|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 15:07:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 15:07:49 GMT -5
The schools chartering for volleyball have plenty of money and are soon about to have plenty more, in most cases. Money that would normally be donated to university foundations is currently going directly to athletes through the collectives. Once the players on on the university payroll, that money is free to go back to the foundations. It's not like it's disappearing from the ecosystem. But there’s no way they limit player salaries to only that money. Suppose Michigan athletics brings in $100 million in revenue. And separately $50 mil goes to athletes via collectives. If Michigan can start paying athletes, they won’t limit themselves to that $50 mil. Operating budgets will be cut so as much money can go to player salaries as possible. I didn't say they would limit it to the "outside" money. Employee status means the players can tap into the *massive* existing revenue streams. Tickets, game day, merch, and sponsorship revenues are huge and could theoretically be added into the pot along with TV money. The places spending big on volleyball are going to keep spending big on volleyball. They aren't hurting for cash- if anything the B1G and SEC are looking for places to stuff that money. In the past, that surplus was plowed into facilities to entice recruits because you couldn't pay the recruits. It's likely they'll soon be able to.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 15:18:29 GMT -5
via mobile
dvd likes this
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 15:18:29 GMT -5
To give an idea of the revenue possibilities: the NBA, NHL, and NFL all have a (roughly) 50/50 revenue split between owners and players. The NFL will have a $255 million cap for 2024 plus another $75ish million per team in benefits. That's $10.5 billion total across 32 teams.
Texas had $271 million in athletic revenue last year. The best number I could find was 691 athletes at Texas, which sounds about right. A 48% NFL-style revenue share would be $122.4 million, coming out to $177k per athlete. I imagine the beach volleyball athletes aren't going to earn as much as Arch Manning, but I think that's a reasonable illustration of the sheer amount of money available.
Michigan State, who nobody would put in the same category of earning powerhouse as Texas, had $170m in revenue last year. They have 801 athletes (I wonder if some of that is track double counting, but whatever). A 48% split would work out to almost $102k per athlete. Not in the same tier as Texas, but nothing to sniff at.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 20:29:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Feb 26, 2024 20:29:53 GMT -5
To give an idea of the revenue possibilities: the NBA, NHL, and NFL all have a (roughly) 50/50 revenue split between owners and players. The NFL will have a $255 million cap for 2024 plus another $75ish million per team in benefits. That's $10.5 billion total across 32 teams. Texas had $271 million in athletic revenue last year. The best number I could find was 691 athletes at Texas, which sounds about right. A 48% NFL-style revenue share would be $122.4 million, coming out to $177k per athlete. I imagine the beach volleyball athletes aren't going to earn as much as Arch Manning, but I think that's a reasonable illustration of the sheer amount of money available. Michigan State, who nobody would put in the same category of earning powerhouse as Texas, had $170m in revenue last year. They have 801 athletes (I wonder if some of that is track double counting, but whatever). A 48% split would work out to almost $102k per athlete. Not in the same tier as Texas, but nothing to sniff at. The NFL also is a single sport/single gender industry, with a structured talent acquisition system, and men in a different phase of their life making collective bargaining decisions, inside a corporate structure with no real conflict of interest. The idea we can just transpose the system of professional athletics on to college sports and - voila! - we have a solution is farcical. My prediction is that eventually we’ll get some kind of federal legislation that is shaped in large part with the Big 10 and SEC’s input, and that part of that legislation ensures that college athletes are not classified as employees. When that would happen I have no idea. Might take years and a great deal more chaos. And that’s hardly a final solution. I just know Texas will be okay no matter what, even while college athletics continues to go through a mind boggling amount of disruption. At this point I’m kind of assuming it will end up being the Big 10 and SEC schools competing against one another, and whatever schools they choose to carve out of the ACC.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 20:43:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 20:43:14 GMT -5
To give an idea of the revenue possibilities: the NBA, NHL, and NFL all have a (roughly) 50/50 revenue split between owners and players. The NFL will have a $255 million cap for 2024 plus another $75ish million per team in benefits. That's $10.5 billion total across 32 teams. Texas had $271 million in athletic revenue last year. The best number I could find was 691 athletes at Texas, which sounds about right. A 48% NFL-style revenue share would be $122.4 million, coming out to $177k per athlete. I imagine the beach volleyball athletes aren't going to earn as much as Arch Manning, but I think that's a reasonable illustration of the sheer amount of money available. Michigan State, who nobody would put in the same category of earning powerhouse as Texas, had $170m in revenue last year. They have 801 athletes (I wonder if some of that is track double counting, but whatever). A 48% split would work out to almost $102k per athlete. Not in the same tier as Texas, but nothing to sniff at. The NFL also is a single sport/single gender industry, with a structured talent acquisition system, and men in a different phase of their life making collective bargaining decisions, inside a corporate structure with no real conflict of interest. The idea we can just transpose the system of professional athletics on to college sports and - voila! - we have a solution is farcical. My prediction is that eventually we’ll get some kind of federal legislation that is shaped in large part with the Big 10 and SEC’s input, and that part of that legislation ensures that college athletes are not classified as employees. When that would happen I have no idea. Might take years and a great deal more chaos. And that’s hardly a final solution. I just know Texas will be okay no matter what, even while college athletics continues to go through a mind boggling amount of disruption. At this point I’m kind of assuming it will end up being the Big 10 and SEC schools competing against one another, and whatever schools they choose to carve out of the ACC. My point isn't that there's going to be a 50/50 rev split in college athletics, it's that there is plenty of money in the system already to pay the players and that money is only going to increase (in the medium term, at least). How that money will get divided is very much a real question.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 20:54:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 20:54:00 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't think the NCAA is going to get their antitrust exemption from Congress in time to avoid getting picked apart by the courts and the NLRB (assuming the NLRB still exists in a couple years). The courts are clearly hostile to their model and by the time Congress acts the horse will be long gone from the barn, if it isn't already.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 26, 2024 21:31:35 GMT -5
Maybe? Who knows what the implications of employment are for Title IX. That all might get covered instead by labor laws and a collective bargaining agreement. Maybe. But you're right that we don't know. My read is that Title IX is law explicitly regarding the current NCAA model - equality in participation and scholarships. If you'd want equality in salaries, you'd need a separate law. And if we're paying athletes, why would we make this law applicable to SEC institutions but not the NBA/WNBA? All that to say, I'm highly skeptical that it would pass. There are over 500,000 student athletes. I think being allowed to pay athletes will be beneficial to about 10,000 of them. And be detrimental to the other 490,000. Things like chartered flights for volleyball might become a thing of the past. Maybe that's more fair. Maybe not. But athletic department budgets, while very high at some schools, is not unlimited. They'll have to find ways to pay athletes (and have bidding wars for the best football and basketball players) out of the same budget they have today when they DON'T have to pay athletes more than the cost of a scholarship. Title IX is about educational opportunity - there may not be an answer to this yet - but pay or employed or whatever, so long as they are students I would think the education laws would apply... unless there comes some collective bargaining. I don't know - the future is hard to see sometimes. But to my original point. I don't know that collectives are going to go away just because schools can pay athletes directly.
|
|
|
Post by photos1 on Feb 26, 2024 22:16:02 GMT -5
But there’s no way they limit player salaries to only that money. Suppose Michigan athletics brings in $100 million in revenue. And separately $50 mil goes to athletes via collectives. If Michigan can start paying athletes, they won’t limit themselves to that $50 mil. Operating budgets will be cut so as much money can go to player salaries as possible. I didn't say they would limit it to the "outside" money. Employee status means the players can tap into the *massive* existing revenue streams. Tickets, game day, merch, and sponsorship revenues are huge and could theoretically be added into the pot along with TV money. The places spending big on volleyball are going to keep spending big on volleyball. They aren't hurting for cash- if anything the B1G and SEC are looking for places to stuff that money. In the past, that surplus was plowed into facilities to entice recruits because you couldn't pay the recruits. It's likely they'll soon be able to. Maybe, but as of now, today, February 26, 2024, there is exactly one D1 volleyball program whose revenue is greater than its costs…. That doesn’t sound like “massive” revenue stream just awaiting to be pillaged by scholarship volleyball players. . . The work to make women’s college volleyball into a massive revenue producer is in the ultra infant stages of growth. . . It’s difficult to do the required work when you have your hands out…. 🏐
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 23:47:50 GMT -5
I didn't say they would limit it to the "outside" money. Employee status means the players can tap into the *massive* existing revenue streams. Tickets, game day, merch, and sponsorship revenues are huge and could theoretically be added into the pot along with TV money. The places spending big on volleyball are going to keep spending big on volleyball. They aren't hurting for cash- if anything the B1G and SEC are looking for places to stuff that money. In the past, that surplus was plowed into facilities to entice recruits because you couldn't pay the recruits. It's likely they'll soon be able to. Maybe, but as of now, today, February 26, 2024, there is exactly one D1 volleyball program whose revenue is greater than its costs…. That doesn’t sound like “massive” revenue stream just awaiting to be pillaged by scholarship volleyball players. . . The work to make women’s college volleyball into a massive revenue producer is in the ultra infant stages of growth. . . It’s difficult to do the required work when you have your hands out…. 🏐 Most DI basketball and football programs lose money.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 27, 2024 21:22:20 GMT -5
I didn't say they would limit it to the "outside" money. Employee status means the players can tap into the *massive* existing revenue streams. Tickets, game day, merch, and sponsorship revenues are huge and could theoretically be added into the pot along with TV money. The places spending big on volleyball are going to keep spending big on volleyball. They aren't hurting for cash- if anything the B1G and SEC are looking for places to stuff that money. In the past, that surplus was plowed into facilities to entice recruits because you couldn't pay the recruits. It's likely they'll soon be able to. Maybe, but as of now, today, February 26, 2024, there is exactly one D1 volleyball program whose revenue is greater than its costs…. That doesn’t sound like “massive” revenue stream just awaiting to be pillaged by scholarship volleyball players. . . The work to make women’s college volleyball into a massive revenue producer is in the ultra infant stages of growth. . . It’s difficult to do the required work when you have your hands out…. 🏐 The way I read it was that there is exactly one women's program - not women's volleyball, women's program, period - that turns a profit. UConn women's basketball and others are higher revenue but they pay their coaching staffs much more money and end up in the red. Nebraska is the list, whether they play a 92,000 seat outdoor game or not.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 28, 2024 3:50:00 GMT -5
The NFL also is a single sport/single gender industry, with a structured talent acquisition system, and men in a different phase of their life making collective bargaining decisions, inside a corporate structure with no real conflict of interest. The idea we can just transpose the system of professional athletics on to college sports and - voila! - we have a solution is farcical. My prediction is that eventually we’ll get some kind of federal legislation that is shaped in large part with the Big 10 and SEC’s input, and that part of that legislation ensures that college athletes are not classified as employees. When that would happen I have no idea. Might take years and a great deal more chaos. And that’s hardly a final solution. I just know Texas will be okay no matter what, even while college athletics continues to go through a mind boggling amount of disruption. At this point I’m kind of assuming it will end up being the Big 10 and SEC schools competing against one another, and whatever schools they choose to carve out of the ACC. My point isn't that there's going to be a 50/50 rev split in college athletics, it's that there is plenty of money in the system already to pay the players and that money is only going to increase (in the medium term, at least). How that money will get divided is very much a real question. The comparison between a well oiled for profit major sports league, to an entire collegiate athletics program, is misplaced. The typical operating costs of a [insert any generic large D1 athletics program] is FAR higher than any NFL or NBA team because these programs are required to fund and maintain dozens of non-profitable entities on the balance sheet. Would a shared revenue model end up being lucrative for the entire universities student athletics population? at some schools, sure, but there is no way it could even come close to a 50/50 model, and if the schools still did (or had to) provide scholarships (which are included in the current operating costs), most schools, even many of the larger D1 schools, wouldn't actually have "plenty of money" to pay the players, and if these players no longer have the scholarship to cover the costs of attending school, that really just undercuts players "profiting" in the shared revenue model.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 7:48:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 28, 2024 7:48:31 GMT -5
My point isn't that there's going to be a 50/50 rev split in college athletics, it's that there is plenty of money in the system already to pay the players and that money is only going to increase (in the medium term, at least). How that money will get divided is very much a real question. The comparison between a well oiled for profit major sports league, to an entire collegiate athletics program, is misplaced. The typical operating costs of a [insert any generic large D1 athletics program] is FAR higher than any NFL or NBA team because these programs are required to fund and maintain dozens of non-profitable entities on the balance sheet. The Green Bay Packers had $541 million in operating expenses last year. That's double any DI athletic department. Who says it should? A chunk of scholarship expense is covered by endowments, which aren't going anywhere. Much off the rest is already part of the annual revenue stream, usually tied to season ticket seat donations or stuff like IPTAY. I disagree. The revenue is clearly there at the top 30 to 40 programs. Instead of plowing tens of millions into ridiculous practice facilities, locker rooms, and associate athletic director salaries, maybe the college programs will have to start operating more like pros, which spend their money on players rather than buildings and administrators.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 8:41:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by n00b on Feb 28, 2024 8:41:11 GMT -5
I disagree. The revenue is clearly there at the top 30 to 40 programs. Instead of plowing tens of millions into ridiculous practice facilities, locker rooms, and associate athletic director salaries, maybe the college programs will have to start operating more like pros, which spend their money on players rather than buildings and administrators. If athletes don’t want money spent on buildings and administrators, they should start a league that isn’t run by universities.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 9:24:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 28, 2024 9:24:36 GMT -5
I disagree. The revenue is clearly there at the top 30 to 40 programs. Instead of plowing tens of millions into ridiculous practice facilities, locker rooms, and associate athletic director salaries, maybe the college programs will have to start operating more like pros, which spend their money on players rather than buildings and administrators. If athletes don’t want money spent on buildings and administrators, they should start a league that isn’t run by universities. Where capital accumulates, labor tends to follow.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 28, 2024 10:49:53 GMT -5
I disagree. The revenue is clearly there at the top 30 to 40 programs. Instead of plowing tens of millions into ridiculous practice facilities, locker rooms, and associate athletic director salaries, maybe the college programs will have to start operating more like pros, which spend their money on players rather than buildings and administrators. If athletes don’t want money spent on buildings and administrators, they should start a league that isn’t run by universities. And this brings us full circle. When athletes who don't want to be students go to a school to play a sport it's because they have no other/better options. If people wanted to watch 19 year olds play professional football, there would be a professional football league for 19 year olds. Basketball, they have the outlets in NBA Ignite or Overtime Elite, and nobody watches, or follows scores or cares except as much as those kids might join their favorite pro team at some point. They calculate the value of a players name, image and/or likeness but truth be told, you can replace "Florida Gator" with "Wisconsin Badger" and they still have value, but if you replace "Oklahoma Sooners" with "Norman Nighthawks" in most cases their value goes away almost completely.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfan on Feb 28, 2024 12:25:07 GMT -5
One of the overlooked factors is how much D1 athletes are already compensated in comparison to their student peers. There are very, very few academic scholarships that cover all costs. A lot of smart students who contribute research time and energy to their institutions consider themselves lucky to get tuition paid, let alone anything else. Athletes get tuition, room, board, books, food, clothing and stipends whether their sport brings in cash or not.
|
|