I read a book last summer called, A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things which discussed cheap labor and cheap care as two of the seven things. In cheap labor the authors talk about labor productivity and land productivity and in the discussion forums we discussed what they were and why specifically labor productivity is more of a concern for the upper class. Because it is human based whereas in land productivity it depends on soil content, weather and geography. Labor productivity is run by industries and other people. They control the pay, the number of workers, how long they work and do what’s best in the interest of the company rather than the workers. In some cases this can lead to worker exploitation, where women and men alike are unable to support their families in ratio to how much they work.
For example, for family men and women. They need a balance where they are being paid enough to support their family but at the same time they need to work certain hours because of their children. I believe that finding that balance is very difficult because it would change from person to person depending on experience and other life skills qualified for a certain job.
This relates to our short episodes of the NBA documentary. Specifically, Pay or Play. The students in the NCAA give up their time and energy to be committed to the sport they play. The argument is that many of these athletes get scholarships so they are theoretically being paid to play. But is the amount of time spent and how much the NCAA generates versus tuition paid balanced out? I personally don’t think it is. The NCAA gains 6 billion on the NCAA tournament. The money is split between the schools and other sports programs including the ones that might not generate any revenue. Even so, this is A LOT of money. Where does it all go?
The coaches just like any adult need to make money to support their family. But they make around $4 million when the players are the ones doing the work, showing their faces and winning the games. This is an example of exploitation of workers. The teams used to make more revenue from apparel by using their likeness. In addition, the athletes spend all their free time practicing and playing which doesn’t allow them time to make money themselves. If the NCAA doesn’t pay them and they don’t allow them the time to make their own money, they are setting up the athletes that don’t go professional to fail after college. Overall, student athletes, those who generate revenue for the school should be compensated in order to set themselves up for the future, whether or not they go professional.
Great Post Padmini! You made some great points about the amount of money generated by the NCAA and how little the players get from it all. However, this raises quite a few questions about whether or not all players should be compensated for their time playing sports for their college. The money from sports like football and basketball get spread out to all of the sports, just like how the money from the athletic boosters gets spread to all of the sports. Do you think that all of these players should be compensated when they aren't making money for the school? Also, do you feel this compensation should be in the form of paychecks or scholarships/room/supplies?
ReplyDeleteThis is a really thorough post on the NCAA and the payment of college players. When it comes down to it, you're either on the side of paying for the athletes or not. You bring up something extremely valid in that the NCAA generates billions a year that go to coaches and the universities, yet never into the pockets of athletes. Arguments by the NCAA have laid out positions that paying athletes would hurt their education, and so these discussions will remain until one day, there might just be a case that reaches the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-ncaa-says-paying-athletes-hurts-their-education-thats-laughable/2018/09/20/147f26c0-bb80-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3ab14b7b8acb