In case I haven't made it clear in It is no secret that I am a fan of football. While my specific drug of choice is the Buffalo Bills, I enjoy all levels of football, including college and high school. I have been a flag football coach to both of my sons.
I am not alone in my love of football - most Americans consider it their favorite sport. In fact, of the top 100 television shows watched last year, 82 of them involved pigskin and colliding helmets.
My love of football is not contained just to the field; I walk the sidelines as a coach and am equally interested in the business side of the game. I am especially interested in salary cap management and revenue sharing.
If you were unaware, most professional sports have a salary cap (or wage cap). Simply stated, a salary cap is an agreed-upon dollar figure that limits the amount of money a team can spend on players' salaries. According to NFL.com, the purpose of the cap is to maintain a competitive balance by restricting richer clubs from entrenching dominance by signing many more top players than their rivals. Other leagues have variations on a cap, called a "luxury tax," in which you pay a penalty if you spend over the cap, but the NFL's cap is hard and immovable.
To further the parity among teams, the league also operates under a revenue-sharing model in which all 32 teams receive equal shares of this money, regardless of individual team performance or viewing audience.
This creates a fair and level playing field in which all teams have an equal chance to win. This doesn't explain the Browns, but honestly, nothing does. ( I had to come up with a new team now that the Lions are good!)
Wage cap? Profit sharing? These are outrageous and decidedly un-American - weird for America's most beloved game.
But without these two components, small market teams like Buffalo, Cincinnati, Green Bay, etc., could not afford marquee players and would likely cease to exist altogether.
So yes, I like the salary cap and profit sharing because it levels the playing field and puts all teams on even-standing.
Where am I going with this you ask?
We all know that money impacts all phases of music, starting with lessons, step-up instruments, quality reeds, new strings, etc. But, it really impacts marching band. For this article and thought exercise, I will focus on that.
So, for giggles, what if we followed the lead of the NFL and instituted salary caps and revenue sharing?
What if all music groups were afforded the same budget?
What if we capped how much staff people could have or how much they could pay them?
What if groups/schools with more resources were required to share those resources with less fortunate schools?
Continuing on with the NFL analogy...
What if we limited rehearsal time to be the same for everyone? (Texas is already doing this.)
What if we put a window on the way, time, and place groups could rehearse?
I realize that this is a bit of a stretch, but what if players were "drafted" so all groups had the same talent pool to teach and the same number of staff to teach them?
Would it change the activity?
I think we would all agree the answer would be yes. Would it be for the better? I will leave you to determine that.
My point is that music is not continually operating on a level playing field. Students' (and teachers') experiences are altered in meaningful and significant ways based on the resources at their disposal, creating an unlevel playing field (competitively speaking). This unlevel field impacts not only the students but also teachers.
Great coaches leave for better-paying jobs and ones that offer them better opportunities, resources, and changes to grow their skill sets. Are teachers any different? Look at teams with long-term success; they usually have long-term coaches, owners, and coordinators. How many music teachers leave for the same reasons, but with more devastating effects?
The issues of equity and access are significant ones, not just in music education, but in our country. While we can't solve all of them, we can be mindful of them. We can look for ways to ensure that every child has as close to EQUAL (not the same) an opportunity to find success as possible, not just on the field of competition, but in the field of life.
I am NOT trying to take ANYTHING away or diminish the accomplishments of high-achieving groups, or the teachers who lead them. They are doing ground-breaking work and changing not just kids' lives but this entire art form. Nor am I suggesting that these directors live a charmed, problem-free existence. I am merely pointing out that all things and experiences are not created equal, and we should be mindful of that.
It seems like the right thing to do for kids and for the activity.
I have a bit more to say on this subject and will likely continue my thoughts later this week or next - but if you have feedback, I would like to hear it. Click here to send me an email.
Scott