Trickle down cost impact to fans

This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by Charlie.

Viewing 5 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 08/04/2020 at 10:29 AM #127358
  11
  
  Trailgoat
  Participant
  
  Caught part of the late radio talk show on KALL during my drive through SLC yesterday. Listened to the radio dude repeatly ramble and whine for about thirty minutes (lost contact around Ogdenish) the same mantra the Utah/P12 players deserve most all of the demands asked for minus some of the revenue sharing. Not arguing against some of the subject matter as there are good points that warrant attention for all sports not just football.
  
  Not once did this dude during the brief listen, mention anything about the trickle down cost impact this will have to college football fans, Crimson Club members, donors, and students. Reviewing the demands, NIL, insurance, tuition extention, third party oversight, other stuff, are all expenses that will be pushed down to ticket prices, concessions, TV, merchandise. Most notably, student tuition.
  
  There appears to be a high level of arrogance from the top down and media regarding the perceived market value of Utah football. At what point do the paying fans, donors, and students lose interest in the product and stop paying? I could be dead wrong that fans and donors are truely willing to pay for whatever is asked of them to watch and support Utah football. Not saying all of these demands will fly, only a few will have a significant impact on cost, especially if other sports get involved.
  
  IMHO, anecdotally with all that is going on, the college institution and college football is going to face major financial issues as fans choose to spend their time and money else where.
- 08/04/2020 at 10:46 AM #127359
  12
  
  Tony (admin)
  Keymaster
  
  I haven’t been following this much (out of town) but do people think that college programs don’t have operating costs? Do they think programs are all running massive profits?
  - 08/04/2020 at 11:04 AM #127360
    8
    
    Central Coast Ute
    Participant
    
    Not only that Tony, do people think full tuition, books, room and board and all of the perks are worth zero dollars?
    - 08/04/2020 at 12:45 PM #127365
      17 1
      
      PhiladelphiaUte
      Participant
      
      I played Club Lacrosse while I was at the U. That means that I got $0 in tuition, books, fees, room, and board, and to provide my OWN medical insurance, AND had to PAY club fees. These Pac-12 athletes get FULL tuition, books, fees, room, and board, medical insurance, a wealth of tutors, AND a meal plan with a dietician.
      
      They don’t like the exorbitant coaches salaries, but I never heard any of them complain about exorbitant salaries once they signed their NFL contracts.
      
      And why is it that the want the 2% revenues to go to only the low-income “Black” athletes? Are they unaware of the fact that “low-income” stations aren’t exclusive to just “Black” people?
      
      I’m all in favor of their requests for better medical insurance, but the rest of their demands seem extremely unreasonable. Even the one where Larry Scott needs to take a paycut. He DOES need to take a paycut, but his salary should not be dictated by the student athletes. That’s for the university presidents and chancellors to determine.
      - 08/04/2020 at 6:25 PM #127377
        3
        
        gUrthBrooks
        Participant
        
        Plus add 25-30% on top of the tuition, books, food, etc. because parents would normally be paying for those items with after tax dollars.
- 08/04/2020 at 11:07 AM #127361
  6
  
  Central Coast Ute
  Participant
  
  It’s impossible for other athletic programs to get involved. Most of them don’t make any money and are subsidized by the football, MBB, gymnastics programs along with the tax payers. If they demand a percentage, does that mean they need to pay the university in order to participate?
- 08/04/2020 at 11:24 AM #127362
  15
  
  UteBacker
  Moderator
  
  There’s a real “open checkbook” mentality out there right now. The problem is we’re not using our checkbooks, we’re using our credit cards and that bill eventually becomes due. There are a lot of people that make demands that don’t have a basic understanding of economics. I hope cooler heads prevail…
  - 08/04/2020 at 11:59 AM #127363
    13
    
    astUTE
    Moderator
    
    Yes, it is classically ironic that just now, during the pandemic, when many/most college atheletic departments are facing what could be financial ruin (if we have little or no football and/or men’s baskball seasons), that players are demanding a piece of the action.
    
    I’m sure most AD’s who spend their days worried about survival, are privately shaking thier heads and asking, “a share of what”?
- 08/04/2020 at 2:59 PM #127369
  1
  
  Charlie
  Participant
  
  The afternoon host tends to have strong opinions and tends to repeat them. It can be annoying if you don’t completely agree with him.
  
  I do support changes to allow athletes to benefit more from their value. However, I am symptomatic to athletic departments that are already up to their neck in uncommon issues and have more than enough to overcome just to operate at all. I am wondering if football athletes that do have market value care to share their gains with other athletes that have almost no market value at all. Sharing revenue with one specific ethnic group does not make sense when the team is made up of several ethnic groups. Why not simply reference disadvantaged families and leave it at that. Also, making extreme demands in a time of great hardship could be viewed as attacking when the other side is down. This needs to be a partnership not adversarial. Incremental steps are best.
- 08/04/2020 at 10:55 PM #127382
  
  Charlie
  Participant
  
  The afternoon host tends to have strong opinions and tends to repeat them. It can be annoying if you don’t completely agree with him.
  
  I do support changes to allow athletes to benefit more from their value. However, I am symptomatic to athletic departments that are already up to their neck in uncommon issues and have more than enough to overcome just to operate at all. I am wondering if football athletes that do have market value care to share their gains with other athletes that have almost no market value at all. Sharing revenue with one specific ethnic group does not make sense when the team is made up of several ethnic groups. Why not simply reference disadvantaged families and leave it at that. Also, making extreme demands in a time of great hardship could be viewed as attacking when the other side is down. This needs to be a partnership not adversarial. Incremental steps are best.
Author

Posts