📡 Cal Football Players Leading Pac-12 Boycott if Players' Demands Aren't Met - Hero Sports (ESPN now reports)

[Tidestalker]

Please find an employee in the real world, who is still employed, who has demanded a 50/50 split on profits. A little hint...they're the ones carrying a pink slip in their hands.


I see a guy leading this who spent time in college, floundered around the NBA bus tour a few years, and is now using the kids as leverage.

Maybe so? You can also look to a majority of "negotiations" that start at one place and end at another. In many cases both sides don't get exactly what they're asking for. A free market supporter like yourself would surely understand this.

In regards to the guy leading this idea - Whether it's a NBA all star or a bust, does your opinion of him really matter? Negotiations are about leverage. If the players don't have any, or have overstepped their leverage, the PAC has every opportunity to move on... Right? What about that idea could possibly be offensive to a free market supporter?

In regards to @mando having an issue with the verbiage of the word "demand"... Maximizing leverage is hard to do by "asking nicely".

 

[TerryP]

What's the NFL split?

48%, but it's an analogy that doesn't fit. Their (NFL) TV contract is 5 Billion per year.

CBS basketball: 1.1 B
CBS FTBL - 26M
Fox (both) - 624M
ESPN/ABC - 1.142M

NFL more than double the NCAA's teams in TV revenue.

 

[Tidestalker]

But everyone wants more....more...more....

This includes the Coaches.... Right? And I'd say they have a pretty rich "agreement" in college athletics as well.

Doesn't stop them from re negotiating if/when there is revenue being produced.

 

[TerryP]

This includes the Coaches.... Right? And I'd say they have a pretty rich "agreement" in college athletics as well.

Doesn't stop them from re negotiating if/when there is revenue being produced.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The majority of a coaches income doesn't come from the University's coffiers.

 

[TerryP]

In regards to the guy leading this idea - Whether it's a NBA all star or a bust, does your opinion of him really matter? Negotiations are about leverage. If the players don't have any, or have overstepped their leverage, the PAC has every opportunity to move on... Right? What about that idea could possibly be offensive to a free market supporter?

My opinion of him doesn't affect this but it certainly should matter, to everyone. He's riding the coattails of legislation the NCAA is in the middle of drafting now and he's leveraging kids for his own cause. He's being unrealistic and doing that to anyone? Yeah, not right in the least.

I have no problems with the PAC moving on if their players want to go this route. As I said last week, I hope the end result is a separation of G5 and P5

 

[BamaFan334]

This includes the Coaches.... Right? And I'd say they have a pretty rich "agreement" in college athletics as well.

Doesn't stop them from re negotiating if/when there is revenue being produced.

You're also looking at a very tiny pool of guys that can run a top program. You can find thousands and thousands of players, but finding that one guy that can run a clean and successful program has proven to be about impossible. Just like a CEO of a company, a job not everyone can do, and even more so succeed at.

 

[Crtuneman]

It comes down to money. Colleges are already ridiculously expensive. And college education isn't worth much anymore anyway. How much more will they raise tuition to cover this so called insurance? Who qualifies for it? Every athlete? How much will that cost? Here's the thing that no one ever understands. Nothing in life is free. Someone always pays for it. If you get something handed to you it's because someone else bought it for you. This is why our economy is so screwed up. Everyone wants something for free. And they always want someone else to pay for it. These kids are already professional athletes. They make $40,000 per year (that's the cost of a scholarship) they get free trainers, free medical care, free food, and free housing. They don't pay taxes and they don't pay for utilities. I don't have a problem with them getting a stipend. But insurance is ridiculous.

 

[Tidestalker]

My opinion of him doesn't affect this but it certainly should matter, to everyone. He's riding the coattails of legislation the NCAA is in the middle of drafting now and he's leveraging kids for his own cause. He's being unrealistic and doing that to anyone? Yeah, not right in the least.

I have no problems with the PAC moving on if their players want to go this route. As I said last week, I hope the end result is a separation of G5 and P5

Fair points.

I think mine are too.

I see this free market debate, or people maximizing their leverage, the same way I see the freedom of speech debate.

Don't you get annoyed when people are for freedom of speech, unless they disagree with what someone is saying? Then they want to minimize that right.

Well I don't have a problem with anyone pushing for "more, more, more" in the free market, because if they aren't worth it, they won't get it. If they are worth it, shouldn't they get it? If not, why? And if you really look deeply, objectively, or introspectively into the "why", it may be an ugly answer.

I'm just more into letting the market dictate what is right and what isn't. Coaches who create a ton of revenue SHOULD get their fair share.... But players are going to ask for more as well. If the PAC or any league, sport, affiliation can proceed without that particular group of talents... They will! Again, I have no issue with it. And I don't see any reason for someone to be offended or disgruntled about it either.

 

[OldPlayer]

48%, but it's an analogy that doesn't fit. Their (NFL) TV contract is 5 Billion per year.

CBS basketball: 1.1 B
CBS FTBL - 26M
Fox (both) - 624M
ESPN/ABC - 1.142M

NFL more than double the NCAA's teams in TV revenue.

So do you give more revenue to teams that play on ABC/ESPN than on CBS? Do you take money away from teams in a conference that secured a lucrative TV agreement? What about teams that don't get frequent exposure on TV? If you want to make things "equal," it sounds like socialism.

 

[BamaFan334]

Fair points.

I think mine are too.

I see this free market debate, or people maximizing their leverage, the same way I see the freedom of speech debate.

Don't you get annoyed when people are for freedom of speech, unless they disagree with what someone is saying? Then they want to minimize that right.

Well I don't have a problem with anyone pushing for "more, more, more" in the free market, because if they aren't worth it, they won't get it. If they are worth it, shouldn't they get it? If not, why? And if you really look deeply, objectively, or introspectively into the "why", it may be an ugly answer.

I'm just more into letting the market dictate what is right and what isn't. Coaches who create a ton of revenue SHOULD get their fair share.... But players are going to ask for more as well. If the PAC or any league, sport, affiliation can proceed without that particular group of talents... They will! Again, I have no issue with it. And I don't see any reason for someone to be offended or disgruntled about it either.

Well how would you handle Title IX and how it applies? Sure, the revenue generating football players want more, but what about the women that you have to provide a 1/1 to? My guess is the football players don't give an eff about the other athletes, and they most likely aren't smart enough to understand the underlying implications of their "demands" and how far they reach. Like someone said above, where does it end? Eventually college is going to cost too much. We are probably past that point to be honest, but for the sake of the discussion we'll assume the dam is about to break. Boosters will only take so much before they stop writing checks. Sure, you'll have the big dogs that somehow finagle the tax system with their donations, trusts, and non-profits to funnel money, but the real earning day-to-day Americans will not be able to afford the continuation of inflated costs to go see a football game. I highly doubt any of these players have given this one thought outside of making theirselves rich without thinking they could also go home broke with nothing if they continue to poke the bear. Cord cutting cable wise is underway as well, so these massive tv deals won't be the new norm in my mind. I could be wrong there, but not many Americans can afford a $200 cable bill each month.

 

[Tidestalker]

Well how would you handle Title IX and how it applies? Sure, the revenue generating football players want more, but what about the women that you have to provide a 1/1 to?

GREAT QUESTION! And this is where my point about the design of the NCAA, and government entanglement, has some serious issues.

Much like you, I have more questions than answers! Title IX creates some serious revenue issues, and is far from any type of "free market" idea that would allow universities to maximize incomes.

My overall point is that I don't have an issue with the athletes asking for more... Whether or not I agree with if they should get it, or even why they're asking for it, is besides the point.

 

[planomateo]

If we're going to go down this path, then make them pay for their education, the full cost. Meals, tutoring, room, tuition, books, clothing, physical therapy, etc.

 

[BamaFan334]

GREAT QUESTION! And this is where my point about the design of the NCAA, and government entanglement, has some serious issues.

Much like you, I have more questions than answers! Title IX creates some serious revenue issues, and is far from any type of "free market" idea that would allow universities to maximize incomes.

My overall point is that I don't have an issue with the athletes asking for more... Whether or not I agree with if they should get it, or even why they're asking for it, is besides the point.

I understand your point, and even as a fan of the free market, you do have to wonder where this will be capped. Give Give Give. Kind of like I was discussing the financial implications of not having a season (loss of money), now you have players (wanting more money), so when does it hit a crossroads? Money has to come from somewhere, so these current players could be hurting future generations if the treasure chest isn't as full once people dump cable and quit showing up in record numbers to games. Are the star players wanting more of that 50% revenue than the walk-on legacy that is a part of the team and considered a student-athlete? Lots of questions as you put it, so once again I hope they don't tip to the quick thinking of young athletes that I'm doubting thought past their own wallets.

 

[TerryP]

One example of how this would work if passed in its current form.

UofSC has 570 athletes.
Expenses last report: $140,146,333
Revenue last report: $140,295,659
Total revenue minus expenses: $149,326.
50%: 74,663
per athlete: @ $131 per.

Well I don't have a problem with anyone pushing for "more, more, more" in the free market, because if they aren't worth it, they won't get it. If they are worth it, shouldn't they get it? If not, why? And if you really look deeply, objectively, or introspectively into the "why", it may be an ugly answer.

From day one it's been said "once they start with this, they'll want more, and more."

Stipend. Fair move, they can't work.

NLI: As it's being written they're asking for more.

Demanding or we'll quit.

 

[Tidestalker]

One example of how this would work if passed in its current form.

UofSC has 570 athletes.
Expenses last report: $140,146,333
Revenue last report: $140,295,659
Total revenue minus expenses: $149,326.
50%: 74,663
per athlete: @ $131 per.

From day one it's been said "once they start with this, they'll want more, and more."

Stipend. Fair move, they can't work.

NLI: As it's being written they're asking for more.

Demanding or we'll quit.

I wonder how the last P12 TV contract negotiation went.... Ya think they asked for less? And the one previous to that, asked for less? I doubt it.

The whole world is constantly negotiating (or demanding) more, and if you're worth it, you'll get it.

And to add - Thanks for the #'s... I agree there isn't much of a margin when the sports are combined to an entire athletic department. But that has never stopped the Coaches from getting raises. And I do agree and submit to the payment process being different for Coaches - Maybe that's where football and mens basketball players should really be focused? Might make more sense.

 

[TerryP]

wonder how the last P12 TV contract negotiation went.... Ya think they asked for less? And the one previous to that, asked for less? I doubt it.

You're talking about something you need to research. Their TV situation is a daily sitcom, on NPR money.

And they're begging.

 

[TerryP]

But that has never stopped the Coaches from getting raises

That's not from the budget. I keep telling you this. That's outside money.

 

[Tidestalker]

You're talking about something you need to research. Their TV situation is a daily sitcom, on NPR money.

And they're begging.

For less or more money?

 

[Tidestalker]

That's not from the budget. I keep telling you this. That's outside money.

And I do agree and submit to the payment process being different for Coaches - Maybe that's where football and mens basketball players should really be focused? Might make more sense.

 

[JoseyWalesTheOutlaw]

Football on the left coast is doing down and nothing can be done about it. UCLA and USC should have millions of bucks to waste but neither do.