I can’t imagine this turning out well for athletes….
Not sure about this specific organization, but it seems like a lot of the problems that have arisen over the past couple years will be dealt with once the players are able to collectively negotiate with the NCAA and schools.
2 Likes
I have for some time thought the only way to really save the game as we want it to be is some kind of equitable but universal revenue sharing - among the entire array of FBS schools, athletes and possibly underpaid assistsnt coaches.
Utopia would be something that keeps all 132 teams afloat and at least marginally competitive with each other and rewards student/athlets with an equitable share of the huge financial pie.
Getting to that will either be a complete bust or a long and painful struggle.
1 Like
But would a players association negotiate with the NCAA on behalf of all member athletes or would it negotiate with each school individually? I can see the big boys just saying no to the overall NCAA option. “We already share TV revenue with smaller schools…we aren’t going to share our share of the TV revenue with small school athletes. MAC, you figure out your athlete payments on your own.”
On behalf of all sports or select sports? If select sports, how is that impacted by Title IX?
1 Like
Great points. My hunch is that collective bargaining on full FBS revenue sharing is doomed to being a fool’s errand because the rich will not be willing to share to keep the division intact. An iron-fisted Commissioner like old Kennesaw Mountain Landis might be able to order it done but the robber barons of college football would never grant a commissioner that kind of authority.
It will never, ever happen. I also don’t think that kind of fully socialistic revenue sharing is right in the first place. Why should Michigan share it’s revenue with EMU, CMU and WMU. Michigan made investments in big time football a century ago, even Northwestern had a 47K stadium by the end of the 20’s. Other schools did not, and I think they have no right to now demand a slice of a pie that others baked. Should Michigan gut their non-revenue sports and deprive hundreds of athletes the chance to compete and get an education, so that the directional Michigans can wet their beaks?
I’m not happy with a lot of recent changes in CFB, but a from each according to their means to each according to their needs solution is not it.
1 Like
I don’t know what a player’s association would prefer. But if what they’d want is a NCAA-wide deal instead of school-by-school deals, players can always withhold their labor until the big boys come to the table.
3 Likes
The NFL decided “socialistic” revenue sharing to achieve equity, facilitate expansion rather than face contraction, and fundamentally “protect the shield” was appropriate and they are now the strongest sports organization in the entire world. MLB on the other hand continues to follow your Michigan (I’ll keep mine, you go pound salt) model and we’ve got the Oakland and ChiSox messes and a team that has played in the league almost 50 years without ever reaching the World Series.
You’re probably correct about the outcome because MLB is probably more reflective of the American economic model.
1 Like
That’s somewhat of an “alarmist” position to take given that the athletic department at Michigan pretty much has a license to print (tax free) money.
3 Likes
Fair point, but I think that would just be step 1 in the process. I’m just guessing, but I would think that if that happened the big boys could just withdraw from the NCAA and remove that leverage from the players association. You can’t makes us negotiate as a single unit if we aren’t a single unit from a legal standpoint.
Who knows…but I don’t see how this would end up being better for MAC schools. The Big 10/SEC won’t allow it.
1 Like
Major League Baseball has revenue sharing. The have nots receive money directly from the haves. That some franchises choose to operate in poverty is a decision their owners make, intentionally.
1 Like
Actually, the B1G and SEC have adopted an NFL model among their own conferemce members, and it’s a big reason why they’ve become so stable. It, however, is their right to do that with whom they choose to do that. What you propose is more akin to the NFL being forced to bring in the WFL/USFL/XFL and start sharing their revenue with “partners” who bring very little to the table.
1 Like
That revenue sharing agreement just went into effect in 2022 - 48% of local revenues get shared among all 30 teams.
1 Like
(It’s been around since 2002)
I think this is exactly right. The directional Michigans simply aren’t in the same universe as UM. The P4s will create a division all their own with member institutions much more on par where some sort of revenue sharing most likely will take place.
All the other FBS schools not making the cut would do well to combine with FCS and create a new division with rules and regulations that make sense for its members. And a playoff. Please, God, a playoff.
1 Like
My initial post was driving toward a potential decision point where the vast majority of schools (who loose money on sports), will just say “F- it.” and drop athletics all together. I can see bargaining working for P5 schools, but if I was Miami’s president, I’d laugh as I propose to cut all school funded athletics. Do these athletes (as a whole) even understand the economics that 90% of schools’ athletic departments operate under?
Interesting repsonse when Miami athletes get their annual bill for their share of the department’s annual loss.
Perhaps if ncaa football was the end game. For the players with that kind of leverage, it’s a temporary way stop on the way to the NFL. Are players going to strike and deprive themselves of a year of development and exposure to nfl scouts. That might be a somewhat short sighted and penny-wise but pound-foolish approach.
This is the way that we as fans would want it. For athletes trying to collectively bargain, the P5 athletes have no real incentive to share revenue with G5 athletes/schools.
1 Like