(04-02-2021 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So if Bill Gates suddenly took an interest in Univ of Washington Football and agreed to foot $25M in player salaries that would be ok?

It's certainly OK with me.

Schools and conferences look to maximize revenue at every opportunity, which I'm completely fine with. This entire forum was created in response to conference realignment, which really serves a primary overarching purpose: schools finding the place where they will make the most money.

So, if we're all fine with that at the core for schools and conferences, then I have no issue with that type of compensation. Phil Knight's largesse for Oregon could be used to actually go to the players instead of going toward building fancy palatial training facilities.

I struggle to understand how college sports fans are fine with boosters paying millions of dollars for (a) coaching salaries (or buying out those coaches in order to be fired) and (b) top tier training facilities, yet react in horror when that booster money might legitimately go directly to the players (as we all should realistically know that plenty of money illegitimately goes to the players already). It's a complete disconnect for me.

The Supreme Court Justices are asking the right question: it's a ridiculous argument that the reason the NCAA and its members make money is because their athletes *don't* make money under the guise of amateurism. There's no other business in the United States (at least post-Civil War) where that model makes any sense.

(04-02-2021 03:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 03:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Then Nike will say "Here is the list of colleges you can play for"

They effectively do that already via the AAU circuit even without (above the table) endorsement money!

And yes, that will definitely happen. No Nike-endorsed athlete is going to an Adidas school or vice versa. That's part of the bargain.

Completely agree with both of these. If the NCAA loses this just makes a lot of what is "allegedly" going on that's considered illegal, legal. It feels like some make a bigger issue out of it being legal than not even though it would happen either way.

And yeah the shoe companies have been doing that for awhile now. I couldn't find the article I read awhile back, but I found another example.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/sports/ncaa...-523407036

Quote:Pitino has been one of the more outspoken critics of shoe company influence. In 2014 he criticized the system, saying that because U of L is an Adidas affiliate, he couldn’t recruit a player from a Nike-sponsored AAU team.

"In the last five years I've seen tremendous change on this," Pitino said, "and believe me, it's a very competitive thing by these shoe companies to get players. They're going out and recruiting like us, in the summertime. 'Let's get this kid to the (Nike) EYBL. Let's get this kid in the Adidas Nations.’”

It's hard for coaches to buck the system, Pitino said, because “our pockets are lined with their money."

(04-02-2021 10:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 09:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  My big complaint is how the Justice Kavanaugh talked about "billions" of dollars moving through athletic departments.

That's akin to saying that "billions" of dollars are paid to migrant workers. It's technically true, but on a per-person basis it's peanuts.

There's 176,000 division 1 athletes splitting $10.2 billion in generated revenue (i.e., not including subsidies from schools). That's $58,000 per player. That doesn't even cover expenses: the average D-1 athletic department revenue is less than 80% of expenses.

Even just in FBS football, there's over 13,000 athletes. It is far, far different from the NFL, where there is $15 billion in revenue for 1,700 players.

I thought the point made by Kavanaugh was that the NCAA’s anti-trust provision is being used to only regulate players’ compensation...yet university and coaches’ compensation was not impacted. Coaches are now able to make $10m per year, while player compensation is capped at (about) $60k per year. The disparity in average compensation between players and coaches has grown dramatically due to the anti-trust provision. There is no market solution that protects the players from being disadvantaged.

They tried to regulate salaries on coaches and lost in court

(04-02-2021 11:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 10:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 09:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  My big complaint is how the Justice Kavanaugh talked about "billions" of dollars moving through athletic departments.

That's akin to saying that "billions" of dollars are paid to migrant workers. It's technically true, but on a per-person basis it's peanuts.

There's 176,000 division 1 athletes splitting $10.2 billion in generated revenue (i.e., not including subsidies from schools). That's $58,000 per player. That doesn't even cover expenses: the average D-1 athletic department revenue is less than 80% of expenses.

Even just in FBS football, there's over 13,000 athletes. It is far, far different from the NFL, where there is $15 billion in revenue for 1,700 players.

I thought the point made by Kavanaugh was that the NCAA’s anti-trust provision is being used to only regulate players’ compensation...yet university and coaches’ compensation was not impacted. Coaches are now able to make $10m per year, while player compensation is capped at (about) $60k per year. The disparity in average compensation between players and coaches has grown dramatically due to the anti-trust provision. There is no market solution that protects the players from being disadvantaged.

They tried to regulate salaries on coaches and lost in court

IMO, it would be rather surprising if the court were to rule that coaches pay cannot be capped, but player "pay" can be capped.

(04-03-2021 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 11:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 10:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-02-2021 09:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  My big complaint is how the Justice Kavanaugh talked about "billions" of dollars moving through athletic departments.

That's akin to saying that "billions" of dollars are paid to migrant workers. It's technically true, but on a per-person basis it's peanuts.

There's 176,000 division 1 athletes splitting $10.2 billion in generated revenue (i.e., not including subsidies from schools). That's $58,000 per player. That doesn't even cover expenses: the average D-1 athletic department revenue is less than 80% of expenses.

Even just in FBS football, there's over 13,000 athletes. It is far, far different from the NFL, where there is $15 billion in revenue for 1,700 players.

I thought the point made by Kavanaugh was that the NCAA’s anti-trust provision is being used to only regulate players’ compensation...yet university and coaches’ compensation was not impacted. Coaches are now able to make $10m per year, while player compensation is capped at (about) $60k per year. The disparity in average compensation between players and coaches has grown dramatically due to the anti-trust provision. There is no market solution that protects the players from being disadvantaged.

They tried to regulate salaries on coaches and lost in court

IMO, it would be rather surprising if the court were to rule that coaches pay cannot be capped, but player "pay" can be capped.

You put "pay" in quotes, but it sounds to me that justices are referring more directly to salaries as if these athletes are employees. If they were to explicitly say that in whatever ruling they ultimately make, they pretty much trash the fig leaf of amateurism that even the tax code relies on to treat scholarships differently than other forms of income, and to avoid having to declare sports as an unrelated business activity.