Home
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-still-refusing-to-see-big-picture--all-college-sports-are-not-equal-215042288-ncaab.html
I sort of understand the player's idea that they should share in the revenue that is generated on their abilities. Most of this is due to the fact that they are still immature to the point that they are still understanding rewards on the extrinsic level ( they see coaches and universities raking in millions for what they do ), yet aren't realizing that the degree they earn will, in effect, earn them quite a bit of money and the degree, housing, food, and medical care they are getting has a monetary value as well (intrinsic).
The article makes it patently clear that if this continues and football teams and the other two sports at the university level do unionize and force concessions of a monetary value, what becomes of sports that rely on the money makers to fund their programs????? Hmmmmmm.
Most women's sports don't do anything but live on budgets in the red. How will those get funded if football takes their money and divvies it up among the football players only? Or if basketball does the same? You can't think that the unionized football players are going to "share" what they will earn once concessions are given for pay.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Moreover, they aren't ready to acknowledge how the endgame is likely not about colleges deciding whether or not to allow student-athletes to share in revenue, but football players deciding whether they should continue to allow gymnasts, swimmers, wrestlers and the like to share in their money.
College sports long ago created a system where cash brought in by essentially two sports (football and men's basketball) was pooled to fund up to two dozen other sports that, for the most part, generate little to no income or fan interest.
The concept isn't without some merit – who is against the hard working track star getting a chance to compete and even perhaps earn a partial scholarship? Seems win-win. Until the football players realize who is, and isn't, paying for it.
How much money has Johnny Manziel made for Texas A&M athletics? (Getty)
College sports are increasingly capitalistic. These aren't just teams representing schools anymore, they are profit points that command their own cable television networks, massive stadiums, huge media rights, national tournaments and billions and billions in revenue.
While student-athletes are rightly saying, why can't we get more of the pie, or at least the freedom to go out and get it themselves via sponsorship or advertising opportunities, the real debate is why are all student-athletes still being considered equal?
I sort of understand the player's idea that they should share in the revenue that is generated on their abilities. Most of this is due to the fact that they are still immature to the point that they are still understanding rewards on the extrinsic level ( they see coaches and universities raking in millions for what they do ), yet aren't realizing that the degree they earn will, in effect, earn them quite a bit of money and the degree, housing, food, and medical care they are getting has a monetary value as well (intrinsic).
The article makes it patently clear that if this continues and football teams and the other two sports at the university level do unionize and force concessions of a monetary value, what becomes of sports that rely on the money makers to fund their programs????? Hmmmmmm.
Most women's sports don't do anything but live on budgets in the red. How will those get funded if football takes their money and divvies it up among the football players only? Or if basketball does the same? You can't think that the unionized football players are going to "share" what they will earn once concessions are given for pay.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Moreover, they aren't ready to acknowledge how the endgame is likely not about colleges deciding whether or not to allow student-athletes to share in revenue, but football players deciding whether they should continue to allow gymnasts, swimmers, wrestlers and the like to share in their money.
College sports long ago created a system where cash brought in by essentially two sports (football and men's basketball) was pooled to fund up to two dozen other sports that, for the most part, generate little to no income or fan interest.
The concept isn't without some merit – who is against the hard working track star getting a chance to compete and even perhaps earn a partial scholarship? Seems win-win. Until the football players realize who is, and isn't, paying for it.
How much money has Johnny Manziel made for Texas A&M athletics? (Getty)
College sports are increasingly capitalistic. These aren't just teams representing schools anymore, they are profit points that command their own cable television networks, massive stadiums, huge media rights, national tournaments and billions and billions in revenue.
While student-athletes are rightly saying, why can't we get more of the pie, or at least the freedom to go out and get it themselves via sponsorship or advertising opportunities, the real debate is why are all student-athletes still being considered equal?