Sacrosanct

I may have mentioned California’s SB-1401, which is coming down the turnpike and would require schools to share revenue with athletes in the money-making sports, football and basketball.  I don’t really want to get into the pros and cons of the bill in this post, but, rather, I’d like to touch on an assumption that everyone seems to automatically make when discussing pay for play in revenue producing sports.

This:  “Public and private universities alike fear that SB-1401 could devastate the budgets for money-losing Olympic sports that depend on the revenue generated by football and men’s basketball.”

Why don’t they ever fear what the likes of SB-1401 could do to administrative and coaching salaries, which have been boosted for decades by athletic departments not having to pay college athletes?

Um… that’s a rhetorical question.

21 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, Political Wankery

21 responses to “Sacrosanct

  1. Former Fan

    And why is it up to the kids in money making sports to subsidize the sports that lose money? Shouldn’t that subsidy come from the entire campus, meaning the entirety of the university? Somehow all these sports survived before FB and BB starting making insane amounts of money.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I wonder what the players at Fresno State or San Diego State think of this. What seems to be a workable solution for the Power 5 isn’t going to fly at the Group of 5 and below.

    Like

    • W Cobb Dawg

      I imagine it’s like comparing major league salaries to minor league salaries, ee.

      If we ever get to a day when SDSU enjoys the draw a pac-12 school receives, the entire organization can bargain for more income. I’m sure an sec member would have substantially more funds to pay players than a pac-12 member too.

      Like

  3. jim1886

    There is NOTHING good on legislative matters that comes out of California

    Liked by 1 person

  4. sundiatagaines

    Maybe the schools should consider their Olympic sports as just another part of their academic administration bloat over the last few decades. Somehow they’ve been able to pay for that, and it wasn’t with TV money.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. whb209

    Senator,
    Why do coaches salaries bother you so much. It is show business and it takes a great director to recruit the actors, train them and place them in the correct spots to have a successful show. The coach’s pay is easily figured as a rate of return (how good is he at directing). The coach puts the product on the stage and if it get booed he is fired. If it is a hit he is rewarded.

    Like

  6. The answer is to do away with scholarship in those revenue sports.
    That would free them up for the other sports.

    Like

    • The scholarship is a ledger entry. It’s not a real out of pocket expense for schools.

      Like

      • junkyardawg41

        If so, then why have them at all? (scholarships that is) And if it is not a real out of pocket expense, why not put all students on scholarship?

        Like

        • I can’t tell if this is meant as sarcasm…

          Like

          • junkyardawg41

            Sortof? If your point was that the amount of money used to pay for scholarships in revenue sports is insignificant to the money flowing into those programs, I agree. If the point was that the cost of scholarships for athletes isn’t a real cost, I would disagree.

            Like

            • Ah — now I get it. You’re saying schools actually outlay funds to pay for scholarships. They don’t. Real expenses are things like salaries and facilities upkeep.

              Beyond that, ant’s argument was that schools could save athletic budgets by transferring scholarships from athletes in revenue producing sports to those in non-revenue producing ones. That makes even less sense.

              Like

              • junkyardawg41

                I would tend to say that schools typically don’t have an outlay of funds for scholarships. My understanding on scholarships is they generally are covered by endowments or in the specific case of UGA athletes, UGAAA. As to your second point, I definitely agree.

                Like

  7. But where you make that ledger entry matters.

    Like

    • I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. The concern is that there won’t be money in real world athletic budgets to pay for player compensation without shorting athletes in non-revenue producing sports. Your suggestion does nothing to alleviate that.

      Like

  8. The schools clam the athletes have been “paid” in scholarship money. Just ask them to move where they are putting that money.

    Like

  9. It is just a way for the schools to “save” the money they are “spending” on some sports and “spend” it on other sports.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s