FYI, this post is a follow-up to a post from quite some time ago. If you haven't read it, or would like it fresh in your mind, here you go:
Unionizing Student-Athletes
And back to it.
So was I in error? Isn't this the epitome of unionizing? To organize, unify, and fight for better conditions? Of course, the contemporary college athletics politics, money, and so on aside, but if we were to boil it down, I suppose I could admit that these students are arguably doing the same as any labor movement.
Of course, let's also take a second to consider that comparison is indeed the thief of joy (Teddy Roosevelt), and what the public does know about the money the NCAA and each university makes from these athletes. Needless to say, it's a lot. Several decades ago, the business world attempted to curb the rising salaries of CEO's, thinking that making them public would induce a sort of shame that would drive down salaries and bring about more income equality. What actually happened, of course, is that now that executives could see what everyone else made, it instead created a competition for a higher income, more perks, and greater benefits.
"Hey! Why is Joe So-And-So over at our competitor making $2 million and gets a jet while I only make $1.5 million? It's not fair!" And so this guy gets a raise to exceed what the other guy makes, who then, in turn, sees it and demands more money himself. And to date, the income inequality in the U.S. is greater (by several hundred percent) than it ever has been before, and the gap is growing. Apparently we're okay with it though.
Anyway, the comparison here is that maybe, just maybe, because the NCAA, coaches, and so on are publicly paid insane amounts of money for the athletes effort, that it may be driving this movement to "get their fair share". And that's just nature. Even lab monkeys, when given a treat for pushing a button are excited. But put two cages side by side (so they can see each other), and task them both to press a button but give them different treats (knowing that one treat is better than the other), the monkey receiving the "worse" treat will throw it away (from the work of Frans de Waal). Because it's not fair - even though the monkey is getting a treat nonetheless, because the take-away for the same work isn't equal, the monkey refuses the reward.
I feel it needs to be said that this obviously works both ways. Executives keep getting more and more perks because they feel they're getting the raw end of the button-pushing deal, but since the rest of us lowly peons don't have the leverage, we unionize. Hey, it's my job to give you the info. What you do with it is up to you.
So perhaps if the NCAA wasn't getting the lion's share - if not more - or if they simply reduced the income for these people, this would be a non-issue. So at the same time, I suppose I can empathize with the players.
And of course, don't bother making the argument because I'm already there - I am well aware that a significant chunk of money streaming into departments and programs at universities that funds education, research, scholarships, and many other things that make a university a university, come directly from athletic programs. I understand. So perhaps because players are bringing in money to the school they should be employees paid for their contributions who don't even need the pretense of class.
I mean, then we could give more scholarships to more "regular" students and then soon they can unionize too, after all, student research has been rumored to be plagiarized by faculty advisers and, really, all they want is compensation for their work and maybe a little recognition.
