Major universities make hundreds of millions off of the players. Yes a big portion of that is based on performance but university of Tennessee and other historically good teams makes hundreds of millions annually from endorsements/sponsors/adds/tickets/concessions from football alone even though the product on the field is lacking. They advertise the players, the promote the players likeness and the university benefits, not the players.
60 minutes had a piece on this a few years ago specifically talking about Michigan. I think they said the football program alone brings in between 300-600mil a year. That funds a lot of other aspects of the university but also allows the university to have impressive facilities.
Protections against corruption would definitely need to be in place. Some sort of “players union” would be a reasonable option. They get money from endorsements/games/promotions that keep the playing field even. I’m sure it won’t be a seamless transition but I think some benefit to the players is a good next step.
USC is an academic institution that charges insane tuition each year and will do fine without athletics. So will a lot of others universities but college sports is a MAJOR money maker for universities. That money funds a lot of other programs and buildings.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
This is the real issue. People are getting rich off the players, while the players are not getting rich. The inequity is the problem. The solution everyone suggests is to let the players get rich too, but the better solution is have no one get rich off of college sports. Nobody needs to be getting rich off this, and that would be the long term, sustainable solution for college athletics. Salary caps for coaches and ADs, no bowl game CEOs, and no putting the money back into luxury facilities. Just earn what you can from TV and give it to the university for academic spending.
That would, of course, require rich people to be not rich, so it could never happen. Greed will continue to wreck college athletics.
Mitt Romney, oblivious of the irony, actually said this: “What you can’t have is a couple athletes driving around in Ferraris while everybody else is basically having a hard time making ends meet.”
Sounds like the SCAA
(Soviet Collegiate Athletic Association, comrade )
There’s a lot of money in it because people like it and pay attention to it and anything people pay attention to is an opportunity to influence said people. And influencing people is money. Just how it works.
Here’s an op-ed assuring us that any concerns about the change are silly. Plus, NCAA bad.
Well, I’m only a communist when it comes to saving college sports. I’m agnostic in most other areas.
I can’t read it because of the paywall, but the media generally don’t care about parity. They care about excitement. They just want something to cover. So, from their perspective, there really is nothing to worry about. They are confused at our concern, and, as usual, they ascribe it to our lack of understanding.
This only ends in tears.