|
Post by class70 on Apr 11, 2014 11:55:14 GMT -5
Are we conflating two separate issues here? The court said the athletes at Northwestern had the right to unionize. Separately, many BCS schools have favored some form of monetary compensation for (at least some part of) their players. While proposing his own 13-point plan for changes, Calipari has likened the NCAA to the Soviet Union prior to its collapse. Maybe we'll end up with a new collegiate association with those few schools where athletics is big business; there will be collective bargaining and salaries paid to the players. I had better stop typing because I think there are strictures imposed by the Department of Education and federal law and I have little knowledge of that.
|
|
|
Post by ceharv on Apr 11, 2014 13:01:27 GMT -5
IMO It is time for the NCAA and everyone involved to get beyond the "Chariots of Fire" attitude of the purity of amateur athletes. That attitude is at the core of virtually all eligibility problems - and it simply has no meaning anymore. The previously reviled professional athlete is now the norm and is what kids now aspire to become - they are the heroes, not the pure amateur of days-gone-by.
I know it is unfashionable to quote/refer to Joe Paterno, but even back in the day, JoPa argued that student athletes should be given a small stipend so "they can take their girlfriends out for pizza like their friends" who had jobs and could earn a little spending money, which was prohibited for athletes by NCAA rules and/or made impractical by the demands of being a top-notch athlete (practice, film-study, weight-lifting and maybe some studying).
I agree that a small stipend is fair and should be affordable to even smaller schools, but it must be applied evenly across the board - no bigger pay-outs for the bigger programs, and face the fact that it is going to need to be equal for men and women - you might be able to legally justify paying seniors more then frosh, etc, but forget about gender-based differences - no way courts would allow that! In this country we pay those who produce money - so the kids on the field should get something back for their work that gives them some spending money (and WAM), IMO. That could be done without radically changing the current college athletic system.
|
|
|
Post by sbu79 on Apr 11, 2014 13:13:51 GMT -5
This is why when I predicted that the power conferences would go to a pay for play model, I also said it was time for the remaining schools to make the first move and leave the power conferences before the power conferences left. Seize the initiative and set the structure that would give some hope of a viable model for the majority of schools. The bigs are going to do what they are going to do. The rest can wait and hope or get out in front of it.
|
|
|
Post by efsboca on Apr 11, 2014 17:53:07 GMT -5
It is time for the NCAA and everyone involved to get beyond the "Chariots of Fire" attitude of the purity of amateur athletes. That attitude is at the core of virtually all eligibility problems - and it simply has no meaning anymore. The previously reviled professional athlete is now the norm and is what kids now aspire to become - they are the heroes, not the pure amateur of days gone by. I know it is unfashionable to quote/refer to Joe Paterno, but even back in the day, JoPa argued that student athletes should be given a small stipend so "they can take their girlfriends out for pizza like their friends" who had jobs and could earn a little spending money, which was prohibited for athletes by NCAA rules and made impractical by the demands of being a top-notch athlete (practice, film-study, weight-lifting and maybe some studying). I agree that a small stipend is fair and should be affordable to even smaller schools, but it must be even across the board - no to bigger pay-outs for the bigger programs, and face the fact that it is going to need to new equal for men and women - you might be able to legally justify paying seniors more then frosh, etc, but forget about gender-based differences - no way courts would allow that! In this country we pay those who produce money - so the kids on the field should get something back for their work, IMO. That could be done without radically changing the current college athletic system. I agree that a small stipend is fair, but it needs to be limited to keep the playing field level. Therefore, the stipend should come from the NCAA to the member schools. Once you allow the schools to control the flow, you will not be able to tell what is legit and what is not. Yes, the BCS schools will go, and amateurism will go with them, and I for one, would stop watching (just like I could care less about watching the NBA). The NCAA should provide the stipend and then start forcing member schools to educate their students and actually enforcing penalties against BCS (see UNC as an example, because "some" other students took the african studies classes you did not need to show up for, they determined it to be an institutional problem and not a sports problem. That's for showing other big schools how to avoid future penalties). As someone who works with professional athletes daily, the "purity of the amateur athletes" not only needs to be retained, but pursued rigorously because these large money machines that call themselves schools, do nothing to hold athletes accountable and do nothing to prepare them for the future in the event that professional athletics doesn't pan out. Only a miniscule portion of athletes that play college sports actually make it, and many of them are broke within a few years of retiring (the NFL has the statistic in excess of 75% are broke or divorced <which quickly leads to banruptcy> within 4 years of retirement). College sports help kids get into college and get an education and a good percentage are now young african american boys/men who these schools are failing. They don't teach them how to make a living, how to be accountable for their actions, and how to move forward when the lights stop shining.
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Apr 13, 2014 7:46:29 GMT -5
Any money that is paid to athletes is more money that has to come out of the pockets of tuition paying students, many of whom are already struggling to pay the high costs of a college education. Is that fair? There are a few colleges that can afford this, but I predict that we will see more popular backlash against this idea than people currently think.
|
|
|
Post by firstdev on Apr 13, 2014 8:10:33 GMT -5
College athletes are not going to paid for their efforts anytime soon. That being said the Northwestern union case will really set the standard for the future. The regional representative of the NLRB has ruled that the football players at NU are in fact employees of the university by any objective standard - they set their hours of work; schedule their days of work; dictate their assignments; closely supervise their activities; subject them to certain rules and regulations; hours of work and mandatory study are in excess of 40 hours per week. If the players decide by a vote that they wish to join a union then they are just like any other American worker, are entitled to do so. This will be the trend in the future, unionization of college athletes. Unless the regional NLRB decision is overturned on appeal to the NLRB Board in Washington or by the federal courts, this is the environment in which we will have to exist in the future.
|
|
|
Post by dadster81 on Apr 13, 2014 8:47:30 GMT -5
The one reason I do not see Unionizing as the final answer is simple - income taxes. If they are "earning' their keep, then the 60K it costs to go to Northwestern will be taxable income, subject to Fed, State, and SS taxes. This is alot more expensive answer than stipends. Speaking of stipends, they also should be taxable - they are for people who are working on their college degrees, why should sports be exempt?
Speaking of income taxes, athletic scholarships get a tax break that almost every other student receiving college scholarships cannot get - their room and board are not taxable. In other words, if your child is fortunate to receive a full ride merit scholarship, they are paying income taxes on their room and board, while an athlete is not.
If you want to learn more, here is an excerpt from IRS Rev. Ruling 77-263 that exempts athletic scholarships from tax. You can imagine that the IRS is watching this issue with curiosity:
"A university that participates in an intercollegiate athletic program as a member of a collegiate athletic association provides scholarships to certain incoming freshmen who expect to participate in the university's athletic program. The awarding of such scholarships is controlled by rules established by the association governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics, the manner in which scholarships are awarded, and the value of the scholarships. These rules include the following requirements: To be eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics and to be eligible for an athletic scholarship, a student must be accepted at the university according to the admissions requirements applicable to all students at the university and must be a full-time student. The athletic scholarships are awarded by the agency of the university that is responsible for awarding scholarships to students in general. Once an athletic scholarship is awarded for a given academic year, it cannot be terminated in the event the student cannot participate in the athletic program, either because of injury or the student's unilateral decision not to participate, and the student is not required to engage in any other activities in lieu of participation in a sport.
Under the association's rules, the amount of a scholarship may not exceed the expenses for tuition and fees, room and board (or commuting and lunches), and books and supplies necessary for the student's studies. The amount of the scholarship is required to be reduced by the amount of any other scholarship or grant awarded the student and by the amount of wages from any employment of the student during the school year. If the amount awarded the student by the university exceeds the amount of the commonly accepted educational expenses, it is not considered a scholarship by the association but is pay for participation in intercollegiate athletics and disqualifies the student from further participation in intercollegiate athletics."
|
|
|
Post by class70 on Apr 13, 2014 9:11:45 GMT -5
Dadster, academic scholarships and stipends are now taxable? They weren't when I was a student. Of course, we still used quill pens in those days, so much has changed.
|
|
|
Post by dadster81 on Apr 13, 2014 9:42:29 GMT -5
Scholarships are not taxable, but room and board can be - unless you meet the definiton above. Stipends (like grad student teaching) are taxable. Scholarship taxation is confusing- if you google it, you will find alot of articles claiming that athletic scholarships are partially taxable (because they do not understand the above Rev Ruling).
What is interesting about the Rev Ruling is that to receive this tax break, you must be part of a collegiate athletic association (ie, tne NCAA, NAIA, etc). I imagine the BCS already has their association drafted and ready to roll. Or the NCAA is ready to roll out a fifth division, so they can keep their cash coming in.
Watching Kentucky in the NCAAs just made this issue clear to me. Most of the players on that team are athletes only, they are not student athletes. They probably had not attended a class since December, and the classes they did attend in the first semester were probably 90% athletes anyways with extremely basic courses. THey do not use student dining halls, they do not live in student housing. For the most part they do not interact with the rest of the student body. What are they? Mercenaries for a year (or two). They are involved in the day to day lives of the Kentucky student as much as the Fed Ex person who delivers packages to the campus.
So what are Kentucky fans cheering for? The jersey? Most of the players on the court are there because Kentucky is the course of least resistence to get to the NBA. Do you think they care about Kentucky itself? The jersey could say "blah -blah" on the front as far as they are concerned. It is an AAU program on steriods - men without a country, biding one year of penance before they can make $. Let them go directly to the pros, and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
Post by efsboca on Apr 13, 2014 19:33:52 GMT -5
College athletes are not going to paid for their efforts anytime soon. That being said the Northwestern union case will really set the standard for the future. The regional representative of the NLRB has ruled that the football players at NU are in fact employees of the university by any objective standard - they set their hours of work; schedule their days of work; dictate their assignments; closely supervise their activities; subject them to certain rules and regulations; hours of work and mandatory study are in excess of 40 hours per week. If the players decide by a vote that they wish to join a union then they are just like any other American worker, are entitled to do so. This will be the trend in the future, unionization of college athletes. Unless the regional NLRB decision is overturned on appeal to the NLRB Board in Washington or by the federal courts, this is the environment in which we will have to exist in the future. Actually, don't NCAA requirements state that they can only participate for 20 hours per week during the season? That includes practice time, lifting, etc., but no games. As far as income taxes, as employees I assume they would also be taxed on sneakers, tee shirts and sweats they get for free, and costs of tutoring and other perks. Anytime in excess of that is not mandated, but is certainly encouraged by the big schools who have little interest in educating these kids, only grabbing the cash. Personally, I see no problem with a small stipend as long as it is controlled. I also have no problem with the schools getting the cash as long as the players actually get the education they are contracting for. Real schools use that money to benefit the whole campus, and do their best to educate. Unfortunately, there are very few. ND, BC the Academies, Stanford, to name few.
|
|
|
Post by tani on Apr 13, 2014 20:15:40 GMT -5
Originaly I was not going to post in this thread but I am bored tonight. So at risk of sounding Like an Idiot here goes. I Don't understand much about taxes and stipends an such. My schooling ended in junior College. My math Is bad and highschool economics was a joke. But, since i live in NY I understand a little about unions. I have always supported people being free to organize. As long as it isnt forced upon the people who do not wish to join. I find that to be a violation of peoples right to be an individual. I have loved the Bonnies for as long as i can remember. I will hate anything that gets in the way of them being part of division 1 athletics and takes away there chance to compete.
|
|
|
Post by maplehurst on Apr 14, 2014 16:52:17 GMT -5
Notre Dame Football finally sold their soul. It has been announced that tradition be gone to the wind, and that fake grass is coming to Rockne's Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by ceharv on Apr 14, 2014 17:10:43 GMT -5
I agree with efsboca that the $ can/should come from the NCAA, not the schools- the $ goes there first anyway, so the NCAA can "cut-up" the $ and distribute to the schools, which can forward to the kids. In all likelihood, the IRS is going to want its piece, so strict records will be required, plus W-2s, etc. Might as well introduce these kids to the concept that being paid means paying the government - no free lunches here. You wanna get paid, OK, then the tax-man gets his cut.
|
|
|
Post by firstdev on Apr 15, 2014 7:52:46 GMT -5
It is unlikely that D1 athletes will draw a paycheck any time soon. In reality they are already paid via their tuition, room, board and books waivers, which amount to between $35,000 and $60,000 in compensation. I doubt any of these athletes wish to convert this tax free form of compensation to a taxable paycheck from of compensation. Their current package if they take advantage of the opportunities afford them the real return of playing sports at the highest collegiate level and earning a degree and a career. Far more likely is that some teams at various universities will vote to unionize. That is something far different from drawing a paycheck. A union contract with the players of a sports team could issues of terms and conditions of employment, and may not include pay compensation in addition to tuition, room, board and books.
|
|
|
Post by firstdev on Apr 15, 2014 9:43:27 GMT -5
Thats "could deal with issues of", sorry for the typo.
|
|