03-22-2015, 01:09 PM
In the simplistic world view of sports fans having one of the nation's most profitable college sports brands speaking in terms of not wanting to pay players, but rather to focus on the academic mission of the school at first appears to be....well .... hypocritical in light of the history of that school's sports program. But what the average sports fan never considers are these issues and perhaps more:
1. What does the direction of the macro economy indicate with regards to investments?
2. How do the variables of the future economy affect sports as a whole?
3. Does the likely trajectory of the economy favor inflation or deflation in athletics as a product?
4. How does that possible trajectory impact the short range and long range planning of our institution's investment in that product?
Swarbrick, Delany, some of the presidents of ACC schools, and some of the presidents of private schools everywhere (and some state schools) are having to weigh carefully the trajectory of sports revenue moving into a very uncertain future for not only sports, but more particularly for the long term health and stability of the U.S. economy. Last week in Chile that future was dealt yet another serious obstacle when the leadership of France, England, Germany and Italy joined one of our adversaries, Putin in the position of supporting a new global economic venture emanating from China, AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank).
That news coupled with Putin's refusal to trade commodities in Dollars (which started before the first of the year and was a direct challenge to status of the dollar as World Reserve Currency) has sent ripples through the global trade system that could lead to the dropping of the dollar from it's supremacy in global trade that it has held since 1945. So how on earth something so seemingly remote from the venues of college athletics have anything to do with the issue of paying players, or for that matter with realignment?
Well for starters the United States is over 60 Trillion dollars in NET debt. Folks that is debt which is unsecured by any kind of land holdings, precious metals, gross domestic product, or actual hardware (military or otherwise) that we may hold as an asset. It is the culmination of years of having the economy manipulated and siphoned by the Federal Reserve and the politicians on both sides of the aisle that it has purchased to do their bidding both internally and through foreign policies that even our closest former allies now reject. Your corporate conglomerate owned TV networks are not talking about it (so far only the NY Times dares to speak out) so I don't fault you for being unaware of the presently precarious situation that we find ourselves in economically. But people like Swarbrick and others are not ignorant of the fiscal realities that face our nation, and consequently the institutions with which they have been entrusted. The debate over the best course of college athletics is an open and undecided one for good reason. Depending upon how things play out the decision to pay, or not to pay, college athletes could have profound implications upon the future economic health of our schools. And, I might add either side could prove to be right.
Let's say the dollar is knocked out of its present position of supremacy in global trade. What that means is that the U.S. would have to exchange dollars for another currency through which it would conduct trade. This is why the U.N. is presently proposing a global currency controlled by the U.N. They see this issue as being a possible catalyst to WWIII quite literally and are trying to head off the political triggers before they are tripped. In the initial phase of the loss of WR Status the affect upon the average American home would be an inflation in all goods of initially 35% and then higher as the debt continued to mount at home. After the shock of 2008 U.S. liquidity was freed by the change of a term. The declaration of bankruptcy for "National" debt is what locked down the libor and consequently the trade in 2008. So this option was not a quick fix solution (although one that likely would have been better long term for the American citizens) for big business. So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.
Now should such things come to pass what does that mean for us? Austerity! There won't be the disposable income for luxuries. There will be a massive downsizing in the standard of living of most Americans and subsistence living will become the way of life for the vast majority of us. Personal spending in entertainment industries will vanish and that means that all such luxuries will be gone. The corporations won't be bailing them out either. They will be locating more completely overseas along with the minions that engineered this fiasco as they seek shelter away from an enraged public that finally realizes what has happened to them. Pro Sports could be dead as we know it as a result. We would still have television, still work, but would be bereft of the luxuries we have taken as a birthright. In such a world college athletics could exist quite nicely as what they were originally intended to be. In such a world the lavish investments in stadia, massive electronic displays, and luxurious venues would be money that once spent may no longer be recoverable. If this is the future we assume then men like Swarbrick will have had the vision to save their schools from absolute folly.
Now if all of this happens and professional sports go away, but college sports become the new professional sport because of it, just at a vastly reduced rate of expense and pay, then those who pursue doing what it takes to offer the best product could offer a sound case for why they want to go that route. They may become the only sports entertainment product on television. In that case we won't be touting the multi million dollar TV contracts that we tout today, but we would have a secure revenue stream in times of enormous drawbacks in college funding and enrollment. In that case then the choices of the Alabama's and Ohio State's could prove to be the wiser course of action.
So I don't hold Swarbrick and others as hypocrites at all. I see them as reasonable people trying to figure out the best course of action in a perilous future. What I hope is twofold. 1. That the economic outcome of the loss of world reserve status will not be as destructive as many have forecast. 2. That some compromise weighted more toward the position that Swarbrick and others hold prevails. I hold this position not because I'm against the athletes reaping benefits for their work and gifts, but because the athletic industry could well have peaked and could very easily be headed for a bottom and a future where these athletes no longer have a large professional check waiting upon their exit from school. Their educations may truly be worth their service to the school and may well wind up being their best personal economic salvation as well.
It's time to sober up folks. Realignment was started by economic instability and its final iteration may well be dictated by it as well. I hope our schools can work together instead of against one another because we are going to need all the help we can get from each other. At least that is the way I see it coming down. But, if we head down this road and survive it, it will be because we have reinvested in our local communities, states, and personally owned businesses, have rediscovered the merits of anti trust laws, and as a people who have shared a common experience in overcoming tremendously difficult times, we once again will value a wealth of considerations for our future and will weigh them carefully and responsibly before simply handing over such tedious tasks to those who for a price, decide them for us. JR
1. What does the direction of the macro economy indicate with regards to investments?
2. How do the variables of the future economy affect sports as a whole?
3. Does the likely trajectory of the economy favor inflation or deflation in athletics as a product?
4. How does that possible trajectory impact the short range and long range planning of our institution's investment in that product?
Swarbrick, Delany, some of the presidents of ACC schools, and some of the presidents of private schools everywhere (and some state schools) are having to weigh carefully the trajectory of sports revenue moving into a very uncertain future for not only sports, but more particularly for the long term health and stability of the U.S. economy. Last week in Chile that future was dealt yet another serious obstacle when the leadership of France, England, Germany and Italy joined one of our adversaries, Putin in the position of supporting a new global economic venture emanating from China, AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank).
That news coupled with Putin's refusal to trade commodities in Dollars (which started before the first of the year and was a direct challenge to status of the dollar as World Reserve Currency) has sent ripples through the global trade system that could lead to the dropping of the dollar from it's supremacy in global trade that it has held since 1945. So how on earth something so seemingly remote from the venues of college athletics have anything to do with the issue of paying players, or for that matter with realignment?
Well for starters the United States is over 60 Trillion dollars in NET debt. Folks that is debt which is unsecured by any kind of land holdings, precious metals, gross domestic product, or actual hardware (military or otherwise) that we may hold as an asset. It is the culmination of years of having the economy manipulated and siphoned by the Federal Reserve and the politicians on both sides of the aisle that it has purchased to do their bidding both internally and through foreign policies that even our closest former allies now reject. Your corporate conglomerate owned TV networks are not talking about it (so far only the NY Times dares to speak out) so I don't fault you for being unaware of the presently precarious situation that we find ourselves in economically. But people like Swarbrick and others are not ignorant of the fiscal realities that face our nation, and consequently the institutions with which they have been entrusted. The debate over the best course of college athletics is an open and undecided one for good reason. Depending upon how things play out the decision to pay, or not to pay, college athletes could have profound implications upon the future economic health of our schools. And, I might add either side could prove to be right.
Let's say the dollar is knocked out of its present position of supremacy in global trade. What that means is that the U.S. would have to exchange dollars for another currency through which it would conduct trade. This is why the U.N. is presently proposing a global currency controlled by the U.N. They see this issue as being a possible catalyst to WWIII quite literally and are trying to head off the political triggers before they are tripped. In the initial phase of the loss of WR Status the affect upon the average American home would be an inflation in all goods of initially 35% and then higher as the debt continued to mount at home. After the shock of 2008 U.S. liquidity was freed by the change of a term. The declaration of bankruptcy for "National" debt is what locked down the libor and consequently the trade in 2008. So this option was not a quick fix solution (although one that likely would have been better long term for the American citizens) for big business. So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.
Now should such things come to pass what does that mean for us? Austerity! There won't be the disposable income for luxuries. There will be a massive downsizing in the standard of living of most Americans and subsistence living will become the way of life for the vast majority of us. Personal spending in entertainment industries will vanish and that means that all such luxuries will be gone. The corporations won't be bailing them out either. They will be locating more completely overseas along with the minions that engineered this fiasco as they seek shelter away from an enraged public that finally realizes what has happened to them. Pro Sports could be dead as we know it as a result. We would still have television, still work, but would be bereft of the luxuries we have taken as a birthright. In such a world college athletics could exist quite nicely as what they were originally intended to be. In such a world the lavish investments in stadia, massive electronic displays, and luxurious venues would be money that once spent may no longer be recoverable. If this is the future we assume then men like Swarbrick will have had the vision to save their schools from absolute folly.
Now if all of this happens and professional sports go away, but college sports become the new professional sport because of it, just at a vastly reduced rate of expense and pay, then those who pursue doing what it takes to offer the best product could offer a sound case for why they want to go that route. They may become the only sports entertainment product on television. In that case we won't be touting the multi million dollar TV contracts that we tout today, but we would have a secure revenue stream in times of enormous drawbacks in college funding and enrollment. In that case then the choices of the Alabama's and Ohio State's could prove to be the wiser course of action.
So I don't hold Swarbrick and others as hypocrites at all. I see them as reasonable people trying to figure out the best course of action in a perilous future. What I hope is twofold. 1. That the economic outcome of the loss of world reserve status will not be as destructive as many have forecast. 2. That some compromise weighted more toward the position that Swarbrick and others hold prevails. I hold this position not because I'm against the athletes reaping benefits for their work and gifts, but because the athletic industry could well have peaked and could very easily be headed for a bottom and a future where these athletes no longer have a large professional check waiting upon their exit from school. Their educations may truly be worth their service to the school and may well wind up being their best personal economic salvation as well.
It's time to sober up folks. Realignment was started by economic instability and its final iteration may well be dictated by it as well. I hope our schools can work together instead of against one another because we are going to need all the help we can get from each other. At least that is the way I see it coming down. But, if we head down this road and survive it, it will be because we have reinvested in our local communities, states, and personally owned businesses, have rediscovered the merits of anti trust laws, and as a people who have shared a common experience in overcoming tremendously difficult times, we once again will value a wealth of considerations for our future and will weigh them carefully and responsibly before simply handing over such tedious tasks to those who for a price, decide them for us. JR