Read on Twitter
This whole thing is exposing just how upside down the business model for college football (and college in general) is. Entire universities, athletic departments and local economies are built on the backs of the talent of a small predominantly back subset of the student pop..
And it’s important to emphasize the word talent, because sometimes people argue “if these kids don’t want to play then someone else will”. These teams TV deals are tied to performance, if a program is weaker the less money there is to feed the rest of the system.
It’s why programs invest so much in coaches. Sure some are great strategists, but more importantly because the quality of the coach is a proxy for the quality of the real product you are selling, the on field talent, young men in their late teens early 20s.
There is no other ecosystem with billion dollar+ value in which the most important kink in the value chain is not only not compensated, but forbidden from receiving compensation, even from external stakeholders.
A lot of pppl say fans don’t want college football because of the players... they do it for the programs, and that’s true. Ever wonder how those premier programs became what they are?
How does Clemson become CLEMSON? Winning, and good players, who have made Clemson more valuable today than 5 years ago.
On a different tangent, the idea that paying athletes via a simple revenue share on a conference by conference basis destroys other sports at these schools is not a reality. It’s just an NCAA talking point and quite frankly a lie created to help exploit
“The median Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) athletics program experienced inflation-adjusted revenue growth of 67% from 2006-2015[1], a higher rate of revenue growth than all other non-profit sectors in the United States over this period of time[2].”
The expenses needed to finance other sports on campuses can’t be growing at the same rate that revenue in college football is growing. If we assume this to be true, then this revenue growth means that the percentage of total revenue needed to pay for other sports decreases yearly
Thus meaning every year that passes it becomes EASIER to maintain a steady state standard in non revenue generating sports AND facilitate a percentage based revenue share with college athletes in the conferences with large media rights deals.
Understandably some schools AD are not crazy profitable. Hence why this be negotiated on a conference by conference basis. Some conferences have fully professionalized programs wit crazy media deals that are used to fund excess in order to avoid paying players. They need to share
The conferences that don’t, don’t need to enter into a Rev share, or can have smaller Rev shares. For athletes at these smaller schools NIL, will be a great way for them to receive value from their labor.
But in fewer words, with business booming, paying football (and basketball players) doesn’t kill other sports. In fact.... it might actually help them.
Part of what made Michael Jordan so popular, and the NBA by virtue of his popularity was what he was able to do in partnership with well known brands like Nike and Gatorade to amplify the brand he created with fantastic on court play.
Would college sports be able to secure even more lucrative TV deals once brands are able to tell the awesome stories of college athletes to the masses freely? Would college basketball last year have been even bigger if little kids were seeing Zion even more?
Would college sports be able to secure even more revenue if they could actually license a video game? What about the potential for the even greater exposure of HS stars cause of no concerns about eligibility? Would more stars stay for a ring if it wasn’t millions or nada?
