Post by ptsdthor on Sept 16, 2021 15:53:55 GMT -8
Increasingly I read where editorialists, bloggers, are stating, as if a fact, that college athletes are being exploited and especially for scholarship players of color that are in revenue generating sports.
The complexity of the college sports ecosphere is enormous and it took decades to evolve. It was created primarily with little or no preplanning with voluntary actions from nearly all those previously involved. Yes, tweaks have been and are being made continually (~limiting the number of scholarships, limiting booster influence, implementing Title IX, limiting time spent in practice, offering stipends (the full cost of attendance), etc) but none of these changes would stop the claim by some that scholarship athletes of color are exploited.
Revenue generating sports do many things for the athlete, the University, their students, the faculty and the companies that support them. College Administrations know that successful sports teams often mean increased donations/endowments from alumni for the other non-sport Departments. They fund Title IX and all its good effects. They help pay the salaries (directly or indirectly) of the College Admin, the coaching staff, the sports marketing staff, the sports medical staff, the related tutors, the scholarships for the athletes. Yes, commercial companies also make money (or gain benefit) too like media (TV networks, Radio, newspapers, On-Line), sponsors, suppliers, etc. And then there are the other jobs supported like event staff & security, concessions staff, grounds maintenance, etc. Are jobs a good thing or not?
The benefit to the student athlete is enormous as well as they often get accepted into schools they couldn't qualify or pay for otherwise. They can receive a quality education, they gain lifetime friendships and connections, develop reputations that will help them launch their careers (as they become local coaches, teachers, media, etc), they often meet their significant other in college, and a few go on to professional sports. As a result of all these benefits, we see family after family investing in their children's athletics through travel ball, Pop Warner, Little League, summer tournaments, special trainers, physical therapists, tutors, etc. You often see the pride of the father or mother in the stands wearing the sweatshirt from the college they are attending or that is recruiting their child as they watch them play. Other athletes, not quite as skilled, gifted or as smart would happily trade places with that scholarship athlete in a heartbeat.
So for those claiming exploitation, what do you think is their primary problem? Is it that somebody somewhere is getting more benefits than the athlete themselves? What is their solution? Cease revenue generating college athletics? Pay the athlete more and directly? Have the revenue generating sports go Professional?
I think it is pure hubris to think one can adequately plan for and implement changes for the desired outcome for the few athletes seemingly negatively affected. Stage one thinking will perhaps give you a recommendation to pay the athletes more or proportionally, for example. But then what?
But there is no telling the ancillary and deleterious effects that arbitrary changes will make in this ecosystem. What happens if the University's sports program is losing money? What happens when a player is hurt and can not perform? What happens when a player believes he is the star of a team - do they get paid more? What if the star of the team is white or mixed race? Should they not be paid too? And who determines these things? What happens when University A has more money than University B (as we know, there is no game without B)? Does Univ. A get to pay pay their players more? And what about small colleges (Div II, III, etc) especially where athletics is non-scholarship? These institutions and related staff also derive benefit from successful athletic programs all while the players simply pay tuition. What about them?
So back to the players in question. They get ample benefits. Should they necessarily get as much as the others involved (~College President, College Coach, Execs of the Networks, Execs at the Advertising Firm, Concession Contract owner, Video Game Company Execs, etc, etc.)?
These so called "inequalities" are not unique and familiar to all of us. Most of us work for a living and inevitably it is the leadership of our companies that get better pay than the line employee. And we are free to make our arrangements with our employers as we are free to go elsewhere if we feel used and abused. Similarly, the student athlete can refuse to take the scholarship if they feel they will be exploited and can join the masses that get turned down by the schools of their dreams, get their education started at the local JuCo, and take out loans to pay for their own education.
What am I missing? And what do you think is their preferred solution?
The complexity of the college sports ecosphere is enormous and it took decades to evolve. It was created primarily with little or no preplanning with voluntary actions from nearly all those previously involved. Yes, tweaks have been and are being made continually (~limiting the number of scholarships, limiting booster influence, implementing Title IX, limiting time spent in practice, offering stipends (the full cost of attendance), etc) but none of these changes would stop the claim by some that scholarship athletes of color are exploited.
Revenue generating sports do many things for the athlete, the University, their students, the faculty and the companies that support them. College Administrations know that successful sports teams often mean increased donations/endowments from alumni for the other non-sport Departments. They fund Title IX and all its good effects. They help pay the salaries (directly or indirectly) of the College Admin, the coaching staff, the sports marketing staff, the sports medical staff, the related tutors, the scholarships for the athletes. Yes, commercial companies also make money (or gain benefit) too like media (TV networks, Radio, newspapers, On-Line), sponsors, suppliers, etc. And then there are the other jobs supported like event staff & security, concessions staff, grounds maintenance, etc. Are jobs a good thing or not?
The benefit to the student athlete is enormous as well as they often get accepted into schools they couldn't qualify or pay for otherwise. They can receive a quality education, they gain lifetime friendships and connections, develop reputations that will help them launch their careers (as they become local coaches, teachers, media, etc), they often meet their significant other in college, and a few go on to professional sports. As a result of all these benefits, we see family after family investing in their children's athletics through travel ball, Pop Warner, Little League, summer tournaments, special trainers, physical therapists, tutors, etc. You often see the pride of the father or mother in the stands wearing the sweatshirt from the college they are attending or that is recruiting their child as they watch them play. Other athletes, not quite as skilled, gifted or as smart would happily trade places with that scholarship athlete in a heartbeat.
So for those claiming exploitation, what do you think is their primary problem? Is it that somebody somewhere is getting more benefits than the athlete themselves? What is their solution? Cease revenue generating college athletics? Pay the athlete more and directly? Have the revenue generating sports go Professional?
I think it is pure hubris to think one can adequately plan for and implement changes for the desired outcome for the few athletes seemingly negatively affected. Stage one thinking will perhaps give you a recommendation to pay the athletes more or proportionally, for example. But then what?
But there is no telling the ancillary and deleterious effects that arbitrary changes will make in this ecosystem. What happens if the University's sports program is losing money? What happens when a player is hurt and can not perform? What happens when a player believes he is the star of a team - do they get paid more? What if the star of the team is white or mixed race? Should they not be paid too? And who determines these things? What happens when University A has more money than University B (as we know, there is no game without B)? Does Univ. A get to pay pay their players more? And what about small colleges (Div II, III, etc) especially where athletics is non-scholarship? These institutions and related staff also derive benefit from successful athletic programs all while the players simply pay tuition. What about them?
So back to the players in question. They get ample benefits. Should they necessarily get as much as the others involved (~College President, College Coach, Execs of the Networks, Execs at the Advertising Firm, Concession Contract owner, Video Game Company Execs, etc, etc.)?
These so called "inequalities" are not unique and familiar to all of us. Most of us work for a living and inevitably it is the leadership of our companies that get better pay than the line employee. And we are free to make our arrangements with our employers as we are free to go elsewhere if we feel used and abused. Similarly, the student athlete can refuse to take the scholarship if they feel they will be exploited and can join the masses that get turned down by the schools of their dreams, get their education started at the local JuCo, and take out loans to pay for their own education.
What am I missing? And what do you think is their preferred solution?