes things.
Wierdly enough, Dmitri. But there is an overarching agreement negotiated regularly, the baseball players have an association. And the NFL is in negotiations with the players over a new CBT, or something, that sets restrictions on the players being treated as chattel.
The NCPA is trying to set itself up to transition into being a union for the players, which is part of their idea behind the complaint. That would solve that issue of collective bargaining fairly easily.
If they're "employees" can they be fired?