How Much Is a College Football Player Worth?
Hint: A lot more than the NCAA wants to admit.
College football has returned to the airwaves and with it the debate over paying student-athletes. Though the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) brought in nearly $1 billion dollars in revenue last year, the organization continues to resist compensating student-athletes because they argue it would undermine the ideals of amateurism. But "the term 'student athlete' is actually a fiction," says Ellen Staurowsky, a sport management professor at Drexel University. "It was created to obscure the fact that the NCAA knew that it had created a pay-for-play system."
Staurowsky argues that the NCAA's construct of amateurism changes to fit the needs of the organization. "The NCAA has three different divisions and there are different definitions of amateurism for each one," she says.
Public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of a pay-for-play system. A 2014 Reason-Rupe poll found that 64 percent of Americans think student-atheletes should receive money if a college or company sells gear containing their likeness or jersey number. And 50 percent of Americans said college basketball players should get some of the $700 million in television rights revenue from the NCAA March Madness tournament.
"Higher education is the sponsor of this enormous entertainment industry and it's building that industry on the backs of an unrecognized labor force," says Staurowsky. But if we are going to consider paying student-athletes, how do we determine their worth in a fair market?
Staurowsky, along with Ramogi Huma—a former football player at UCLA and president of the National College Players Association—looked to the pros for a model.
"There was no real discussion about what the potential market value of a college football and men's basketball player might be," says Staurowsky. "It seemed reasonable that we would go to the professional associations where there's a revenue sharing mechanism in place. So we looked at the NFL and we looked at the NBA to begin to have a starting point."
By looking at those models and considering the NCAA's new rule-change allowing student athletes to receive a scholarship covering the full cost of attendance, Staurowsky estimates that collegiate football players' worth is in the neighborhood of $110,000 a year across all schools. "If we begin to really look at the expanse of money that is out there, the question isn't so much whether or not the industry can afford to pay athletes," Staurowsky says. "It's just a matter of when there will be a recognition of the vast of amount of profit that is being generated in all of these other sectors and for people to understand that there really is money out there to do it."
While the NCAA may have the money to pay its student-athletes, however, it has been slow to make any meaningful changes. This inaction has led to a multitude of lawsuits that threaten the power structure of the organization, along with the Northwestern University football program's historic bid to unionize.
Though the National Labor Relations Board rejected Northwestern's union bid in mid-August, the threat of unionization pushed the NCAA to make major policy reforms to raise scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.
Staurosky admits there can be issues with unionization, but she says it is important to put an outside group in place that can advocate on behalf of student-athletes.
"We know that this is a starting point in the conversation," says Staurowsky. "But we also know that our estimate is far more representative of the kind of inequities that exist in the system than simply just accepting that the scholarship is the only measure."
Approximately 7 minutes.
Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Todd Krainin and Meredith Bragg. Music by Silent Partner.
Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How Much Is a College Football Player Worth?
Depends on scale. On an atomic level, not much; on a molecular level, more (think about hormones &c), on a tissue/organ level even more.
Who even gives a fuck about sports anyway? What a waste of time. The country is going down the drain and there are 100 million men out there acting like a child's game is the most important thing in the world, even more important than their families. Fucking idiots, all of them!
Apparently they're worth full scholarships plus room and board. Otherwise, the players would attempt the CFL or AFL for a couple of years. I hate the NCAA, but let's not pretend there aren't other options.
Whut R ye sayin'?
U mean they do ***NOT*** keep college football players chained in the locker rooms between games? That they are FREE to go elsewhere!?!?!
On the other hand...
They don't pay these guys the MIN WAGE, even?
HOW can they get AWAY with that?!?!?
All in all, I can't feel too terribly bad for the college football super-studs...
Dat true... they don't get their money for nuthin'...
They sure do seem to get their chicks for free!
What are you talking about - full scholarships are worth many times minumum wage.
And who pays for the upkeep and maintenance of those gigantic football stadiums
and athletic coaches and buildings?
Government-Almighty-associated institutions (just like Government Almighty itself) is always exempting itself from the rules. Educrats are VERY Guv-Almighty associated, so they get away with it... Working the "student teachers" for real work, and making them PAY for the privilege, for example.
College athletes make LOTS of money? For their schools! Not a dime of money is supposed to go back into their pockets!
You try and run a private business, and "pay" your "non-workers" for making widgets, by giving them free college degrees, free coffee, free air conditioning and heating, free gravity, free health care? And not one DIME of cash or pay-check pay!
See how fast Guv Almighty comes around to steal all yer shit, and/or, haul you off to the hoosegow!
Ooops! One other exception, I forgot about this one...
Get yourself certified as a "religion"... Think Scientology slave camps, or Hare Krishnas passing out "free" stuff at the airport...
And then you can feed your "volunteer" brain-washed workers, one can of cat-food a day, if that much!!!
Help! Help! Need y'all's advice please?
My hometown of Buttinskyville is contemplating a $35/hour min wage at the fast-food establishments? Only Donald Trump and Bill Gates are gonna stop by our town for burgers any more, in the near future?
Along the lines of the above, I am thinking SQRLSY One must come riding to the rescue, on this one! I am thinking, either ?
A) I will open the Church of Hamburgerology, and have my brain-washed "volunteers" feed the masses, while I feed them dog food for pay, or?
B) I will open the College of Hamburglarology, and the sport of Hamburgerology. In lieu of "pay", Hamburgerology athletes can get degrees in "Hamburgerology medicine" for the treatments and therapies for injuries involved in Hamburgerology, the sport?
? I am thinking "A" is FAR less regulated, so I should go with it? Ordaining a few ministers of Hamburgerology is a LOT less hassle-some than getting college-degreed professors of Hamburgerology approved by Government Almighty.
What do y'all say? I need to make this business? Ooops, I mean, religious or sports? Decision soon, so please advise ASAP?
I think you should go with option C
Get a job at Burger King.
But Burger King is VERY soon going to be shut down and out by the Burglar King (AKA Government Almighty), via that $35/hour min wage! Help, help, I'm being burgled by all of our Government Almighty "helpers"!!!
Private donations pay for much of the facilities at a school like Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, OSU, etc.
Doing away with the pretense that college athletes are actually attending college rather than training for professional athletics would be the best possible solution. Spin off the NCAA as a minor/semi-pro league. Let them negotiate whatever salary they can command. Let universities make money by actually educating students. Win-win-win.
^^^THIS^^^
Let universities make money by actually educating students. Win-win-win.
Is that what we've been getting from our university education system in recent history?
If you were to task me with (further) isolating universities from markets and real-world capitalism in one stroke, this would be it.
"Let universities make money by continually siphoning an ever greater amount off of government-backed federal aid programs."
FTFY.
So, they work for "free"... and want to be paid more.
So... find a better job or quit. Heck, this is actually the one legitimate purpose of unions! Everyone quit all at once until they pay you.
Problem solved, and without governmental interference. Unless, that is, that they aren't willing to quit, at which point there really wasn't a problem in the first place.
Yup.
If these young men or ladies have the skills, and can get paid to play, they deserve to be able to get what they can.
"Problem solved, and without governmental interference."
B-b-b-but... That's no fun!!
Next, you're going to tell me that non-GMO food companies should just put "non-GMO" on their packaging instead of lobbying the government to force other companies to put "Contains GMO" on theirs! That's how crazy you are!
/statist
Problem solved, and without governmental interference. Unless, that is, that they aren't willing to quit, at which point there really wasn't a problem in the first place.
Or you were providing a free service at the grace/behest of *cough*Northwestern*cough* the university rather than meeting market demand and your quitting means the market demand (if any) will just go unmet and you'll be forced to find another way to "not get paid" to attend school for "free".
What I don't get is, if they have it so bad, why don't a lot of them just quit? That's a free market solution.
Why is that when we have this discussion about paying student-athletes, the conversation is always about football and basketball? Why are the baseball players never mentioned? Because MLB actually have their own minor league system in place. MLB drafts the best athletes right out of high school. A baseball player still has the option to forego the minors and attend college, and many do for the free education. And if a baseball player does decide to attend college, he is not eligible for the MLB draft for 3 years. NFL and NBA do not have a minor league system and have always utilized college sports as their minor league. Why should the NFL and NBA set up their own minor league system when they already get it for free. Minor leagues are seldom profitable, often needing to be subsidized by the professional league/teams. As it stands currently, everyone wins except the athlete. The colleges are able to reap massive profits by only paying athletes a "scholarship" and not sharing revenue from the selling of their likeness, and the pros get a better, more mature athlete, without having to invest any money into those athletes.
The large institutions spend much more than the face value of the scholarship on each player.
How do we pin this question/problem on the Patriots?
The players are provided the fields on which they can demonstrate to the pros what they are capable of. That is worth a lot
The leaders of these allegedly humanitarian crusades - whether they claim to be fighting for college football players, minimum wage workers, or sweatshop employees overseas - all overlook one fact: that these people would not have taken these jobs if they did not offer at least a slight improvement over not taking them at all.
Is that your test for whether a market is optimal or fair - that no better options are available? You don't believe in free markets where participants can find their value? You're OK with employers - in this case the schools via the NCAA - colluding to set compensation levels? If we exempted tech companies from antitrust laws, as we exempt college sports programs, and they colluded to set wages for programmers well below free market levels, you're OK with that as long as some programmers (let me know how many is enough) continue to work as programmers? And minimum wage fights are not at all comparable to this issue. That is a fight to disrupt free markets.
So let the players just quit if they think they're getting a bad deal. There are other things they can sped their energies on.
You don't believe in free markets much, do you?
If I didn't believe in free markets, then I might want government intervention in the form of antitrust law (for example).
If you were (are?) advocating for pulling the taxpayer money out, then I'd have to totally agree with you there. But getting the government (IE the thing that's wrecked higher education) more involved seems like a bad idea to me.
I mean, do you really think that what the situation needs is to get more lawyers, bureaucrats, and sociopaths politicians involved?
I'm all for schools treating these athletes like humans and not dollar signs though, I worry about corruption from sponsors offering bribe money to those kids. Some of them come from very poor backgrounds and that money is much needed relief for them. I hope they do this right and allocate all appropriations through some preset channels...no pun intended.
Doesn't the revenue from football and basketball basically support the entire sports program budget at most schools? How would other sports be affected if the schools shared 70% with the student athletes?
Not only that but remember that they get tuition, dorms, food, trainers and more all for free, which is compensation itsself
Also, the "wage" was agreed upon by the students themselves or else they wouldn't be there.
So what if they agreed to the wage? That doesn't change the fact that those wages are well below what they would be in a free market where schools aren't allowed to collude.
But what's the better solution: Let each person decide if they're happy with their arrangement, or bring in Top Men to 'fix' it?
...and unions, while they might sound like a good pro-freedom solution, usually end up coercing many of members to take deals that they don't want.
The better solution is to take away the antitrust exemption for colleges and the NCAA and let the free market work, like we do with virtually every other industry. It really that hard to contemplate?
Antitrust law is about the big-government friendly thing we could do though...
If there wasn't much competition for football scholarships, then maybe even my lame ass could get one. As it is, people practice for years and actually get good at the hope of getting one, and then maybe even going pro later on. Why would anyone do this unless they thought it was a good deal for them?
It's like a guy I knew who quit a high-paying steady job to go and starve trying to be a model and actor. He knew the odds were against him and that he'd scrape by, but its what he wanted to do. Capitalism means he had the freedom to do that, not that he'd be guaranteed a wage in doing so.
Under the past methods, it's hard to say - the money is all scattered around. You'd have to add up all the envelopes with cash left in player mailboxes, the stipends to the people who do the player's schoolwork, the differential between the salary paid and actual production of turning on and off lights, the player only discounts at the nearby retailers, the cars and houses given to player relatives. I'd say, $200,000-$500,000 altogether, depending on the program and star power of the player.
I had a friend who was friends (from back home) with players on the premiere NCAA basketball team in my area. He used to at their parties. One of the players wanted some money, made a phone call, and within an hour there was envelope in his mailbox with a couple thousand in cash. This was a Big Ten school, but - at the time - a second tier team, and he was getting this kind of money with a phone call.
In short, the players are already paid, it's a matter if the market is white, gray, or black.
Players are already compensated by "booster clubs". Whenever a pay to play scandal is discovered, a coach or other university official takes the fall, the student (long gone by that point) forfeits his awards and the NCAA issues a strongly worded statement or two. Might as well make the thing legal.
Well, a lot of the players are on full or partial scholarships which is a form of compensation. The stars who bring in the real money are getting a free $45,000 a year education (or more depending where), plus free dorms, food, trainers, first dibs on signing up for classes, etc. They are compensated. It's the walk-ons who are only compensated with facilities access and meals. But they chose to be a walk-on knowing that. I don't think they should get paid and if they do, let it be the NCAA and the colleges that choose, not the government. And if a student feels that all these perks is not enough compensation, then just quit and pay for college like everyone else or if you're a walk-on, don't try out.
Now what the NCAA should do to keep their NFP status is create educational scholarships and research grant funding from their revenues so if goes back into education. This is what colleges do with their profits from athletics,it goes to buildings, research, equipment, scholarships and more. The NCAA should be pushed into putting their money back into the collegiate part of their name and do good with it
NCAA need not pay college athletes, but let's end the bullshit rules they have that stop athletes from gainfully earning their own money. Suspending an athlete because he sells his signature is beyond absurd.
If paying these babies an additional cash wage would allow EA to publish their NCAA Football series again, then let's do it!
Probably, they are worth a lot more than the the people running college sports are willing to pay, as this might cut into their profits, and or compensation.
Without a doubt. If colleges weren't allowed to collude to set the athletes' "wages" the athletes would be paid a lot more. I'm at a loss for why so many readers of Reason find it totally acceptable that powerful institutions (colleges) are exempt from antitrust laws with the result that they can set below-market wages and reap the benefits at the expense of young adults.
Speaking for myself: I think if the players really felt it was bad deal they would simply not do it, rather than compete for the chance to. Those antitrust laws you speak of are very anti-freedom. Charge schools for the crime of offering free college in exchange for playing for their team? You don't need the Top Men involved, and those players have alternatives. If they don't like college football that much, why don't they start their own league? Or do something else with their time?
Suppose your city passes a law that says anyone who pays $1 million to the city can charge anyone on their street $1,000 every time they leave their house? Sometimes you'll pay the $1,000 because that's a good deal versus being stuck in the house. Plus, if you don't like it you can fork over $1 million to purchase the same right. Does that make it a good law?
Because someone is forcing them to play football for a college or a university?
A union is not the answer. Schools should be able to compete, using even their alumni for help, on the open market for athletes and the athletes should be able to make the best deal possible which would include the diploma as one of the benefits. This is a simplified summary, but, if done freely, might make the Ivy League a force in the BCS series!
College football has always been a FRAUD where athletes traded their bodies for an education they could never afford and would always be utterly unable to complete. Few college football "stars" use college degrees and few could score passing grades on a GED after "graduating" college still today.
It is modern de facto slavery.
It's a mutually beneficial transaction, so it is definitely not de facto slavery. Give me a fucking break.
I think there should be something like a trust fund that is paid out after graduation but the athletes get lots of extra services (medical, academic, etc) outside of the face value of their tuition.
But how can any of us truly be free if we're just allowed to choose the most favorable option as each of us sees it? Shouldn't Top Men decide what we can choose in order to protect us? What if people make choices that the majority thinks are bad for them?
Are they there primarily to get an education or gain visibility for being drafted by a pro-team and a high salary? How about a formula whereby each term their GPA is used to calculate their tuition? A 4.0 GPA could result in no cost, by a simple formula such as GPA x 25 = tuition discount.
Maybe something like that for all the students would result in students applying themselves at college?
I would be in favor of a small trust fund for each player UPON graduation.
HOWEVER, a school like Alabama - of which I am a fan - spends lots of money outside of the tuition/room and board on these kids. They get the very best in academic assistance in the form of personalized tutors and vast array of counseling resources. The medical care they get is probably better than the care to which most Senators have access. The amount of remuneration they receive is a couple of multiples larger than the face value of the scholarship.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com
College athletes don't deserve any compensation over or beyond their scholarships,free tuition and housing costs. If they want to pay their own way through college,then maybe we can consider salaries for the extracurricular activity of college sports.
How much is a college player worth?
Ask Jerry Sandusky or his pal Joey Paterno.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.Money-Hours.com
The Fact that we refer to them as Student Athletes and not Athlete Students should speak volumes.
The adjective comes before the noun. These are Athletes parading as Students, not the other way around. Otherwise, we should refer to other terms as Scientist Rockets and the State Nanny..