A tricky piece here: the rich college football programs need the overall college football system in order to “make” the “product” which enriches them. One needs opponents to “make” football games.

They’re not competing firms, in that sense. They collude. The rich extract disproportionately.

The NFL is the ultimate benefactor (when it comes to extracting value) of college football.

It needs the vast (from rich, subsidized schools — like Ohio State — to poor, student-subsidizing schools — like those in the articles you linked) college football system as a labor pool/training center.

The NFL should be paying tuition (and subsidizing other athletic costs for college athletics)

Instead, college athletes (and students) subsidize the NFL!

This is really, deliriously fun (and unexpected!)

And:

If Bears (who opened as 6-point underdogs) lose at Green Bay next week, they fall to 7-seed, behind Niners.

Not to take away from anyone polishing their Week 13 participation trophies today.

This is fun (and unexpected!)

And:

If Bears (who opened as 6-point underdogs) lose at Green Bay next week, they fall to 7-seed, behind Niners.

“currently the ___” is always both true and basically meaningless, until it is “currently” the end of the season.

Unless you like participation trophies.

because Michigan NEEDS (insert deficit CFB program, like Eastern Michigan) to MAKE football.

The NFL’s business model (while still exploitative of labor) still shares the wealth with all owners, unlike colleges.

The athletes should be getting fairly compensated for their work.

All of them.

The way revenue is shared is the problem.

Michigan (which profits by exploiting its laborers) exploits students at, say, Eastern Mich., which has to subsidize its athletic programs, and unfairly charges students…

No, it isn’t.

We disagree in who the culprit profiting from this is.

Why should “college” athletics be involved in any way with tuition?

…the upper tier of capital.

Why should we accept a system where the labor (us) has to pay to be trained (instead of capital laying) so that capital can then extract surplus value from our labor?

The NFL should pay tuition. It should not be subsidized by student labor. The end.

You are accepting (without even being aware that you are accepting something that could be changed) a system that exploits the working poor (vastly disproportionately Black).

You’re defending capitalism in one of its most exploitative forms.

The biggest beneficiaries of this are the wealthiest.

They shouldn’t be involved at all!

We agree there.

But that’s the lesser exploitation.

Players are workers and should be able to collectively bargain.

I’m asking you to zoom out and see a system (with various corporate/cartel-esque entities colluding) which exploits labor.

Either via regulation or taxation, the NFL should be paying for college athletics.

Tuition should never subsidize what coaches are paid.

Many many athletes could be earning a living wage for the very real WORK they are doing.

Janette, I promise you we agree on many fundamentals here. (Including our values, methinks).

Because that $33 million was created by students who get virtually none of it.

They are forced to so that racialized capitalism can exploit them.

That $33 million is stolen from students (who do a dangerous job for which there is multibillion dollar demand lol).

Your heart is in the right place. But you’re critiquing the flood, not the broken dam.

Me included. The answer isn’t to exploit labor, but differently.

But so do colleges and athletic departments which hoard profit.

You’re proposing to take from the least-advantaged, most exploited parties to help other exploited parties.

The big schools (which profit) exploit the small schools. And the NFL (whose training is subsidized 100 percent by college football) exploits everyone.

The NFL owners, that is.

The schools who use tuition to field football teams help make the teams who don’t, money.