One of the highlights of the Winter Olympics for the United States was the gold medal victory in women's hockey. The deciding game between Team USA and Team Canada was one of the most watched game in late night show in NBCSN history. And after the game, members of this team have been guests on numerous television shows and subjects of a number of articles.
Although people may be more familiar with these players today, many fans may not know that all the members of Team USA began their careers playing Division-I hockey. And as representatives of college hockey teams, it is likely many of these players were -- by definition -- exploited. This may seem like a bold claim. But given how the word "exploitation" is defined and the revenue numbers universities self-report, it seems clear that the schools that employed these women were given a very good deal in the past.
As I testified to the National Labor Relations Board in 2014, here is how economists define the word "exploitation":
There is an economic definition of the word 'exploitation. A worker is exploited … if their economic value is greater than their wages. … By that definition, they are exploited.
This definition of the word "exploitation" was noted originally in 1933 by economist Joan Robinson. Although Robinson was not discussing sports more than eighty years ago, the idea that workers might be exploited has been explored by economists interested in sports for decades. This is because in the world of sports, exploitation is relatively easy to demonstrate.
Consider for example players in men's basketball and football. According to the United States Department of Education, teams in Division-1 men's basketball self-reported $1.63 billion in revenues in 2016 while team's in the Bowl Championship Subdivision reported $4.26 billion in revenues. With billions in revenue, it is not difficult to show that many players in men's basketball are clearly receiving less than the economic value they generate for their schools. The same can be said for players in college football.
Men's basketball and football are often labeled "revenue" sports. But that label is somewhat misleading. According to the United States Department of Education, all men's sports besides basketball and football self-reported $3.72 billion in revenue in 2016. And all women's sports self reported $3.73 billion in revenue.
Yes, if you do the math, all the so-called non-revenue sports combined to generate more revenue than the revenue sports. And that means it is possible that at least some athletes in "non-revenue" sports are also exploited.
Consider the women who play college hockey. According to the United States Department of Education, the 36 teams that played Division-1 women's hockey self-reported $43.4 million in revenue in 2016. Obviously that is not the same money we see in men's basketball or football. But it is a substantial sum of money and it leads to a simple question: How much of this money should go to the players?
As a fellow Forbes contributor, economist Brian Goff, noted a few days ago (and I have also noted this in the past), the answer just requires some basic arithmetic. The NHL -- like the other major professional sports in North America -- shares 50% of its revenue with it players. If college women's hockey followed this practice, the 36 teams in Division-1 hockey would have given $21.7 million to their players in 2015-16. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 845 women participated in Division-1 hockey in 2015-16. This works out to $25,682 per participant.
This figure, though, is just what an average hockey player would receive. The members of Team USA were likely the very best players on their teams. According to hockey-reference.com, the average salary in the NHL in 2017-18 is $2.8 million. But the highest paid player — Jonathan Toews — is paid $13.8 million. So in the NHL, the highest paid player is paid 4.87 times more than the average player.
If women's college hockey followed that practice, then Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson — who scored the decisive goal in the gold medal game against Team USA — would have been paid $112,961 by North Dakota in 2013. This figure is determined as follows:
- North Dakota reported to the U.S. Department of Education that its women's hockey team generated $1.251 million in revenue in 2013.
- The players would receive 50% 0f that revenue if the school followed the NHL model. So the players would have received $625,842 in revenue.
- The U.S. Department of Education reported there were 27 participants on the team. So each member would — on average — be paid $23,179.
- As the best player, though, Lamoureux-Davidson would be paid 4.87 times that amount. That works out to $112,961, or far more than the cost of attending North Dakota for one year.
In sum, Lamoureux-Davidson was likely exploited by North Dakota in 2013.
If we follow those same steps for each member of Team USA, here is what each player would have been paid had her school followed the NHL approach in her last year in school (the U.S. Department of Education does not have 2017 numbers, so for players who played that season, 2016 revenue numbers were used):
- Hilary Knight (Wisconsin, 2012): $775,421
- Meghan Duggan (Wisconsin, 2011): $233,449
- Kendall Coyne (Northeastern, 2016): $198,954
- Megan Keller (Boston College, 2017): $195,753
- Cayla Barnes (Boston College, 2017): $195,753
- Kali Flanagan (Boston College, 2017): $195,753
- Alex Carpenter (Boston College, 2015): $183,069
- Emily Pfalzer (Boston College, 2015): $183,069
- Maddie Rooney (Minnesota-Duluth, 2017): $166,753
- Amanda Pelkey (Vermont, 2015): $129,416
- Monique Lamoureux-Morando (North Dakota: 2013): $112,961
- Nicole Hensley (Lindenwood, 2017): $92,264
- Alex Rigsby (Wisconsin, 2014): $79,944
- Brianna Decker (Wisconsin, 2013): $79,375
- Megan Bozek (Minnesota, 2013): $72,564
- Kacey Bellamy (New Hampshire, 2009): $68,523
- Gigi Marvin (Minnesota, 2009): $43,506
- Amanda Kessel (Minnesota, 2016): $36,528
- Hannah Brandt (Minnesota, 2016): $36,528
- Dani Cameranesi (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
- Lee Stecklein (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
- Kelly Pannek (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
The average pay to these women — if their schools followed the NHL model — would be $143,571. That indicates that many of these players generated more revenue than they received. In other words, many of these players were exploited. And of these, the most exploited was Hilary Knight.
Knight is considered the star of Team USA. Knight leads the U.S. Women's National Team in goals and total points. Knight also doesn't just dominate women's hockey, she is also know to intimidate NHL All-Stars. But was she really worth $775,421 to the University of Wisconsin in 2012?
Again, the revenue numbers are self-reported and Wisconsin reported to the U.S. Department of Education that its women's hockey team generated $7,637,508 in revenue in 2012. If that is true, then the average player on this team was worth — according to the NHL model — $159,115. And that means that Knight — as the team's best player — would receive 4.87 times that amount. In other words, she would be paid $775,421.
Whether or not that is correct or not, it does appear that in a free market the very best women in college hockey would command a higher salary than just a scholarship to the school. And that means, the very best women are (once again, by definition) exploited.
All of this tells us that a free market, or a market where schools were free to pay their athletes whatever they like, wouldn't just result in higher pay for men's basketball players and football players. We would likely see higher pay for athletes in many sports.
So when we talk about paying college athletes we need to look past the "revenue" sports. Schools self-report substantial revenues in many sports. And that means exploited athletes can be found in many places in college sports.
