Should Alabama football players join the players' union?

[CoachJeff]

I think it is more about being seen as a slave in the name of "fair" competition.

Dont compare this to slavery. It's embarrassing.

 

[CajunCrimson]

I think it is more about being seen as a slave in the name of "fair" competition. Can a regular scholarship student who writes a book, a song or whatever to become famous make money off of that fame without losing their scholarship? Hey, that merit scholar at Stanford just got kicked out of the molecular biology program because he took money for talking at a Biotech conference! Universities will not and should not pay other than the scholarships, but the athletes should be able to profit from their fame and so on.

A free college education, free room and board, and countless other perks -- probably to the tune of $150K over 4 years in most major colleges -- is profiting from their fame.

If they are good enough to go to the Pros out of High School -- I'm all for it -- do that -- let the pros draft high school kids -- I'm fine with that.

If they don't want to do that -- then don't -- the kids will have to profit from their fame when they get drafted ....

Paying college kids to play football -- (heavy sigh) -- I think a big vain popped in my head.....ugh!

 

[Gr8hope]

If a school invests in a player and that player succeeds at the next level, shouldn't the investment reap dividends? How 'bout turning the tables on this and suggesting the players repay what was given to get them to their millions in the pros?
Absurd, I know, but money is the true objective of this suggestion, not player safety. These guys are compensated well with scholarships and are allowed to receive Pell Grants when in need. I have no problem addressing areas of need, but payment will kill the sport.

*Note to Cajun, above: It is at least $200,000 over 4 years.

 

[PaulD]

A (very) quick lead-in (to keep this out of NS): I am not reflexively opposed to unions generally. They can serve a valid purpose.

I don't think student-athletes qualify as employees, nor should anyone (including the athletes) want them to. Once they become employees, there can be amazing legal complications, including in tax and workers compensation areas. If our program became Alabama Athletics, Inc., a for profit entity, donations might not be tax deductible, for example. Also, the income the players get would be taxable income to them.

I am in favor of increasing scholarships to cover the full COA across the board. This would help student-athletes who really are cash poor and perhaps remove an incentive to take things under the table. This would likely have to be across all sports and be the same for each player on each team. This couldn't be done by most schools, but those that can should be able to do it.

If you're talking about a union that presumes student athletes to be employees, I don't want Alabama anywhere near it.

 

[cuda.1973]

Absurd, I know, but money is the true objective of this suggestion, not player safety.

Precisely. Getting a union involved proves the point.

(I know............not "football-centric". The players have shown their true intentions, the second they climbed into bed with a union.)

The players probably have some legit concerns, that need to be examined. Football, at all levels, is under scrutiny, regarding player safety.

Maybe the stipend rules need to be modified.

Both of these issues have plenty of forces acting on them, bringing them to the forefront. No need to draw a parasite into the fray. A parasite will not solve the problem; only feed on the host.

No, they don't need to be paid. If you want to be paid, get a job. (IOW, go pro.)

They need to be taught how to tackle without ramming someone with your head. That does not mean taking out the other guy's knees. Or head butting a defender. Just ask Kevin Turner.

 

[crimbru]

Dont compare this to slavery. It's embarrassing.

Still exists in all forms all over the world.......

 

[crimbru]

A free college education, free room and board, and countless other perks -- probably to the tune of $150K over 4 years in most major colleges -- is profiting from their fame.

If they are good enough to go to the Pros out of High School -- I'm all for it -- do that -- let the pros draft high school kids -- I'm fine with that.

If they don't want to do that -- then don't -- the kids will have to profit from their fame when they get drafted ....

Paying college kids to play football -- (heavy sigh) -- I think a big vain popped in my head.....ugh!

They cannot sell their autographs or their memorabilia.... .They cannot go pro out of HS--it is not allowed in football, but is allowed in other sports......

 

[crimbru]

Clarify-- Union as in an employee-- I am against it.... Union as in a collective voice that will free these athletes to profit from their fame just as any other scholarship student could do; then, I have no problem with it. They should not be paid, but the whole fact they cannot get money for autographs and cannot sell their memorabilia without losing their scholarship is crazy.

 

[bama_wayne1]

NO!

 

[CajunCrimson]

They cannot sell their autographs or their memorabilia.... .They cannot go pro out of HS--it is not allowed in football, but is allowed in other sports......

Then go that path === let the Pros draft them. The NFL wants nothing to do with that -- because of the risk and costs of developing a developmental league.

You can't let them sell their autographs because too much room for Boosters to come in and pay McCarron $50K for his autograph -- you can't control that. Unless you put a cap on how much they can sell it for....then you are getting into all kinds of "Dark-Side" stuff.....

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Threads like this remind me how much I miss Bayoutider's input. He was a union man as best as I remember. I can't help but wonder what he would say in this thread.

I think it's interesting AJ has the same position that I posted upstream...my post earned me two dislikes, so I guess I'm in good company with AJ.

 

[CoachJeff]

Still exists in all forms all over the world.......

Non sequitor. If anything, you made my point. Slavery still does exist (I suppose you thought you were educating me, you weren't) but college football isn't an example. Comparing college football players to slaves is ignorant. Period.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Non sequitor.... If anything, you made my point.... Slavery still does exist (I suppose you thought you were educating me, you weren't) but college football isn't an example.... Comparing college football players to slaves is ignorant.... Period....

FIFY

 

[CoachJeff]

Ha!

 

[crimbru]

Non sequitor. If anything, you made my point. Slavery still does exist (I suppose you thought you were educating me, you weren't) but college football isn't an example. Comparing college football players to slaves is ignorant. Period.

Here is what I wrote-- I think it is more about being seen as a slave in the name of "fair" competition. And I added --in all forms-- to my reply, which you left out.

If they cannot make money openly on their market value, then they are a slave to "fair" competition because as CajunCrimson states you get into a dirty side and one needs to control these boosters so competition remains fair I suppose.... Really, dirty sided stuff is doing it under the table..... Openly engaging in marketable commerce last time I checked was not dirty in the US -- unless-- you are a college athlete needing to adhere to some sort of --if we let them market themselves the rich universities with the richest boosters will own college football-- well the Fab 5 cost 600,000 under the table. One DL cost whatever was paid depending on what you believe and a QB cost 180,000 that he did not know about and on and on.... so I guess the richest boosters willing to do it dirty are controlling college football anyway while the athletes are not getting an education in proper business and probably getting short changed on their marketable income to boot because I guarantee the Fab 5 and Cam could have generated much more for themselves than what they got under the table seeing they got that before anyone had a clue as to just how much they would succeed. No, they should not be paid employees by the university, but telling them they cannot market themselves while they are marketed for billions is ludicrous, when you think that any other student on scholarship can earn money or market their talents or their fame for whatever without being punished for it..... JMHO If you really want fair competition then go tell Saban and all coaches of sports at all universities that they can only earn what the lowest paid professor at the university earns so it is all fair based on the particular university pay scale.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

I would, if I were in their shoes.

 

[CajunCrimson]

I would, if I were in their shoes.

Are you in a Union now? if not -- would you consider starting one? if not, why not?

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

Are you in a Union now? if not -- would you consider starting one? if not, why not?

Small business owner, not union. Would not consider starting a union, but I'm not being taken advantage of like most players are. Why are they attending college for the degree or football?

 

[JDCrimson]

Title IX will be ultimately the deciding factor of whether college football athletes can be unionize or not. I am thinking not. Because as it stands now, in total, male athletic programs cannot have more investment than female athletic programs. To successfully unionize, all student-athletes, both male and female, would have to unionize under current Title IX. Then you would have members with competing interests part of the same union. Quite possibly under the current setup you could have gymnasts encouraging football players to strike so that the gymnasts could get better facilities and benefits.

The only way this moves forward is to overturn Title IX which I dont see as very likely. A lot of hardwork has been done in the country to minimize discrimination and I think the US government is willing to throw all that away to cater some self-indulgent college football players.

This type of movement has all sorts of unintended consequences not only for the NCAA and colleges but the NFL as well. The NFL doesnt want kids younger than 21 coming into the league nor do they want to invest in a D-League either. But if players are allowed to unionize, you will see the exploitation turned on its head. It will ruin college athletics such that CNS-caliber coaches will likely just say if I am going to have to deal with this crap I might as well go back to the NFL where I am at least dealing with grownups...

 

[Mamacalled]

Absolutely not. Crazy that this is even being thought of. If a player is there only to play Pro ball then he is an idiot. Out of the thousands of players in college football only a handful get drafted and the only a handful after that make the team. Players already receive over a $100,000 in benefits while in college. The players from lower income families can easily get Pell Grants which do not have to be repaid. These Pell Grants give an individual about $600 a month to live off of. Considering room and board, tuition and books and a meal plan is already paid for they have plenty to go to the movies and eat off campus. If that is not enough then they need to learn how to manage their money.