• The KillerFrogs

FWST: ‘Fair-market value’ of a TCU football player? $246,465

TopFrog

Lifelong Frog
‘Fair-market value’ of a TCU football player? $246,465

BY PETER DAWSON
pdawson@star-telegram.com

So how much could TCU football players earn if they were paid in a free-market system, like their coaches and administrators?

Does $246,465 sound about right?

That’s the “fair-market value” for each of the 85 scholarship players, using a formula developed by Ellen Staurowsky, a sport management professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia, whose work was featured in Business Insider.

Read more at http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/big-12/texas-christian-university/article188834989.html
 

Double V

Active Member
Great, then let them go earn that "fair market value" somewhere else in the market if they don't like the current model. This is such a dumb, tired argument. If the system is really as one-sided as these people try to make it seem, then why do the players willfully participate?

A true "fair market value" is whatever terms both sides agree upon. In this case, an offer is made in the form of a scholarship, and the student agrees to accept it. There is no coercion, and the students are free to turn down the offer if they so choose. Yet they don't. In fact, many hold celebrations with friends and family and proclaim the day they accept the offer as the best day of their life.

Also, notice the part about football making up for the financial losses in other sports? Give up 47% of the football revenues in the name of "fairness" and you'll lose those other sports (namely, women's sports) we all hold so dearly.
 
LOL. I’ve attended and spoken at a few Sport Management conferences over the years. The vast majority of these professors have never actually done a job in the discipline they attempt to teach.

This person is essentially a sports social justice warrior with absolutely no experience in sports at all. Her only experience is what she’s learned in a book or classroom, but the academia hold her up as some kind of expert. SMH

http://drexel.edu/sportmanagement/about/faculty-staff/Ellen-Staurowsky/
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
Ok, minus the cost of attending and other associated costs from so called market value and see how much they have left over. Subtract the monthly stipend also. I have a feeling their may not be much money left over, if any.

Dumb butts that write this BS seem to think that universities are just pocketing profits from athletics. Most universities operate in the red when it comes to athletics. Some break even and very few turn a profit on the athletics balance sheet.
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
I don’t understand why the president of Drexel doesn’t pull Ms Staurosky into his office and show her athletic expenditures vs athletic revenues at Drexel as a start.

I don’t know what percentage of instructors in higher education that are dumb as a box of rocks when it pertains to common sense. But, there seems to be enough of them out there. We all have known a Prof or someone in the workplace that is smart in their area of expertise but we wonder how in the hell they function in life outside of their specialty.
 

Zubaz

Member
Odd article, odder response here.

I think deep down we can all recognize that college athletics, specifically college football and to a lesser extent college basketball, operate as a weird hybrid of a professional league (with major television contracts, licensing rights, high priced coaches, ticket revenue, etc) that is comprised of amateur athletes that see little, if any, financial windfall associated with that revenue. College football players are not "amateurs" in the same sense that 1980's ice skaters or track stars were because their talents are sold at a premium as a spectator sport. Further, the NCAA has operated as a de-facto farm league for the NFL for as long as the NFL has been around, hence the reason that the NFL draft exists in the first place.

But there's no reason that a fan of college athletics needs to get defensive about that, or bristle at the suggestion that college athletes, specifically revenue-generating college athletes, should get a financial piece of the massive revenue generated by the product that they produce, because it is not the college systems fault that such a situation exists. Placing the blame for that situation on the NCAA or the colleges is really weird. Colleges have very little to do with that. The number one culprit for the situation has absolutely nothing to do with college. It's not the NCAA that says you can't enter the NFL before you're three years out of high school. The blame for this situation falls very solely in one place: The NFLPA, which sets the age limit restrictions on who can enter the league. As I understand it, they could say 18 year olds are draft eligible tomorrow, and the NCAA would be absolutely powerless to stop them.

As far as professional football for players that have yet to reach draft-eligible age, here's the fact that nobody wants to talk about: There's no market for professional minor leagues anywhere in the US. Nobody will watch professional minor league football without the college brands associated with it. The last 35 years shows that time and time and time again. USFL, WLAF, NFL Europe, XFL, UFL, AAFL, all of them massive failures (and sorry 30 for 30, the USFL was dead in the water long before Donald Trump threw the Hail Mary of a fall schedule). Nobody watches Minor League Baseball. Nobody watches NBA D-League. We wouldn't watch minor league football. Without the college brand associated with NCAA Football, which is what we'd be talking about if these players were to separate from the NCAA, a professional minor league football would be on par with AAA baseball.

So we wouldn't be looking at a "Fair market value" of half a million or whatever, because the predominate source of that value isn't the players themselves it's the college logo on the helmet. Take that logo away, and you're looking at long bus rides and $29k a year. Sweet.
 
It’s opening a can of worms that everyone will eventually regret IMO.
And everyone in college sports knows this. It’s fools like this woman who have no clue that college sports are fundamentally different from professional sports.

However, there’s nothing stopping her from creating a paying alternative to college sports. Having taken a look at her, I imagine that the thought of competition in the marketplace and having to earn a profit would disgust her, though.
 

NavyFrog

Active Member
I'm all for giving the kids as much money and as benefits as possible, but the idea that there are 85 players on every team that all have the same market value doesn't seem "fair" at all.
It does in her view of the world. Remember, everyone gets the same participation trophy.
 
Todd D., you answered the question when you mentioned the $29k figure as fair market value. I know that’s picked out of the air, but it’s probably not far off. The value of the education they are getting is greater than that. So they actually are being fairly compensated.
 

riffram2011

Active Member
ITT:
Great, then let them go earn that "fair market value" somewhere else in the market if they don't like the current model. This is such a dumb, tired argument. If the system is really as one-sided as these people try to make it seem, then why do the players willfully participate?

A true "fair market value" is whatever terms both sides agree upon. In this case, an offer is made in the form of a scholarship, and the student agrees to accept it. There is no coercion, and the students are free to turn down the offer if they so choose. Yet they don't. In fact, many hold celebrations with friends and family and proclaim the day they accept the offer as the best day of their life.

Also, notice the part about football making up for the financial losses in other sports? Give up 47% of the football revenues in the name of "fairness" and you'll lose those other sports (namely, women's sports) we all hold so dearly.

The market value for Cam Newton was $200,000. Would have been more if weren’t illegal. The NCAA’s entire business model is built on the lie of showing that these athletes aren’t worth more than the scholarship they received.

Andy Dalton and Ladanian Tomlinson are responsible alone for tens of millions into the university. Both were lucky enough to make millions in the pros, but others much less so. At the very least, the athletes should be able to market themselves as they see fit. It’s a reasonable start that doesn’t involve any loss of revenue from a TCU or NCAA perspective. It’s already happening under the table. Having it out in the open would make things much easier.
 

riffram2011

Active Member
Great, then let them go earn that "fair market value" somewhere else in the market if they don't like the current model. This is such a dumb, tired argument. If the system is really as one-sided as these people try to make it seem, then why do the players willfully participate?

A true "fair market value" is whatever terms both sides agree upon. In this case, an offer is made in the form of a scholarship, and the student agrees to accept it. There is no coercion, and the students are free to turn down the offer if they so choose. Yet they don't. In fact, many hold celebrations with friends and family and proclaim the day they accept the offer as the best day of their life.

Also, notice the part about football making up for the financial losses in other sports? Give up 47% of the football revenues in the name of "fairness" and you'll lose those other sports (namely, women's sports) we all hold so dearly.

The players participate because there is a monopoly and they have no other choices. The end game of capitalism. No competiton and no wages for the worker.
 

Double V

Active Member
The players participate because there is a monopoly and they have no other choices. The end game of capitalism. No competiton and no wages for the worker.
They have the choice to turn down the scholarship if they want, the issue is that there are a million other people behind them that would take it in their stead. The supply of players FAR outweighs the demand. That's not a monopoly issue.
 
Top