In reply to: yes, we need to subsidize these failing business' posted by jt
that the star players can play the games by themselves. That's not how this works. I know, it's hard to believe irishdog80, but they even have rules and everything. Referees too! Hey, if those "non-star" athletes won't get paid as much, so be it. If there ends up being some sort of labor agreement which results in some type of salary cap with only so much money available, I'm sure that the stars will generate a high % of the cap (kind of like, oh I don't know, the NFL).
That's how these things work.
Now, it would be kind of silly for NFL players to decide to give up some of their money in order to ensure that the WNBA players got a fair wage, right? I mean, if they wanted to do that and agreed to it, that would be one thing. But to have you or your comrade Czar airborneirish come in and demand that they do it strikes me as kind of odd and likely illegal. And yet, here we are.
If running a business legally (which includes paying the labor, just like the micks got paid for helping build the railroads back in the day) means that there are only 25-30 teams, that's life in the big city. If the schools determine that there is worth in having more teams, they can find a way to subsidize those smaller market teams (like the NFL and MLB have done with their revenue sharing programs and tax systems for higher spending teams). If it would result in more money overall to have more programs, I'm sure that something could and would be worked out.
That's the way business works. And yet, you want to sit here and pontificate over what "might" happen and claim that it is the athletes ethical responsibility to give up money while the school's get to have bloated staff, pay their athletic department employees whatever the going rate is, etc.
foolish.
thrive in the wild, wild, west you envision. Plenty of money flowing into the coffers, rabid fan base, etc.
I also had the joy...I kid...of going to 3 home games during Brian Kelly's masterpiece, his 2016 season. Paid good money to see the Irish lose to Michigan State...it was almost a laugher, but not for me..., the Duke game...nothing like it, watch your team lose to an academic peer school that stinks at football, good times... and the Stanford game...bonehead special by Kelly. Once the dike breaks, if it truly does like some of you envision--revenue sharing with players--more seasons like 2016 are likely unless a cold-blooded, in a good way, approach is taken by everyone involved with Notre Dame football. If you don't, the Fighting Irish become the Chicago Bears or Detroit Lions and middle along--something sort of fun to do a Saturday afternoon in this case.
The labor is paid...scholarships and other benefits--much better than the minor leagues for every other professional sport. NIL is in it's nascent stages and will ultimately have a positive impact--the whole world of endorsements is barely touched by most programs. And the sport of college football is overall healthy. Agents and profiteers want the unfettered world of revenue sharing for 18-22 year old athletes. In time, NIL and some form of basic "salary" of $10-15,000 range on top of their scholarship and benefits will work for the good of all which is good for self.
On another note, are you familiar with any corporations that guarantee 4 years of income even if you are unable to perform the position you were "hired" for due to underperforming? Would Notre Dame have to cease offering that sort of "benefit" if everything changes?
income, even if the employee is unable to perform the duties.
Have you ever heard of major league baseball?
Have you ever heard of amortized signing bonus'?
Have you ever heard of Bobby Bonilla?
You really are quite dumb.
revenues and pay all of the employees equally...guaranteed? If your company, if you have one, had a windfall amount with profits that exceeded expectations, are you planning on giving it all equally to your employees?
I have no idea what you're referring to.
I never mentioned anything about what pay or revenue split should be, you moron.
amount of money ND football makes. You have suggested that "revenue sharing" is the only fair route to compensate college football players and especially at Notre Dame. I am thus led to believe JT Corporation or whatever entity you work for or own must immediately vest all of it's employees in "revenue sharing" for the company and pays them salaries commensurate with last year's profits. Are you saying, revenue sharing is fine for other guys, but not yours?
Again, stop with your straw man approach to your narrative. I have never said the players shouldn't get any money. I have said they are largely more than fairly compensated with a tax free full ride to a premier educational institution, other perks and benefits...clothing, improved food, free tutoring, etc. and that NIL, run properly, will allow players to earn money that far exceeds NFL rookie dollars. I also believe all college and high school athletes should be able to go "pro" whenever the market "demands" it. Tennis players, figure skaters, gymnasts, etc. can turn pro at 14-16 or whenever, why not college football players? And I find your name calling comical and a bit sad.
I am getting the impression if you really put specifics and numbers to your half-baked plan, you would begin to realize it's shortcomings and that doesn't fit your preferred narrative. It's a slippery slope and most Notre Dame athletes and students wouldn't like it.
the players. Back out scholarship values, then the rest is cash-money.
agreement are not guaranteed. Or are you too dim to realize we are talking football here? You avoid the real question and instead answer the question you want to answer.
Your half-baked idea of "revenue sharing" by the players starts to fall apart when the details come into play. Let's play your half-witted game. Notre Dame signs a class of 22-25 players. Your buddy Mr. E. says they should be paid around $440,000 per year as each players share of "revenue"--a pretty generous amount for an 18 year old. The real value of their agreement, according to your cockeyed vision is $1,760,000 guaranteed. Multiply the guaranteed amount times 25 players and it equals $44,000,000 in booked dollar commitments by the Notre Dame Athletic Department for each recruiting class. Beyond the ridiculousness of Mr.E's number, what do you suggest as a economically feasible approach to maintain the integrity of Notre Dame's historical offer of a 4 year scholarship?
On another note, who negotiates on the player's behalf? Do Agents become part of the high school football experience?
And you still haven't answered the question of how much do FCS football players get or D2, D3 or NAIA? They are all putting in the same "hours" in most cases. How should they be compensated? Or shouldn't they other than the scholarships and other benefits they receive?
the NFL salary structure and compensation method was also collectively bargained, as was free agency, the draft, OTA's, etc. The signing bonus and the guaranteed money aspect of their deals has become the main focus, not the annual salary.
What exactly is your point?
through your MLB reference that the boneheaded Bobby Bonilla deal is the norm...it is an outlier and cautionary tale for any organization investing in their "team". In some cases...Michael Jordan's mega-contract with the Bulls...a team will pay the player for past performance. I get it...the MLB reference fit your narrative. Funny.
Are you saying Notre Dame signees will be cuttable or will they get a guaranteed 4 year agreement as they currently receive? Would they be cut at the end of "training camp"? Will the roster be cut down to 55 or so like the professional leagues?
And, I would hardly call that pay for past performance since he did win championships in those years.
The Bobby Bonilla deal was a Madoff-related boneheaded decision only in retrospect. If Madoff wasn't running a Ponzi scheme and was truly a Buffett-like investor then it would have been a brilliant move.
And, NFL salaries have been trending in the direction of guaranteed money which the owners have been fighting against. But, it appears, for the moment, that the market is winning and the guarantees are trickling down beyond just the true superstars. I would predict that within the next 20 years nearly all NFL contracts (at least non-rookie contracts) will be 75%-80% guaranteed money if not fully guaranteed.
was characterized by Jerry Reinsdorf, conveniently, and Chicago media as payment for past performance--the $30,000,000 one year agreement. Jordan signed for $33 million for the next season. In each case, his pay was nearly double what the next closest NBA player was making...and again, I agree, MJ was wildly underpaid though that is partially 20/20 hindsight given today's agreements.
Also consider that Bonilla's original agreement for $29,000,000 over 5 years was the richest contract in team sports at the time. Bonilla was good, but he was not Michael Jordan level good.
The salary cap in the NFL will continue to have the biggest impact on the direction of new contracts. General Managers are paid to figure out ways around the cap. Guaranteed dollars stretched out over a longer period of time and pay tied to performance seem to be trends.