As a football fan, I have been watching stories about the NFL's potential lockout with particular interest. While I may be wrong about this, I have noticed a fair number of articles about the NFL owners and greed. For instance, the most recent columns of Rick Reilly and Bill Simmons - the only columnists regularly found on ESPN.com's opening page - harshly criticize NFL owners for their greed. Peter King, who is typically a cheerleader for the NFL has been slightly critical of the owners lately.
Now, sure in every labor strife there are winners and losers, but the last few labor stoppages in sports have consistently been blamed on the players. The MLB in 1994, the NBA in 1997 or 1998, both ended with the players getting more or less crushed by the owners. That might be the case here, but I don't think so. No, instead, I think the owners will take the brunt of criticism if there is a labor stoppage.
Here's why - for the past twenty years or so, NFL fans have become more and more savvy when it comes to player contracts and the life of NFL players. We all know that a $100 million contract isn't worth $100 million in the NFL (unlike in baseball or basketball), that most players' careers last 3-4 years, and football players suffer horrific injuries. Indeed, we have all be so educated by the NFL through the video games it sponsors. More than a few of us have read articles on the lasting effects of concussions in football and are legitimately scared. And we have all seen the devastating effects of greed by large corporations upon our communities.
All of this conspires against the owners. Worst of all, any labor stoppage will be the result of a lockout - the owners, not the players, want this stoppage. The status quo, which the players advocate, already sucks for the players, but the owners want to make it worse by reducing the salaries paid to players and increasing the number of games in a season. In other words, the owners want more work for less money. Did I mention that NFL players have significantly shorter lifespans than everyone else, and that they suffer traumatic brain injuries on a regular basis? Dave Duerson, who played safety for the Bears, was so damaged by years of trauma, that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest, as opposed to the head, so that his brain could be studied. Oh, and its not as if the trauma is limited to the brain - watching football is now practically a lesson in physiology.
No, I think a labor stoppage will not go well for the owners, even if they get every concession possible from the players. From a public relations perspective, this is a nightmare. And given that the NFL completely and utterly depends on public relations - the public builds its stadiums, watches its games, buys its merchandise - any nightmare could affect the NFL's bottom line. The worst case scenario for football is the long slow death of boxing (another sport I love. . .sigh).
So, what should be done? First, I think the 18 game schedule idea is dumb and needs to be scrapped completely. The amount of money going to the players should either remain the same or increase, but with an adjustment - there should be a rookie payscale, with every high draft pick getting a 2 or 3 year contract. Anti-concussion helmets should be mandatory. And more money should go to player pensions.
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Myth of Collegiate Athletics
With the most recent study out that states that full-ride scholarships don't actually pay for all collegiate expenses, I thought it was high time to castigate the NCAA.
First of all, let's discuss the myth that collegiate athletes are amateurs - that they are not paid to play athletics. Most notably, this myth goes hand in hand with the argument that a college education is priceless. Both arguments are without merit. First, of course, college athletes are paid to play - they receive scholarships from the institutions they play for. That scholarship (which is considered income by the IRS*) is an actual dollar amount going from the college to the player. In other words, every school pay its players.
Now yes, an education is an investment in the future, but that doesn't make education priceless. In fact, every year, every college and university throughout the country puts a price tag on the value of their education. That price tag is called "tuition." And said tuition is paid by every non-scholarship student, either through their parents or through loans. By the way, that price is the price just to attend the storied institution, and does not include costs for books, living expenses, etc. In other words, USC does, in fact, pay its players more than UCLA, because the tuition costs to go to USC are much, much higher.
Because this is entirely obvious, and because the value of some players is much, much, higher than others, some college athletes, acting as economic actors, actually seek additional compensation for their services. We castigate these players for either cheating, or being greedy, but let's face it, they are acting rationally. In fact, given that many collegiate players lack the skills to play in the pros effectively, and that injuries are so common, I would argue that it is more rational to take money under the table than to not.
And here I come to one of my major rules - people are going to do what is perceived to be more rational economically speaking, than they are going to do what is considered more moral. Moreover, the market will modify and change itself to eliminate an obvious inefficiency (as opposed to an obscure inefficiency or an externality). Here, everyone knows college athletes are paid for their services (tuition), and everyone knows that in a few select sports (football, basketball), the star athletes are grossly underpaid. This is especially true when it comes to basketball, where 1-2 stars can make the difference between going to NCAA Tournament (and getting the school to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars), and not.
So, let's not kid ourselves, collegiate athletics is professional athletics.
First of all, let's discuss the myth that collegiate athletes are amateurs - that they are not paid to play athletics. Most notably, this myth goes hand in hand with the argument that a college education is priceless. Both arguments are without merit. First, of course, college athletes are paid to play - they receive scholarships from the institutions they play for. That scholarship (which is considered income by the IRS*) is an actual dollar amount going from the college to the player. In other words, every school pay its players.
Now yes, an education is an investment in the future, but that doesn't make education priceless. In fact, every year, every college and university throughout the country puts a price tag on the value of their education. That price tag is called "tuition." And said tuition is paid by every non-scholarship student, either through their parents or through loans. By the way, that price is the price just to attend the storied institution, and does not include costs for books, living expenses, etc. In other words, USC does, in fact, pay its players more than UCLA, because the tuition costs to go to USC are much, much higher.
Because this is entirely obvious, and because the value of some players is much, much, higher than others, some college athletes, acting as economic actors, actually seek additional compensation for their services. We castigate these players for either cheating, or being greedy, but let's face it, they are acting rationally. In fact, given that many collegiate players lack the skills to play in the pros effectively, and that injuries are so common, I would argue that it is more rational to take money under the table than to not.
And here I come to one of my major rules - people are going to do what is perceived to be more rational economically speaking, than they are going to do what is considered more moral. Moreover, the market will modify and change itself to eliminate an obvious inefficiency (as opposed to an obscure inefficiency or an externality). Here, everyone knows college athletes are paid for their services (tuition), and everyone knows that in a few select sports (football, basketball), the star athletes are grossly underpaid. This is especially true when it comes to basketball, where 1-2 stars can make the difference between going to NCAA Tournament (and getting the school to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars), and not.
So, let's not kid ourselves, collegiate athletics is professional athletics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)