[2006alum]

Those are talking about different things. The schools doing that sort of thing are, as the researcher said, trying to attract a different kind of student than Stanford. Those students are willing to pay for those amenities. On the other hand, the athletics amenities are trying to attract athletes, but then the excess revenue from the athletes' uncompensated labor is what pays for those amenities.

I think this is fallacious thinking based on a faulty empirical premise: that the revenue generated for universities from college athletics operations outstrips the costs. If you subtract the many subsidies to college athletics, I would be surprised to find a single university that is exploiting its athletes as you define them - that they each generate more in revenue than they receive in compensation in the form of tuition, living expenses and other services, and in subsidies that go to support those athletic programs.

To start with, all but the approx. 25 D-1 programs run an annual operating deficit. So for the rest, there is no excess revenue, period. So already, there are few schools where the athletes as a whole are generating more revenue than they cost. 

Now factor in that if they were being compensated as employees, they'd need to pay taxes on it, which suddenly strips their take-home amount by at least 1/3, probably more. Right now, Uncle Sam is subsidizing their compensation by making it all tax-free. The straw-man cellist comparator everyone likes to mention who works side gigs and to generate income from their talents? Oh right, they would need to pay taxes on those gigs.

Moreover, if athletes are to be compensating by taking a pro rata share of profits generated by the athletic department, then athletic departments will suddenly be classified as private businesses and will lose their tax benefits, including the brobdingnagian benefits of attracting tax-deductible alumni donations and avoiding property taxes on their lush facilities. State, federal, and local governments all subsidize these costs.

If any athletes are still generating a gross profit at this point, it would probably be just a few high-profile football and men's basketball teams. Since the onus is to ensure that athletes get their fair share of revenue, athletic departments would need to strip non-revenue athletes of their scholarships, because otherwise the "excess revenue from the athletes' uncompensated labor is what pays for" non-revenue sports athletic scholarship. But that would violate Title IX, which provides massive subsidies to schools - especially research universities like Stanford - in the form of federal research grants and subsidies, for students in the form of guaranteed loans and subsidized financial aid for students, and so on. All in exchange for giving women equal opportunities to men. So let's strip all that out as well, because why should the federal government be subsidizing male football employees at Alabama raking in their employers' profits while female athletes get nothing but unfunded club teams?

My suspicion is when you do all that math, you're left with zero athletic programs where the athletes are generating excess revenue to their university athletic departments beyond the total dollar value they receive in the form of tax-free tuition, tax-free living expenses and services and federal, state, and local subsidies to both the athletic departments and the universities.

[2006alum]

Those are talking about different things. The schools doing that sort of thing are, as the researcher said, trying to attract a different kind of student than Stanford. Those students are willing to pay for those amenities. On the other hand, the athletics amenities are trying to attract athletes, but then the excess revenue from the athletes' uncompensated labor is what pays for those amenities.

I think this is fallacious thinking based on a faulty empirical premise: that the revenue generated for universities from college athletics operations outstrips the costs. If you subtract the many subsidies to college athletics, I would be surprised to find a single university that is exploiting its athletes as you define them - that they each generate more in revenue than they receive in compensation in the form of tuition, living expenses and other services, and in subsidies that go to support those athletic programs.

To start with, all but the approx. 25 D-1 programs run an annual operating deficit. So for the rest, there is no excess revenue, period. So already, there are few schools where the athletes as a whole are generating more revenue than they cost. 

Now factor in that if they were being compensated as employees, they'd need to pay taxes on it, which suddenly strips their take-home amount by at least 1/3, probably more. Right now, Uncle Sam is subsidizing their compensation by making it all tax-free. The straw-man cellist comparator everyone likes to mention who works side gigs and to generate income from their talents? Oh right, they would need to pay taxes on those gigs.

Moreover, if athletes are to be compensating by taking a pro rata share of profits generated by the athletic department, then athletic departments will suddenly be classified as private businesses and will lose their tax benefits, including the brobdingnagian benefits of attracting tax-deductible alumni donations and avoiding property taxes on their lush facilities. State, federal, and local governments all subsidize these costs.

If any athletes are still generating a gross profit at this point, it would probably be just a few high-profile football and men's basketball teams. Since the onus is to ensure that athletes get their fair share of revenue, athletic departments would need to strip non-revenue athletes of their scholarships, because otherwise the "excess revenue from the athletes' uncompensated labor is what pays for" non-revenue sports athletic scholarship. But that would violate Title IX, which provides massive subsidies to schools - especially research universities like Stanford - in the form of federal research grants and subsidies, for students in the form of guaranteed loans and subsidized financial aid for students, and so on. All in exchange for giving women equal opportunities to men. So let's strip all that out as well, because why should the federal government be subsidizing male football employees at Alabama raking in their employers' profits while female athletes get nothing but unfunded club teams?

My suspicion is when you do all that math, you're left with zero athletic programs where the athletes are generating excess revenue to their university athletic departments beyond the total dollar value they receive in the form of tax-free tuition, tax-free living expenses and services and federal, state, and local subsidies to both the athletic departments and the universities.