UT adding Talent Fee to Tickets
- Thread starter Harvard Gamecock
- Start date
I would expect some talent in exchange for my talent fee
Yeah, I'm not sure breaking it out as a separate fee is the smartest way to go about it from a fan enthusiasm standpoint. Just increase the overall cost 10% and don't say anything.
There will be a few exceptions... probably. That said, I'm not sure of the number of rivals there are that are in different conferences. I would guess some but not a whole lot. The exceptions tho.
So my question now is, if we go to Tenn for any sport and we buy tickets, does that mean visiting fans are paying for their athletes? That would really cause me to never go to a game there, not that I would go to Tenn anyway. It is a serious question though. Are they now going to have opponents fans pay for their athletes?
Hmm, not that much difference when tourists visit Florida and incur the "Bed Tax" aka Tourist Development Tax at the hotels, Air BnB, etc. Each county can then decide how to spend the income on the taxes collected.
The big difference is directly contributing to an SEC rival.
UT AD Danny White: ""We want to be a leader in colleges sports. That means we want to be a leader in revenue-sharing."
Translation: "We don't actually want share our revenue with the student athlete, so we're going to raise ticket prices and let fans foot the bill."
Who doesn't see this for what it actually is? How successful would this be if it were more accurately named "fan tax"?
Translation: "We don't actually want share our revenue with the student athlete, so we're going to raise ticket prices and let fans foot the bill."
Who doesn't see this for what it actually is? How successful would this be if it were more accurately named "fan tax"?
Last edited:
It's the same as a non resident contributing monies to a another state for their improvements.
Same concept different application.
But when I drive through those states I also get the benefit of that state's improvements. What advantages do I get for paying for a rival teams players?
I may have missed this because I’ve been busy, but is revenue sharing an actual law or going into effect? Hell I work for a company, for the past 35 years, and they pay me a wage and small bonus some years. They’ve never propose sharing revenue with me other than that.
It was a settlement reached by the NCAA with former student athletes.
Schools are not strictly required to share revenue but are allowed up to around 20% of revenue or something like that. Of course, a school can choose not to share revenue, but that places them at a heavy disadvantage, so participation is really compulsory if you want to remain viable.
You appear to be under the assumption that I'm in favor of and/or a proponent of the talent fee tax.
I was merely using an example to make the concept relatable.
It would be very interesting to see how this worked if the 10% fee was optional. My guess is participation would be pretty low.
I made zero assumptions about your opinion of the talent fee. I was only responding to your poor example.
There are so many ways to look at this.
Fan tax would be accurate.
An admission by UT that they aren't gonna cough up the dough from current revenue to accommodate revenue sharing would also be an accurate assessment.
It's also a clear indication that fans aren't going to voluntarily cough up the dough, hence the fan tax. If you want to come to the game, you'll pay the athlete.
Fan tax would be accurate.
An admission by UT that they aren't gonna cough up the dough from current revenue to accommodate revenue sharing would also be an accurate assessment.
It's also a clear indication that fans aren't going to voluntarily cough up the dough, hence the fan tax. If you want to come to the game, you'll pay the athlete.
Obviously you were fixated on the literal (not surprising, actually expected)
So for you enlightenment,
ex·am·ple
1.
a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
It was a poor ex•am•ple. One has a potential benefit for me. One has no potential benefit for me. An ex•am•ple of a thing NOT being characteristic of it's kind. You replied to a comment I made suggesting that going on a vacation in Florida is not the same as directly contributing to a rival team's player acquisition. I asked you a simple question in response. You could have answered the simple question and that would probably have been the end of it. Apparently someone pointing out that you gave a poor example triggers your widdle feelings. Not exactly expected but equally not surprising. Yes, I fixate on literal, as words have a literal meaning. Insinuating that I need to be enlightened by you of what an example is really makes you look small. Kind of like placing Harvard in your username does. Good day to you (place your preferred pronoun here).