- You never have a billionaire owner who destroys the team with meddling
- You never have a billionaire's failson in your personnel department or something
- The city never gets extorted into building a billion-dollar stadium for a billionaire owner
- The team never moves
- You never have an ownership group that prioritizes profit maximization over on-field competitiveness
Haha absolutely.
Is a student on an academic scholarship working a job then? Or what about a walk-on athlete on the swim team?
I still think the "is their labor being exploited" question is the touchstone here. If someone else is making money off of what you do, it's a job. If someone else is paying to facilitate what it is you do, and they're not profiting from it, I have a hard time calling that a job.
But why does profitability matter to you?
If our fictional swimmer is putting in all the work he can, just like the football player, then I don’t see why it is the athletes problem that it is not directly profitable for the University, if they want to provide these programs.
What also came to my mind was that Universities do profit, maybe not on this immediately obvious measurable way(like with FB), but they do like to brag about their diverse programs they sponsor, don't they?
I think it's helpful in distinguishing between a hobby and a job. If I play guitar in the park sometimes, that's a hobby. If a bunch of people want to come and pay to see me play, that's a job. Should someone get any additional compensation for practicing their hobby (above and beyond everything needed to live decently, which should be guaranteed for everyone, of course)? I don't see much justification for that. Where does the expectation for additional compensation come from if whatever one is doing doesn't produce any value? It's one thing to want to receive the full value of your labor, but what if the value of your labor is zero?
That's a good point -- the value a swim team provides goes beyond ticket revenue. I'd certainly be open to increasing the compensation for swimmers if someone did some sort of econometric analysis showing that (accounting for whatever they add to the university's brand) the sport is profitable. I doubt that's the case, though, based on how few people watch sports like swimming and how sports of that type sometimes get cut from athletic programs without much overall impact on the school itself.
I maybe should've been more clear, I was with concerns to financial compensation only talking about the specific NCAA context, if you have that education for physical performance situation.
Additionally, not all labor is that easily measurable/quantifiable to me, it kinda flows.
Like the example of art, art to me inherently has a value, the quality of that art is obviously subjective, but I wouldn’t dismiss it because it doesn’t make a profit.(not suggesting you were doing that)
So like you say everyones needs need to be met, even if they just want to do street music or be a swimmer. But the level of your compensation would obviously, even in a socialist/communist society, vary somewhat depending on the appeal of your work.
I think that leads into a broader discussion, like how could art/entertainment be incentivized in a socialist/communist society.
I have to admit I'm not too sure how this was/is handled in socialist countries, but I think that is a very important discussion to have at some point.
Although that is pretty bougie, is it? Like to even be thinking about that, when most people don't even get what class is.(Just a thought)
I have to admit that I'm obviously not an expert on the topic to give exact numbers, those were just my thoughts from my personal perspective on the NCAA.
I can see why the NCAA, next to just simply not wanting to give up 1$, don't want to even slightly open up this can of worms.
Because they'd have to answer these questions too, like is this work?
And I, as a leftist, wouldn't want to make that argument for them.(Sorry I can't word it without sounding snarky)