# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ben Strauss, contributing writer for The New York Times, and Andrew Zimbalist, Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics at Smith College, debate whether college athletes should be paid by the NCAA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ben Strauss, contributing writer for The New York Times, and Andrew Zimbalist, Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics at Smith College, debate whether college athletes should be paid by the NCAA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chicago Tonight
As the Loyola Ramblers go to the Final Four, the question of paying college athletes resurfaces. We're joined by Allen Sanderson, a senior lecturer of economics at University of Chicago who supports paying college athletes.

Aired: 03/27/18

Rating: NR

Problems Playing Video? Report a Problem |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chicago Tonight | Should College Athletes Be Paid? Chicago Economist Weighs In | Season 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chicago Tonight As the Loyola Ramblers go to the Final Four, the question of paying college athletes resurfaces. We're joined by Allen Sanderson, a senior lecturer of economics at University of Chicago who supports paying college athletes. Aired: 03/27/18 Rating: NR Problems Playing Video? Report a Problem |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Much has been said during the college football off-season about the business of college football. Athletics departments continue to build new and expensive practice facilities and stadiums. Conferences continue to swap partners and launch lucrative bowl games. And of course, all of this occurs amidst growing discussions over whether student-athletes should be compensated and the nobility of the NCAA's plight of amateurism. In the midst of all of this, though, one thing is certain: When it comes to money, teams ranked in USA Today's pre-season top-25 poll do a great job spending it and generating it.

The chart below reflects data obtained from the Department of Education related to revenues and expenses of this season's pre-season top-25. The data is from 2011-12, which is the most recent data that is publicly available. One issue that many individuals in athletics departments take with the Department of Education data, is that the Department of Education does not give solid reporting guidelines. As such, one university may report something as an expense that another chooses not to. However, the Department of Education data is the only data publicly available related to athletics departments' spending and revenue generation. Thus, this data provides a glimpse of who is generating the most money and who is spending the most.

At first glance, what are the most notable things to take away from this data? For starters, that Alabama spends the most on its football program of any university ranked in the top-25. When it comes to ROI, Alabama's investment in its football program has certainly paid off, with the team winning the last two BCS National Championships, and three out of the last four years.

Given Alabama's recent prominence on the national football landscape, it is perhaps surprising that the team did not rake in the highest net revenue in 2011-12 according to Department of Education data. That honor goes to the University of Texas. What factors may be contributing to this? Two possible factors stand out, the first being the Longhorn Network. The second factor which may be at play is the licensing royalties received for the usage of Texas' logo on merchandise. Earlier this month, Collegiate Licensing Company announced that Texas was the top-selling institution for which CLC sells licensed products. This marked the eighth consecutive year that Texas earned this distinction.

A similar impact felt by the presence of a television network can be seen in Michigan's numbers. Michigan's football revenue also exceeded Alabama's in 2011-12. Recently, CLC ranked Michigan two places behind Alabama in terms of licensed goods sold. What then, allowed Michigan to exceed Alabama in revenue? The easiest factor to point to is Michigan's Big Ten allegiance, which provides it royalties from the Big Ten Network.

Finally, one must take interest in the success Boise State has been able to cultivate given its expenses and revenues. Boise State's $8,537,612 in expenses pale in comparison to the monstrous money being dropped by other schools ranked in the top-25. Perhaps more interesting than the relatively little amount of money Boise State has spent to develop a successful football program, is the amount of revenue the program produces. While Boise State's $15,345,308 in football revenue seems David-like when compared to the Goliath-like football revenue being generated at places like Alabama, it should not be written off. The bigger picture here, perhaps, is that when considering football expenses and revenues alone, Boise State was able to generate a higher net income than schools including Texas Christian, Northwestern and Louisville.

What is the take-away then? In all honesty, it depends on the team. For some teams, the key to success is spending big. For other teams, its developing strong licensing programs that bring in big revenues. Those teams who either have their own network or whose conferences have their own network have extra streams of revenue that boost their numbers. And finally, as Boise State has proven for several years now, teams can spend reasonably and generate moderate revenues and still find success on the gridiron.
Alicia Jessop is a professor at the University of Miami, where she teaches sports law and sport governance. She is also an attorney licensed to practice law in California and Colorado. You can follow her on Twitter @RulingSports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Economics of College Football: A Look At The Top-25 Teams' Revenues And Expenses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much has been said during the college football off-season about the business of college football. Athletics departments continue to build new and expensive practice facilities and stadiums. Conferences continue to swap partners and launch lucrative bowl games. And of course, all of this occurs amidst growing discussions over whether student-athletes [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Books of The Times

Alabama Coach Nick Saban autographing a football for a fan, who held a cutout of the coach. Credit... Brynn Anderson/Associated Press

By

When it is reported that the University of Alabama pays its head coach an annual salary of $6.5 million a year, or that the University of Oregon erected a $42 million academic support center for it players, or that the University of Texas assesses its fans as much as $20,000 in the form of "seat donations" for preferred locations, it is clear that college football is no longer just a game.

Gilbert M. Gaul contends precisely that in his persuasive new book, "Billion-Dollar Ball: A Journey Through the Big-Money Culture of College Football." In a penetrating examination of how the elite college football programs have become a "giant entertainment businesses that happened to do a little education on the side," Mr. Gaul portrays the economic landscape of college football as in some ways analogous to society over all: There is the "1 percent," the powerhouse programs that generate absurd sums of cash; and there is everyone else, the "have-nots," who in their effort to join the company of the well-heeled, commonly sustain deep losses.

Given the revenue streams that winning programs generate year in and year out, it is easy to see why college administrators are drawn in by the siren call of football. But Mr. Gaul leads the chorus of those who are beyond dismayed by this juxtaposition of priorities. In the more than a decade that has passed since Mr. Gaul, who has won two Pulitzer Prizes, began collecting data on the economics of college football as a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer, he asserts that the staggering revenues of the 10 largest football programs has come largely at the expense of the academic mission.

At Texas, Michigan, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Penn State, Notre Dame, Louisiana State University and Arkansas, revenues have increased to $762 million from $229 million from 1999 to 2012. That is a whopping 233 percent increase. Mr. Gaul observes that during this period "profit margins had ballooned to hedge-fund levels," generated by television broadcast rights, luxury suites, seat donations and corporate advertising. Mr. Gaul reports that the big universities "have netted 90 percent of all the new money that has flowed into college football the last decade or two."

That has not stopped "have-nots" like Florida Atlantic University and others from engaging in what Mr. Gaul characterizes as magical thinking: "Why not us?" When college presidents see the wealth that the winning programs create, Mr. Gaul says, they develop "football envy." He asks, "How else do you explain why so many otherwise smart men and women with 'Ph.D.' appended to the end of their names would risk economic ruin in hopes of winning the football jackpot?"

Gilbert M. Gaul Credit... Jana Kirn

And get this: Virtually all that big money is tax free. Because Congress regards football as part and parcel of the educational apparatus, it lets colleges collect untaxed surcharges on so-called seat donations, which bring in an estimated $500 million collectively from football alone each year for the powerhouse programs. Legislators from football obsessed states have also propped up this revenue ploy by permitting fans to deduct 80 percent of the cost of their seat donations from their taxes as a charitable contribution.

How can college football be looked upon as a charity if you, the fan, receive a tangible asset in return for your donation? Good question. Historically, the tax laws have prohibited this sort of quid pro quo arrangement. Mr. Gaul observes: "Calling college football a charity effectively turns the very idea of charity upside down, confusing its power and purpose." But Mr. Gaul concedes there is no political advantage to challenging the tax breaks college football receives, which include television broadcast rights, bowl game payments and corporate sponsorships.

Such tax breaks have unleashed what Mr. Gaul characterizes as "a tsunami of spending that has transformed once-modest state universities into sports entertainment factories." In addition to construction of luxury suites, state-of-the-art training facilities and academic support centers, the "irrational exuberance" that pervades college football has ushered in the era of the celebrity coach.

On the top of that food chain, with a $6.5 million annual salary, sits Alabama's Nick Saban, who has delivered three national championships and presides over a program that brings about $100 million a year into the athletic department coffers. Is it any wonder that Alabama Chancellor Robert E. Witt once told "60 Minutes" that Mr. Saban was the "best financial investment this university has ever made"?

Because there are so few proven winners, it is not surprising that they come at a premium and are paid, according to Mr. Gaul, "as if they were corporate titans." Seventy-five college football coaches earn $1 million or more and receive perks that include luxury cars, country club memberships, free tickets, skybox suites, extra pay to cover taxes and assorted performance bonuses. Mr. Gaul found that the Top 100 college football coaches on the salary chart earn a staggering $200 million and include "the highest-paid public employees in virtually every state in the nation."

Armed with his spreadsheets and calculator, Mr. Gaul acquits himself well in searching out the complicated story behind the numbers. But he gives only a passing glance to the players, who are the beneficiaries of four-year scholarships but have called for a share in the revenue haul in the form of more immediate compensation. Mr. Gaul could have lingered over that question longer. Although he does give a good feel for the extensive effort involved in keeping academically challenged athletes eligible, we are left only to speculate if the players are much more than pawns to be used and discarded.

Meanwhile, the bank vaults remain open and the money is pouring in. No one Mr. Gaul spoke with seemed concerned with whether this incredible growth might be a bubble. He said that when he asked that question of the commissioners of the Big Ten and the Pacific-12, "they only laughed in response." Until proven otherwise, they and others will do as the former Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds suggested: "Football is the train. You ride it for all it's worth."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review: 'Billion-Dollar Ball' Explores the Economics of College Football's Top Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Books of The Times By When it is reported that the University of Alabama pays its head coach an annual salary of $6.5 million a year, or that the University of Oregon erected a $42 million academic support center for it players, or that the University of Texas assesses its fans as much as $20,000 in the form of "seat donations" for preferred locations, it is clear that college football is no longer just a game.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This weekend, sports fans from around the United States gather to watch the opening two rounds of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament - one of the most lucrative sporting events in the United States. Last year, the tournament produced more than $1 billion in revenue. This year, the tournament is expected to bring in even more money.

The revenue derived from hosting the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament goes to many places. Among them, NCAA member colleges use some of the revenue to pay coaches' salaries. For example, Duke University pays head basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski an annual salary of $8.9 million. Meanwhile, the University of Kentucky pays head basketball coach John Calipari a salary of just under $8 million.

In addition, colleges allocate some of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament revenue to paying executives. At present, the member colleges pay NCAA president Mark Emmert an annual salary of nearly $2 million per year. Meanwhile, some of the power conference commissioners earn salaries closer to the $3 million range.

The NCAA's internal rules, however, continue to prevent member schools from using any tournament revenue to pay their athletes. Instead, based on the longstanding NCAA " principle of amateurism," the college athletes remain just about the only individuals not to bring home a big paycheck from March Madness.

Given the outdated nature of this system, which keeps a workforce of primarily low-income African-American college athletes from sharing in the fruits of their labor, perhaps it is time for the players in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament to seriously think about forming a union.

From a financial perspective, the unionizing of elite Division I college basketball schools could lead to a much-needed reallocation of some of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament's revenue away from coaches and administrators, and to the players.

The unionized athletes in the four premier U.S. sports leagues earn approximately 40-50% of all sport-related revenue. If one were to apply this same revenue percentage to NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament players, it would create a pool of $400 to $500 million to allocate among the players.

Of course, obtaining the right to collectively bargain against a member college or collection of colleges over the mandatory terms and conditions of employment could get quite political. A few years back, when Northwestern University's grant-in-aid college football players attempted to form a union, the National Labor Relations Board used its discretion to decline jurisdiction, even though an NLRB regional board recognized that these football players met the federal law definition of employees.

There may be ways for NCAA college basketball players to overcome the same unionizing pitfalls that faced the Northwestern University football team, such as by proposing a bargaining unit that consists of numerous member colleges and not just one. Alternatively, the men's college basketball players may wish to delay and hope for a favorable antitrust ruling in the lawsuit Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association - a result that could provide an incentive for the NCAA to simply recognize a college basketball players' union as a means to mitigate future antitrust risk.

In any event, however, something just seems wrong with allowing the NCAA to pull college athletes out of class to play in a billion-dollar basketball tournament without sharing some of the revenues derived from the tournament featuring these athletes. Tangible change to the college basketball system is long overdue, irrespective of whether that change comes from a players' union or a different, similar means of reform. If properly advised, college basketball players will not wait too much longer before legally pressuring for meaningful change.

________________
Marc Edelman (Marc@MarcEdelman.com) is a Professor of Law at Baruch College's Zicklin School of Business and the founder of Edelman Law. He is the author of "A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law." His article, "The Future of College Athlete Players Unions," appeared in Volume 38 of Cardozo Law Review.
... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Basketball Players Get None Of The NCAA Tournament Revenue -- Is It Time To Unionize?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This weekend, sports fans from around the United States gather to watch the opening two rounds of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament - one of the most lucrative sporting events in the United States. Last year, the tournament produced more than $1 billion in revenue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Crossfire: Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Texas A&M unseats the cross-state rival Longhorns as college football's most valuable program.
2017 Getty Images

For years, the Texas Longhorns have been hailed as college football's ultimate cash cow. In 2011, Texas was the first college football team ever to record $100 million in revenue. In 2014, the team generated more in profit - $92 million - than all but two teams made that year in revenue.

But there's a new No. 1, and you don't even have to leave the state to find them: Texas A&M is now college football's most valuable program.

Across the three years prior to last season, Texas A&M averaged annual revenues of $148 million, the most of any program in the nation. That not only tops the Longhorns; it leaves them in the dust. Over the same time period, Texas football averaged $133 million in revenue, making the Longhorns a distant second.

It's been widely reported that the Aggies closed the gap with the cross-state rival Longhorns because of a vast increase in contributions. And indeed, from 2014 through the 2016-17 season, the Texas A&M athletic department earned $260 million in contributions, nearly double what any other school made in that time. For reference, in those years, Texas had total athletic contributions of $123 million; Florida, which ranks second in the category, totaled contributions of $138 million. Texas A&M, meanwhile, allocated $119 million of its total contributions just to the football team.

Texas A&M's rise to the top isn't just from alumni contributions, though. The team ranks third in ticket revenue, averaging some $41 million per year, and it's sixth in money from royalties and licensing. And the 2012 move to the SEC certainly hasn't hurt - the conference's most recent revenue distribution was $41 million per member school while Big 12 programs each received just $34 million from their conference.

Yet while there's no denying the Aggies' tremendous financial success, there's also an important, lingering question: How long will it last?

The surge in contributions is the Texas A&M faithful's response to fundraising efforts started in 2014 to fund some major construction efforts: Kyle Field underwent a $485 million renovation that made it college football's third-largest stadium, and another $68 million was put toward building new stadiums for softball and track and field. But as those projects are completed, the contribution revenue should ebb back toward normal levels. And if the team's on-field performance doesn't soon improve from the mediocre finishes of the last few years, then some of those other revenue streams may also begin to dry up.

Lying in wait is Texas. Although the runner-up this year, the Longhorns remain a financial powerhouse across the board. The team is among the best in nearly every revenue stream that's not tied to conference money or bowl game payouts; the Longhorns are top-five in contributions, ticket sales, endowments, concessions and even youth camps. And Texas football's $31 million from licensing, royalties and advertising is 50% more than any other team makes from the category.

No wonder, considering Texas athletics gets nearly $10 million per year on average from Nike, making it the third-biggest apparel deal in college sports (UCLA and Louisville rank first and second). Texas also receives increasingly juicy rights payments from ESPN for the Longhorn Network; this year, the university and its athletic department will split $11.6 million from the school-specific network, and that payout increases by 3% annually. The LHN contract runs through the end of June 2031.

Note: Financial data are estimates based on annual financial filings made to the NCAA and Dept. of ... [+]
Chris Smith/Forbes

Michigan edges out Alabama for third on our list; both have averaged $127 million in football revenue over the three most recent years for which financial data is available, but the Wolverines come out ahead in our ranking thanks to greater profits in that time ($75 million to $59 million). Alabama actually ranks just 10th in team profit, since no other program comes close to matching the Crimson Tide in spending: Alabama football spends an average $68 million per year, a staggering 22% more than any other team in the nation. Ohio State rounds out the top five with $120 million in average annual football revenue.

This is the first time Forbes has ranked college football teams since 2015, and this year we've taken a different approach to the endeavor. Our list of college football's most valuable teams ranks the nation's top programs by average annual revenue, rounded to the nearest million. Ties in revenue were broken using average profits, and any ties in both areas were broken by using single-season revenue for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Read More: The Most Valuable College Apparel Deals 2018
To determine team revenues and expenses, we relied on annual filings made by each school's athletic department to the NCAA and the Department of Education. Revenues and expenses allocated to football were also adjusted to account for differences in accounting practices among athletic departments. In order to prevent year-to-year aberrations from skewing things, our revenue and expense numbers are three-year averages across the 2014, 2015 and 2016 football seasons, which are the three most recent years for which data is available. Financial data for last season won't be reported to the NCAA until January.

The SEC has long dominated the sport on the field, winning nine of the last 12 national championships, and the conference is also the strongest when it comes to money: Our financial top 25 features 10 teams from the SEC, the most from any conference. The Big Ten comes next with seven programs, and no other conference has more than three teams on our list. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SEC and the Big Ten are the two conferences that have experienced tremendous success with their conference-specific networks.

The one outlier in the conference talk is, of course, the football independent Notre Dame, which ranks seventh with team revenues of $112 million. Although the Irish don't get conference money for football, the team still receives a reported $15 million per year from NBC for broadcast rights to its home games. What's more, Notre Dame's athletic department doesn't even report the vast majority of contributions tied to the football team's ticket lottery, since most of those are made directly to the university.

The SEC is college football's most dominant conference both on and off the field.
2017 Getty Images

Following Notre Dame are four SEC teams: Auburn, LSU, Florida and Tennessee. Calling the SEC home means a huge boost to conference-level revenues, and each program also excels in a different area. LSU, for instance, ranks fifth in ticket sales with an average of $37 million per year; Florida is second in contribution revenue, taking home some $40 million annually. This group also rounds out what's essentially college football's upper class, as there's a precipitous drop from No. 11 Tennessee at $108 million to No. 12 Oregon, which has averaged $92 million in annual revenue.

By our count, college football's 25 most valuable teams generate a combined $2.5 billion per year in revenue, and they clear more than $1.4 billion annually after expenses. A tremendous portion of those earnings goes toward supporting non-revenue sports like softball and swimming, which helps explain why even some of the nation's biggest athletic departments can still struggle to break even.

But when it comes to college football's elite class, it's hard to believe any arguments that there isn't enough money to go around. From 2014 to 2016, the 23 teams at public schools on our list combined to spend an average $239 million per year on salaries and severance for football coaches, but just $90 million per year on student aid for football players. In the 2016-17 fiscal year alone, those teams' athletic departments spent a combined $800 million on capital expenditures and $250 million on debt service for athletic facilities. That year, those same athletics programs combined to transfer just $65 million back to their universities to support academic programming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Football's Most Valuable Teams: Texas A&M Jumps To No. 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years, the Texas Longhorns have been hailed as college football's ultimate cash cow. In 2011, Texas was the first college football team ever to record $100 million in revenue. In 2014, the team generated more in profit - $92 million - than all but two teams made that year in revenue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mark Emmert, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), once strongly opposed ... [+]
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Two-thirds of adults now believe college athletes should be permitted to earn money from the use of their names, images and likeness (NILs). Beyond that, half of Americans say that athletes participating in major university sports programs should get a cut of the revenue universities rake in from their lucrative broadcast deals.

Those are two of the topline results from a recent survey conducted by The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The survey was taken just about two months after the NCAA reversed years of vehement objections to athletes being eligible for any such compensation. Here's a quick reminder of that history.

Despite repeatedly issuing doomsday predictions about the danger and damage that would be done if athletes were able to receive benefits from use of their NIL, the NCAA's Board of Directors voted unanimously last November to permit athletes to receive such benefits "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model." That's a squishy position, one that the NCAA will attempt to interpret in a way that denies athletes payment for use of their NILs.

The NCAA's action came after the state of California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act into law, permitting athletes at the state's schools to receive NIL benefits. As other states lined up to do the same thing and Congress formed a bipartisan working group on compensating collegiate athletes, NCAA leadership and its member institutions suddenly saw the light. A big bright light shining on their outdated and unfair policies. Caught in that glare, the NCAA backpedaled.

A nationwide poll about compensating college athletes was conducted from December 5 to December 9, 2019, by NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews were conducted with 1,053 adults. The margin of error for the survey was plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.

According to the survey, in additional to the strong support for NIL-related compensation, substantial percentages of adults also favor other forms of payment for college athletes beyond receiving NIL benefits. Almost half (46%) believe they should be provided with additional spending money. More than a third (38%) would support their receiving a salary in exchange for their participation. Even 19% support athletes being exempted from certain academic courses needed for graduation.

Public attitudes about compensation for college athletes differ a bit by race and ethnicity. Endorsement deals for college athletes are popular overall among the public, but 80% of black and Hispanic adults say they should be allowed compared to 60% of white adults.

White and non-white adults also differ in their opinions about other kinds of compensation. Fewer than half of whites believe college athletes should share a portion of a university's broadcast revenue, receive additional spending money, or be paid a salary, but the majority of blacks and Hispanics believe they should. And Black and Hispanic respondents were more than twice as likely as whites to endorse athletes being given exemptions from certain academic courses.

Level of education was also correlated with views on athletes' compensation. Those with a high school education or less were more likely than those completing at least some college to say college athletes playing in major programs should be given a salary and be exempted from certain academic requirements.

Prior to California passing its watershed law, Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, wrote to legislators, warning that the bill would "create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships," and, "likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist."

After the bill passed and several other states enacted similar laws, Emmert changed his tune. Now, he's asking for Congress to help: "The debate and discussion is (sic) well past the ability of a group of states to resolve it. I feel very strongly, as do all the universities, that college sports shouldn't be run out of the federal government ... but in terms of addressing these issues and creating a legally valid model in which the schools can provide more than what they do now, whatever that might look like, it has to be created at a national level."

The NCAA isn't interested in congressional intervention because it wants to do what's best for college athletes. It's interested because it hopes Congress will preempt any actions that go farther down the road of paying college athletes what they are worth. It will preach the need for national consistency, but what the NCAA really wants is for Congress to tie the states' hands so they don't allow athletes to dig into universities' deep pockets.

But here's the good news. Public opinion is swiftly moving to the athletes' side. Compensating college athletes is one of the few topics remaining where even Republicans and Democrats agree. The NCAA knows it, and, even though it will try, it will not be able to buck the trend or pass the buck on fair compensation for college athletes much longer.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans Now Overwhelmingly Support College Athletes Earning Endorsement And Sponsorship Money

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two-thirds of adults now believe college athletes should be permitted to earn money from the use of their names, images and likeness (NILs). Beyond that, half of Americans say that athletes participating in major university sports programs should get a cut of the revenue universities rake in from their lucrative broadcast deals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ex-college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Would Happen If College Basketball Athletes Were Paid? | CNBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NCAA had close to $1.1 billion in annual revenue during its 2017 fiscal year, according to an audited financial statement the association released Wednesday.

It is the first time the association has surpassed $1 billion in annual revenue, although it had come close in two of its past three fiscal years.

A little more than half of the growth from 2016 came from increases in TV and marketing fees that totaled $821 million, revenue from championship events and investment income. The remainder - more than $26 million - came from the NCAA's sale of its interest in an enterprise that, according to the financial statement, helps athletics departments and sports leagues with scheduling, referee assignments and various payments.

On the expense side, the association returned to a normal set of payouts a year after recording a $200 million one-time distribution to Division I members and the $209 million settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of tens of thousands of college athletes who received traditional sports scholarships rather than a new version that covers the full cost of attending school.

Altogether, the statement showed the NCAA with a little more than $956 million in expenses in fiscal 2017, led - as usual - by $560.3 million in distributions to Division I members.

The $105.1 million operating surplus for 2017 left the association with just under $399 million in total net assets as of Aug. 31, 2017.

In a separate response to questions from USA TODAY Sports, the NCAA said that its expenses for fiscal 2017 also included approximately $36 million for outside legal counsel. In 2016, according to the NCAA's federal tax records, it had nearly $33.5 million in outside legal expenses.

From 2014 through 2017, the NCAA has totaled more than $108 million in outside legal fees. That amount does not include the $42.3 million in attorney's fees and costs U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken awarded in March 2016 to lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon antitrust case. The NCAA has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on the matter three weeks ago.
Follow Berkowitz on Twitter @ByBerkowitz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA reports revenues of more than $1 billion in 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCAA had close to $1.1 billion in annual revenue during its 2017 fiscal year, according to an audited financial statement the association released Wednesday. It is the first time the association has surpassed $1 billion in annual revenue, although it had come close in two of its past three fiscal years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Among the biggest controversies in sports is the ongoing debate over whether the NCAA should compensate college athletes.

Across the country, states are beginning to pass legislation that would force the NCAA to reform its structure and redefine amateurism. In California, the recently passed Fair Pay to Play Act allows college athletes to hire agents and make money off endorsements. That and other ongoing proposals, including in New York, forced the NCAA - which annually reports more than $1 billion in revenue - to respond.

In late October, the NCAA's board of governors unanimously voted to move toward allowing players to profit off their names, image and likeness. Syracuse Director of Athletics John Wildhack said in a statement, "We appreciate and support the NCAA Board of Governors' recent action that paves the way for student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

As it stands now, college athletes aren't allowed to receive compensation aside from their scholarships. In 2017, Central Florida's kicker was ruled ineligible because he made money off his YouTube channel.

After the NCAA's October decision, Syracuse head coach Jim Boeheim addressed the issue after a preseason scrimmage against Carleton for five minutes and nine seconds, then walked away from the podium without taking follow-up questions. He called the situation a "real difficult puzzle" and said allowing players to profit would stir more inequality and other unintended consequences.

Jim Boeheim's full remarks in response to NCAA decision on players profiting from their image/likeness. He spoke for a total of 5:09.

Final point: "I don't know, we'll see how it works out. I don't have the answers for it."

He walked away from the podium w/o taking follow ups. pic.twitter.com/S54iIRX8Z8

- Michael McCleary (@MikeJMcCleary) October 30, 2019

"It's a good idea, but it's a bad idea if it gets to a point where people are getting $20,000 here, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000," Boeheim said. "If they go here, they're going to get a $40,000 commercial. Because that's what's going to happen."

"I don't see it," Boeheim added. "I don't see how it's good."

Here's how the rest of the head coaches at Syracuse see it.
Dino Babers, Football
"First of all, I think it's good that people can use their own likenesses for financial gain," Babers told Brent Axe on ESPN radio in October. "That's awesome, and kind of the American way."

"From the NCAA standpoint, we gotta be careful, because it's going to be really interesting how they balance it out for everyone," Babers said in that interview. "Because if you're talking about a quarterback or running back getting benefits, you know, it's interesting that they probably wouldn't get those benefits if it wasn't for an O-lineman.
John Desko, Men's Lacrosse
"I guess we've talked about that a little bit, not a lot because I'm not sure it would affect our sport," Desko said. "I'm not so sure how many would pay for the likeness of a lacrosse player, but I'm sure maybe there's a couple locally that would be interested. But it's all speculation for me at this point."
Gary Gait, Women's Lacrosse
"I actually haven't even thought about it, so it doesn't affect our team. So haven't even worried about it, haven't really put any time into that," Gait said.
Quentin Hillsman, Women's Basketball
"The hard thing about college is this: You come to college, and you're an athlete, and you work hard, play for your university," Hillsman said.

"I have no problem with players being compensated fairly. And I believe in that. I think that some of the things that they're doing for cost of attendance and things like that has accomplished that. So, whatever the powers that be rule on that, I'm good with it," Hillsman said.
Nicky Adams, Women's Soccer
Adams has been involved in college sports for more than 20 years. As a player in the late-1990s, Adams led Texas A&M to two Big 12 titles and was nominated for the Herman Award - the women's soccer version of the Heisman Trophy - twice.

Despite her experience, Adams said she doesn't have a strong opinion on the issue, calling it a "crazy topic where there's so much that goes into it."

"We're still trying to figure everything out," Adams said.
Brien Bell, Cross Country/Track and Field
Bell said his view aligns with Wildhack and he takes the university's stance on the issue. When asked about the proposed legislation in New York that would pay college athletes evenly based on each athletic department's annual revenue, Bell had no comment.
Ange Bradley, Field Hockey
Bradley has been coaching college field hockey since 1991, but she said she's "really not familiar with the rules or laws" of paying college athletes. Bradley noted that paying players is "beyond what we do," but "to have an education is an outstanding opportunity for anyone in life."

As a non-revenue sport, field hockey likely wouldn't be a sport significantly affected by college athletes being able to profit off their names, images and likenesses. The proposed legislation in New York, though, would make Bradley's players compensated just as much as Boeheim's. Still, Bradley said she hasn't thought about that possibility.
Paul Flanagan, Ice Hockey
"I don't look at it probably like coach Boeheim, coach Babers and coach Desko, I guess. In our sport I don't think it's that much of an issue. So, do I think that some of these kids in these more high-profile sports are deserving of some type of remuneration? I don't know," Flanagan said.

Flanagan added: "You look at a school like ours, or just down the road a school like Colgate, that's got all these Division I sports, how are schools going to do it financially?... In some way shape or form some of these elite athletes, they're rewarded eventually...I think that somewhere in there maybe there will be a compromise, but I don't have the answer to that."
Leonid Yelin, Volleyball
"I know what you want to ask, but you know, I don't even have (an) answer," Yelin said. "You can ask, but I don't have - I don't think so, not me. I don't think anyone has (an) answer (right) now."

"I'm just telling you in the future. You can ask anyone (on the team). I can tell you, nobody is going to give you an answer just because nobody knows (the solution)," Yelin said.
Shannon Doepking, Softball
"I think softball is so far off from that, that it is not really something that we think about, to be honest. I think softball is just a different beast in its own that it is not something that I think is going to affect us in any way," Doepking said. "So honestly, it is not something that I think about ever."
Younes Limam, Tennis
"Quite honestly, right now, we have more things to worry about," Limam said. "I haven't really thought about it too much."
Dave Reischman and Luke McGee, Men's and Women's Rowing
Reischman "respectfully" declined to comment, and McGee did not respond when asked whether college athletes should get paid.

Syracuse men's soccer head coach Ian McIntyre could not be reached for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every Syracuse head coach's opinion on paying college athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Among the biggest controversies in sports is the ongoing debate over whether the NCAA should compensate college athletes. Across the country, states are beginning to pass legislation that would force the NCAA to reform its structure and redefine amateurism. In California, the recently passed Fair Pay to Play Act allows college athletes to hire agents and make money off endorsements.