JBo the activist
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
They're getting paid with their scholarship
he thinks he should get a cut for every Iowa #3 jersey sold
Not really sure what the message is here. The shirt says “Pay the Players,” implying that the creator feels that they should make a wage. The creator’s pinned tweet announcing the shirts,
seems to imply that he feels the athletes should be able to profit off of their own names and likenesses, which is a totally different argument and makes the shirts kind of dumb and nonsensical imo.
I agree that players should be able to profit off of their own “brand.” A salary/wage will never work. Just get rid of the one and done rule and let players who want to get paid, get paid
seems to imply that he feels the athletes should be able to profit off of their own names and likenesses, which is a totally different argument and makes the shirts kind of dumb and nonsensical imo.
I agree that players should be able to profit off of their own “brand.” A salary/wage will never work. Just get rid of the one and done rule and let players who want to get paid, get paid
They should get paid! Bringing in millions to NCAA and Universities! It’s time they get their fair share and stop with the whole they get their scholarship talk - silly
So should players get a free education, and be paid? I think it should be one or the other. There are a lot of other kids that would kill for a scholarship to a university just to sit on the bench and never play one minute of a division 1 sport while they focused on their academics.
And maybe if a player goes the one-and-done route, they are obligated to pay back their scholarship for that one year. But it is way too early for me to think about this right now.
And maybe if a player goes the one-and-done route, they are obligated to pay back their scholarship for that one year. But it is way too early for me to think about this right now.
Yes they should get both. And maybe if those kids worked as hard as the other kids they would get that chance. No one says life is fair. Their are plenty of sports that do not generate revenue. But the football and basketball revenue generating athletes should be comped in some form.
People are very unaware of what Div 1 athletes ‘get’ it’s not a bad deal for them.
Pretty good deal for the students. The athletes from the football and basketball teams generate all the revenue - tickets, TV, Marketing, Advertising, for other athletes to be on scholarship and to keep tuition down for other students by the millions and millions they generate for the University or College.
They keep tuition down for the other students? Like the general population students?
They do get paid: tuition, housing, food. Not a bad deal.
Yes, the kids put in a ton of extra work and time BY CHOICE.
Yes, the kids put in a ton of extra work and time BY CHOICE.
Make millions and millions for the university. Pay them or schools keep cheating and we keep losing
Maybe the answer is to go back to student athletes. No more scholarships and strict academic standards. Adios to million dollar coaches and mega TV contracts. I think the NCAA is a money machine to enrich itself.
Can you support that position at all? Or are you going on revenue alone? In which case they bring in millions. It just never hits any fund that reduces tuition, at the vast majority of schools athletics get support from student fees.
“At Rutgers, students pay about $326 each, generating $10.3 million.
“It’s crazy. It’s a struggle for me, every semester, to get the money together,” said Rutgers sophomore Eric Dillenberger, 20, who works summers as a short-order cook at a pizza shop. He expects to graduate with at least $25,000 in debt.”
There is one. FYI Rutgers is in the B1G
“It’s crazy. It’s a struggle for me, every semester, to get the money together,” said Rutgers sophomore Eric Dillenberger, 20, who works summers as a short-order cook at a pizza shop. He expects to graduate with at least $25,000 in debt.”
There is one. FYI Rutgers is in the B1G
https://www.iowaregents.edu/media/cms/0818_ITEM03__Budgets_74CFFD8543326.pdf
You may want to review this one as well. I believe page 14 where facility debt service/student fees are listed as revenue.
You may want to review this one as well. I believe page 14 where facility debt service/student fees are listed as revenue.
I’m down with players profiting from jersey sales, likeness, autographs, etc.
maybe if the kids could make a little money off of their name they would not be in such a hurry to go pro?????
Good point. Maybe the borderline players like Cook would stay in school if they had the opportunity to pocket some cash, legitimately, while fine tuning their game.
Great question! I would imagine it would be pretty difficult for us to find out the revenue generated from jersey sales for any one individual player.
How do you determine which Iowa #25 is going to get paid? Manufacturers will take the name off to avoid the royalty, past #25’s will say ‘hey they sold my jersey, I want my cut’
If they put the name on the back of the jersey, it’s possible that manufacturers would sell more jerseys and could also raise the prices slightly to make up for the royalty though. I’m not personally a big jersey guy, but would definitely rather buy one relating to a specific player than a generic numbered one. Don’t know if this is true or not for everybody
Require sellers to put the name on the back of the jersey as a part of the licensing agreement. Pay the players a fair share of the revenue generated by their jersey or other merchandise.
There are 806 student athletes at the University of Iowa. Should all of the student athletes be paid, or just the ones that play in sports that generate most of the revenue?
How should the University break down the pay? Should football players receive more money than the basketball players since the football team generates more revenue? What about the track team? Should they get left out of revenue sharing?
I've thought about revenue sharing a bit. It's my opinion that the schools that cheat the system now will continue to cheat the system if revenue sharing with student athletes is allowed. Schools like Alabama ( not saying they cheat, I just suspect they bend the rules to the point of breaking at the very least ) will find a way to compensate their players beyond what the rules allow.
How should the University break down the pay? Should football players receive more money than the basketball players since the football team generates more revenue? What about the track team? Should they get left out of revenue sharing?
I've thought about revenue sharing a bit. It's my opinion that the schools that cheat the system now will continue to cheat the system if revenue sharing with student athletes is allowed. Schools like Alabama ( not saying they cheat, I just suspect they bend the rules to the point of breaking at the very least ) will find a way to compensate their players beyond what the rules allow.
Yes, you should be compensated based on the revenue that your respective sport brings in. That is one of the big problems with this Title IX would be a roadblock to paying some players and not others.
There are so many variables in this idea of paying players. More. If they get paid straight up, my tax dollars won't be going to tuition, so that is calculated as out of state, same with room and board. They would be paying taxes on all of that. Separate insurance and everything else...
It costs a lot to run a program for each player. You have the training table, stipend, doctors, surgeries, rehab, coaches, managers, trainers, arena costs, basketball facilities expenses, insurance, equipment, administrative support staff, etc,etc.
Then how do you split it with other sports still, or do all the other sports disappear?? Or worse, they turn into clubs?
There would have to be some type of revenue sharing between teams and conferences, like the NFL. Or when one conference starts to take over, and then dominate financially, it's game over for the others. And the sport is ruined...for all but a few.
Try brokering that deal.
It costs a lot to run a program for each player. You have the training table, stipend, doctors, surgeries, rehab, coaches, managers, trainers, arena costs, basketball facilities expenses, insurance, equipment, administrative support staff, etc,etc.
Then how do you split it with other sports still, or do all the other sports disappear?? Or worse, they turn into clubs?
There would have to be some type of revenue sharing between teams and conferences, like the NFL. Or when one conference starts to take over, and then dominate financially, it's game over for the others. And the sport is ruined...for all but a few.
Try brokering that deal.
Yes some of this sounds easy in theory. But if any Division 1 football team were to take all of the revenue brought in by football (ticket sales + TV money for football) and just divide that up to distribute to the players) lawsuits on behalf of non-revenue sports and women's sports would be filed in federal court before you can utter the word lawsuit. Female athletes must be given the same level of support and opportunities as the male athletes according to the law. So schools directly paying the players is likely to encounter a lot of roadblocks. To say nothing of the fact that the football-related revenue literally pays for the infrastructure (coaches, travel expenses, scholarships, etc.) of every other non-revenue sport (male and female). In the end, schools don't "make a bunch of money" off football and basketball. They use the money generated by those sports (mainly football) to pay for everything else.
What I think will happen is that they will allow athletes to make money off their likeness (selling jerseys, getting money from advertisers, etc.) That would allow either male or female athletes to make money. I'm sure Gustafson would have been tremendously popular with Eastern Iowa companies as a rep this past year or 2.
The players do need to not overplay their hand here as the public will turn against them. Some act as if they are oppressed, when they have the opportunity to get an education at a great university and graduate with no debt. That is a huge advantage over many of their fellow students.
There are two different things at play here, paying players for their play and paying them royalties based on their name and likeness. Paying directly will never work because of Title IX and other limitations mentioned above. Royalties is more possible but would bring a host of problems and would just increase the cheating that is already going on.
If a player can make money off of their jersey sales, autographs, etc. it opens the door to huge (illegal??) paydays. You don't think that a big Texas oil baron would pay $200,000 for the star quarterback's autograph as a way to filter money to the player? The local car dealer could hire the star running back as a spokesperson for $10,000,000 per year. Notre Dame and their huge alumni base would love this as they could pay more than any other program in the country, legally. The recent college admission scandal would just change to "buy an autographed team picture for $5,000,000 and we can get your child in" much more above board.
This would create more inequities among schools, not reduce them. In the end this would be a loss for Iowa as we do not have nearly the amount of "dirty money" today and nowhere near the wealthy supporters to keep up if this is allowed.
If a player can make money off of their jersey sales, autographs, etc. it opens the door to huge (illegal??) paydays. You don't think that a big Texas oil baron would pay $200,000 for the star quarterback's autograph as a way to filter money to the player? The local car dealer could hire the star running back as a spokesperson for $10,000,000 per year. Notre Dame and their huge alumni base would love this as they could pay more than any other program in the country, legally. The recent college admission scandal would just change to "buy an autographed team picture for $5,000,000 and we can get your child in" much more above board.
This would create more inequities among schools, not reduce them. In the end this would be a loss for Iowa as we do not have nearly the amount of "dirty money" today and nowhere near the wealthy supporters to keep up if this is allowed.
The more potentially feasible solution is to allow the players to profit from merch, video games, promotional items etc.
Direct payments would have too many problems. Are you going to pay field hockey players, golfers and every other minor sport that few care about? And if so, how much and where is that going to come from? Title IX would essentially force equal payments across the board.
Allowing players to make money from their likeness has its own issues, but not insurmountable.
Direct payments would have too many problems. Are you going to pay field hockey players, golfers and every other minor sport that few care about? And if so, how much and where is that going to come from? Title IX would essentially force equal payments across the board.
Allowing players to make money from their likeness has its own issues, but not insurmountable.
Good point. I think Iowa might fair better than most schools in this (legal cheating?) scheme. But the disparities between schools would grow exponentially, and ruin the sport.
Not sure how to fix the discrepancies and make it fair.... But Since literally 99% of NCAA basketball players do not get drafted, and that 1% doesn't guarantee a spot, most of these guys won't be making money after college playing ball professionally. Isn't a full ride a decent deal?
Not sure how to fix the discrepancies and make it fair.... But Since literally 99% of NCAA basketball players do not get drafted, and that 1% doesn't guarantee a spot, most of these guys won't be making money after college playing ball professionally. Isn't a full ride a decent deal?
I don't buy the argument that it adds room for illegal payments. That same Texas oil baron can pay those same players today. What's the difference?
I’m not totally buying it. No individual/company is going to pay millions of dollars per year indefinitely for one college football player. If they do, then good for them. If Notre Dame and other schools’ boosters want to siphon tens of millions of dollars to fund their football team year in and year out, then the way I see it, they’re putting money in the hands of kids who will spend it and stimulate the economy lol.
Meanwhile, Iowa boosters can pay their players some money too, and they’ll still have the advantage of knowing they’ve got a good shot at the NFL. Iowa can pretty much keep getting the exact players they’re getting now. My opinion is that a scenario like this may actually level the playing field a bit. What if a running back goes to San Jose State instead of Alabama or Notre Dame because a rich alum basically pays them?
