Yet another massive headache for the NCAA... (link)

[BlueMAB]

This is such antiquated thinking.

Employers pay for their employees’ tuition, room, food, licensing fees, etc all the time. Fringe benefits are common.

Making students pay for those things will just result in them simply negotiating for more money to offset the cost. Those things are already simply part of their compensation.

Dan Hurley gets 20 tickets/game, 5 parking passes, a country club membership, $15k annual allowance for a vehicle (can’t afford his own on his salary?), but the players should pay for their food and housing? They are required to remain academically eligible, so they have to go to class to play, but if you want to treat them like that, are you going to pay them for the hours they are in class since it is part of the job?

@temery my mistake, missed that you were discussing a different class of students.

 

[upstater]

Pollyannish was obviously the wrong word.

I didn’t say it’s a not a big deal. I don’t see it as a massive headache. They’ve been treated like employees for decades.

This really changes everything institutionally. The class of employees is treated entirely different than students, both inside institutions but also state by state. It's a sea change.

 

[upstater]

This is such antiquated thinking.

Employers pay for their employees’ tuition, room, food, licensing fees, etc all the time. Fringe benefits are common.

Making students pay for those things will just result in them simply negotiating for more money to offset the cost. Those things are already simply part of their compensation.

Dan Hurley gets 20 tickets/game, 5 parking passes, a country club membership, $15k annual allowance for a vehicle (can’t afford his own on his salary?), but the players should pay for their food and housing? They are required to remain academically eligible, so they have to go to class to play, but if you want to treat them like that, are you going to pay them for the hours they are in class since it is part of the job?

This is the whole problem. You have students, TAs, that bring even more money to the university, and they don't receive this compensation either. You have a whole class of employees. The whole thinking is weird, especially when the vast majority of the schools ADs are in the red. Makes you scratch your head.

 

[temery]

@temery my mistake, missed that you were discussing a different class of students.

No, you were right the first time.

 

[CJasmer]

This is the whole problem. You have students, TAs, that bring even more money to the university, and they don't receive this compensation either. You have a whole class of employees. The whole thinking is weird, especially when the vast majority of the schools ADs are in the red. Makes you scratch your head.

I disagree. The top 20 FBS teams are not in the red. The losses are caused by football and basketball funding the whole athletic department. I think what is fair is each sport within a college share only the net profit they bring in. This means at most schools only athletes getting paid would be football and basketball players. That is fair and equitable to the athletes that actually generate the revenue. The issue will be Title IX. Will a judge decide all athletes at a school should get to share in the money generated mainly by football.

 

[CJasmer]

I disagree. The top 20 FBS teams are not in the red. The losses are caused by football and basketball funding the whole athletic department. I think what is fair is each sport within a college share only the net profit they bring in. This means at most schools only athletes getting paid would be football and basketball players. That is fair and equitable to the athletes that actually generate the revenue. The issue will be Title IX. Will a judge decide all athletes at a school should get to share in the money generated mainly by football.

Same analogy is NBA vs WNBA where NBA basically is keeping WNBA afloat.

 

[BlueMAB]

You have students, TAs, that bring even more money to the university, and they don't receive this compensation either.

Show your work.

 

[Kolumbo]

This is the whole problem. You have students, TAs, that bring even more money to the university, and they don't receive this compensation either. You have a whole class of employees. The whole thinking is weird, especially when the vast majority of the schools ADs are in the red. Makes you scratch your head.

Students and TAs receive a degree, that is what they are working towards. That is their compensation. I paid tuition in exchange for a degree so I don't consider that an employer-employee relationship. TAs and kids who receive scholarships could be considered employees I suppose. They're receiving a benefit with no financial cost.

 

[upstater]

Students and TAs receive a degree, that is what they are working towards. That is their compensation. I paid tuition in exchange for a degree so I don't consider that an employer-employee relationship. TAs and kids who receive scholarships could be considered employees I suppose. They're receiving a benefit with no financial cost.

O, so, they're in the same class as athletes.

 

[temery]

O, so, they're in the same class as athletes.

Same class as 95% of athletes, yes. A very small number bring in money to the university.

 

[Kolumbo]

O, so, they're in the same class as athletes.

Not literally. The athletes usually don't attend class.

But in theory, yes. If they receive a scholarship, they are receiving a benefit. Usually not taxable income, but a benefit nevertheless.

 

[upstater]

Show your work.

TAs in this country teach a 1-1 or a 2-2 plus summer and winter sessions to make ends meet.

Let's take a B1G school. Penn State. They teach a 2-2. You pick up an extra course in the summer for $3k.

5 courses x 40 students = 200 students a year. $4.5k per student ($1k for in-staters, $2k out of staters per credit x 3 credits per course, 50% of students out of state [int'l students pay even more]). 200 x $4.5k = $900k.

 

[upstater]

Not literally. The athletes usually don't attend class.

But in theory, yes. If they receive a scholarship, they are receiving a benefit. Usually not taxable income, but a benefit nevertheless.

I agree with this, but this is the reason I compared the 2 in the first place.

 

[upstater]

Same class as 95% of athletes, yes. A very small number bring in money to the university.

I would say that TAs and regular students are certainly sources of big revenues to the university. They are probably the main source of revenue at most universities.

 

[dennismenace]

Isn’t there some line about knowing a society is headed downhill when the number of lawyers exceeds the number of engineers?

I remember a quote some years back saying we were graduating 10 -1 for lawyers to engineers. We are also losing doctors to the law field as well. A lot of this can have a Wall St background because of the money.

When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks he said:
"Because that's where the money is"

 

[prankster]

But in theory, yes. If they receive a scholarship, they are receiving a benefit. Usually not taxable income, but a benefit nevertheless.

"Imputed income"?

 

[temery]

I would say that TAs and regular students are certainly sources of big revenues to the university. They are probably the main source of revenue at most universities.

edit: a very small number of athletes bring in revenue.

 

[BlueMAB]

TAs in this country teach a 1-1 or a 2-2 plus summer and winter sessions to make ends meet.

Let's take a B1G school. Penn State. They teach a 2-2. You pick up an extra course in the summer for $3k.

5 courses x 40 students = 200 students a year. $4.5k per student ($1k for in-staters, $2k out of staters per credit x 3 credits per course, 50% of students out of state [int'l students pay even more]). 200 x $4.5k = $900k.

Option 1) replace the TAs with professors
Option 2) eliminate summer and winter sessions (we've seen this with schools eliminating sports to comply with Title IX and due to budgetary concerns).
Option 3) TAs attempt to unionize and collectively bargain

I'm not sure who exactly you're referring to when you say "TAs bring in even more money", but it can't be the student-athletes.

With the Big Ten’s recently announced additions of USC and UCLA, the new media deal is expected to bring “more than $7 billion” to the conference, per ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg. Furthermore, Rittenberg said the conference is expected to distribute “$80 million-$100 million per year to each of its 16 members.”

 

[BlueMAB]

edit: a very small number of athletes bring in revenue.

edit: a very small number of athletes bring in profits.
revenue =/= profit.

 

[upstater]

Option 1) replace the TAs with professors
Option 2) eliminate summer and winter sessions (we've seen this with schools eliminating sports to comply with Title IX and due to budgetary concerns).
Option 3) TAs attempt to unionize and collectively bargain

I'm not sure who exactly you're referring to when you say "TAs bring in even more money", but it can't be the student-athletes.

With the Big Ten’s recently announced additions of USC and UCLA, the new media deal is expected to bring “more than $7 billion” to the conference, per ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg. Furthermore, Rittenberg said the conference is expected to distribute “$80 million-$100 million per year to each of its 16 members.”

??

Summer and winter sessions are huge profit makers for schools. WHy are we eliminating them? Schools are paying $3k per class to the employees, that's below minimum wage.

What are you trying to accomplish?

That link you gave shows the athletes are making less than $900k per athlete which is what I calculated above. If you factor in expenses of coaching salaries, trainers, support, travel, stadiums, etc., it's much much much less.

 

[BlueMAB]

Summer and winter sessions are huge profit makers for schools. WHy are we eliminating them? Schools are paying $3k per class to the employees, that's below minimum wage.

We aren't eliminating them. You're talking about huge headaches and arguing TAs should be paid like athletes if athletes are employees. There are options to eliminate the huge headaches, or simply deal with the changing landscape. Schools are not required to use TAs, are they?

What are you trying to accomplish?

Nothing. You?

That link you gave shows the athletes are making less than $900k per athlete which is what I calculated above. If you factor in expenses of coaching salaries, trainers, support, travel, stadiums, etc., it's much much much less.

You wrote:
"You have students, TAs, that bring even more money to the university, and they don't receive this compensation either."

More money than who? $900k in revenues < $80M. TAs have every right (for now) to work together to improve their working conditions/wages.

The link I gave shows what the athletes are bringing in, $80-$100M/year in media rights alone. I think that's slightly higher than the $900k being brought in by TAs. I didn't mention ticket sales, the revenues generated from donations (required and voluntary), etc.

If the courts don't buy the NCAA's argument, it is still exponentially easier to manage 40 TAs with no NCAA oversight, than it is roughly 800 student-athletes with NCAA oversight, NIL collectives, and Title IX (which I support) ramifications. It is quite easy to call the theater production an unpaid internship, those still exist, and are perfectly legal.

My opinion remains this isn't the massive headache you're making it out to be.

 

[Patman]

edit: a very small number of athletes bring in profits.
revenue =/= profit.

bingo. The Dartmouth case was decided on the fact that the school sells merchandise not that the sport sells tickets. Note that a lot of these rulings would mean that the chess club should be employees and any intermural club sports (those that play other schools) would also be employees

 

[upstater]

We aren't eliminating them. You're talking about huge headaches and arguing TAs should be paid like athletes if athletes are employees. There are options to eliminate the huge headaches, or simply deal with the changing landscape. Schools are not required to use TAs, are they?

Nothing. You?


You wrote:
"You have students, TAs, that bring even more money to the university, and they don't receive this compensation either."

More money than who? $900k in revenues < $80M. TAs have every right (for now) to work together to improve their working conditions/wages.

The link I gave shows what the athletes are bringing in, $80-$100M/year in media rights alone. I think that's slightly higher than the $900k being brought in by TAs. I didn't mention ticket sales, the revenues generated from donations (required and voluntary), etc.

If the courts don't buy the NCAA's argument, it is still exponentially easier to manage 40 TAs with no NCAA oversight, than it is roughly 800 student-athletes with NCAA oversight, NIL collectives, and Title IX (which I support) ramifications. It is quite easy to call the theater production an unpaid internship, those still exist, and are perfectly legal.

My opinion remains this isn't the massive headache you're making it out to be.

$900k per TA

The intersession stuff was only there to show you how much revenue they generate.

Not a discussion if it should be happening.

If universities got rid of TAs for tenured faculty, costs would skyrocket.

But again, $900k PER TA.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

edit: a very small number of athletes bring in revenue.

But yet have a very high overhead cost. Only about 15-20 universities actually profit from their AD.

That said, I wonder what percent of universities actually have an operating profit these days?

 

[prankster]

$900k per TA

The intersession stuff was only there to show you how much revenue they generate.

Not a discussion if it should be happening.

If universities got rid of TAs for tenured faculty, costs would skyrocket.

But again, $900k PER TA.

It is an interesting game to play, and fraught with danger.

What game? Level valuation. This can be especially problematic within a large university experience.

Not all employees can be valued the same. Not all degrees and disciplines can be valued the same. Yet, within the university community, there is a lot of (at least theoretically) presumptive uniformity of "worth".

The capitalistic world disagrees. The best NBA prospect in the nation carries a much higher value (as does his coach) than the #1 Women's NCAA Badminton player (and her coach).

And that goes for TAs, grad assistants and any number of glass washers in the chemistry building.

I do not envy anyone trying to bring "uniformity" or "fairness" to the discussion.

Although, the floodgates have just.been opened. ..... NIL, student/athletes as employees, free agency (see the portal), exit fees and grant of rights lawsuits, conference realignment.....

One thing I know, there are going to be a lot of billable hours up for grabs.

 

[upstater]

It is an interesting game to play, and fraught with danger.

What game? Level valuation. This can be especially problematic within a large university experience.

Not all employees can be valued the same. Not all degrees and disciplines can be valued the same. Yet, within the university community, there is a lot of (at least theoretically) presumptive uniformity of "worth".

The capitalistic world disagrees. The best NBA prospect in the nation carries a much higher value (as does his coach) than the #1 Women's NCAA Badminton player (and her coach).

And that goes for TAs, grad assistants and any number of glass washers in the chemistry building.

I do not envy anyone trying to bring "uniformity" or "fairness" to the discussion.

Although, the floodgates have just.been opened. ..... NIL, student/athletes as employees, free agency (see the portal), exit fees and grant of rights lawsuits, conference realignment.....

One thing I know, there are going to be a lot of billable hours up for grabs.

There's way too much to be said in this discussion. But we're discussing things on the aggregate here and a payment scheme with a cap for ALL athletes on the team. The money is capped, it will be uniform.

We're not talking about compensation for Zion Williamson here. The deal is $20m per school. They may indeed need to, or choose to, give an equal amount to the badminton player.

 

[huskymedic]

Another perspective:

-> Johnson v. NCAA plaintiffs’ attorney Paul McDonald joins the Sports Wise podcast with Tulane Sports Law Director Gabe Feldman and emphasizes that this case has never been about comparing student-athletes on a sport-by-sport basis. “Our case has always been about comparing all of the DI college athletes to their fellow students in workstudy-style programs – some of whom, by the way, are on academic scholarship – comparing it to them and saying if they are recognized as employees, that's the benchmark, the athletes meet the same criteria more than those student employees do and so it defies logic to, for instance, say the student who took your ticket (at a game)...that student we know is an employee, but the student who's on the field (is not).” McDonald goes on to note that “DI college athletes have timesheets…just like the student who’s selling the popcorn at the games. So it begs the question, if you have timesheets for these athletes, you're basically treating them at all functions like you do the other students even though they're providing you services and working frankly harder than those other students, why don't you just fold them into the same system?” McDonald adds: "What this test is articulating, I don't see a difficulty in establishing that all of the athletes are employees." On if it applies to DII and DIIIstudent-athletes: "I think to the extent you are talking about workstudy, the question again becomes are there workstudy students in DII and DIII because if there are workstudy students, if there are kids working who are selling popcorn at the game and being paid an hourly wage, then how do you as a matter of either legal principle or equity say that the athlete who creates the entire industry doesn't meet the criteria at least as much as they do." Doing so, McDonald continues, would also solve several other problems, including the question of international students earning income. “You can work 20 hours in a workstudy position if you’re on an F1 visa, whether it be tax implications – student-employment is exempt from FICA. … The question to ask is, is it a problem in workstudy? If it’s not a problem in workstudy then folding the athletes into that same system won’t create a problem.” Lots more. (link) <-

Episode 66: The Lead Plaintiff's Lawyer in Johnson v. NCAA Joins…

Paul McDonald, the lead plaintiff's lawyer in Johnson v. NCAA , joins to discuss the Third Circuit's recent and potentially historic decision in... Johnson v. NCAA …

www.sportswisepod.com

 

[upstater]

Another perspective:

-> Johnson v. NCAA plaintiffs’ attorney Paul McDonald joins the Sports Wise podcast with Tulane Sports Law Director Gabe Feldman and emphasizes that this case has never been about comparing student-athletes on a sport-by-sport basis. “Our case has always been about comparing all of the DI college athletes to their fellow students in workstudy-style programs – some of whom, by the way, are on academic scholarship – comparing it to them and saying if they are recognized as employees, that's the benchmark, the athletes meet the same criteria more than those student employees do and so it defies logic to, for instance, say the student who took your ticket (at a game)...that student we know is an employee, but the student who's on the field (is not).” McDonald goes on to note that “DI college athletes have timesheets…just like the student who’s selling the popcorn at the games. So it begs the question, if you have timesheets for these athletes, you're basically treating them at all functions like you do the other students even though they're providing you services and working frankly harder than those other students, why don't you just fold them into the same system?” McDonald adds: "What this test is articulating, I don't see a difficulty in establishing that all of the athletes are employees." On if it applies to DII and DIIIstudent-athletes: "I think to the extent you are talking about workstudy, the question again becomes are there workstudy students in DII and DIII because if there are workstudy students, if there are kids working who are selling popcorn at the game and being paid an hourly wage, then how do you as a matter of either legal principle or equity say that the athlete who creates the entire industry doesn't meet the criteria at least as much as they do." Doing so, McDonald continues, would also solve several other problems, including the question of international students earning income. “You can work 20 hours in a workstudy position if you’re on an F1 visa, whether it be tax implications – student-employment is exempt from FICA. … The question to ask is, is it a problem in workstudy? If it’s not a problem in workstudy then folding the athletes into that same system won’t create a problem.” Lots more. (link) <-

Episode 66: The Lead Plaintiff's Lawyer in Johnson v. NCAA Joins…

Paul McDonald, the lead plaintiff's lawyer in Johnson v. NCAA , joins to discuss the Third Circuit's recent and potentially historic decision in... Johnson v. NCAA …

www.sportswisepod.com

Is this guy an idiot?

Work-Study pays for tuition.

The money goes directly to tuition.

What is he going on about?

 

[MrJama100]

I think the bigger headache will be when these employees challenge being fired after 4 years despite being high performers.
Seems like age discrimination to me.
We already have 27 year old football players.

 

[How Sway?!]

Is this guy an idiot?

Work-Study pays for tuition.

The money goes directly to tuition.

What is he going on about?

Students on work study can also be on scholarships. They also can use the Work study money however they want.