PAC-12 players may opt out of practices & games until demands are met in legal, written contract

JayIrwin95

Rookie
Aug 26, 2006
70
116
33
With that reasoning....you get get free income also!
I think you are missing my point. All that is value they are receiving for their work. In other words, their income or compensation. Because of that the government could place monetary value on each of those things and tax them.
Seriously, how hard is that to understand?

t's like when a pastor is charge income tax when they live in a house provided by a church, a parsonage.

What you thought the government wouldn't want a cut?
 

texas twister

HR All-American
Jan 14, 2005
4,244
2,126
113
It is far far from “free”!
These student athletes train for hours and hours each day year round, year after year.
They pay dearly, every day, year round by training lifting weights at 6AM, learning the playbook, running routes, doing walk throughs etc.
Sure it is a labor of love for some..But it is labor.
They work for it and the hours they put in are crazy.
And...their work results in many tens or hundreds of millions of “revenue” that pays coaches and administrators many millions also.
They are the ones in the arena taking a beating.
Far far from so called “free”
The "free education" is their pay. They will finish up college and, unlike millions of others, will have zero college debt. Sweet deal and they get it for doing something that they love to do.
 

kceasthawk

HR Heisman
Nov 5, 2016
7,328
6,990
113
If they didn't like the terms of the scholarship, maybe they should not have accepted them and not signed the Letter of Intent and gone elsewhere?

50/50 revenue split? Unbelievable. Jay Williams is wrong. Isn't this clown soon going to be hosting an ESPN radio show, replacing Mike Golic? If so, ESPN is gonna go further down the drain. What a joke.

Watch:

This is the thing. They signed a legal contact, and supposedly they know going in what they signed and what they are receiving. If not thats on them. Maybe this next year future recruits should not sign until they get a contract in writing with their "cut" in black and white. See how that works.
 

arizonahawkI

Team MVP
May 8, 2013
237
310
63
Reports: Text to Pac-12 players encourages possible opt-out

By The Associated Press

AUGUST 1, 2020 — 11:06PM

A text message circulating among Pac-12 football players is encouraging them to opt-out of practices and games until they can negotiate protections and benefits related to health and safety, economic rights and the fight against racial injustice.

ESPN first reported the possible movement among players at multiple Pac-12 schools and The Athletic published the text invitation. The text says a public announcement, along with a list of demands, will be published Monday through The Players Tribune and social media platforms.

“Our goals is obtain a written contract with the Pac-12 that legally ensures we are offered the following protections and benefits." I

Listed are:

— Ensure safe play during COVID-19

— Fight racial injustice

— Secure economic rights and fair compensation

— Protect all sports

— Obtain long-term health insurance

The Pac-12 on Friday announced its plan to delay the start of the season to Sept. 26 and play only 10 conference games in an attempt manage potential disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic. The states of California and Arizona, home to half the Pac-12 teams, have experienced some some of the worst surges in coronvirus cases over the last month.

The Pac-12 approved a plan that will allow teams in the conference to start 20 hours per week of team activities, including weight training, meetings and noncontact practices known as walk-throughs. Preseason practice in the Pac-12 is scheduled to start Aug. 17, but currently Southern California, UCLA and California are operating under local restrictions that would prevent their football teams from practicing.

“Neither the Conference nor our university athletics departments have been contacted by this group regarding these topics,” the Pac-12 said in a statement. “We support our student-athletes using their voices, and have regular communications with our student-athletes at many different levels on a range of topics. As we have clearly stated with respect to our fall competition plans, we are, and always will be, directed by medical experts with health, safety and well being of our student athletes, coaches and staff always the first priority. We have made it clear that any student who chooses not to return to competition for health and safety reasons will have their scholarship protected.”

Also on Saturday, The Washington Post reported on a meeting between player representatives from Southeastern Conference teams and the league's commissioner, Greg Sankey, and medial advisers. The Post obtained an audio recording of the meeting.

"For so much unknown in the air right now, is it worth having a football season without certainty?” an unidentified player asked.

Sankey responded: “Part of our work is to bring as much certainty in the midst of this really strange time as we can so you can play football in the most healthy way possible, with the understanding there aren’t any guarantees in life.”

LINK: https://www.startribune.com/reports-text-to-pac-12-players-encourages-possible-opt-out/571982982/
what these players are failing to realize is it if you want to get treated like an employee there are repercussions like taxes like if you don't cut it they're going to fire you and pull your scholarship. Better be careful what you wish for
 

Franisdaman

HR Legend
Nov 3, 2012
31,036
27,102
113
Heaven, Iowa
what these players are failing to realize is it if you want to get treated like an employee there are repercussions like taxes like if you don't cut it they're going to fire you and pull your scholarship. Better be careful what you wish for
What do you think of this demand? ;)

The group is asking the Pac-12 to distribute 50% of each sport's conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports,
 

Run&Blade

HR Legend
May 6, 2005
35,317
18,151
113
Biggest benefit is the army of academic advisors at they disposal. I would argue that is better than free college.

hell, even I might have amounted to something with that structure backing me up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkosx

Bulldogs1974

HR Heisman
Oct 16, 2012
7,312
5,311
113
What do you think of this demand? ;)

The group is asking the Pac-12 to distribute 50% of each sport's conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports,
So almost everyone is going to pay in? Most every program runs a negative balance. If Iowa wrestling loses 700k a year does that mean each of the 10 scholarship wrestlers needs to pay $70k?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkosx

Franisdaman

HR Legend
Nov 3, 2012
31,036
27,102
113
Heaven, Iowa
So almost everyone is going to pay in? Most every program runs a negative balance. If Iowa wrestling loses 700k a year does that mean each of the 10 scholarship wrestlers needs to pay $70k?
it is not a distribution of profit and loss

it would be a distribution of revenue. the athletic depts keep 50%, the players get 50%
 

DodgerHawki

HR Heisman
Nov 19, 2002
7,318
6,852
113
So almost everyone is going to pay in? Most every program runs a negative balance. If Iowa wrestling loses 700k a year does that mean each of the 10 scholarship wrestlers needs to pay $70k?
Yeah what they are talking about currently is not possible. They can't just take 50% of the revenue in football and distribute it to the players. Literally the only other sports that could exist would be men's basketball and how many women's sports would be needed to comply with Title IX. No wrestling, no baseball, no men's track or cross country or tennis or anything.

If there is no college FB season, the good news is that none of this will matter as college sports as we have come to know it may be over. Many non Power 5 teams will stop having football all together and many other sports will be cut, if not dropped altogether A school like UNI might cut sports entirely.

For the Power 5 teams, at a minimum sports will be cut at schools. Iowa is in decent financial shape, but without 80+ Million in expected revenue Iowa would have to eliminate some sports. Other schools would have to cut more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk

Run&Blade

HR Legend
May 6, 2005
35,317
18,151
113
Yeah what they are talking about currently is not possible. They can't just take 50% of the revenue in football and distribute it to the players. Literally the only other sports that could exist would be men's basketball and how many women's sports would be needed to comply with Title IX. No wrestling, no baseball, no men's track or cross country or tennis or anything.

If there is no college FB season, the good news is that none of this will matter as college sports as we have come to know it may be over. Many non Power 5 teams will stop having football all together and many other sports will be cut, if not dropped altogether A school like UNI might cut sports entirely.

For the Power 5 teams, at a minimum sports will be cut at schools. Iowa is in decent financial shape, but without 80+ Million in expected revenue Iowa would have to eliminate some sports. Other schools would have to cut more.
Imo iowa will suffer more than uni. Uni total athletic budget is about 14 million. Iowa might need to cut $100,000,000. Uni will deal with lost expenses. Iowa is going to deal with lost positive revenue.
 

Bulldogs1974

HR Heisman
Oct 16, 2012
7,312
5,311
113
I’d love to see a poll by race in d1 basketball and football players as high school seniors: will you make the nba/nfl.
I think that drives majors and class choices more than the football program. Also if they didn’t ask that question before committing then they are doing something wrong.
 

Franisdaman

HR Legend
Nov 3, 2012
31,036
27,102
113
Heaven, Iowa
What a bunch of snowflakes!

I have an idea!

How about you just get a bunch of student loans and pay your ass through college like most normal kids do?
And don't forget to accept the shame of haven grown up with "Athletic Privilege".

What a bunch of bullshit!
No justice? No peace! ;)
 

L. Wade Childress

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 9, 2001
48,621
29,906
113
If the players could actually organize and make a United stand, they actually have quite a bit of leverage. Think of all of the d1 programs that are in panic mode right now worrying about the football season being cancelled and how financially devasting it would be to their university. Now would be the perfect time for athletes to make demands and hold out. Not that it would ever happen, but.....
there’s a really easy way to save millions of dollars if they boycott football
 

H4wkfan4life

HR Legend
Jan 1, 2016
14,189
10,474
113
The "free education" is their pay. They will finish up college and, unlike millions of others, will have zero college debt. Sweet deal and they get it for doing something that they love to do.
You forgot that they'll do do without one package of ramen!!!!!
 

H4wkfan4life

HR Legend
Jan 1, 2016
14,189
10,474
113
What do you think of this demand? ;)

The group is asking the Pac-12 to distribute 50% of each sport's conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports,
I think it shows all these "high school academies" are using the kids more than the colleges. Clearly they're not educating them....
 

Bizon73

Team MVP
Jan 18, 2016
224
259
63
Fifty Lakes MN
I think it shows all these "high school academies" are using the kids more than the colleges. Clearly they're not educating them....

Its part of a growing trend that they think they need to get paid. They know most wont make the pros so they need to cash in now. That baggage handler gig isnt that lucrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkosx

DodgerHawki

HR Heisman
Nov 19, 2002
7,318
6,852
113
Imo iowa will suffer more than uni. Uni total athletic budget is about 14 million. Iowa might need to cut $100,000,000. Uni will deal with lost expenses. Iowa is going to deal with lost positive revenue.
my belief, not founded in anything other than opinion, is that Iowa could survive. Iowa could likely get a loan based on future revenue possibilities. The Big Ten has also discussed perhaps getting TV money from its partners even if a season doesn't happen to allow the departments to not shutter altogether. Still possible sports cuts, but I don't thinks sports discontinues altogether.

UNI, however, has no future expectation of high revenues. Just my opinion, of course.
 

Run&Blade

HR Legend
May 6, 2005
35,317
18,151
113
my belief, not founded in anything other than opinion, is that Iowa could survive. Iowa could likely get a loan based on future revenue possibilities. The Big Ten has also discussed perhaps getting TV money from its partners even if a season doesn't happen to allow the departments to not shutter altogether. Still possible sports cuts, but I don't thinks sports discontinues altogether.

UNI, however, has no future expectation of high revenues. Just my opinion, of course.
The bank will loan the money without a definition of what gets football played again ?

imo it might be an effective vaccine or never. That’s quite a gamble for a bank. Tax payers are going to back that type of declaration ? I doubt just the athletic department can declare bankruptcy.

you think a tax payer backed loan to pay KF and other coaches millions of dollars would go over well to the public or media? Lol. I have serious doubts.
 
Last edited:

doughuddl2

HR All-American
Sep 5, 2009
2,870
2,010
113
They get to work out in the greatest multi million dollar facilities with the greatest trainers in America. They get food and nutrition experts. They get an vietual internship into their future aspirations.

They get education, books, tutors and everything else they need to be successful.

When all this is labeled income, they will be shocked what they were getting for "free"
It will be interesting to see how they come up with the cash to pay their federal and state income tax.
 

Ladell-hawk

HR MVP
Sep 12, 2012
1,515
906
113
Good for them. Really inspiring to see young people stand up and affect positive change. When Barry Alvarez reports that Wisconsin stands to lose $100 million if there is no college football this year... it means we are exploiting these student athletes.

And for those who respond with the argument of “Ohh ohh ohh what about the free tuition and cost of living!!!”

That’s just part of the racket. It’s free to go to school through high school, but then suddenly we charge people tens of thousands of dollars to go to college?

F that.

I just finally paid off my student loans from getting my degree from the University of Iowa. And it’s overpriced.
Scholarship student athletes at the D1 level receive tuition, room and board, and a monthly stipend. If players don't want to play for the opportunity to receive a free college education then they shouldn't play, or they could skip college. The NCAA schools should wise up and just say this is what we are offering, and that is it. Play or don't play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bizon73

Bulldogs1974

HR Heisman
Oct 16, 2012
7,312
5,311
113
You could make the case that Walkons are the ones really getting f*cked. There sre not too many schools that don’t have players that did not meet the schools entrance requirements and are taking spots from Walkons that did.
 

Bizon73

Team MVP
Jan 18, 2016
224
259
63
Fifty Lakes MN
You could make the case that Walkons are the ones really getting f*cked. There sre not too many schools that don’t have players that did not meet the schools entrance requirements and are taking spots from Walkons that did.
If they dont make entrance requirements they arent on scholarship.
If they werent preferred walkons then they were off the radar and woudnt have been offered anyway.
 

Kabby

HR MVP
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
2,287
1,384
113
Why are you against the 6 years of healthcare for the student athletes? We live in a country that has the highest healthcare costs in the world and many of these kids will have lingering issues after their playing careers caused from FB. I’d like to see them extend it to a lifetime for those in need of health insurance.
lifetime health insurance? No way universities can do that. Maybe just get rid od athletics instead
 
Feb 13, 2005
12,229
1,583
113
It's kind of mind blowing--but frankly not surprising considering the "knee-jerk, don't dig deeper" mentality in today's society--that people don't understand the money side better. They obviously think that Barry and the rest of the AD's in the country are just stacking up wads of cash on their desks and are only concerned that they won't be able to do that if football isn't played.
Yes, college sports have become too much of a "business", but then again, so has tuition. How do they think the buildings, professors, materials, etc. are paid for? Well, how do they think crew, field hockey, soccer, volleyball, etc. are paid for?
Hello? McFly?
Universities' expenditures track revenue. As of now the rules are set up such that there is a cap on the amount of benefits universities can provide players, which means that the money must get spent elsewhere (e.g., salaries for coaches, administrators, extravagant facilities, etc.).

In fact, if your theory is true that universities truly do not have the ability to pay players, then removing the cap on benefits will not change anything. Do you truly believe that to be the case?

It boggles my mind why people get so bent out of shape by college athletes wanting to get fairly compensated for the value they provide universities. Why do we need a rule that limits the benefits athletes can receive?
 

LarryMullenJr.

HR All-American
Dec 7, 2011
4,638
4,697
113
Universities' expenditures track revenue. As of now the rules are set up such that there is a cap on the amount of benefits universities can provide players, which means that the money must get spent elsewhere (e.g., salaries for coaches, administrators, extravagant facilities, etc.).

In fact, if your theory is true that universities truly do not have the ability to pay players, then removing the cap on benefits will not change anything. Do you truly believe that to be the case?

It boggles my mind why people get so bent out of shape by college athletes wanting to get fairly compensated for the value they provide universities. Why do we need a rule that limits the benefits athletes can receive?

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, or I wasn't clear. I didn't give an opinion on them being paid. My issue was with people who jump on the comments made that "if football isn't played, schools will lose $Xmillion". Those folks seem to read that as the school won't have a pile of cash sitting on the AD's desk that is folly money for the school. That isn't the case at all, but in today's society, FAR too many people don't look beyond a headline.
 
Feb 13, 2005
12,229
1,583
113
I think you may have misunderstood what I said, or I wasn't clear. I didn't give an opinion on them being paid. My issue was with people who jump on the comments made that "if football isn't played, schools will lose $Xmillion". Those folks seem to read that as the school won't have a pile of cash sitting on the AD's desk that is folly money for the school. That isn't the case at all, but in today's society, FAR too many people don't look beyond a headline.
I understand your point to be that just because a program might have $100m in revenue, you have no idea whether they're actually profitable. That is similar to a business (e.g., Snapchat earned $450m in revenue in Q4 of 2019, but they had a net loss of $325m).

If that's your only point, then I agree with it.

However, if you're arguing that to be a reason why players cannot be compensated beyond what the rules currently allow, then I disagree that's why I said that a university's expenses track with revenue. If Wisconsin earns $100m of revenue, they're generally going to incur $100m of expenses because they're a nonprofit organization and do not have shareholders. So the question for them becomes, what are they going to spend the money on? No doubt you need:
  1. Administrators;
  2. Coaches;
  3. Facilities; and
  4. Players

Given the rule that universities cannot pay players beyond their scholarship and a small stipend, the cost of #4 is less than it would be without such a rule. Accordingly, the less money they need to spend on #4, the more they can spend on #1-3. However, just because the universities have found a way to spend all their revenue on #1-3 with this rule in place does not provide a compelling rationale as to why the rule should not be changed. In the short run, yes it is likely not feasible for schools to be able to pay players because of the short term budget commitments to #1-3. But in the long run they can certainly afford to increase expenses on #4 by spending less on #1-3. And that's precisely why the NCAA doesn't want this rule change - they benefit from the increased spending on #1-3.
 

LarryMullenJr.

HR All-American
Dec 7, 2011
4,638
4,697
113
I understand your point to be that just because a program might have $100m in revenue, you have no idea whether they're actually profitable. That is similar to a business (e.g., Snapchat earned $450m in revenue in Q4 of 2019, but they had a net loss of $325m).

If that's your only point, then I agree with it.

However, if you're arguing that to be a reason why players cannot be compensated beyond what the rules currently allow, then I disagree that's why I said that a university's expenses track with revenue. If Wisconsin earns $100m of revenue, they're generally going to incur $100m of expenses because they're a nonprofit organization and do not have shareholders. So the question for them becomes, what are they going to spend the money on? No doubt you need:
  1. Administrators;
  2. Coaches;
  3. Facilities; and
  4. Players

Given the rule that universities cannot pay players beyond their scholarship and a small stipend, the cost of #4 is less than it would be without such a rule. Accordingly, the less money they need to spend on #4, the more they can spend on #1-3. However, just because the universities have found a way to spend all their revenue on #1-3 with this rule in place does not provide a compelling rationale as to why the rule should not be changed. In the short run, yes it is likely not feasible for schools to be able to pay players because of the short term budget commitments to #1-3. But in the long run they can certainly afford to increase expenses on #4 by spending less on #1-3. And that's precisely why the NCAA doesn't want this rule change - they benefit from the increased spending on #1-3.

Yes, we agree on the first paragraph, and I really wasn't making a statement on your last paragraph. However, I would 'argue' that you should add #5 to your list, and that would be "All other sports".
 

LakeviewHawkeye

HR All-American
Sep 19, 2002
3,599
213
63
I understand your point to be that just because a program might have $100m in revenue, you have no idea whether they're actually profitable. That is similar to a business (e.g., Snapchat earned $450m in revenue in Q4 of 2019, but they had a net loss of $325m).

If that's your only point, then I agree with it.

However, if you're arguing that to be a reason why players cannot be compensated beyond what the rules currently allow, then I disagree that's why I said that a university's expenses track with revenue. If Wisconsin earns $100m of revenue, they're generally going to incur $100m of expenses because they're a nonprofit organization and do not have shareholders. So the question for them becomes, what are they going to spend the money on? No doubt you need:
  1. Administrators;
  2. Coaches;
  3. Facilities; and
  4. Players

Given the rule that universities cannot pay players beyond their scholarship and a small stipend, the cost of #4 is less than it would be without such a rule. Accordingly, the less money they need to spend on #4, the more they can spend on #1-3. However, just because the universities have found a way to spend all their revenue on #1-3 with this rule in place does not provide a compelling rationale as to why the rule should not be changed. In the short run, yes it is likely not feasible for schools to be able to pay players because of the short term budget commitments to #1-3. But in the long run they can certainly afford to increase expenses on #4 by spending less on #1-3. And that's precisely why the NCAA doesn't want this rule change - they benefit from the increased spending on #1-3.
Only 20 or 25 athletic departments are profitable, this is public information and reported annually by USA Today and other sources. Paying hundreds of athletes a salary in addition to what they already receive is probably unrealistic financially or without creating Title 9 issues. The Pac 12 demand around 50% of revenue being allocated to the athletes of each respective sport might be illegal under Title 9 (football players would recieve benefits women athletes would not) and would almost certainly require eliminating most non-revenue sports. I empathize with the players but the solutions require a massive transformation of college athletics and likely years to complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LarryMullenJr.
Feb 13, 2005
12,229
1,583
113
Only 20 or 25 athletic departments are profitable, this is public information and reported annually by USA Today and other sources. Paying hundreds of athletes a salary in addition to what they already receive is probably unrealistic financially or without creating Title 9 issues. The Pac 12 demand around 50% of revenue being allocated to the athletes of each respective sport might be illegal under Title 9 (football players would recieve benefits women athletes would not) and would almost certainly require eliminating most non-revenue sports. I empathize with the players but the solutions require a massive transformation of college athletics and likely years to complete.
Yes it would take years to complete. The Pac 12 players demanding 50% of the revenue in the short term is not feasible.

However, that does not mean that, in the long term, universities are unable to pay college athletes.

As for the Title IX issues....

 

mtown66

HR Heisman
Aug 15, 2006
6,582
762
113
I have a solution for those who are being abused or exploited because they are talented black athletes. Enroll at any of the HBCU and you will no longer be exploited. There are 76 such colleges or universities to choose from and I don't think they all have football teams so you might want to check first before enrolling.
 

Latest posts