US court rules some NCAA athletes may qualify as employees under federal wage-and-hour laws
A U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that some college athletes may qualify as employees under federal wage-and-hour laws, another setback to the NCAA.www.foxnews.com
You should probably read a little more and quit spewing nonsense.
The ruling denies an attempt to get the case thrown out and establishes a test by which the original judge can determine if an athlete could be considered an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It's not as much about pay but, as employees, they would be covered by worker's comp and have some other benefits. It's really not a good thing for college sports but it will get to the point that Congress will eventually step in and create some sort of exception.
Correct
But Congress should not create an exception .
The NFL has a media deal who the owners revenue share .
I don't think that really does much to help anything. We all know that on paper, most of these athletic departments can show a loss. All you're doing is taking away most of the support that Olympic programs depend on and forcing them to just rely on what's left in the budget after football is taken care of.
On the contrary -
Again -
Because you keep referencing the NFL.
You’re wrong on the facts , again
I always wondered how schools managed to have non-football athletic programs before the age of big money football and running all over the place for games. I mean, if you're going to drag everyone to a football conference that requires massive amounts of travel, yeah, you sort of need football.
Conferences were historically very regional; you would use buses and not planes, and a diverse athletic program was part of college life. These programs were funded through donations specific to a program or student fees so they should be able to continue and schools crying poor will be lip service.
Right. So it's not like it won't work because "football pays the bills" if a school were to jump out of this mess and dump football because several have or never bothered and they manage pretty well for themselves.
The head coaches of those other sports also probably weren't making 8x the national average full time salary and each combined coaching staffs weren't likely costing several times more than their sports generated in revenue.
I don't know. Most "non-revenue" sports survive on donations and licensing. It's not like there's this huge trickle down from football like everyone imagines. I'm not being naïve but it's not like the track program at Pitt is consuming huge chunks of the budget.
I could not find any info on Pitt but track at most schools costs the athletic department $2-3 million but is typically the expensive none revenue sport to operate.
They absolutely do not. Pitt's track and field budget is nearly $4million, and the university says it's budget neutral to the penny, just like every other non-revenue sport at the school. Every single sport is shown to be raking in between $1.6-$4million in revenue with nearly $40 million "not related to specific teams." Pitt generates nearly $140 million in athletic revenue (probably much more if you consider merchandise, which doesn't get attributed to the athletic department unless it is sold at the stadiums) and spends probably half of that on football and basketball combined.
Pitt always shows that non-revenue sports break even but if you look at other schools that do not report like that you can get an idea what those sports actually cost the athletic department.
$4 million for track is a lot. Guess there is extra travel because Pitt doesn't have a venue but that's still pretty salty.
Almost half is scholarships and related aid with 12.6 scholarships for men and 18 for women.
