Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh says college athletes should unionize. What would that look like?

[ThatRobGuy]

Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh says college athletes should unionize. What would that look like?

University of Michigan head football coach Jim Harbaugh after his team’s championship win last week said college athletes should be able to unionize, one of the biggest endorsements the …

thehill.com

University of Michigan head football coach Jim Harbaugh after his team’s championship win last week said college athletes should be able to unionize, one of the biggest endorsements the idea has received in years.

Discussions on college sports unions are not new, but with the rise of name, image and likeness (NIL) deals and revenue-sharing for athletes, some think it is only a matter of time before at least some student-athletes organize.

The basic idea of student-athletes sharing in the sometimes tremendous revenue they bring in has broad support, but how organized labor would work in university locker rooms is unclear. Some experts say the changes would have to start with the top.



While I 100% understand the motivations behind these efforts (the schools themselves make a lot of money off of the athletes, and their likenesses are even used in video games and advertisements)

I don't know if this is solving the right problem.

I often wonder if perhaps institutions of higher learning (that are supposed to be academically oriented) should just stop be in the business of being "pro sports launchpads" altogether.

With the idea of paying student athletes, while it does appear to correct one "fairness" problem between the athlete and the corporate side, I think it creates several others.
1) There's going to be a gender gap in pay (especially in a revenue-sharing model that the article mentions) so people need to brace themselves for that. NCAA men's football is always going to be a bigger fan draw than NCAA women's softball

2) It would open up the possibility of schools using their ability to offer a "sweeter deal" to draw all of the people to their schools (thereby potentially hurting enrollment at other schools that can't afford to keep up). Basically, legitimizing the very thing SMU got in trouble for a few decades back.

3) It could create some bad incentive structures in which enrollment openings at schools are being filled by people who are going there for the $$$, instead of the people who actually want to get (and more importantly, use) the degree they're getting. (IE: if a higher percentage of Duke's ~2,000 yearly acceptances go to people who just want perks of getting make some $$$ playing Duke Basketball, instead of people who are actually interested in studying Neuroscience or enrolling in one of their Engineering programs - and perhaps playing a little ball while they're there) -- I could see that impacting a student athlete's decision making process with regards to whether they're going to prioritize their athletics vs. education "Oh, well, I could either stay up late studying this and get an A... but, if I just do the bare minimum in class and focus on the sports, more people would be interested in using my likeness and I'll get a bigger revenue sharing check at the end of the quarter"...18-22 year old aren't always going to make the most prudent decisions when faced with those kinds of choices.

 

[durangodawood]

Why are these young men even going to class at all? Football is way too important, and academics is an impediment to that. Typical American misplaced priorities. So yes they should unionized to demand compensation for the absurd amount of work and risk.

As for other athletes, aside from mens and womens hoops, they arent important. So while they train just as hard as footballers, they dont have much leverage. So what would be the point of a union?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why are these young men even going to class at all? Football is way too important, and academics is an impediment to that. Typical American misplaced priorities. So yes they should unionized to demand compensation for the absurd amount of work and risk.

As for other athletes, aside from mens and womens hoops, they arent important. So while they train just as hard as footballers, they dont have much leverage. So what would be the point of a union?

I agree it's misplaced priorities. (thus the reason I mentioned colleges would do well to get out of the business of being "pro-sports launchpads")

...basing it on just a few other articles, it sounds like the US is one of the few (if not the only) country that's built this big of an industry around collegiate sporting endeavors. Obviously colleges in other countries have sports teams, but they're not trying to build a billion dollar industry around it.

I actually have a separate set of grievances around high school sports and the fixation on that as well. 16 year old kids getting their "bell rung" on the field and potentially getting concussions so that their parents can brag, and so people will somehow see them as being "better than the other school" (you'd think scholastic achievement would be what proves that, but good luck getting that idea through in a rural community that's obsessed with their high school football team)

 

[iluvatar5150]

2) It would open up the possibility of schools using their ability to offer a "sweeter deal" to draw all of the people to their schools (thereby potentially hurting enrollment at other schools that can't afford to keep up). Basically, legitimizing the very thing SMU got in trouble for a few decades back.

3) It could create some bad incentive structures in which enrollment openings at schools are being filled by people who are going there for the $$$, instead of the people who actually want to get (and more importantly, use) the degree they're getting. (IE: if a higher percentage of Duke's ~2,000 yearly acceptances go to people who just want perks of getting make some $$$ playing Duke Basketball, instead of people who are actually interested in studying Neuroscience or enrolling in one of their Engineering programs - and perhaps playing a little ball while they're there) -- I could see that impacting a student athlete's decision making process with regards to whether they're going to prioritize their athletics vs. education "Oh, well, I could either stay up late studying this and get an A... but, if I just do the bare minimum in class and focus on the sports, more people would be interested in using my likeness and I'll get a bigger revenue sharing check at the end of the quarter"...18-22 year old aren't always going to make the most prudent decisions when faced with those kinds of choices.

That's not really how any of this works. If you're playing D1 sports at the level where any of this is relevant, then these are already concerns and have been for a long time. Nobody just casually decides to play basketball at Duke like they would an intramural league at junior college - if you're in a position to make money off of your likeness in college, then you are already quite good, you've already been treating this as a job for several years, and there's at least an outside chance that you could play professionally. A more casual player at that level would be something like a 3rd string walk-on or a practice squad player and would still have been a very good player in high school.

 

[Vambram]

I am not sure about the question of unionizing for college athletes in these D1 conferences. However, there has been some good equity for D1 college athletes with the N.I.L. This enables many players, but not most of them, to earn a really good amount of money for their Name Image and Likeness while they are playing college sports.

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-nil-rule-changes-what-you-need-to-know

 

[wing2000]

I actually have a separate set of grievances around high school sports and the fixation on that as well. 16 year old kids getting their "bell rung" on the field and potentially getting concussions so that their parents can brag, and so people will somehow see them as being "better than the other school" (you'd think scholastic achievement would be what proves that, but good luck getting that idea through in a rural community that's obsessed with their high school football team)

It's reflection of our society at large that values entertainment (in this case sports) over leanring and academic achievement.

 

[stevil]

I often wonder if perhaps institutions of higher learning (that are supposed to be academically oriented) should just stop be in the business of being "pro sports launchpads" altogether.

USA appears to be all about Commercialism and the persuit of the all mighty dollar.

As an outsider, I have a really horrible feeling about the professionalism of University level sports.
It detracts from learning and seems to divert resources into these sports rather than academics.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not really how any of this works. If you're playing D1 sports at the level where any of this is relevant, then these are already concerns and have been for a long time. Nobody just casually decides to play basketball at Duke like they would an intramural league at junior college - if you're in a position to make money off of your likeness in college, then you are already quite good, you've already been treating this as a job for several years, and there's at least an outside chance that you could play professionally. A more casual player at that level would be something like a 3rd string walk-on or a practice squad player and would still have been a very good player in high school.

Right, but under this proposal, schools would have different, let's call them, "financial levers" they can pull to pretty much buy up which ever players they want.

As it currently stands, for the type of D1 athlete you're referring to, many are making that choice between which D1 school to go to based on certain scholastic interests, clubs, etc... outside of the sport their playing. If schools start offering revenue sharing, I would think much of that other criteria goes out the window in the mind of an 18 year old.

Given that over 98% of D1 college basketball players don't make it to the NBA, that could lead to them taking up a seat in the school (that they did purely for athletics and the potential financial perks) instead of a person who was maybe interested in the academics the school specializes in.

Duke's got a yearly operating budget and endowment that dwarfs that of a University of Kentucky (despite having only half the enrollment of UK)

Schools like that are always going to be able to dangle a bigger carrot.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As it currently stands, for the type of D1 athlete you're referring to, many are making that choice between which D1 school to go to based on certain scholastic interests, clubs, etc... outside of the sport their playing. If schools start offering revenue sharing, I would think much of that other criteria goes out the window in the mind of an 18 year old.

I still don't think that's correct. I was going to ask if you were talking about the football and basketball players or the crew and lacrosse players, but then I realized that it doesn't matter, because the dynamics are the same either way. The only difference is in the magnitude of the benefits.

Unless there's a huge discrepancy in the quality of the school (e.g. Harvard vs South Dakota Tech), the crew and lacrosse players are probably going where they can get a scholarship. They're likely less interested in making sports a career, so they're looking more at scholastics, but scholarship-vs-tuition is still a financial lever.

For the football and basketball players on a scholarship, professional sports is likely a serious plan, so a big draw for them is the coach and "the program". The top prospects aren't just going to any school that'll have them; they're going to the school where they think they'll have the best chance of succeeding.

But even if you're right, is it that a big deal? So you picked a school that would allow you to pay your way through instead of one that had better clubs. Who cares?

If schools start offering revenue sharing, I would think much of that other criteria goes out the window in the mind of an 18 year old.

Given that over 98% of D1 college basketball players don't make it to the NBA, that could lead to them taking up a seat in the school (that they did purely for athletics and the potential financial perks) instead of a person who was maybe interested in the academics the school specializes in.

Duke's got a yearly operating budget and endowment that dwarfs that of a University of Kentucky (despite having only half the enrollment of UK)

Schools like that are always going to be able to dangle a bigger carrot.

There are still ways to keep this under control. AFAIK, the NCAA currently caps the number of scholarships. There are only so many spots on a team. Pro sports have things like salary/budget caps and revenue sharing that help the smaller market teams compete with the bigger ones. Even Formula 1, which is sort of the quintessential pay-to-win sport, does that now. College sports ought to be able to figure out a way to keep it from getting too skewed.