- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Pac-12 players, led by some at Cal, are threatening to boycott the football season. Why? Sure, they want more Covid testing, but they’re also demanding a 50/50 revenue share and 6 years of health insurance after they’re done playing football.
-
Good on ’em. The revenue share bit is ridiculous but the health insurance thing I fully endorse. The NCAA is subsidized heavily by private and I’m sure public health insurance. Honestly I’d say for football players the time limit should be more like a decade, but that’ll never happen.
A huge number of issues started to crop up for me once I lost the extreme skeletal stability that heavy muscles provided. At 28 I suddenly couldn’t climb stairs because as my legs lost muscles they became more “normally” aligned and that caused a ton of bone on bone issues. Subsequent surgery cleaned some of it up with an admonition by the doctor that I had a “60-year old knee and the activity level of a 28-year old.”
Now, is that the NCAA’s responsibility, the schools’, or the players’? We’ll never know. But I can guarantee you that the school doesn’t want an additional 6 X 25 people (assuming that ~25 people leave the football program every year) to provide insurance for in steady state. At today’s premiums that’s probably another 1.2 million bucks a year in round numbers. Multiply that by all member schools for the NCAA, and you can see the issue.
It’s all about the benjamins.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)-
I don’t find the revenue share rate proposal to be ridiculous. I may be wrong, but isn’t this near to “market rates”? Doesn’t the NFLPA get 50%-60% of the total revenue? The schools could reasonably expect some offset for the marginal costs of the tuition, room & board, no?
This is purely speculation on my part, but with the higher broadcast, licensing and merchandise revenues generated by the NFL, I suspect the college coaching staffs are among the most overpaid employees relative to market.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long
-
-
I should have edited my comment on the revenue share. Instead of saying it was “ridiculous” I should have said that it was entirely reasonable but will be viewed as ridiculous by the NCAA and conference. I wrote too quickly.
I totally believe that big time football should be spun out of universities and treated as for profit clubs. All this stuff at Stanford about the athletic department not sharing the endowment essentially already does that. Football is one big for profit entertainment operation that the university reserves student admissions slots for because those students enrich the student population and experience, and they bring donors together. Just because the football teams profits are used to subsidize a bunch of other sports doesn’t mean it isn’t for profit.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
-
-
Cal players on strike? No one will go to Berkley on game day except poor, drunk and deranged…..oh. Those ARE Cal fans…
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/17/berkeley-city-council-rolls-out-red-carpet-crimina/?utm_source=parler -
THIS IS HOW KAL ACTS WHEN WE LET THEM HAVE THE AXE ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS.
“I remember that one fateful day when Coach took me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the team, aren't I?" "Well," said Coach, "you never were really ON the team. You made that uniform you're wearing out of rags and towels, and your helmet is a toy space helmet. You show up at practice and then either steal the ball and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to tackle people at inappropriate times." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I
-
-
[quote quote=1460]If football becomes a pay if you play sport, the rest of college athletics is doomed. Really interesting in a Title IX environment. Who do you pay on the women’s side? Hoops and what else?[/quote]
It would never fly because of title IX wrong-ness and also greed, but why not just pay based on the net revenue generated by the sport after its individual expenses and reasonable overhead?
If a women’s sport sustains itself and generates a profit, then pay.
It really isn’t that hard but we have to create a world of equal outcomes when the value of the input is vastly different between men and women.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
Then there is an argument about equal pay vs equal compensation. Womens Soccer lost it’s argument for equal pay when the judge ruled women negotiated and agreed to a CBA that has a lower base but gaurantees plus benefits not in the mens CBA.
“The history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players,” (Judge) Klausner wrote.
Life lesson for all involved – if you want a gaurantee, don’t get pissed off when someone with a performance bonus plan makes more than you.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.