The ewes have some expectations for their football coach - Norvell fired

[OrediggerPoke]

Per

I'm going to disagree a little bit. For the amount of time and risk these players take (football in particular), I think they deserve to be paid. Not millions or even several hundred thousands - but they should receive something. Forget about ROI for a minute. Wyoming has no pro sports. UW is it. It's a matter of pride for the entire state. I would agree that BYU level of spending is beyond reasonable. I'll leave it to others to determine what is reasonable. But zero is out of the question to have any semblance of competitiveness. I'm guessing that 3-4 million a year for all sports keeps us in the game.

Personally, I believe a 5 year education, room and board in nice facilities and a small stipend is a heck of a deal and very reasonable. How many students go 100+ thousand in debt to get the same thing and end up with that financial burden for decades to come?

But we aren’t ever going back to the amateur model at the upper echelon of college sports. It’s actually why I am watching more division 2 sports these days.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

All that being said...I don't think there is a valid argument anymore for just not paying them.

Pandora's box is fully open on this topic. This is professionalism in athletics with no salary cap and no systems of talent distribution (like drafts). If Wyoming and the teams that Wyoming compete with pay thier athletes, the teams that pay the most will win the most. There will be upsets...but you will ultimately get what you pay for. It won't even take a lot of difference in money...a 5% difference in pay will get you better tallent in business and it's no different in athletics.

All that being said...I don't think there is a valid argument anymore for just not paying them.

I think there is a very valid argument. Businesses only pay (and hire) employees salaries if they are making money. The vast majority of athletic departments don’t turn a profit. Why should players be paid beyond their scholarships and living costs if they aren’t actually generating positive revenue? I will vote and actively campaign against any politician who suggests using state funds to subsidize the ‘salaries’ of players when the team/business fails to turn a profit to pay them with.

Players don’t have to play. It’s a choice. Play and have your schools expenses paid, if you’re good enough go to a school turning a profit that will pay you or don’t play and either get a job or pay for college like every other high school graduate in the country.

 

[doreno5]

The truth is college sports , especially football, have for a long time been dominated by money. We used to joke about the Hundred dollar handshake. With NIL and open season for transfers big time college football is now a professional league. Wyoming without state funding simply does not have deep enough pockets to compete at the highest level. Where UW ends up is still uncertain. My guess is it will be at least a tier or two below the elite programs.

 

[307bball]

I think there is a very valid argument. Businesses only pay (and hire) employees salaries if they are making money. The vast majority of athletic departments don’t turn a profit. Why should players be paid beyond their scholarships and living costs if they aren’t actually generating positive revenue? I will vote and actively campaign against any politician who suggests using state funds to subsidize the ‘salaries’ of players when the team/business fails to turn a profit to pay them with.

Of all of the reasons not to pay athletes...the fact that athletic departments operate at a loss is one of the weaker reasons. That logic doesn’t hold up anymore because the economics of college sports have completely changed. We’re not talking about “hobby sports” run by universities anymore... this is now a fully professional labor market. The players are the product. They generate the TV contracts, ticket sales, donor interest, and conference payouts that fund the entire enterprise.

The idea that you only pay labor when you’re turning a profit doesn’t exist in any other business or industry. Businesses routinely invest in payroll to stay competitive and grow... because without talent, there is no product and no chance of ever being profitable. College athletics is no different.

The best argument to not pay them is something like the Ivy league amateurism position. Don't join the facilities arms race and don't try to have it both ways...that is what has ultimately fractured the NCAA position. It's obvious that major college football and basketball in the US is a farm system for the NBA and NFL. Those who participate in that system deserve compensation commensurate with the revenue that they generate. At the levels of college athletics that generate the most interest, players getting room/board and tuition have been getting the shaft...it's obvious now that you see the millions that are being funneled to them.

None of that really matters to Wyoming though...there just isn't a river of currency that would support it.

Players don’t have to play. It’s a choice. Play and have your schools expenses paid, if you’re good enough go to a school turning a profit that will pay you or don’t play and either get a job or pay for college like every other high school graduate in the country.

This is the part where UW finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The hard place is that Wyoming fans remember a time when we were competetive with a group of teams that are now paying players a lot of money. We just aren't competetive with them anymore. The rock looks something like FCS irrelavance.

I don't often agree with Ragtime about stuff on here but his posts about the future related to this topic specifically being largely unknowable for Wyoming make sense to me....

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Of all of the reasons not to pay athletes...the fact that athletic departments operate at a loss is one of the weaker reasons. That logic doesn’t hold up anymore because the economics of college sports have completely changed. We’re not talking about “hobby sports” run by universities anymore... this is now a fully professional labor market. The players are the product. They generate the TV contracts, ticket sales, donor interest, and conference payouts that fund the entire enterprise.

The idea that you only pay labor when you’re turning a profit doesn’t exist in any other business or industry. Businesses routinely invest in payroll to stay competitive and grow... because without talent, there is no product and no chance of ever being profitable. College athletics is no different.

This is senseless to me. Name one long term successful business that pays its employees more than it takes in in revenue (or capital gains)? And if you can name that business, I for damn sure don’t want to invest in it.

 

[307bball]

This is senseless to me. Name one long term successful business that pays its employees more than it takes in in revenue (or capital gains)? And if you can name that business, I for damn sure don’t want to invest in it.

That is not really the right comparison. College athletic departments aren’t traditional businesses trying to turn a profit.. they’re marketing and branding arms of the university. The “return” is in exposure, enrollment, alumni engagement, donations, and state pride. That value doesn’t show up on a balance sheet, but it’s very real.

And honestly, there’s an entire world of non-profits that don’t generate ROI in the business sense but still pay people. I think most Universities are in that category. They claim to be non-profit, but athletic departments and the NCAA have made that a pretty hypocritical stance.

These schools aren’t putting on games out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re getting plenty out of it....attention, money, relevance. “Non-profit” universities somehow manage to pay coaches millions and build palace-level facilities. If coaches made salaries in line with other university staff and the facilities arms race hadn’t gone nuclear, maybe the old amateur model still makes sense. Look to the Ivy League or FCS. But once schools started acting like pro programs, that line was crossed by them....not the players.

So yeah, no private investor would fund an unprofitable business. But universities aren’t hedge funds. They’re competing for attention, students, and prestige. The ones that understand and have the audience to do it will adapt. The ones that don't understand or don't have the audience (again...this put's Wyoming with the Ivy's and FCS) will be regionally relevant at best....in athletics.

The position you are staking out in regards to the state funding a semi-pro team is one that I think I share with you. If i'm not mistaken, you have also acknowledged that this means the version of Wyoming athletics we all yearn for will not be a reality.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

That is not really the right comparison. College athletic departments aren’t traditional businesses trying to turn a profit.. they’re marketing and branding arms of the university. The “return” is in exposure, enrollment, alumni engagement, donations, and state pride. That value doesn’t show up on a balance sheet, but it’s very real.

And honestly, there’s an entire world of non-profits that don’t generate ROI in the business sense but still pay people. I think most Universities are in that category. They claim to be non-profit, but athletic departments and the NCAA have made that a pretty hypocritical stance.

These schools aren’t putting on games out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re getting plenty out of it....attention, money, relevance. “Non-profit” universities somehow manage to pay coaches millions and build palace-level facilities. If coaches made salaries in line with other university staff and the facilities arms race hadn’t gone nuclear, maybe the old amateur model still makes sense. Look to the Ivy League or FCS. But once schools started acting like pro programs, that line was crossed by them....not the players.

So yeah, no private investor would fund an unprofitable business. But universities aren’t hedge funds. They’re competing for attention, students, and prestige. The ones that understand and have the audience to do it will adapt. The ones that don't understand or don't have the audience (again...this put's Wyoming with the Ivy's and FCS) will be regionally relevant at best....in athletics.

The position you are staking out in regards to the state funding a semi-pro team is one that I think I share with you. If i'm not mistaken, you have also acknowledged that this means the version of Wyoming athletics we all yearn for will not be a reality.

Non-profits consider donations as revenue. Donations are currently considered as revenue on the athletics balance sheet and I am certainly considering donations to athletics as revenue.

The only way to pay players a bunch of money at Wyoming is: (1) generate more donors; or (2) leave the tab to the current students, state legislature and taxpayers. As I’ve indicated, I’m vehemently opposed to #2 as an absolute waste of and misuse of public funds. I don’t see #1 as likely given Wyoming’s relatively small donor base and the relative lack of big pockets amongst that base.

 

[307bball]

Non-profits consider donations as revenue. Donations are currently considered as revenue on the athletics balance sheet and I am certainly considering donations to athletics as revenue.

The only way to pay players a bunch of money at Wyoming is: (1) generate more donors; or (2) leave the tab to the current students, state legislature and taxpayers. As I’ve indicated, I’m vehemently opposed to #2 as an absolute waste of and misuse of public funds. I don’t see #1 as likely given Wyoming’s relatively small donor base and the relative lack of big pockets amongst that base.

You and I agree completely here.

I think there is some sort of alternate reality where the NCAA had a moral backbone and created some sort of revenue sharing and was able to keep conferences in check while compensating student-athletes fairly. This would have come at the cost of high-end coaching salaries and some of the higher athlete deals along with some of the more exorbitant facility spending....but would have been better for the majority of college athletes.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

This is senseless to me. Name one long term successful business that pays its employees more than it takes in in revenue (or capital gains)? And if you can name that business, I for damn sure don’t want to invest in it.

Are you tracking the Big10 situation?

How the Big Ten Spent Its Way Into a $2 Billion Dilemma

Lavish facilities and soaring salaries have left athletic departments desperate for new revenue and now a private capital investment may come to the rescue.

www.si.com

Lots of risk and what in the heck is UC Cal Pension fund doing "investing" in Big 10 Enterprises? Using retirement investments?

The Jones can't even keep up with the Jones.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Are you tracking the Big10 situation?

How the Big Ten Spent Its Way Into a $2 Billion Dilemma

Lavish facilities and soaring salaries have left athletic departments desperate for new revenue and now a private capital investment may come to the rescue.

www.si.com

Lots of risk and what in the heck is UC Cal Pension fund doing "investing" in Big 10 Enterprises? Using retirement investments?

It’s absurd IMO (especially diverting retirement funds). Having worked extensively with private equity in the energy industry, I also believe that mixing public dollars and private equity dollars to basically provide stakes in university resources to private equity is wrong (and probably against Wyoming’s constitution). At least a couple schools have raised their antenna to the crazy path they are headed down.

 

[Brew_Poke]

Of all of the reasons not to pay athletes...the fact that athletic departments operate at a loss is one of the weaker reasons. That logic doesn’t hold up anymore because the economics of college sports have completely changed. We’re not talking about “hobby sports” run by universities anymore... this is now a fully professional labor market. The players are the product. They generate the TV contracts, ticket sales, donor interest, and conference payouts that fund the entire enterprise.

The idea that you only pay labor when you’re turning a profit doesn’t exist in any other business or industry. Businesses routinely invest in payroll to stay competitive and grow... because without talent, there is no product and no chance of ever being profitable. College athletics is no different.

The best argument to not pay them is something like the Ivy league amateurism position. Don't join the facilities arms race and don't try to have it both ways...that is what has ultimately fractured the NCAA position. It's obvious that major college football and basketball in the US is a farm system for the NBA and NFL. Those who participate in that system deserve compensation commensurate with the revenue that they generate. At the levels of college athletics that generate the most interest, players getting room/board and tuition have been getting the shaft...it's obvious now that you see the millions that are being funneled to them.

None of that really matters to Wyoming though...there just isn't a river of currency that would support it.

This is the part where UW finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The hard place is that Wyoming fans remember a time when we were competetive with a group of teams that are now paying players a lot of money. We just aren't competetive with them anymore. The rock looks something like FCS irrelavance.

I don't often agree with Ragtime about stuff on here but his posts about the future related to this topic specifically being largely unknowable for Wyoming make sense to me....

I don't think they're farm systems anymore. https://broncoswire.usatoday.com/st...-more-in-college-than-bo-nix-nfl/77834844007/

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I don't think they're farm systems anymore. https://broncoswire.usatoday.com/st...-more-in-college-than-bo-nix-nfl/77834844007/

Quinn Ewers made between $2-$3 million in NIL last year at Texas. He makes $840,000 this year under his NFL salary.

 

[307bball]

@OrediggerPoke, Freakonomics podcast just published a very thought-provoking two part series on football specifically. The first episode is titled "The Merger You Never Knew You Wanted" and the second is "Should Ohio State (and Michigan, and Clemson) Join the N.F.L.?".

I have not listed to the first one but the second one is very thought-provoking. One of the tidbits I picked up was the amount of money invested in individual players in the pros vs college. Since there is a salary cap we pretty much know what what NFL franchises put into players. That number is 250 million per team. In college we don't yet have great data but it is reported that Ohio State is one of the highest in the country in football NIL and players were reported to have put 20 million in thier pocket....so college program players (at the high end) are getting about 1/10th of what pros are getting. I did a little internet searching, that 250 million stands against an average of 430 million in revenue for NFL franchises...so players get a little over 55% of that revenue. In contrast, Ohio State football revenue was reported at 116 million...That 20 million is only 17% of revenue. These are all back-of-the-napkin figures but it shows why there is an economic and labor argument for paying players.

A second tidbit ... Colleges don't play on Sundays. I guess the history of this goes back to the Sports Boradcasting Act of 1961. Ostensibly that act was supposed to protect amateur sports from competition in broadcasting with professional sports. This rationale makes much less sense today than it did back then. Stefan Szymanski (the guest in the episode) says that agreement now is doing more to protect the NFL than college football nowadays. He says if college football were to compete directly with the NFL...the college game viewership would be larger and take away market from the pros. Szymanski is a professor at Michigan and he responds to a hypothetical question about at Super Bowl where the Dallas Cowboys take on the Michigan Wolverines in a world where football in the US has a promotion/relegation system like Euro soccer has......His quote from the episode about why the college sports programs would win (economically) against the pros is at least interesting:

SZYMANSKI: Well, obviously, the Wolverines would win, Michigan has a professional organization running its football team, and could train the right kind of athletes to compete in the N.F.L. As a Michigan fan, I would want to see us rise up the table and win the championship. There’s absolutely no reason you couldn’t do that. We spend a fortune on our team. We have fabulous training facilities. We have great athletes. We have great recruiting systems. We are capable of putting together that kind of institution. And it would broaden the competition enormously. The problem is it would kill the N.F.L. teams. College football is, in a sense, bigger and more deeply embedded in U.S. culture.

DUBNER: Why do you say that?

SZYMANSKI: Because college sports understands better the meaning of just winning, and not being bothered about the money. The N.F.L. owners, they’re focused on the bottom line, and would have to adapt to a world in which people were playing to win. To be honest, I think what would happen in this system is actually the college teams would end up dominating and I think the N.F.L. teams would be the ones that got relegated. The great thing about promotion-relegation is that they sustain clubs in communities. Small clubs can survive and thrive, even when they’re not doing particularly well, because there’s always the hope of something better in the future. So they build communities.

They spend thier time in the episode I listened to talking about the history of pro and amateur football in the US and why it is set up the way it is. Very fascinating to hear about the economics behind it. It's a fun listen if you have an hour behind the windshield and want to hear an economist talk about this stuff.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

@OrediggerPoke, Freakonomics podcast just published a very thought-provoking two part series on football specifically. The first episode is titled "The Merger You Never Knew You Wanted" and the second is "Should Ohio State (and Michigan, and Clemson) Join the N.F.L.?".

I have not listed to the first one but the second one is very thought-provoking. One of the tidbits I picked up was the amount of money invested in individual players in the pros vs college. Since there is a salary cap we pretty much know what what NFL franchises put into players. That number is 250 million per team. In college we don't yet have great data but it is reported that Ohio State is one of the highest in the country in football NIL and players were reported to have put 20 million in thier pocket....so college program players (at the high end) are getting about 1/10th of what pros are getting. I did a little internet searching, that 250 million stands against an average of 430 million in revenue for NFL franchises...so players get a little over 55% of that revenue. In contrast, Ohio State football revenue was reported at 116 million...That 20 million is only 17% of revenue. These are all back-of-the-napkin figures but it shows why there is an economic and labor argument for paying players.

A second tidbit ... Colleges don't play on Sundays. I guess the history of this goes back to the Sports Boradcasting Act of 1961. Ostensibly that act was supposed to protect amateur sports from competition in broadcasting with professional sports. This rationale makes much less sense today than it did back then. Stefan Szymanski (the guest in the episode) says that agreement now is doing more to protect the NFL than college football nowadays. He says if college football were to compete directly with the NFL...the college game viewership would be larger and take away market from the pros. Szymanski is a professor at Michigan and he responds to a hypothetical question about at Super Bowl where the Dallas Cowboys take on the Michigan Wolverines in a world where football in the US has a promotion/relegation system like Euro soccer has......His quote from the episode about why the college sports programs would win (economically) against the pros is at least interesting:



They spend thier time in the episode I listened to talking about the history of pro and amateur football in the US and why it is set up the way it is. Very fascinating to hear about the economics behind it. It's a fun listen if you have an hour behind the windshield and want to hear an economist talk about this stuff.

Based on your description, I struggle a bit to understand the applicability. I don’t think anyone is arguing that Ohio State doesn’t bring in revenue over and above reasonable overhead and that they can pay players if they want to.

Wyoming’s athletic department does not operate on those margins. And it is a gross misuse of public funds to supplement Wyoming athletic budgets to pay players to keep up with the Ohio State’s of the world IMO.

Also - it doesn’t appear that scholarships are counted as income to players in that description. Wyoming already pays players pretty well compared to revenue when you consider the value of a scholarship.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

@OrediggerPoke, Freakonomics podcast just published a very thought-provoking two part series on football specifically. The first episode is titled "The Merger You Never Knew You Wanted" and the second is "Should Ohio State (and Michigan, and Clemson) Join the N.F.L.?".

I have not listed to the first one but the second one is very thought-provoking. One of the tidbits I picked up was the amount of money invested in individual players in the pros vs college. Since there is a salary cap we pretty much know what what NFL franchises put into players. That number is 250 million per team. In college we don't yet have great data but it is reported that Ohio State is one of the highest in the country in football NIL and players were reported to have put 20 million in thier pocket....so college program players (at the high end) are getting about 1/10th of what pros are getting. I did a little internet searching, that 250 million stands against an average of 430 million in revenue for NFL franchises...so players get a little over 55% of that revenue. In contrast, Ohio State football revenue was reported at 116 million...That 20 million is only 17% of revenue. These are all back-of-the-napkin figures but it shows why there is an economic and labor argument for paying players.

A second tidbit ... Colleges don't play on Sundays. I guess the history of this goes back to the Sports Boradcasting Act of 1961. Ostensibly that act was supposed to protect amateur sports from competition in broadcasting with professional sports. This rationale makes much less sense today than it did back then. Stefan Szymanski (the guest in the episode) says that agreement now is doing more to protect the NFL than college football nowadays. He says if college football were to compete directly with the NFL...the college game viewership would be larger and take away market from the pros. Szymanski is a professor at Michigan and he responds to a hypothetical question about at Super Bowl where the Dallas Cowboys take on the Michigan Wolverines in a world where football in the US has a promotion/relegation system like Euro soccer has......His quote from the episode about why the college sports programs would win (economically) against the pros is at least interesting:



They spend thier time in the episode I listened to talking about the history of pro and amateur football in the US and why it is set up the way it is. Very fascinating to hear about the economics behind it. It's a fun listen if you have an hour behind the windshield and want to hear an economist talk about this stuff.

Also - something that get overlooked by most people and apparently including this study.

Businesses pay employees based on total net revenue to the business. Businesses don’t pay employees purely because one particular item might generate more profit than another item the business produces. When evaluating the ‘business,’ it is improper IMO to focus on the one item ‘football’ but exclude all of the other ‘items’ that are necessary to operate a FBS college football team under NCAA rules (ie volleyball, track, softball, etc…). If we are being told that we need to operate our athletic department to fairly compensate our ‘employees,’ then net revenue must take into account profits and losses of all scholarship sports operated under our athletic department business. Arguing against this completely ignores fundamental business principles.

To my knowledge, the Dallas Cowboys business doesn’t also include a swimming team.

 

[307bball]

Also - something that get overlooked by most people and apparently including this study.

Businesses pay employees based on total net revenue to the business. Businesses don’t pay employees purely because one particular item might generate more profit than another item the business produces. When evaluating the ‘business,’ it is improper IMO to focus on the one item ‘football’ but exclude all of the other ‘items’ that are necessary to operate a FBS college football team under NCAA rules (ie volleyball, track, softball, etc…). If we are being told that we need to operate our athletic department to fairly compensate our ‘employees,’ then net revenue must take into account profits and losses of all scholarship sports operated under our athletic department business. Arguing against this completely ignores fundamental business principles.

To my knowledge, the Dallas Cowboys business doesn’t also include a swimming team.

This is mostly to give some context around your earlier point about the “validity” of not paying college athletes.....the labor force actually generating the revenue. Again...don't lose sight that I have repeatedly said that the way to not paying players would have been for the entire NCAA to join the Ivy's in thier stance to how to operate college athletics....but that didn't happen.

In pretty much any industry that relies on skilled labor (and sports entertainment absolutely qualifies), the people doing the work get around 40–60% of total revenue. That’s basically what the NFL distributes to players. College programs have sidestepped that reality for decades. So where does the money go? Facilities, admin bloat, and coaching salaries that make Fortune 500 CEOs blush (also...fielding swimming teams). The idea that players shouldn’t be paid in 2025 just doesn’t pass the smell test anymore. Every argument claiming poverty to avoid paying players here runs into a retort that it's not thier problem that the universities run thier business poorly.

The NCAA has been playing amateur hour with professional money for a long time... cashing checks like the pros while pretending it’s all about “the student experience.” Those arguments are collapsing fast.

And to be clear, I’m with you on the state-funds issue. I’m not advocating taxpayer dollars go to pay athletes. I’m just pointing out that from a labor and market standpoint, real revenue is being created because of these players, and they’re getting a tiny fraction of what’s normal anywhere else.

Quick back-of-the-napkin math:

• Wyoming football revenue: $16.6 million
• Roster: 105 players
• Estimated cost per player (tuition + room/board): $26k
  That’s about $2.7 million total — roughly 16% of revenue going back to the people actually on the field.

At a place like Ohio State, it’s even more absurd cost of attendance payouts would be the single digits as a percentage of football revenue.

It’s mostly food for thought, but once you look at it through an economic lens, the argument against paying players doesn’t get stronger — it completely falls apart. The arguments are all versions of well, this is the way it has always been done...

 

[OrediggerPoke]

This is mostly to give some context around your earlier point about the “validity” of not paying college athletes.....the labor force actually generating the revenue. Again...don't lose sight that I have repeatedly said that the way to not paying players would have been for the entire NCAA to join the Ivy's in thier stance to how to operate college athletics....but that didn't happen.

In pretty much any industry that relies on skilled labor (and sports entertainment absolutely qualifies), the people doing the work get around 40–60% of total revenue. That’s basically what the NFL distributes to players. College programs have sidestepped that reality for decades. So where does the money go? Facilities, admin bloat, and coaching salaries that make Fortune 500 CEOs blush (also...fielding swimming teams). The idea that players shouldn’t be paid in 2025 just doesn’t pass the smell test anymore. Every argument claiming poverty to avoid paying players here runs into a retort that it's not thier problem that the universities run thier business poorly.

The NCAA has been playing amateur hour with professional money for a long time... cashing checks like the pros while pretending it’s all about “the student experience.” Those arguments are collapsing fast.

And to be clear, I’m with you on the state-funds issue. I’m not advocating taxpayer dollars go to pay athletes. I’m just pointing out that from a labor and market standpoint, real revenue is being created because of these players, and they’re getting a tiny fraction of what’s normal anywhere else.

Quick back-of-the-napkin math:

• Wyoming football revenue: $16.6 million
• Roster: 105 players
• Estimated cost per player (tuition + room/board): $26k
  That’s about $2.7 million total — roughly 16% of revenue going back to the people actually on the field.

At a place like Ohio State, it’s even more absurd cost of attendance payouts would be the single digits as a percentage of football revenue.

It’s mostly food for thought, but once you look at it through an economic lens, the argument against paying players doesn’t get stronger — it completely falls apart. The arguments are all versions of well, this is the way it has always been done...

There’s a big difference between ‘gross revenue’ and ‘net revenue.’ I’m not sure if you are tracking that distinction because you are reporting GROSS revenue numbers. In my industry, our labor force drilling and operating a well gets nowhere close to 40-60 percent of the gross revenue. In fact, they don’t even get 16 percent. This is because the well itself, the materials and the land rights/royalties (the capital costs) are so steep.

Once again - you also ignore the definition of the business. Because of the law (Title IX) and NCAA rules basically requiring a net revenue loser women’s soccer team to have a football team, it defies business sense to evaluate football revenue in a vacuum.

 

[307bball]

There’s a big difference between ‘gross revenue’ and ‘net revenue.’ I’m not sure if you are tracking that distinction because you are reporting GROSS revenue numbers. In my industry, our labor force drilling and operating a well gets nowhere close to 40-60 percent of the gross revenue. In fact, they don’t even get 16 percent. This is because the well itself, the materials and the land rights/royalties (the capital costs) are so steep.

Gross revenue is what is used in this calculation. Compensation or Payroll percentage is always Compensation divided by Gross Revenue. Different industries have different norms here. At the bottom end you have retail as low as 8%....as your work force skill increases you see compensation percentage rise....for example healthcare is 40 to 45%. There is a lot of variation here across industries. What is normal in the mineral extraction industry is not applicable to the hospitality industry and vise versa. I'm assiduously avoiding saying what that number "should" be....just pointing out what it generally is elsewhere.

Once again - you also ignore the definition of the business. Because of the law (Title IX) and NCAA rules basically requiring a net revenue loser women’s soccer team to have a football team, it defies business sense to evaluate football revenue in a vacuum.

Title IX doesn’t erase the underlying economics, it just dictates how the money gets distributed. Football and men’s basketball are the engines driving the whole operation. They have historically subsidized everything else. If anything, that makes an even stronger case that the players in those sports are producing extraordinary value.....value that everyone else benefits from.

It’s not me ignoring the “definition of the business.” It’s the NCAA that’s ignored its historical mandate and the special carve-out it’s enjoyed in the U.S. economy. They wanted all the benefits of massive audience capture and cultural relevance, while hiding behind non-market norms. They didn’t steward that privilege well, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

The greed and hypocrisy sit with the institutions.....not the athletes. It won’t be Ohio State or Alabama or Nebraska that suffers from the fallout. It’s programs like Wyoming, who operated in good faith under the old system and now have to compete in a market in which they have a decided disadvantage.

There’s always been a coherent argument for the role of university athletics in enriching campus and community life. But that mission was abandoned long ago in the chase for TV dollars and conference payouts. Paying players in proportion to the revenue they generate isn’t some radical idea — it’s basic fairness, and so far, the courts have agreed.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

. Paying players in proportion to the revenue they generate isn’t some radical idea — it’s basic fairness, and so far, the courts have agreed.

This isn’t actually true. Courts have said that prior NCAA rules which prevented players from profiting off their name, image and likeness violated anti-trust law. A class action was brought to compensate the players for the damages they alleged they suffered as a result of these anti-competitive rules.

I’ve seen no court that has said that a university, by the mere nature of generating gross revenue, is obligated to pay players as a matter of ‘fairness.’ In addition, no business is obligated to pay its employees any share of revenue over and above minimum wage laws. That’s a fundamental tenet of the American system and employment law.