A history of DA and the progression to MLS Next

[Grace T.]

Whatever the college will pay.

I assume at first that the amout paid would be equivalent to the "value" of a scholarship.

Top players would earn much more $$$.

The "value" of the scholarship for women is distorted because of Title IX. It creates an artificial need for women athletes to match overbloated football programs, which soccer in particular (being a large team sport) fills. Title IX, however, may (probably?) won't extend if you pay the athletes salaries (depending on the structure) because now you aren't talking education, but professional sports. Again, the value for most women athletes will be zero.

Even then, for both the men and women, much of the soccer scholarship is funneled through academic scholarships to get around limitations on sports scholarships. There isn't much sports value here either. Really the scholarship is a premium being paid to the student to go to a lower ranked school than a higher ranked school at which they'd be required to pay full freight. It's a tuition discount, which doesn't translate necessarily to money out the door, because there's a difference between how people (and accountants) value unearned discounted income v. expenses out the door. That's why it's easier for merchants, for example to offer BOGOs or sales, than it is to just mark down their prices.

Yes, the top female soccer players would earn more $$$ (to the complete detriment BTW of the USWNT because Europe has definitively now caught up, if not yet surpassed the US, through its professional academy system in just a handful of world cup cycles). They would likely only be a handful of players at each of the very most competitive D1 schools.

 

[Carlsbad7]

The "value" of the scholarship for women is distorted because of Title IX. It creates an artificial need for women athletes to match overbloated football programs, which soccer in particular (being a large team sport) fills. Title IX, however, may (probably?) won't extend if you pay the athletes salaries (depending on the structure) because now you aren't talking education, but professional sports. Again, the value for most women athletes will be zero.

Even then, for both the men and women, much of the soccer scholarship is funneled through academic scholarships to get around limitations on sports scholarships. There isn't much sports value here either. Really the scholarship is a premium being paid to the student to go to a lower ranked school than a higher ranked school at which they'd be required to pay full freight. It's a tuition discount, which doesn't translate necessarily to money out the door, because there's a difference between how people (and accountants) value unearned discounted income v. expenses out the door. That's why it's easier for merchants, for example to offer BOGOs or sales, than it is to just mark down their prices.

Yes, the top female soccer players would earn more $$$ (to the complete detriment BTW of the USWNT because Europe has definitively now caught up, if not yet surpassed the US, through its professional academy system in just a handful of world cup cycles). They would likely only be a handful of players at each of the very most competitive D1 schools.

All you need to do is make College attendance mandatory to play on the team. Then pay the players an equivalent to the tuition cost.

If players can get academic scholarships that can be applied to the tuition so be it. If this happens the player pockets the difference.

Paying players is 100% possible. Colleges just dont want to do it because they like to control students + hold scholarships over them.

 

[espola]

Whatever the college will pay.

I assume at first that the amout paid would be equivalent to the "value" of a scholarship.

Top players would earn much more $$$.

If a player gets cash instead of a scholarship, doesn't he have to turn around and pay that back to the college for the expenses no longer covered by his scholarship?

One of the reasons the NCAA was founded was to prevent the blatantly unappetizing prospect of the wealthier colleges buying up all the better players.

 

[espola]

So many half-baked ideas on this thread.

 

[aong cangkol]

Initiatives that involves college is not going to improve the situation. The problem is in U8 - U13.
If US as a society really wants to educate their soccer players, we can make US Soccer pays tuition for all players ever called up by USYNT at any school of his/her choosing. Free tuition should be the incentive but you cannot lower academic standard for college acceptance.

 

[Carlsbad7]

If a player gets cash instead of a scholarship, doesn't he have to turn around and pay that back to the college for the expenses no longer covered by his scholarship?

Yes + theres nothing wrong with that.

At the end of the day you have the same situation. Player funds college education by on field performance.

The difference is if payed $$$ players can unionize + have representation + take coaches to court if they harass players, etc. Right now colleges hold all the cards with scholarships.

One of the reasons the NCAA was founded was to prevent the blatantly unappetizing prospect of the wealthier colleges buying up all the better players.

I dont see the problem with this. Colleges that want to win will pay for top talent. Colleges that want to just exist will offer tuition costs.

People dont understand how much money colleges make. Paying players vs scholarships will not break their bank. Sports people get peanuts + thank colleges for the little they receive.

 

[espola]

Initiatives that involves college is not going to improve the situation. The problem is in U8 - U13.
If US as a society really wants to educate their soccer players, we can make US Soccer pays tuition for all players ever called up by USYNT at any school of his/her choosing. Free tuition should be the incentive but you cannot lower academic standard for college acceptance.

Yes + theres nothing wrong with that.

At the end of the day you have the same situation. Player funds college education by on field performance.

The difference is if payed $$$ players can unionize + have representation + take coaches to court if they harass players, etc. Right now colleges hold all the cards with scholarships.

I dont see the problem with this. Colleges that want to win will pay for top talent. Colleges that want to just exist will offer tuition costs.

People dont understand how much money colleges make. Paying players vs scholarships will not break their bank. Sports people get peanuts + thank colleges for the little they receive.

How much money do college soccer programs make?

 

[Carlsbad7]

How much money do college soccer programs make?

It's not about the amount soccer teams generate. Very few male or female college sports teams generate revenue and are cash positive.

Look at how much professors make on average...

"The base salary for Professor at University of California, Los Angeles range from $85,132 to $176,474 with the average base salary of $101,934."

Look at how much admins make on average...

"The average College Administrator salary in California is $80,412 as of October 27, 2022, but the range typically falls between $59,347 and $101,478."

Roll in the retirement benefits + that leadership makes a bunch more than the average.

Either way if colleges pay the players equivalent to tuition. The money just funnels back into the college. Colleges just dont want players to have rights + the ability to unionize + have representation.

 

[Grace T.]

Yes + theres nothing wrong with that.

At the end of the day you have the same situation. Player funds college education by on field performance.

The difference is if payed $$$ players can unionize + have representation + take coaches to court if they harass players, etc. Right now colleges hold all the cards with scholarships.

I dont see the problem with this. Colleges that want to win will pay for top talent. Colleges that want to just exist will offer tuition costs.

People dont understand how much money colleges make. Paying players vs scholarships will not break their bank. Sports people get peanuts + thank colleges for the little they receive.

Rarely ever agree with espola but have to agree here....half-baked:

1. Most college soccer teams aren't potential money makers If they become a for profit venture almost all except the highest of the girls D1 programs (maybe) instantly become money losers.
2. There's a difference in how the internal accounting treats scholarships (which are a basically a tuition discount which is unrealized income) v. salaries (which are an expense....and not just an expense but an expense on which benefits and fringes need to be paid, particularly if there's a union). It is easier for an enterprise from an economic point of view to offer a discount on income in, than it is to cut a check for income out. It's doubly so for an academic institution which is based on fundraising...it has to cover its costs or go bankrupt....if income in falls short, well that's what fundraising is for, and what the colleges in fact do, which is to charge regular freight kids (who might barely get into the institution) a markup to cover those shortfalls.
3. You ignore the fact that many of those scholarships are really masked as academic scholarships. Paying a salary means that mask no longer takes place.
4. Paying a salary likely separates this out from Title IX protections, which are the only thing that is making girls sports in demand. Making it a requirement to attend the institution doesn't solve for this since again that's a salary being drawn by the student for services, instead of an academic benefit covered by Title IX. You might get a court to agree to your interpretation, but then that torpedoes the entire incentive for schools to do this, because the incentive is to direct more money to men's football and basketball which has a marketable value, not women's soccer which has none.
5. You just converted that nice tax free benefit to the players into taxable income.

 

[Grace T.]

It's not about the amount soccer teams generate. Very few male or female college sports teams generate revenue and are cash positive.

Look at how much professors make on average...

"The base salary for Professor at University of California, Los Angeles range from $85,132 to $176,474 with the average base salary of $101,934."

Look at how much admins make on average...

"The average College Administrator salary in California is $80,412 as of October 27, 2022, but the range typically falls between $59,347 and $101,478."

Roll in the retirement benefits + that leadership makes a bunch more than the average.

Either way if colleges pay the players equivalent to tuition. The money just funnels back into the college. Colleges just dont want players to have rights + the ability to unionize + have representation.

You seem to be under the mistaken fallacy that colleges are an operation geared to the welfare of students (which are the consumers of the product) rather than the admins and professors (which are the stakeholders of the operation).

 

[espola]

You seem to be under the mistaken fallacy that colleges are an operation geared to the welfare of students (which are the consumers of the product) rather than the admins and professors (which are the stakeholders of the operation).

I wrote an editorial for the campus weekly paper (Clarkson Integrator) with a similar theme.

Back in 1968.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Keep in mind that the USWNT said something needs to change + you're arguing that everything stays the same.

 

[Grace T.]

Keep in mind that the USWNT said something needs to change + you're arguing that everything stays the same.

The only thing that can save the uswnt long term is if the us finds a way to shift to an academy system for women…a max of 1 in la and 1 in San Diego for SoCal. Otherwise 6 -8hrs a week v 5-6 hours a day in Europe ain’t going to cut it

 

[Carlsbad7]

The only thing that can save the uswnt long term is if the us finds a way to shift to an academy system for women…a max of 1 in la and 1 in San Diego for SoCal. Otherwise 6 -8hrs a week v 5-6 hours a day in Europe ain’t going to cut it

If colleges pay their players + are going all in for top talent (meaning paying more that tuition) they can counter European/World club training.

 

[Grace T.]

If colleges pay their players + are going all in for top talent (meaning paying more that tuition) they can counter European/World club training.

Then they aren’t sending their students to classes because there’s no time on a year round schedule. Right now college training in the us is a limited season with mixed quality of coaching with limited practice and a limited number of games. It’s why the men could never field effective teams with college players against academy based countries.

And that’s before you get to the main problem which is the academy in Europe at age 11-17 are practicing 4 growing to 8 hours a day as they get older. even a surf olders team practicing 4-5 times a week can’t compete with that because players need time to go to school and do homework which academy players don’t need to worry about because they are off the college track. Unless the colleges start recruiting and training players at age 11-13 this doesn’t solve the problem.