It’s time to stop mincing words and being polite: College athletes started making money, jeopardizing an exploitative system that kept billions in revenue in the hands of mostly white male adults — and suddenly college sports was in “crisis.”
Real reform would require we stop the farce of college sports entirely. When coaches make more than presidents at universities and when alum can dictate policy, the system doesn’t need just reform— it needs to be abandoned. Let the NFL and NBA create farm teams, like baseball. Pay players real wages and provide protections. Then if players want to go the college later, they can.
I agree that the system is severely broken, much to the detriment of the athletes. Most college sports teams lose money every year and the student body pays for this with higher fees, and less funds for academics. For state schools, the states' taxpayers pay for it. The few top ranking teams that make money do not contribute any profits to the university. Donors who contribute to sports teams usually don't contribute to the university itself. There is no university that has a mission statement related to having a sports team. Yes, successful and popular sports teams may bring in students, but maybe these students would have attended the school even without the team.
I tend to agree, especially as someone who is at a university for something other than sports. The whole thing is way too sports-focused, and at the very least, sports programs that do make money should be required to share substantial amounts of it with academic programs. But as a country with the greatest selection of colleges and universities in the world, surely we can do better than make people who are actually there for academics—what the institutions are supposed to be about—feel pushed aside.
Still, I also think Senator Murphy is right about this bill, and it should be stopped.
Yes, the bill should/must be stopped and Murphy is right about the true motivation. I am a professor and have worked at four different kinds of institutions—academics are why these places exist. The finances behind sports is complicated (REALLY complicated)—and I could go on about that and affordability. A lot needs to be fixed! But in spite of this, good work is being done, and most professors and administrators really care about the students’ learning. I hope you get what you need, and encourage you to fight for it if you aren’t!
While I agree with the sentiments about outrageous coaches' salaries, simply abandoning major college sports would be a huge mistake.
- Bad for the universities who would lose a major source of revenue.
- Bad for students, locals, alumni, and general fans who find college sports fun and a great source of community spirit.
- Bad for the athletes who benefit greatly (in non-economic ways) from sports.
It's an accident of history that American universities are so popular and such a revenue driver, and the answer is not to reject this gift horse but to harness it so that it does the most good. I talk about it in more detail in my original comment below, but the right answer would be to:
- Return to the previous system of scholarships only (no NIL money), while making those scholarships more generous when appropriate to make sure athletes have a little bit of spending money and ability to fly home for the holidays.
- Also ensure that the health care resources provided to college athletes who suffer injuries while playing or training
- Limit practice time so athletes have time for school.
- Drastically limit the salaries of coaches (and athletic directors, bowl officials, and anyone else who makes money from college athletics that the colleges can control).
There is no reason college sports can't be a great experience for student athletes while also being a revenue driver for universities that can use that revenue to fund scholarships, research, teaching, and facilities. Reform efforts should focus on making sure the money generated by college sports is used in that way.
The exploitation of people living in poverty really should be addressed, but sportsball and betting are how some people are supplementing their income. Other are having to beg of food on the streets while economic violence is a huge problem. Do I have enough for rent, food, and clothing or anough money to attend a University where I can potentially be exploited further because I want to have fun an get victim blamed like Jane Joe. Hunting Ground is something you should watch. It is amazing that people are shooting their fellow citizen's on the streets while the caste system is alive and well for the people living in poverty.
It's astonishing how in these times of economic and political strife, of war and natural disasters that the GOP has the time and inclination to promote this farcical legislation. How disgusting.
Congress is actually going to come back from the hinterlands to Washington and actually consider a bill ??? That will be a miracle ! And of course it will be to protect student athletes? What about the war ? What about AI ? What about a mentally incapacitated President ? Last weekend I watched OleMiss /LSU and it was karma !! Years of watching football with my husband and being kind of neutral as my high school and college were all girls I grew to hate Lane Kiflin last season. I thought he was the college football equivalent of Donald Trump so what happened Saturday at LSU was just about perfect !!! Someone should pass a law protecting young men from the likes of Lane Kiflin.
American colleges and universities, by an accident of history, have in big time college sports an incredible revenue generator. It's a shame that we're currently wasting 30% of that revenue on payments to athletes and huge salaries for coaches when it should be going to fund the universities themselves and to help defray the costs of tuition, teaching, research, and facilities.
The Cruz bill is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but an ideal bill, in my mind, would do the following:
- Dramatically limit coaches salaries. While I'm not wedded to any exact number, I would throw out as starting point for discussion a top salary for any coach of $500k and a total salary amount for any football coaching staff as a whole at $2,000,000 (much lower for basketball).
- End all NIL money and go back to athletes receiving scholarships (though I would increase the living costs associated with the scholarship to include 2 flights back home and some spending money).
- Increase the resources dedicated to providing athletes with health care for injuries sustained training or playing.
- Limit the amount of practice time.
And to those who object that it's unfair to the athletes to take away the NIL money, I think that's absurd. These athletes are free to turn pro (would also abolish the age limits in the NFL and NBA) to see how much they're actually worth. What 99.99% will find is what minor league baseball players, G-Leaguers, and Arena Football players already know: that what their athletic talents are actually worth is somewhere between minimum wage and a bus driver's salary.
The only reason that we care about college sports is the affiliation with the universities. So it's not only better for society but morally right that the money generated by college sports go the colleges.
Hear, hear. Long before the NIL era, it was evident that what is really needed in college sports is wealth redistribution. If the enormous money being spent ensured that scholarships were widely available even for non-revenue-generating sports; that athletes were fully taken care of (remember Kemba Walker not having enough money for food?); and that universities were fairly compensated for the indispensable role they play in creating demand in the first place, we'd be in a much better place. The solution was never to create another strata of rich people putting pressure on those at the bottom; it was to use sports to make sure universities are places where any student, with any set of interests and talents, can find the resources they need to thrive.
Sen. Murphy, I have liked and respected your political positions. I am a lifelong Democrat, from a family of Democrats. So I do not understand why the Democtrats in Congress vote against protecting the women's sports category, and against protecting the bodily integrity of minors, in favor of dubious "gender affirming care." To many, Dem votes now seem divorced from common sense and evidence, and downright harmful to the rights of women and children. Historically liberal, independent and Democratic voters will no longer vote Democrat because of what looks a cult-like adherence to a belief in "gender identity" which in practice is homophobic, misogynistic and deeply illiberal. Voters who are in despair because they cannot vote GOP/MAGA either. Can you please explain the rationale for this new Democrat belief system, which has resulted in leaving the championing of women and girls to the party of the anti-Constitution demogue?
I understand that some aspects of the way many people talk about trans and gender issues can seem (and in some cases, actually be) cultish. However, I do not agree at all with the idea that the positions most Democratic officials and candidates take on these issues are illiberal or harmful to the rights of women and children. Nor do I think it’s plausible to view being in support of surgery for trans kids (a view that not at Democrats support anyway) as harmful or illiberal, even though I respect the views of those who are against this. The thing that’s important to note right off the bat with this is that no one thinks any child should undergo a gender-affirming surgery against their will (despite what we hear in all too many lying Republican ads). The debates are just about whether (a) it should be legal for children to do this if they choose, and if so, whether (b) it should be covered by insurance and (c) they should be able to do it without their parents’ permission. I say yes to (a) and (b) but am very hesitant about (c). However, I understand that someone could say no to all three without being an evil person (and I’m sure some elected Democrats do say no to all three). But I simply don’t think it’s right that saying yes to any of these things is an illiberal position—if anything, it’s quite the opposite, since it’s about increasing children’s freedom to make their own choices about their bodies. Of course there should be limits to the choices children can make, especially if they are very young—but there is nothing illiberal about wanting to remove some of the limits that currently exist. Also, it’s not easy for me to see the common Democratic positions on these issues (which are often fairly moderate) as divorced from common sense or evidence. The best evidence we have to go on here is people’s first-hand experiences, and many trans people, including kids, find it extremely hard to go through life in the body they were born into without making some changes to it.
Equally important, I think it would be a huge mistake at this point for anyone who believes in democracy, rule of law, and human rights not to vote for Democrats. Even if they were in fact completely wrong on trans and other gender-related issues, it would simply not be an option to let that keep us from supporting the only party that believes in respecting the results of elections, letting people exercise their civil rights, and not putting innocent people into concentration camps or murdering them in the streets. It’s about building a big tent that can defeat fascism, even though we disagree on numerous important issues
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wish Democratic Party incumbents and candidates were as open as you to exchange. I especially appreciate your last paragraph, which is a live concern. I am willing to send you details that substantiate my claims of illiberality and misogyny, and the moral and political implications of voting that into office, if you care to read them. Thanks again.
I appreciate this response to my response, so thank you too! And please do let me know some of the details you have in mind as things that substantiate your claims about illiberality and misogyny.
I call absolute BS that you are a Democrat or have ever been. Why do democrats support gender affirming care? Because we respect the rights of the LGTBQ+ community, and believe that everyone, not just tradionalist norms, gain protections under the law. Go crawl back into your MAGA hole. No one believes for a second that you have the best interests of women or children in mind. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Maybe the fact that the "anti-Constitution demagogue" and his crew so gleefully support the same policies you do in this area should give you some pause? Can you think of any other areas in which these people are "championing...women and girls"? If not - if you believe that they consistently do *not* champion women and girls - maybe you should consider why you grant them some sort of ideological exception in this one area. It seems more likely that you are simply wrong in your beliefs and refusing to acknowledge reality than that the people who consistently fail women and girls chose this one area in which to champion them.
just now I know one thing,anyone who votes for a party responsible for 7% mortgage rates.6.50 deisel,sky high grocery prices and health insurance PREMIUMS,IS NUTS. and what makes them really nuts is there the ones who are most effected.
Two things are clear. The power-down architecture has the upper hand. This top, white, wealthy cohort pulls the levers and dials of existence. Athletes need to play to survive and to even have a future. So, given the current cultural and political shift toward heavy top-down, me-or-you, power enhancement at others' expense, this Protect College Sports Act is just that: an "act."
I am thoroughly disgusted with the ineffective messaging of the democratic party. While the republicans are trying every dirty trick in the book.Democrats seem more concerned with being nice and not offending anyone./profile/134218701-kathleenjonathan-swetzoff/note/c-340393147
IF A PRESIDENT WHO STARTS A WAR,AND THEN ENABLES THE ENEMY IS NOT A STRONG MESSAGING POINT,I DONT NO WHAT IS,ESPECIALLY WHEN HEGSETH AND US INTELL ADMITS THAT INTELL FROM RUSSIA AND CHINA WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR AT LEAST 4 US BASES BEING TARGETED.WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!!!THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SURE DOESNT HAVE A FIRM GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS!EVERY DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR FOR OFFICE NO MATTER WHAT OFFICE, SHOULD BE MESSAGING THIS.THERE IS NO REASON THAT ANY RACE SHOULD BE CLOSE.IF THIS IS NOT A STRONG MESSAGING POINT,I DONT KNOW WHAT IS?EVERY CANDIDATE RUNNING AGAINST A TRUMP ENDORSED CANIODATE SHOULD BE STRONGLY MESSAGIG THIS. WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR DEMOCRACY,AND IF WE DO,THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE COMPLICIT,BY VIRTUE OF THERE IMPOTENT,INEFFECTUAL MESSAGING.JUST LIKE THE REASON WE LOST THE LAST ELECTION.
jan 6 cost taxpayers 2.7 billion dollars,trump made 100 million suing social media for taking him of there platform. changing the names to the gulf of america,dept of war,lake america about 3 billioin dollars.HAVE YOU HEARD THE DEMOCRATS MENTION THIS,AGAIN ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!
Real reform would require we stop the farce of college sports entirely. When coaches make more than presidents at universities and when alum can dictate policy, the system doesn’t need just reform— it needs to be abandoned. Let the NFL and NBA create farm teams, like baseball. Pay players real wages and provide protections. Then if players want to go the college later, they can.
I agree that the system is severely broken, much to the detriment of the athletes. Most college sports teams lose money every year and the student body pays for this with higher fees, and less funds for academics. For state schools, the states' taxpayers pay for it. The few top ranking teams that make money do not contribute any profits to the university. Donors who contribute to sports teams usually don't contribute to the university itself. There is no university that has a mission statement related to having a sports team. Yes, successful and popular sports teams may bring in students, but maybe these students would have attended the school even without the team.
100%. Division Three allows for athletics and there can still be competitive sports in higher education.
I tend to agree, especially as someone who is at a university for something other than sports. The whole thing is way too sports-focused, and at the very least, sports programs that do make money should be required to share substantial amounts of it with academic programs. But as a country with the greatest selection of colleges and universities in the world, surely we can do better than make people who are actually there for academics—what the institutions are supposed to be about—feel pushed aside.
Still, I also think Senator Murphy is right about this bill, and it should be stopped.
Yes, the bill should/must be stopped and Murphy is right about the true motivation. I am a professor and have worked at four different kinds of institutions—academics are why these places exist. The finances behind sports is complicated (REALLY complicated)—and I could go on about that and affordability. A lot needs to be fixed! But in spite of this, good work is being done, and most professors and administrators really care about the students’ learning. I hope you get what you need, and encourage you to fight for it if you aren’t!
While I agree with the sentiments about outrageous coaches' salaries, simply abandoning major college sports would be a huge mistake.
- Bad for the universities who would lose a major source of revenue.
- Bad for students, locals, alumni, and general fans who find college sports fun and a great source of community spirit.
- Bad for the athletes who benefit greatly (in non-economic ways) from sports.
It's an accident of history that American universities are so popular and such a revenue driver, and the answer is not to reject this gift horse but to harness it so that it does the most good. I talk about it in more detail in my original comment below, but the right answer would be to:
- Return to the previous system of scholarships only (no NIL money), while making those scholarships more generous when appropriate to make sure athletes have a little bit of spending money and ability to fly home for the holidays.
- Also ensure that the health care resources provided to college athletes who suffer injuries while playing or training
- Limit practice time so athletes have time for school.
- Drastically limit the salaries of coaches (and athletic directors, bowl officials, and anyone else who makes money from college athletics that the colleges can control).
There is no reason college sports can't be a great experience for student athletes while also being a revenue driver for universities that can use that revenue to fund scholarships, research, teaching, and facilities. Reform efforts should focus on making sure the money generated by college sports is used in that way.
The exploitation of people living in poverty really should be addressed, but sportsball and betting are how some people are supplementing their income. Other are having to beg of food on the streets while economic violence is a huge problem. Do I have enough for rent, food, and clothing or anough money to attend a University where I can potentially be exploited further because I want to have fun an get victim blamed like Jane Joe. Hunting Ground is something you should watch. It is amazing that people are shooting their fellow citizen's on the streets while the caste system is alive and well for the people living in poverty.
Not surprising that Trump would be pushing such a racist bill to empower his ultra-wealthy white cronies.
Call your Senators to tell them to "kill the bill".
It's astonishing how in these times of economic and political strife, of war and natural disasters that the GOP has the time and inclination to promote this farcical legislation. How disgusting.
Thank you for explaining this so clearly!
Congress is actually going to come back from the hinterlands to Washington and actually consider a bill ??? That will be a miracle ! And of course it will be to protect student athletes? What about the war ? What about AI ? What about a mentally incapacitated President ? Last weekend I watched OleMiss /LSU and it was karma !! Years of watching football with my husband and being kind of neutral as my high school and college were all girls I grew to hate Lane Kiflin last season. I thought he was the college football equivalent of Donald Trump so what happened Saturday at LSU was just about perfect !!! Someone should pass a law protecting young men from the likes of Lane Kiflin.
Okay, but of ALL the things the Senate should be worried about now...?
You damn well know that if trump
is pushing the bill, it is for personal gain.
Thank you, Senator.
What a surprise!
American colleges and universities, by an accident of history, have in big time college sports an incredible revenue generator. It's a shame that we're currently wasting 30% of that revenue on payments to athletes and huge salaries for coaches when it should be going to fund the universities themselves and to help defray the costs of tuition, teaching, research, and facilities.
The Cruz bill is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but an ideal bill, in my mind, would do the following:
- Dramatically limit coaches salaries. While I'm not wedded to any exact number, I would throw out as starting point for discussion a top salary for any coach of $500k and a total salary amount for any football coaching staff as a whole at $2,000,000 (much lower for basketball).
- End all NIL money and go back to athletes receiving scholarships (though I would increase the living costs associated with the scholarship to include 2 flights back home and some spending money).
- Increase the resources dedicated to providing athletes with health care for injuries sustained training or playing.
- Limit the amount of practice time.
And to those who object that it's unfair to the athletes to take away the NIL money, I think that's absurd. These athletes are free to turn pro (would also abolish the age limits in the NFL and NBA) to see how much they're actually worth. What 99.99% will find is what minor league baseball players, G-Leaguers, and Arena Football players already know: that what their athletic talents are actually worth is somewhere between minimum wage and a bus driver's salary.
The only reason that we care about college sports is the affiliation with the universities. So it's not only better for society but morally right that the money generated by college sports go the colleges.
Hear, hear. Long before the NIL era, it was evident that what is really needed in college sports is wealth redistribution. If the enormous money being spent ensured that scholarships were widely available even for non-revenue-generating sports; that athletes were fully taken care of (remember Kemba Walker not having enough money for food?); and that universities were fairly compensated for the indispensable role they play in creating demand in the first place, we'd be in a much better place. The solution was never to create another strata of rich people putting pressure on those at the bottom; it was to use sports to make sure universities are places where any student, with any set of interests and talents, can find the resources they need to thrive.
Sen. Murphy, I have liked and respected your political positions. I am a lifelong Democrat, from a family of Democrats. So I do not understand why the Democtrats in Congress vote against protecting the women's sports category, and against protecting the bodily integrity of minors, in favor of dubious "gender affirming care." To many, Dem votes now seem divorced from common sense and evidence, and downright harmful to the rights of women and children. Historically liberal, independent and Democratic voters will no longer vote Democrat because of what looks a cult-like adherence to a belief in "gender identity" which in practice is homophobic, misogynistic and deeply illiberal. Voters who are in despair because they cannot vote GOP/MAGA either. Can you please explain the rationale for this new Democrat belief system, which has resulted in leaving the championing of women and girls to the party of the anti-Constitution demogue?
I understand that some aspects of the way many people talk about trans and gender issues can seem (and in some cases, actually be) cultish. However, I do not agree at all with the idea that the positions most Democratic officials and candidates take on these issues are illiberal or harmful to the rights of women and children. Nor do I think it’s plausible to view being in support of surgery for trans kids (a view that not at Democrats support anyway) as harmful or illiberal, even though I respect the views of those who are against this. The thing that’s important to note right off the bat with this is that no one thinks any child should undergo a gender-affirming surgery against their will (despite what we hear in all too many lying Republican ads). The debates are just about whether (a) it should be legal for children to do this if they choose, and if so, whether (b) it should be covered by insurance and (c) they should be able to do it without their parents’ permission. I say yes to (a) and (b) but am very hesitant about (c). However, I understand that someone could say no to all three without being an evil person (and I’m sure some elected Democrats do say no to all three). But I simply don’t think it’s right that saying yes to any of these things is an illiberal position—if anything, it’s quite the opposite, since it’s about increasing children’s freedom to make their own choices about their bodies. Of course there should be limits to the choices children can make, especially if they are very young—but there is nothing illiberal about wanting to remove some of the limits that currently exist. Also, it’s not easy for me to see the common Democratic positions on these issues (which are often fairly moderate) as divorced from common sense or evidence. The best evidence we have to go on here is people’s first-hand experiences, and many trans people, including kids, find it extremely hard to go through life in the body they were born into without making some changes to it.
Equally important, I think it would be a huge mistake at this point for anyone who believes in democracy, rule of law, and human rights not to vote for Democrats. Even if they were in fact completely wrong on trans and other gender-related issues, it would simply not be an option to let that keep us from supporting the only party that believes in respecting the results of elections, letting people exercise their civil rights, and not putting innocent people into concentration camps or murdering them in the streets. It’s about building a big tent that can defeat fascism, even though we disagree on numerous important issues
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wish Democratic Party incumbents and candidates were as open as you to exchange. I especially appreciate your last paragraph, which is a live concern. I am willing to send you details that substantiate my claims of illiberality and misogyny, and the moral and political implications of voting that into office, if you care to read them. Thanks again.
I appreciate this response to my response, so thank you too! And please do let me know some of the details you have in mind as things that substantiate your claims about illiberality and misogyny.
I call absolute BS that you are a Democrat or have ever been. Why do democrats support gender affirming care? Because we respect the rights of the LGTBQ+ community, and believe that everyone, not just tradionalist norms, gain protections under the law. Go crawl back into your MAGA hole. No one believes for a second that you have the best interests of women or children in mind. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Maybe the fact that the "anti-Constitution demagogue" and his crew so gleefully support the same policies you do in this area should give you some pause? Can you think of any other areas in which these people are "championing...women and girls"? If not - if you believe that they consistently do *not* champion women and girls - maybe you should consider why you grant them some sort of ideological exception in this one area. It seems more likely that you are simply wrong in your beliefs and refusing to acknowledge reality than that the people who consistently fail women and girls chose this one area in which to champion them.
just now I know one thing,anyone who votes for a party responsible for 7% mortgage rates.6.50 deisel,sky high grocery prices and health insurance PREMIUMS,IS NUTS. and what makes them really nuts is there the ones who are most effected.
Two things are clear. The power-down architecture has the upper hand. This top, white, wealthy cohort pulls the levers and dials of existence. Athletes need to play to survive and to even have a future. So, given the current cultural and political shift toward heavy top-down, me-or-you, power enhancement at others' expense, this Protect College Sports Act is just that: an "act."
Kathleen/Jonathan Swetzoff
I am thoroughly disgusted with the ineffective messaging of the democratic party. While the republicans are trying every dirty trick in the book.Democrats seem more concerned with being nice and not offending anyone./profile/134218701-kathleenjonathan-swetzoff/note/c-340393147
IF A PRESIDENT WHO STARTS A WAR,AND THEN ENABLES THE ENEMY IS NOT A STRONG MESSAGING POINT,I DONT NO WHAT IS,ESPECIALLY WHEN HEGSETH AND US INTELL ADMITS THAT INTELL FROM RUSSIA AND CHINA WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR AT LEAST 4 US BASES BEING TARGETED.WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!!!THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SURE DOESNT HAVE A FIRM GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS!EVERY DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR FOR OFFICE NO MATTER WHAT OFFICE, SHOULD BE MESSAGING THIS.THERE IS NO REASON THAT ANY RACE SHOULD BE CLOSE.IF THIS IS NOT A STRONG MESSAGING POINT,I DONT KNOW WHAT IS?EVERY CANDIDATE RUNNING AGAINST A TRUMP ENDORSED CANIODATE SHOULD BE STRONGLY MESSAGIG THIS. WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR DEMOCRACY,AND IF WE DO,THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE COMPLICIT,BY VIRTUE OF THERE IMPOTENT,INEFFECTUAL MESSAGING.JUST LIKE THE REASON WE LOST THE LAST ELECTION.
Drop file here to upload
https://share.newsbreak.com/jqqhedpm?s=i16
/profile/134218701-kathleenjonathan-swetzoff/note/c-348292803
jan 6 cost taxpayers 2.7 billion dollars,trump made 100 million suing social media for taking him of there platform. changing the names to the gulf of america,dept of war,lake america about 3 billioin dollars.HAVE YOU HEARD THE DEMOCRATS MENTION THIS,AGAIN ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!