[lex24]

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Do you really think - I mean really think - that if a school could pay athletes directly to get better ones, that one wouldn't do it. The reason they don't is because "it was an accepted system" not to pay athletes. By whom? Just because athletes sign LOIs to accept the terms they are given it doesn't mean they don't want more. The only reason they can't get more is because the schools have agreed not to pay them. That by definition is collusion, which by definition violates anti-trust laws.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

There are many different ways the system can be re-engineered. I've posted some in this or other threads on this board. None of these are easy matters to resolve. And I do understand the concern over the non-revenue generating sports  being funded.  

There are more issues to all this than athlete compensation and other sports. There is competitive balance, how grad rates figure into it all, and other things that have to be addressed as well, in order to have a healthy college sports economic ecosystem. But IMO, the current system is awful. I would tear it down and start completely over.

Yes, I really, I mean really, think that Universities will not pay salaries to athletes.  For a host of reasons:  1.  They don’t have the money.  2. Other non-athletic groups that are involved in extra curricular activities that involve public performances will (legitimately) push for compensation as well.  3.  It further bastardizes the notion of students first, athletes second.  Which is true in most sports and at most levels.  That it is not for football and mens hoops- at the highest levels - doesn’t change that ideal in general.

You keep coming back to revenue generation. But that has nothing to do with the two points you initially raised as “evidence” of employment - control and Walter Byers coining the term “student-athelete” in ‘64.  As to the former, it’s a traditional element in the analysis of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.  Any extra curricular activity at a college is going to involve an element of “control”. Practice times, methods, dress, etc.  But to apply that to extra curricular student activity is a stretch.  

As for Byers, the argument is sophistry.  The system was in place for years.  The term was used in response to a workers compensation claim. Tragically a player was killed.  His survivor tried to bring a WC claim. And lost.  There was no hue and cry in ‘64 to pay athletes.  Heck, that was a time when amateurs still (kind of) existed. 

Finally, Title IX assures that if football players are paid salaries, so are field hockey players. It would kill college sports.

(And that university’s have not paid in the past is not evidence of collusion. For most of the history of college sports, it wasn’t an issue. They didn’t have to collude.).

[lex24]

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Do you really think - I mean really think - that if a school could pay athletes directly to get better ones, that one wouldn't do it. The reason they don't is because "it was an accepted system" not to pay athletes. By whom? Just because athletes sign LOIs to accept the terms they are given it doesn't mean they don't want more. The only reason they can't get more is because the schools have agreed not to pay them. That by definition is collusion, which by definition violates anti-trust laws.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

There are many different ways the system can be re-engineered. I've posted some in this or other threads on this board. None of these are easy matters to resolve. And I do understand the concern over the non-revenue generating sports  being funded.  

There are more issues to all this than athlete compensation and other sports. There is competitive balance, how grad rates figure into it all, and other things that have to be addressed as well, in order to have a healthy college sports economic ecosystem. But IMO, the current system is awful. I would tear it down and start completely over.

Yes, I really, I mean really, think that Universities will not pay salaries to athletes.  For a host of reasons:  1.  They don’t have the money.  2. Other non-athletic groups that are involved in extra curricular activities that involve public performances will (legitimately) push for compensation as well.  3.  It further bastardizes the notion of students first, athletes second.  Which is true in most sports and at most levels.  That it is not for football and mens hoops- at the highest levels - doesn’t change that ideal in general.

You keep coming back to revenue generation. But that has nothing to do with the two points you initially raised as “evidence” of employment - control and Walter Byers coining the term “student-athelete” in ‘64.  As to the former, it’s a traditional element in the analysis of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.  Any extra curricular activity at a college is going to involve an element of “control”. Practice times, methods, dress, etc.  But to apply that to extra curricular student activity is a stretch.  

As for Byers, the argument is sophistry.  The system was in place for years.  The term was used in response to a workers compensation claim. Tragically a player was killed.  His survivor tried to bring a WC claim. And lost.  There was no hue and cry in ‘64 to pay athletes.  Heck, that was a time when amateurs still (kind of) existed. 

Finally, Title IX assures that if football players are paid salaries, so are field hockey players. It would kill college sports.

(And that university’s have not paid in the past is not evidence of collusion. For most of the history of college sports, it wasn’t an issue. They didn’t have to collude.).