This is a free online newsletter for Jason Stahl, Executive Director of the College Football Players Association (CFBPA). If you are a past, present or future college football player, I ask that you consider becoming a member of the CFBPA. For a short YouTube introduction on the CFBPA, click here.
In my previous life as a political historian, I studied how new political institutions created new political realities. In particular, my first book focused on how conservative think tanks moved the United States in a more conservative political direction when Washington insiders were resistant to such a direction and invested in a more liberal status quo.
Strange as it seems, I’ve been seeking to apply this research in practice at the College Football Players Association (CFBPA). As an outsider to college football, I believe I can see its problems differently than those on the inside. College football has problems which need to be addressed but for those who are on the inside of the system—administrators, players, coaches, reporters and pundits—those problems can be hard to see and, thus, hard to remedy. Instead, it just becomes “the way things are”—a status quo which will never change.
At the CFBPA, we challenge this way of thinking. Even a casual glance at our Platform for Change shows we are seeking to address the unaddressed problems of college football. Through our platform, we are seeking to widen the parameters of debate as to what constitutes real reform. Up until this point, reform has been focused on money and getting some (star) players more of it. This is good and positive but it leaves many other problems unaddressed and may even deter addressing these other problems.
However, this passing summer started to give us hope that the harder-to-remedy problems of college football are now moving into the spotlight. We were happy to have participated in some of this debate and movement but there is still a ways to go in moving some issues from the category of “just the way things are” to the “way things ought to be now.”
So, with all this in mind, I want to present an area of progress where we’ve had success taking on a tougher problem within college football and couple it with a place where we still have work to do. In my first pairing, I’ll focus on money issues and in my second I’ll focus on player health.
Area of Progress #1: The idea of revenue sharing with the athletes who generate billions of dollars in wealth has picked up steam. One year ago, as the Big Ten conference signed its multi-year multi-billion dollar media rights deal, we attempted to organize our first CFBPA chapter at Penn State. In this campaign we were able to put the idea of revenue sharing on the national reform agenda. In March, when I testified before a House of Representatives subcommittee, I once again tried to highlight this idea through the idea of “Broadcast NIL” dollars which could be paid directly by universities and/or conferences to broadcast athletes. Since then, I believe we’ve seen enormous progress on acceptance of this idea, particularly as university presidents engage in blatant cash grabs through conference consolidation of the type we’ve seen this August. Most importantly, athletes are starting to understand that this issue is a key part of the future of college football. An idea which was once unacceptable and nearly unsayable is now being normalized.
"Work To Do” Area #1: College football insiders and some fans still don’t want players to be fairly compensated for the coming EA Sports college football game. In June, we launched our campaign to educate players about why the group NIL deal for the EA Sports 2024 college football video game was unfair to them. Our campaign argued that “its compensation structure is bad; it was negotiated on behalf of players by a company which does not represent them; and it pits star players against those who are less well-known.” As expected, many college football insiders and fans—particularly fans who wanted to play the forthcoming game—revolted against the campaign. Many in these groups argued that the players didn’t matter—that you could do the video game without their NIL. Others participated in the standard infantilization of college athletes arguing that they were “kids” who would just be happy to be in the game. Many athletes unfortunately supported this view. At the CFBPA we’re arguing that the players are the game and, as such, deserve a deal which mimics industry standards especially when it comes to the inclusion of royalties. EA Sports now says that no deal is finalized and one will likely not be until 2024. This is good as it gives us even more time to educate and organize players. For most players, this will be the best NIL deal they ever get and so their payday needs to be maximized.
Area of Progress #2: Hazing is being de-normalized in college football locker rooms. At the CFBPA, we’ve long been arguing that we need to see modern college athletics as a workplace which needs to be made safer and healthier. So, after student reporters at Northwestern broke the Northwestern hazing story using anonymous sourcing of current and former players, it was heartening to see the public response. Sure, there were some voices on social media arguing that hazing was a normal part of football culture—as if this meant it was OK as opposed to a much worse problem. But, for the most part, people reacted in horror, the head coach was fired and it appears that there will be real consequences for Northwestern as an institution heading forward. Moreover, if hazing is occurring in other locker rooms, the very public consequences at Northwestern will hopefully help to bring it to an end.
“Work To Do” Area #2: This conversation around healthier workplaces has not been extended beyond hazing. Three reports (I, II, and III) came out last month regarding the Minnesota college football program. These reports were about many things but I thought it was revealing where the college football insider and social media response tended to focus. For even attempting through anonymous sources to focus on the problems of punishment workouts, rushing players back from injuries and brutal practice environments, the reports were roundly lambasted. The chorus was near universal: these things happen at every college football program and that will never change. Of course, at the CFBPA, we believe that this means such problems are worse if they do exist everywhere. As our Platform for Change suggests, we remain committed to the idea that practices can be made healthier and that players need to be protected through guaranteed independent medical care which would keep them from being rushed back from injury. Unsafe practices, punishment workouts and rushing players back from injuries do not have to be “just the way things are” in college football. If you are a past, present or future college football player and you agree, I urge you to become a member of the CFBPA today.