Should college players be paid?

Also worth noting I said manager you said CEO, hence I'm moving the bar to the higher earners that the CEO manages. I still do not believe "stars" in service industry get paid 1/40th of the CEO based again on working in firms where that isn't the case and having spoken about reports for other firms where it definitely wasn't the case.

Well we’ve got a disconnect as that list couldn’t be further from what I’m referring to: - “incredibly profitable service industry” very few of those are “services” and I’m stretching service to say Broadcasting/News is a service - “where the limited number skilled employees” none of those examples refer to a limited number in any fashion, they include every staff down to the pizza delivery guy and the mail room guy who is on parole. If you took the “stars” at each of those organisations they would not be on the average wage - “if you were the “star” of your office and brought in the revenue and he earnt 40 times what you did.” Again you aren’t looking at the stars which drive the revenue of the company. We all like to think we are so integral to the future success of the company but in reality we aren’t. The limited number of people capable of playing a high level mean they are the company. The disconnect between revenue drivers and CEO’s isn’t as wide as you suggest. It’s just we tend to have an inflated view of how much we drive revenue.

I also think that if you are genuinely the “Star” of your company and your CEO is earning 40 times what you are then unless they hold your family captive you should leave

I'm unclear at what your trying to argue. I work in software, I build the software which is sold, I make a wage, my CEO makes a much larger wage, many times that of mine even though he is not the one directly making the product. Which I feel relates directly to your comment of "You show me another incredibly profitable service industry where the limited number skilled employees get paid $19 per hour whilst their managers get paid 1.64million per annum, that is close to 40 times. Look at your manager at work today and ask how would you feel if you were the “star” of your office and brought in the revenue and he earnt 40 times what you did" Here is a list of the Top CEO Pay ratios from the US where I'm sure many examples of what I perceived you to be asking can be found http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/

How would you argue that? My best mate is a successful remuneration consultant and everything we’ve ever discussed about remuneration, plus my own personal experience in finance and management consulting says either my life hasn't happened or your statement is false.

All fair points. But I would argue every major private company in the world is an example of the skilled employee being the one who does the work and CEO making many many times their wage. I know in the company I work for I am the skilled worker, I am the one who does the work and thus you could say I am the star, however it is the CEO who earns 40 times more than me.

Duke is a bit of an outlier. As you say it isn’t a football school and academically its reputation is incomparable to most of its competitors. The 62k number is a little bit of a furphy, given the time they have to spend that another student does not, on the football field they aren’t getting the same 62k experience/opportunity right. I just read that a study showed div 1 football players “work” (non “compulsory” gym and film study included, which is about as non compulsory as working back late at an investment bank) as an athlete for circa 45 hours a week on average (this seemed low to me until they pointed out it is over the entire year). They get around ~40% less opportunity than their fellow students after accounting for sleep. Then reflect on the payment as uber elite athletic outliers (around 0.003% of the population) they ply their trade to deliver millions in revenue to their school whilst risking debilitating permanent brain injury, considerable physical wear and tear and they are paid...~27per hour. This gets even worse if we look at the average scholarship “value” rather than cherry picking an obvious outlier like Duke. Then it gets to around $19 an hour. You show me another incredibly profitable service industry where the limited number skilled employees get paid $19 per hour whilst their managers get paid 1.64million per annum, that is close to 40 times. Look at your manager at work today and ask how would you feel if you were the "star" of your office and brought in the revenue and he earnt 40 times what you did Sure they enjoy it, sure they get an education but saying they “get something for it” isn’t the same as they get equitable attribution and that their earning ability isn’t being exploited by the university.

I think that many players get fantastic opportunities at first class universities and while some choose not to take advantage of what is at offer I would think many do attempt to make the most of it, especially if they are not at that elite level. Take Duke for example, until this past season they were a joke of a football team trying to build up their program. I'm sure numerous players who went there were extremely happy for at least some exposure to D1 football and the chance to impress while also privileged to attend a very expensive private university. I'm sure they are not too upset they are not getting paid. To put it in perspective, it costs approximately $62,000 a year meaning players on full scholarships are getting $248,000 worth of excellent education board at one of best universities in the US, should they choose to take advantage of it. I tend to like the idea pools of money being setup to help players progress with life after their college sporting careers. Should that be finishing degrees / furthering their education. Injury rehab or compensation. I like the idea of a percentage of jersey sales being split amongst the team but i imagine a number of smaller D1, D2 and D3 universities rely on this money for their programs and to help fund the numerous sports that don't get such large crowds. just some thoughts...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview Must read story on how college players are paid.

100% they should be paid, the athletic directors and coaches get paid disproportionately to staff that deliver the education services that an institution of higher learning is supposed to be about. This basically is a tacit admission from the university that sports are a profit centre for the university designed to generate revenue and prestige with the only people sacrificing finically for that being the work force. There were cotton farms with a more equitable distribution of wealth than the college farm system. You can’t pay coaches millions of dollars and say it is a pure amateur sport.

Agree only if all the coaches, athletic directors and media people involved get paid the equivalent of what a person of their academic qualifications earns at the university. Otherwise it is a massive segregation issue - the workers get scraps, the management team get the benefits of capitalism. It does however prepare them for life with a communications degree from a sports school in the greatest faux open market in the world. And lets face if for the majority of these athletes they aren't going to be good enough to make the pro's but they are too good for the University to have them focus on studies over their sport, meaning they aren't getting the same opportunity at education that the college bandies about.

But they already use that advantage via coaching, resources that they can throw at the player in recruitment and the promises of national exposure.

Not paid directly however a reasonable increase to the stipend is fair enough. I would introduce a bonus payment for winning a national championship.Colleges absolutely clean up after winning the NCAA or BSC Title so don't see why the players shouldn't receive a one off bonus payment.

I think it's totally reasonable for the players to make some money out of it. You already have different levels of colleges where some are in the bigger competitions with the better players and more TV coverage and money and others are lesser competitions with lesser players, less TV coverage and less money. Basically, it's like a multi-tiered system. So simply the NCAA takes a percentage of the profits made by each of these Colleges and puts them into a single pot, and then they have standard wages for each tier of colleges. As such, players who are good enough to get into the best footballing colleges will get a bit more than those who have to settle for the lesser colleges. In a lot of cases these players are probably spending so much time working on their sport they are likely going to struggle to work a part-time job as well, like many others at College might do to get day-to-day money. So providing some sort of pay at least equivalent to a decent part-time job would probably be a good idea.

Students from Northwestern are trying to get unionised in order to win concessions like health care and full scholarships if seriously injured. I think this is much more likely before actual monetary payments.

With the cash the colleges make via TV deals and merchandise sales it's a disgrace the players don't get something out of it. I think the NCAA should set a standard amount so that regardless of where players elect to go to college the amount is the same. It shouldn't be a pro contract but it should be sufficient that the players don't have to hope supporters provide food and clothing for them because they can't always afford it when attending college away from home. I don't know what the amount is but BoneXV suggests $50k across the football squads is a big expense but clearly affordable given the size of the football contract by most of the NCAA and DIV1 TV contracts I've read about.

Good article about a pressing issue - especially with the move to unionisation from Northwestern football players. It seems only fair that they do get paid but I do see the danger of college football being corrupted by big money and third party deals. We also need to remember that the money earnt from football programmes is spread accrss the university and not all proceeds are pumped back into the football programmes (although a lot of money is). I would be in favour of each player on the roster receiving a set base salary - or receive a match fee for taking the field - this would negate large siparities appearing within the college football landscape but oul compensate players fairly and hopefully steer them away from obtaining financial gain through less transparant means - i.e. what if each college player on an SEC roster was paid $50k per season - surely the universities sould take that hit...

I think they should be paid if its american football and there are no other pro leagues other than NFL (is euroNFL pro?). But if its sports like basketball that have at least 20 decent pro leagues outside the NBA then I am not so sure

I think it's ludicrous that they aren't paid... College Football in America is absolutely massive. It's got higher average match attendances than the English Premier League, and is worth billions of dollars. You're right that many of these guys don't go on to play in the NFL, which is all the more reason they should be compensated more fully when playing for these huge college football sides. I think that this is also wrong: "What can’t be overstated in the entire prospect of paying players is the ability for money to sully the game. This would forever change the nature of scouting and the way players decide on their future. Players may be forced to make decisions about their future based on their current financial circumstances rather than weighing those against the potential for developing into an NFL prospect." To be honest, I think that anyone who really believes that money will sully the scouting process is naive; the colleges offer competitive packages with all kinds of sweeteners to talented athletes already. Just because they're not out and out monetary contracts doesn't make it any less financially geared and "impure", if you will.

While I think the players should be able to profit from their own image, I don't think the players and US media realise how good college kids have it - particular those on full scholarship who are getting an education which can lead to employment and a chance to show off their skills should they want to pursue a sporting career..