Student athletes at Northwestern University are filing a class action lawsuit against the university to get compensation for their time playing football at the school. The players argue that they are required to spend more then 40 hours a week on practice, games, workouts, and studying film. They argue that this is more than most people work in one week. Additionally, the student athletes are required to attend class and succeed, even though they must commit most of their time to football. If the athletes are successful then the university would be required to pay some sort of wage. More likely however, the school will just declare those athletes demanding a wage as ineligible so they cant play.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2014/03/labour-relations-college-sports
7 comments:
As a student-athlete, I tend to side with the Northwestern University Players Union fighting to receive some sort of compensation for all the time they dedicate to being a college athlete. I believe their initial point of focus is receiving health and medical insurance benefits because their work can result in expensive life-changing injuries. It will be interesting to see if their motives change to a salaried compensation and how universities will counteract this.
I'd be interested to see what the university's actions would be if the players were to ask for wages. If they did pay their players, then they risk being deemed ineligible by the NCAA to play in their conference. If that becomes the case, the players won't benefit from their right to bargain unless they find another league, separate from the NCAA, to play in. Otherwise, the university could tell them that their scholarship is enough and decide to restructure the football program to be less time-intensive. I don't think that the players will be payed unless other schools pay their players, but I think that the pressure they are already placing on the school may be enough for it to adapt its program.
I do not know how well athletes at Northwestern University performed but there should be a way to compensate their time playing football, not necessarily by money. I think some incentives for these well performed athletes will give them great motivation to play better.
Those are all very interesting comments. The point of best college athletes receiving some financial compensation can be a valid one, but also can establish a dangerous precedent. If one player gets paid then what will stop the rest of the team from requiring the university to pay them. Additionally, NCAA does not allow college athletes to get paid, thus automatically eliminating them from competing in NCAA, which is the most important tournament. THerefore if they are not allowed to compete in NCAA, their value for the university falls immediately, regardless of how incredibly talented those players are.
In the end of the day all those all-star football players get free education, perks and payments under the table from their universities (not endorsing it just saying that it happened whether you want to believe in it or not), national fame, etc. So are we really concerned about those athletes working too hard. They are college students that are treated like celebrities and if they are truly that good then they will be in NFL, NBA or MLB in no time and will sign their multimillion contracts.
Playing a college sports costs a lot of money. There are also a lot of opportunity costs. Not only to pay for equipment but also the medical bill. Student athletes have to be in top shape but also need a strong immune system. These both are hard to keep up with especially in college. When students play a sport they are unable to attend lectures, field trips and other academic based opportunities that they will not be able to do after college. But is spending time in practice and games worth this cost?
If this is viewed through game theory then wouldn't it be smarter to not pay athletes and continue with what they are doing now?
This incident at Northwestern has become a hot topic in the sports world today, and is being talked about by everyone interested in sports, including the NCAA. President of the NCAA Mark Emmert was interviewed by Greg Gumbel of CBS last week, and the topic of paying players came up. He said the NCAA would have to change it's model completely if it wanted to begin to pay players because they would no longer be student-athletes, but employees of the universities they attend. If this were to be the case, the NCAA would have to treat the players as employees, not students, so the academic side of being a student athlete would be virtually forgotten, leading to college becoming basically a minor league for the next level. He said he prefers the option of cutting back on the commitment that athletes have to dedicate to their sport because the balance between "student" and "athlete" has fallen to the side of "athlete," and needs to be reevaluated.
Another issue that comes with paying athletes is who to pay. Would the university just pay the athletes of the high profile sports that bring in profits, or would they pay all of the athletes, even the ones that play sports that cost the school money?
Also, if anyone is interested, this is the video of the interview with Mark Emmert.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24506652/video-ncaa-president-emmert-discusses-paying-players-ncaas-future
Post a Comment