Supreme Court rules 9-0 against NCAA regarding college athletes

[dismalist]

Is that really any different than the students who go into massive debt to attend "elite" institutions, or people who self-fund (a.k.a. go into debt) for graduate programs thinking it will be the golden ticket?

No, but similarity between "debt-financed walk-on" and "debt-financed phd" does not make either practice  more acceptable.

That confuses the cure with the disease. NCAA rules prevent certain walk-ons from getting paid.

Due to scholarship limits instituted by the NCAA, many football teams do not offer scholarships to their punters, long snappers and kickers until they have become established producers.

More generally, higher pay for work is good. Lower pay for work is bad.

[research_prof]

I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.

Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).

[dismalist]

I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.

Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).

The rationale of the ruling is anti-trust. There is collusion in setting the remuneration of college athletes. There is no collusion setting the terms for PhD students. There is in fact ferocious competition.

[onthefringe]

I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.

I like that aspect of it. It drives home the fact that universities have no business running essentially-professional-but-unpaid sports teams that bring in millions of dollars on the effort of unpaid, undercompensated, frequently Black young men. Some of whom in marquis sports like football are giving themselves long-term brain damage for our amusement and profit. My hope is that the vast majority of schools will give up on sports as a money source and go (back?) to real student athletes. No doubt a subset of big sports schools (the 25 or 30 where sports are actually profitable) will be able to pay their student athletes sufficiently, and I think the questions that raises will lead to important questions about the actual mission of those schools.

Best case scenario for me would be the deprofessionalization of sports at as many schools as possible, adequate compensation for the schools where sports are profitable, and the NBA and NFL developing real minor leagues where the most talented players can earn real money without being distracted by trying to be students at the same time.

And regarding this:

Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).

My other unpopular opinion is that we should not be allowed to pay PhD students off of grants. They should be paid on training grants (funded by making grant budgets smaller because they don't need to fund as much salary).

[waterboy]

So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.

[spork]

So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.

A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.

[dismalist]

So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.

A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.

Yes. They would get paid market price, whatever that may be.

I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.

And why not!

[onthefringe]

So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.

A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.

Yup, and for the students in the sports that generate that kind of $$$ it's not like they have time or focus for their studies anyway. Frankly, I think that for students in marquis sports on full scholarships we should pay them to play during their eligibility and THEN give them four years of tuition and support to be students (either right after, or they could come back later if they get drafted to play professionally).

[research_prof]

And regarding this:

Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).

My other unpopular opinion is that we should not be allowed to pay PhD students off of grants. They should be paid on training grants (funded by making grant budgets smaller because they don't need to fund as much salary).

I like that and I believe it is the case in Canada and the EU. However, I do not see it happening anytime soon in the US. Every time I ask the admins of my school about something I need, the question they would ask me is "how much money have you brought in lately?".

[mamselle]

I'm wondering what my BA alma mater (Ohio State) thinks of all this....

M.

[Katrina Gulliver]

I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.

I like that aspect of it. It drives home the fact that universities have no business running essentially-professional-but-unpaid sports teams that bring in millions of dollars on the effort of unpaid, undercompensated, frequently Black young men. Some of whom in marquis sports like football are giving themselves long-term brain damage for our amusement and profit. My hope is that the vast majority of schools will give up on sports as a money source and go (back?) to real student athletes.

Quite. And let the NBA and NFL franchises fund their own farm teams, instead of freeloading on the NCAA.

[Ruralguy]

I don't think they'd make any more money on a *farm* team (as opposed to the "major" NFL team), that is , if you account for scholarships as compensation.

[jimbogumbo]

I'm wondering what my BA alma mater (Ohio State) thinks of all this....

M.

It is possible that certain elite institutions in D1 are already paying football and basketball players, and not just in scholarships. Heh.

I'm sure The OSU is not one of them (okay, they probably are), and this may mean the cost of now is transferred from alums and apparel companies to the school. So the schools will be glum.

[Katrina Gulliver]

I don't think they'd make any more money on a *farm* team (as opposed to the "major" NFL team), that is , if you account for scholarships as compensation.

They'd be legally employees and have insurance for injuries.

[dismalist]

I don't think they'd make any more money on a *farm* team (as opposed to the "major" NFL team), that is , if you account for scholarships as compensation.

They'd be legally employees and have insurance for injuries.

Let's not forget the essential point: The NCAA is against paying money to student athletes. They must be doing something else with the money, like having fun. Thus, after deregulation, wages, including tuition, of student athletes will rise. Farm teams would have to pay similar amounts.

[Wages might fall if tuition is entirely worthless, and being in college is really rough. :-)]

That risen compensation can be in many forms. One is health insurance.

Remember: The student athletes will be better off.