From The College Fix and Huffington Post Review by Eric Southard in KIN 332 In the article, “Paying College Athletes: Not If, But How”, Rachel Cohen and Ralph D. Russo discuss the controversial topic of should college athletes be paid and if so, how should they be paid. Being a big supporter of paying college athletes, I was happy to read that Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, is finally starting to realize that college athletes should receive some compensation while attending school. Emmert supports a stipend for these athletes, a stipend that would cover costs beyond tuition, books, and fees, which the athletes’ scholarships currently cover. Both coaches and players agree that college athletes should be paid, mainly stating that these athletes have no time to find a job and are always busy with school and their individual sports. They compare being a student-athlete to working a full time job.
The biggest impact sports marketing has on paying college athletes is through the television deals and all the money these deals generate for the universities. In the article, Cohen and Russo talk about the lucrative TV deals the NCAA recently agreed to for football and men’s basketball. To broadcast the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, more notably known as “March Madness”, CBS and Tuner Sports agreed to a deal with the NCAA that is worth on average 770 million dollars a year. As for the new college football playoffs, which starts in 2014, the NCAA agreed to a television deal worth around 470 million dollars annually to the conferences. Instead of using all this money towards increasing the salary of college coaches, upgrading facilities, etc, the money should be put towards stipends to pay the “workers”, the ones who actually generate the money, the athletes.
Review by Gene Daniels in KIN 332 David Beckham is arguably the world’s most popular soccer player, and when he does something it seems like it is covered on an even bigger stage; his actions are cosmic. At the age of 37, Beckham knows his days of playing the beautiful game are waning but there is still some good football (soccer) left in his legs. On the 31st of January, Beckham was introduced as the newest signing for Paris Saint-Germain. PSG had fallen on hard economic times in the late 90s and early 2000s but due to a restructuring of ownership and finances, the club has become one of the most lucrative and endowed clubs in the world over the last 4-5 years. Beckham answered several customary questions in his introductory press conference and seemed very at ease and excited for the newest chapter or his illustrious playing career. He then dropped the bomb on the whole room and informed the media that he would not be receiving a salary for his services during his 5 month contract but rather would be donating the money to a French children’s charity organization.
This decision is one that looks extremely good for both PSG and for Beckham. Many know him as a humanitarian and an overall good person, so this move is something that really fits the mold because we all know Beckham has enough money to live extremely comfortably for the rest of his life. PSG on the other hand has come to have a sinister reputation in the soccer world. Many believe that their wealth as a club and subsequent buying habits for players taint the game as we know it and undermine what many other clubs around the world are trying to do by developing young players and building club loyalty. This move comes at a very convenient time for the club, which leads many people to believe that it is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
In his press conference and ultimately in the article, Beckham discusses that he made the move for “footballing reasons” and that his wife and children would be staying back in London. He also discusses the potential he sees in PSG and their players and his excitement to work with Carlo Ancelotti (a former manager of his with AC Milan) again. After listening to Beckham, one would think the move was made for soccer reasons and that the decision to play for free is just Beckham and the club being hospitable and fulfilling a social obligation to the community but we will never really know.
Wherever David Beckham goes the money will follow. His sponsorship deals will now increase awareness for and have a connection with his new team and I am sure they will see a ridiculous spike in merchandise revenue, as his jersey has been one of the most popular selling pieces of soccer merchandise since he bursted on the scene at Manchester United. The club will tap into his as a resource for their marketing campaigns and I’m sure the Paris business community will reach out to Beckham as well. More specifically to the contract, the public image and popularity of both Beckham and PSG will soar and they will definitely see benefits from the decision to play for free. Whether they have made this move for David Beckham the player, or David Beckham the personality PSG has done extremely well here. They have brought in the most marketed player in all of soccer, and while doing so have looked like the knight in shining armor by coordinating with Beckham to donate to charity.
The article I chose to review and critique is titled “Crazy Like a You Know What” and can be viewed on Adweek.com. I chose this particular article because it begs the question that I have been wondering, personally, for years now; why is there no sports network on television that even comes close to rivaling the coverage that ESPN gets? This article introduces not an answer to this question, but a definitive step in the right direction. The new network titled Fox Sports 1 is introduced and explained further.
Fox Sports 1 is Fox’s newest network that they plan to unveil at the end of the summer in the month of August. It is set to become the “rival” network of the ever-famous ESPN networks. It is set to take over the spot that is filled by the “Speed” network, which is broadcasted nationwide in roughly 81 million homes. With the contracts that they have obtained with different sports and leagues in America and worldwide, Fox is increasing these viewing numbers to 90 million households in the country. They have obtained contracts with the MLB, NCAA basketball conferences of the PAC-12 and the Big 12, Nascar, UFC, and FIFA. The largest of these will be the deal with the MLB, and over the span of the entire deal, it will earn them $4.2 billion.
The Fox Sports 1 network hopes to put “pretender” networks in their place, and hopefully, make a statement to the public that ESPN is not the only sports provider on television. Although they will not make much of a dent in ESPN’s physical earnings, they are still looking at things in terms of being a successful network. Success (not necessarily being the absolute best) is what is important to the owners.
