Northwestern Players Want a Union

Donate To GopherHole
Let me preface by saying I don't really know much about unions.

Is it possible to unionize state 'employees' across multiple states? Each with their own rules/regulations/stipends? Is Northwestern able to do this because they are a private university?
 

Dr.Don said:
I need a union. You need a union. We all need a union. I will be your union president. I will be buried in the concrete of the new Vikings' stadium.

I hope they have heating coils.
Click to expand...

So you and Parski are still playing hike-and-seek?
 

Having worked with labor unions for decades, IMO unionization would totally ruin college sports. Its an absurd proposition. For unions to justify their existence they must continually improve the lot of their membership. As Samuel Gompers famously said, "What does the union want? We want more."
 


Nate said:
Let me preface by saying I don't really know much about unions.

Is it possible to unionize state 'employees' across multiple states? Each with their own rules/regulations/stipends? Is Northwestern able to do this because they are a private university?
Click to expand...

There is some discussion of private vs. public in the original article - doesn't seem like this is something the publics would be able to do
 



die hard gopher said:
the argument isn't should student athletes be compensated. The argument is are college athletes fairly compensated as many football and basketball players bring in a lot more revenue for their school then their scholarship gives them
Click to expand...

Isn't this how it is in just about any business in this country? Aren't the garbage collectors actually doing the physical labor that enables the company to even exist? Do people believe the workers on the production line should make more than the CEO?
 

AO54 said:
every single big ten football and men's basketball program makes millions in profit very year, what outlier schools are you talking about?
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about the Big Ten, we're talking about all of college football. How much do you suppose New Mexico State makes every year? How much could they pay each of their players? Paying players would further separate the haves from the have not programs, including within the Big Ten. It's hard enough to beat out Ohio State for recruits as it is. Just wait until they can afford to pay them twice as much as Minnesota can.

I'm not trying to argue the legality of it all. I'm just saying it would change my favorite sport, and I like it just fine the way it is.
 

There was a post on Reddit by an NW player that said this isn't really about salaries or stipends and more about healthcare for injuries that linger the rest of their lives and things like a year of grad school tuition for players who are good enough to play their first season and don't redshirt like a majority of their incoming class.

honestly I see nothing wrong with what he is asking for if that is case
 



GuyFawkes said:
There was a post on Reddit by an NW player that said this isn't really about salaries or stipends and more about healthcare for injuries that linger the rest of their lives and things like a year of grad school tuition for players who are good enough to play their first season and don't redshirt like a majority of their incoming class.

honestly I see nothing wrong with what he is asking for if that is the case
Click to expand...

That type of bargaining seems reasonable to me. If they want financial protection from catastrophes resulting from their participation within the NCAA, that seems ok.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The NCAA has a monopoly and the costs are extremely prohibitive. You'd need people with lots of money and an existing brand to even have a chance. Basically, the NFL would have to do it, but they have no incentive because they get the NCAA to work as a minor league with zero cost to the NFL's bottom line.

The world is changing, and the people are waking up to the folly of the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Wow, sounds like corporate America, getting the top notch scholarship students to do research at land grant Universities. Of course the research is usually funded by the government, while the corporations pay little to nothing compared to what they receive in benefits. Plus, they get to slash their own R&D departments. Not to mention "independent research" studies conducted by Universities for cents on the dollar to validate the effectiveness of a drug/ product by a corporation.

Oh wait, athletes are not getting used nor are the research students...
 

16FeetUnder said:
We aren't talking about the Big Ten, we're talking about all of college football. How much do you suppose New Mexico State makes every year? How much could they pay each of their players? Paying players would further separate the haves from the have not programs, including within the Big Ten. It's hard enough to beat out Ohio State for recruits as it is. Just wait until they can afford to pay them twice as much as Minnesota can.

I'm not trying to argue the legality of it all. I'm just saying it would change my favorite sport, and I like it just fine the way it is.
Click to expand...
I really don't think you could possibly further separate the haves from the have nots. Kentucky landed 5 of the top 9 basketball recruits without being able to offer any extra scholarship money. Kentucky would probably not be able to afford all 5 at market value.
New Mexico State football and basketball about break even. The rest of the athletic department costs $20 Million subsidized by the school and student fees. Teams like that might move to a new less expensive tier with the best of the FCS once the far more profitable BCS schools break away.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Isn't this how it is in just about any business in this country? Aren't the garbage collectors actually doing the physical labor that enables the company to even exist? Do people believe the workers on the production line should make more than the CEO?
Click to expand...

Yes many do and the number is growing.

Businesses making money is so old school.:rolleyes:
 



One of the most fundamental rules of economics is mean revision behavior of profit making activities. In layman's terms, where there is money to made, the butts will follow. For instance, take the NFL; it began as a professional league and struggled next to college football for 25 years before anybody really paid attention. it took another 25 to become mainstream and profitable league wide. It absorbed the only competition (AFL) and finally became a financial powerhouse. However, it still requires subsidization; 23 local governments have built stadiums in the past 20 years. LA can't attract a team. Why, because it is not profitable! Yes LA is bad for Football. The cash outlay for the land alone is in the billions, not to mention marketing and construction costs. The NFL even claims they lose money and argued as such in front of the MN State government (along with many others). Thus, it's a criminal conspiracy (fraudulent inducement to build stadium) if they are knowing lying about that fact.

The point of this is there is no money in a competing league just as there is not really much money in football.

There are some anomalies and some strange occurrences that give rise to the appearance of money being created hand over fist, but one needs to look under the hood.

Take away donors and the system collapses. It would need a massive infusion of cash to remain viable. These kids would end up killing the goose for those that come after them.

The real money is in basketball. The NCAA tournament pretty much supports the rest of the system.
 

AO54 said:
I really don't think you could possibly further separate the haves from the have nots. Kentucky landed 5 of the top 9 basketball recruits without being able to offer any extra scholarship money. Kentucky would probably not be able to afford all 5 at market value.
New Mexico State football and basketball about break even. The rest of the athletic department costs $20 Million subsidized by the school and student fees. Teams like that might move to a new less expensive tier with the best of the FCS once the far more profitable BCS schools break away.
Click to expand...

Car 54 where are you? That is utterly ridiculous.

When you talk about paying the players this is where the big schools/conferences will break away from the smaller ones.
 

Another issue is a union, creating status of employees kills the tax exemption granted for scholarships.

That is at least given current tax law and precedents.

Thus, in addition to some pay kids would need to fork over roughly $20k in tax liabilities over their 4 years. Sucks, but true. I'm pretty sure the stipends can be be added but it's been awhile since I've dug into the tax code in depth, so I could be wrong on that part.
 

AO54 said:
You also apparently don't have time to find relevant articles to answer the question of which programs are profitable.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/21/big-ten-financials-10-11/
Click to expand...

Programs are profitable, but athletic departments are a different story (someone correct me if I'm wrong). People keeps saying things like the schools are making so much money on these players, which really isn't true for the most part. Unless these same people want to just eliminate every sport that loses money, athletic departments don't make a lot.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought this was the case.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Programs are profitable, but athletic departments are a different story (someone correct me if I'm wrong). People keeps saying things like the schools are making so much money on these players, which really isn't true for the most part. Unless these same people want to just eliminate every sport that loses money, athletic departments don't make a lot.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought this was the case.
Click to expand...

The old saying is that the Women's Swimming (or any non-revenue) coach is football's biggest fan.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Programs are profitable, but athletic departments are a different story (someone correct me if I'm wrong). People keeps saying things like the schools are making so much money on these players, which really isn't true for the most part. Unless these same people want to just eliminate every sport that loses money, athletic departments don't make a lot.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought this was the case.
Click to expand...

In a lot of cases, you're right (supposedly). You're also right about issues like non-revenue generating sports, they'd have to find another way to make it work. They'd have to probably feel more like club sports unless they could find another way to generate revenue. I don't think that's a big deal, isn't rugby a club sport? Does it really matter to you if rowing is a club sport like rugby?

Lastly, I'm not saying I'm really in support of making the changes. I love college football the way that it is. However, I just can't envision how the current model could possibly hold up.
 

I didn't read the article, but I say if some of their guys want to form a union then let them. These same-sex unions are getting to be pretty common and it might be time to just get used to it, like it or not.
 

atsgopher said:
One of the most fundamental rules of economics is mean revision behavior of profit making activities. In layman's terms, where there is money to made, the butts will follow. For instance, take the NFL; it began as a professional league and struggled next to college football for 25 years before anybody really paid attention. it took another 25 to become mainstream and profitable league wide. It absorbed the only competition (AFL) and finally became a financial powerhouse. However, it still requires subsidization; 23 local governments have built stadiums in the past 20 years. LA can't attract a team. Why, because it is not profitable! Yes LA is bad for Football. The cash outlay for the land alone is in the billions, not to mention marketing and construction costs. The NFL even claims they lose money and argued as such in front of the MN State government (along with many others). Thus, it's a criminal conspiracy (fraudulent inducement to build stadium) if they are knowing lying about that fact.

The point of this is there is no money in a competing league just as there is not really much money in football.

There are some anomalies and some strange occurrences that give rise to the appearance of money being created hand over fist, but one needs to look under the hood.

Take away donors and the system collapses. It would need a massive infusion of cash to remain viable. These kids would end up killing the goose for those that come after them.

The real money is in basketball. The NCAA tournament pretty much supports the rest of the system.
Click to expand...

It certainly gets subsidization but does not need it.
 

station19 said:
Car 54 where are you? That is utterly ridiculous.

When you talk about paying the players this is where the big schools/conferences will break away from the smaller ones.
Click to expand...
This would be good for the Gophs as we are top 20 in profitability, but recently lucky to be top 50 in recruiting.
 


No. They are not employees in any way. These clowns forget that they are getting a free education that is worth over $200,000 at Northwestern. Do they want to give that up?

L
A
M
E
 



SKOOKM said:
I didn't read the article, but I say if some of their guys want to form a union then let them. These same-sex unions are getting to be pretty common and it might be time to just get used to it, like it or not.
Click to expand...

its their right. 1st amendment.
 

station19 said:
It certainly gets subsidization but does not need it.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. The return on investment is not very large. The real benefit from ownership is prestige.

Without subsidization it would be smaller (ROI) and given it's a capital intensive business the people that can afford to put on football games just wouldn't. There are far better ways to spend their money that would make them a boatload.

Below are the 2013 NFL numbers: Source Forbes.

Since we are discussing profitability we must use numbers designed to gauge that, thus NFL figures are used via analogy. Note that these numbers include the subsidies.


Consider "the value" the necessary investment.
Note They use EBIT. That means one excludes any interest, and taxes.

League Avg return on capital is 3.77%
Current 10 year Treasury Bond Yield 3%
S&P 500 Index Investment 10% (approx since 1960)

*Numbers in millions

Team Value Revenue EBIT RoR
1 Dallas 2,500 539 251 10.03%
2 New Eng 1,800 408 139 7.73%
3 Skins 1,700 381 104 6.14%
4 Giants 1,550 338 64 4.15%
5 Texans 1,450 320 82 5.62%
6 NY Jets 1,380 321 53 3.83%
7 Eagles 1,314 306 48 3.64%
8 Bears 1,252 298 63 5.05%
9 Ravens 1,222 292 48 3.95%
10 49ers 1,224 255 10 0.83%
11 Ind Colts 1,200 276 65 5.42%
12 Packers 1,183 282 54 4.59%
13 Denver 1,161 283 32 2.73%
14 Steelers 1,118 266 28 2.53%
15 Seattle 1,081 270 28 2.61%
16 Dolphins 1,074 268 25 2.31%
17 Tampa 1,067 267 2 0.21%
18 Carolina 1,057 271 29 2.73%
19 Titans 1,055 270 40 3.79%
20 Cheifs 1,009 245 15 1.49%
21 Queens 1,007 234 28 2.78%
22 Browns 1,005 264 17 1.70%
23 Saints 1,004 276 22 2.21%
24 Cards 961 253 10 1.01%
25 Chargers 949 250 30 3.20%
26 Falcons 933 252 19 1.98%
27 Bengals 924 250 37 4.04%
28 Lions 900 248 4 0.39%
29 Rams 875 239 21 2.41%
30 Buffalo 870 256 13 1.45%
31 Jaguars 840 260 16 1.85%
32 Oakland 825 229 19 2.32%
33 Average 1171 286 44.2 3.77%

Basically, one could do better without even trying. Why tie up billions when you can barely beat the risk free rate of return? If you took away the subsidies these businesses would clearly lose money. They need governments to finance these paltry returns.

College football is even more skewed and need subsidies even more.

Consider that their revenue and profit figures include donations. Guess what wouldn't be included when college players get paid. Revenue is not equal in not for profit accounting with revenue in the for profit world.

This is not a good business. The money isn't there. ESPN doesn't count. You have to buy shares in Disney (DIS) to rake in that dough.

College Basketball makes money, but as the NBA proves... this is because of the model. For all you ****house lawyers that means the business model is a necessary condition.

If you change it you lose it. You also loose the segway into millions of dollars for a ton of kids. Make no mistake if you change college sports, the on field product in NBA and NFL will suffer greatly. There will be massive damage to the quality of play and these businesses will get worse.
 


atsgopher said:
Sure it does. The return on investment is not very large. The real benefit from ownership is prestige.

Without subsidization it would be smaller (ROI) and given it's a capital intensive business the people that can afford to put on football games just wouldn't. There are far better ways to spend their money that would make them a boatload.

Below are the 2013 NFL numbers: Source Forbes.

Since we are discussing profitability we must use numbers designed to gauge that, thus NFL figures are used via analogy. Note that these numbers include the subsidies.



Consider "the value" the necessary investment.
Note They use EBIT. That means one excludes any interest, and taxes.

League Avg return on capital is 3.77%
Current 10 year Treasury Bond Yield 3%
S&P 500 Index Investment 10% (approx since 1960)

*Numbers in millions

Team Value Revenue EBIT RoR
1 Dallas 2,500 539 251 10.03%
2 New Eng 1,800 408 139 7.73%
3 Skins 1,700 381 104 6.14%
4 Giants 1,550 338 64 4.15%
5 Texans 1,450 320 82 5.62%
6 NY Jets 1,380 321 53 3.83%
7 Eagles 1,314 306 48 3.64%
8 Bears 1,252 298 63 5.05%
9 Ravens 1,222 292 48 3.95%
10 49ers 1,224 255 10 0.83%
11 Ind Colts 1,200 276 65 5.42%
12 Packers 1,183 282 54 4.59%
13 Denver 1,161 283 32 2.73%
14 Steelers 1,118 266 28 2.53%
15 Seattle 1,081 270 28 2.61%
16 Dolphins 1,074 268 25 2.31%
17 Tampa 1,067 267 2 0.21%
18 Carolina 1,057 271 29 2.73%
19 Titans 1,055 270 40 3.79%
20 Cheifs 1,009 245 15 1.49%
21 Queens 1,007 234 28 2.78%
22 Browns 1,005 264 17 1.70%
23 Saints 1,004 276 22 2.21%
24 Cards 961 253 10 1.01%
25 Chargers 949 250 30 3.20%
26 Falcons 933 252 19 1.98%
27 Bengals 924 250 37 4.04%
28 Lions 900 248 4 0.39%
29 Rams 875 239 21 2.41%
30 Buffalo 870 256 13 1.45%
31 Jaguars 840 260 16 1.85%
32 Oakland 825 229 19 2.32%
33 Average 1171 286 44.2 3.77%

Basically, one could do better without even trying. Why tie up billions when you can barely beat the risk free rate of return? If you took away the subsidies these businesses would clearly lose money. They need governments to finance these paltry returns.

College football is even more skewed and need subsidies even more.

Consider that their revenue and profit figures include donations. Guess what wouldn't be included when college players get paid. Revenue is not equal in not for profit accounting with revenue in the for profit world.

This is not a good business. The money isn't there. ESPN doesn't count. You have to buy shares in Disney (DIS) to rake in that dough.

College Basketball makes money, but as the NBA proves... this is because of the model. For all you ****house lawyers that means the business model is a necessary condition.

If you change it you lose it. You also loose the segway into millions of dollars for a ton of kids. Make no mistake if you change college sports, the on field product in NBA and NFL will suffer greatly. There will be massive damage to the quality of play and these businesses will get worse.
Click to expand...

First of all the investment(cost of franchise) goes up and up. Most will argue that a NFL franchise will not be sold for less that 1 Billion in the future. Red McCombs paid around 240 Mill for the Vikes and put absolutely nothing in and sold them for 660(?) Mill.

The average NFL player is paid over 2 MIll per year. Drop that to a little over 1 mill per year and they can pay for their own stadium. I use the players #'s because as you know we are not privy to the owners profits except GB. The NFL CAN afford to pay for their own stadiums.........just no sense doing it when cities and states will do it for them. The price of the franchise keeps going up because they have the ability to make tons of money.

THE NFL DOES NOT NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZED.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom