There may be several ways to control the out-of-control free agency in recruiting, tampering, transferring and the payment of college players, particularly in football and basketball. Here’s a solution that’s proven to work by the pro leagues and does not violate federal anti-trust laws — a collective bargaining agreement between a conference, or two conferences like the Big Ten and SEC and an organization representing their scholarship athletes. This idea might be a subject for discussion by the “advisory committee” the Big Ten and SEC recently announced.
The professional sports leagues and their players’ unions have negotiated contracts which have substantially limited the problems of unfettered free agency among the players, permitting the pro teams to stabilize their rosters and player costs and equalizing the competitive position of individual teams. Obviously the players agreed to the terms because their contract with the NFL, NBA or MLB has also proven financially beneficial to them.
In the case of college sports the substantial source of funds provided by the multi-billion dollar TV rights contracts could be used to control the problems free agency is causing in recruiting and uncontrolled transfers between schools.
There is no reason why the Advisory Committee formed recently by the Big Ten and SEC conferences couldn’t affiliate and make a collective bargaining proposal to all their student-athletes. The athletes would have to figure out how to organize in order to respond to the conference’s proposal, of course. But the substantial money involved would certainly result in the prompt formation of such an organization.
Without going into detail, the major elements of a proposal by the conferences could include:
There are a lot of details which would have to be agreed upon by the various stakeholders in intercollegiate sports and then negotiated with the newly-formed athlete’s union, of course.
The school presidents would probably resist an idea which reduces the amount of money they have been provided from the TV contract distributions. But by taking this narrow view, they ignore the reality of the worsening problems of uncontrolled free agency. College sports will be weakened as the result.
The TV networks would like this proposal because there would be a lot more competitive balance between the teams in the conferences, and much more competitive TV matchups.
But please, let’s not debate the fact that this proposal violates the concept of amateurism in college sports. Sadly, we’re already well beyond that notion.
The professional sports leagues and their players’ unions have negotiated contracts which have substantially limited the problems of unfettered free agency among the players, permitting the pro teams to stabilize their rosters and player costs and equalizing the competitive position of individual teams. Obviously the players agreed to the terms because their contract with the NFL, NBA or MLB has also proven financially beneficial to them.
In the case of college sports the substantial source of funds provided by the multi-billion dollar TV rights contracts could be used to control the problems free agency is causing in recruiting and uncontrolled transfers between schools.
There is no reason why the Advisory Committee formed recently by the Big Ten and SEC conferences couldn’t affiliate and make a collective bargaining proposal to all their student-athletes. The athletes would have to figure out how to organize in order to respond to the conference’s proposal, of course. But the substantial money involved would certainly result in the prompt formation of such an organization.
Without going into detail, the major elements of a proposal by the conferences could include:
- A substantial portion — say 20% — of the annual TV Rights payments paid to the conferences by the TV networks would be allocated to payments to men’s and women’s scholarship athletes. In the case of the current Big Ten TV contract, that would amount to $16-20 million per year per team payable to scholarship athletes. The SEC would be a similar amount.
- The new college athlete’s union would agree that recruits would forfeit their rights to payment in exchange for their acceptance of a grant-in-aid by a particular school. (No Pay-4-Play).
- Base salaries would be negotiated for both revenue and non-revenue athletes. The salaries would be the same for all scholarship athletes in revenue-producing sports, a lesser amount for Olympic sports scholarship athletes.
- A substantial portion of the allocation of TV rights money after payment of base salaries would remain available for the schools to mandatorily distribute to athletes as incentive compensation.
- The athletes would agree on a total amount of aggregate compensation from both the TV rights allocation as well as NIL payments to individual athletes. (A Salary Cap)
- The conferences would agree to a minimum amount of aggregate compensation from the TV rights allocation payable to individual athletes. (A Salary Floor)
- The players would be required to accept terms whereby athletes transferring between any schools in the B1G or SEC would be required to sit out a year of competition. (The SEC already has this rule for intra-conference transfers.)
There are a lot of details which would have to be agreed upon by the various stakeholders in intercollegiate sports and then negotiated with the newly-formed athlete’s union, of course.
The school presidents would probably resist an idea which reduces the amount of money they have been provided from the TV contract distributions. But by taking this narrow view, they ignore the reality of the worsening problems of uncontrolled free agency. College sports will be weakened as the result.
The TV networks would like this proposal because there would be a lot more competitive balance between the teams in the conferences, and much more competitive TV matchups.
But please, let’s not debate the fact that this proposal violates the concept of amateurism in college sports. Sadly, we’re already well beyond that notion.
Last edited: