They are, but this lawsuit it by the states.
Sure there is ... don't pay administrators as much. Don't pay coaches as much. Don't spend as much money on other things. Every business has to budget their expenses except college sports which says, "nah, we aren't going to pay our labor." You see how stupid that sounds. No, pay the labor a fair rate, and then find other areas to cut your expenses.
It already is a minor league system. And, yes, I am going to sign my 5* to a four year deal and pay them better, and my 3* to a shorter term deal. Or, in a CBA, they will set some sort of salary structure. No one said it would be easy, but it has to be done.
Sure, but the states are suing based on anti-trust. Plus, my first reaction is that I am not sure how successful the states are going to be. Again, a private entity can have rules that if a member agrees to them they have to follow. Now, if the rules violate federal law, then something should happen. Like paying the labor directly.
I can assure you from first-hand experience that they will cut lower level sports teams far before any of this happens.
That's fine. My point stands. If school X has $200 million for sports, and another has $25 million for sports, they both have to decide how to best spend it. But at the end of the day, they will have to pay the labor costs. Or be part of a group that isn't for profit, doesn't make a ton of money, and plays for the sake of playing. The players would simply have to agree to that. Example, the Ivy League football players.
So, some schools would pay players and some wouldn't?
Certainly the schools with budgets in the red would struggle to justify paying athletes directly. And that's MOST schools outside of like the 25 wealthiest. Their choice would be to cut almost all sports to fund football, while having just enough women's sports to satisfy Title IX, or not paying them.
Sure, it happens now. Ivy league schools don't give scholarships.
Again, not paying the athletes directly is a choice, not something they can't do. They have chosen not to using the amateur athlete BS to mask their action. They can choose to pay athletes, they just have to re-allocate their money better. Every business has to do that.
Ivy's don't offer scholarships, but they offer the largest need-based financial aid programs in the world. Not quite a fair comparison.
I'm saying that even if allowed to pay athletes, some schools couldn't afford to.
Legally, it's a great comparison. A school can have college sports and not have to pay the athletes. The Ivys do it. Other schools could do it, but the players would have to agree and candidly the schools might have to run the operation as a non-profit or something like that.
Of course ... small schools can't. But small schools aren't the problem. They can carry on like the Ivys and not make any money and not pay their players. But, they can't make a hundred million, pay all that to the coaches and the admins and say, ooposies, we have no money to pay the players.
Yep.
Legally it'd be a great comparison if each Ivy school wasn't going out of their way to ensure that the overwhelming majority of their student athletes weren't also going to school for free just like at non-Ivys. It's the same outcome with a different label.
I would agree in some sports at some schools. Don’t know of wealthy lacrosse players. But I’m pretty sure Scheffler and Spieth would cut checks large enough to keep their beloved Longhorn golf program going.
Oh sure, there would be some outlier sports that are of interest to wealthy donors, but I doubt anyone is saving the women's soccer teams at Ball State or Middle Tennessee, for example.
I'm saying that MOST college athletic departments could not afford to directly pay/hire athletes.
