you're watching al jazeera. i'm richelle carey, here some of stories we're following. for the first time in 30 years the u.s. and iran are set to hold talks. they will discuss iran as nuke lab program today in new york. it's the first time iran's foreign minister sits down with the security council in germany. authorities in kenya say they rented a smop inside the mall for three months leading up to the rampage. they kept weapons in the store and likely used the space to plan the siege. 20 fbi agents are now part of the investigation into the attack that left more than 60 dead. officials are working to figure

out why the three-level parking garage at the mall collapsed. the death toll in pakistan's earthquake is at least 348. tuesday's 7.8 magnitude quake wiped out entire villages. the force was so strong it also created a small island in the arabian sea. washington is just four days away from a potential government shutdown. the senate voted unanimously to move forward on a stop gap measure to keep the government running past october 1st and keep obamacare intact. for more news and headlines go to aljazeera.com. i'm richelle carey. "consider this" is next. [♪ music ] >> the u.s. senate sees yet another showdown over obamacare in the latest move texas senator ted cruz finally ended his almost day-long speech. consider this, when all is said

and done what impact will all the hot air from both sides of the hill actually have on obamacare? we'll ask congressman keith ellison. and if iran president rouhani can't meet briefly with president obama what hope should we hold out with diplomacy with iran? is it a step back? we'll ask someone who just had dinner with rouhani. and uniting to send a message to the ncaa that reform is needed. is the harsh backlash the players received part of the problem? hello, i'm antonio mora and this is "consider this." the latest skirmish with a lot of talk but did nothing to stop a government shutdown. >> perhaps i'm leading over

biting my colleagues with baered fangs. >> i appreciate the senator's observation that in his judgment we have not spoken that way. >> reporter: he spoken for over 21 hours. >> anyone who is trying to make this a battle of personalities is trying to change the topic from the topic that should matter. whether or not obamacare is helping the american people. mr. president, if you focus on the substance the evidence overwhelming. this law is a train recognize. >> reporter: his marathon stall tactic was intended not to only demonstrate his opposition from obamacare but delaying democrats from stripping it from the spending bill and sending it to the house.

>> harry reid calls it a big waste of time. >> it's a shame that we're standing here having wasted almost two days, mostly yesterday and a good part of today when we could pass what we need to pass we quickly. >> reporter: a "new york times" and cbs news poll found 80% of americans think it's unacceptable for the president or congress to threat government shutdown as a way to negotiate. there is little party divide. they all people it's unacceptable. shortly after cruz stopped speaking the senate opened debate. they're likely to send a bill back to the house with the funding of obamacare removed. but with the clock still ticking it remains to be seen if a government shutdown can be avoided. republicans say they're ready to take up the obamacare fight again with the deadline to increase the debt ceiling coming up in mid-october. al jazeera new york.

>> for more i'm joined by keith ellison co-chair for the house progressive caucus. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> i want to address what happened in the senate over the last two days . senator cruz wrapped up 21-hour speech a filibuster of sorts. >> is that all. >> he wants to defund obamacare before sending the spending bill back to the house. what did he accomplish? >> he proved conclusively he does not want people to have healthcare coverage. he demonstrated that 30 million people who will get healthcare because of obamacare, he doesn't want them to have it. that's all did he. >> do you think it's as limited as that? he has an argument that there are issues with obamacare, and that something needs to be done to fix them.

>> there never than been a piece of legislation that didn't need some refinement as you move forward in time. if you look at the 1964 civil rights act it didn't have voting in it. it didn't have housing in it. yet we came back in 65 and then 68 to include those provisions. we reauthorize those bills all the time it's no shock that the affordable care act would need to be revised, revisited and reproved. but that's not what he's doing. he wants to repeal it utterly, take it all away. i'll say it again. the one thing that he did prove is that he does not want to see a lot of americans get healthcare coverage. he doesn't want to see seniors fill in the donut hole and lower prescription prices. he does not want to see children stay on their parents' insurance until she's 26. i have know a young girl named aty who has a rare disease oh

without the lifetime caps she could not get covered, and she probably wouldn't be with us. when i look into her eyes, a young person bright, full of life. she needs held care coverage and she got it. ted cruz wants to take it away. >> you make a fair point that he's trying to defund all this. they have talked about other alternatives that would not take away all those specifics things that you were talking about, but now let's move forward. they voted unanimously to go forward with the debate and house spending bill that defunds obamacare. the senate has scheduled 30 hours of debate on the measure. that started on wednesday. on thursday the senate was supposed to vote on that spending bill. presumably the vote will be against it, presumably long party lines. on saturday there will be a vote on a new bill that senator majority leader harry reid came

up with that that would continue to fund the government and restore obamacare funding. and then vote that bill into law, then go back to the senate for approval. all this needs to be done before tuesday. it has to be done by monday night. if not, the government shuts down. given the intransigence on all sides are you concerned there will be a shutdown? >> i'm an optimist. always have been. we all understand how serious it would to shut down the government not only would it shake the confidence of the american people in congress even more, it would layoff people. it would harm and make a real meaningful difference in the lives of citizens who depend upon government services. we'll stay here and stick to what our responses are, and we'll fund the government. >> do you think that right now as things stand, it seems that republicans probably will accept house republicans will accept

the senate bill and then maybe leave further back and forth about the negotiations over the shutdown debt ceiling. that vote will have to come up by the middle of october. >> i think republicans know shutting down the government is not a winning formula from a political standpoint and they cause harm to their brand when they threaten--they literally did cause damage to america's debt with their bond rating in 2011. i think they'll see the light and do the right thing. of course, i'm not guaranteeing that. they have people in their caucus who are unusual in their points of view, but we're going to stick together, push forward and do what is right for the american people shutting down the american government and not paying the nation's debt is not good for america. >> you have the point about the popularity. according to the latest

"new york times" only 16% of adults say threatening to shut down the argument is a acceptable negotiating tact, but the rest say it's not. >> you know, i'm not sure i agree with that. i respect your point of view because that's said often but democrats have been working hard to come to an agreement. our position is let's fund the government and pay our debts. i don't think that's a both both-sides type situation. >> but the senate democrats could not come up with a budget bill in this year. the one they passed was 50-49 and had little support in general. so there has been significant issue of both sides when it comes to the budget. and you sent a budget on monday that asked for a budget resolution that would bring spending up to its level before the sequester took affect last march. you said we cannot support funding levels that add to the extensive damage already caused

by the sequester. again. >> that's true. >> you know, if you take that position, you know, some would argue that's extreme right now as the tea partyers. >> no, it's not. let me tell you why, and i appreciate your point of view, but you got to understand that we come from 553 different districts. we have different points of view. we have to represent. our constituents expect us to raise our point of view, argue what we believe in. but then at the end of the day come to an agreement around how to make america successful. now, that means that everybody has to give a little bit. we've never said we shouldn't do that. we believe that. but you have to understand, tony, it is representative democracy, it's the nature of the system, that various members will come and represent the points they believe in. >> aren't you criticizing the other guys for doing the same thing. >> no, no, i'm not. >> you know that your bill has

no chance of passing. isn't that the same thing as the tea party taking an extreme side that satisfies your base and try to get to some middle ground and negotiating, isn't that what is happening? >> no, sir. we're representing the point of view, one, that we believe in. that's the similarity, but at the end of the day we're not going to default on america's bonds and break our promise to the american people to have a funded government. we're going to reach a point where we're going to live up to our responsibilities, negotiate in good faith, and arrive what makes sense. now, nobody sends us to congress to abandon the principles that we go here for, but they do expect us at the end of the day with our principles in mind to come up with some answers for the american people. that's very different from threatening to default on america's debts by breaking the debt ceiling and shutting down the government. that's saying that we believe in our principles.

we're going to stick to them, and at the end of the day we'll come to some point of agreement that is reasonable and fair. that's how government is. >> are you okay with what senator reid is trying to do. a funding bill, a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through november, and then again we'll go through this battle in november? >> you know what, i really do believe that we should fund the government for a term that americans can rely on. i don't like these short-term funding bills. but if it's the best we can do, we got to deal with that. but i don't prefer the short funding bills. all it does is put us in the same suit a short time from now. i think he wants to get us past the debt ceiling debate, i think that's what he has in mind. but these short-term patches don't give americans chance to plan. >> it seems like you guys don't have a chance to plan. you spend so much time in negotiations that nothing else gets done.

i want to talk about something that is important to you, and also important to all americans. because this week we have, of course, saw the terrible pictures coming out of nairobi where the fighters from the somali group al-shabab came over. you went to so somalia and you d in a phone interview that al-shabab had been reduced to a guerrilla outfit. because you have somalian in your district. what do you say about their power? >> i think they're still a weakened group. if they could have struck in mogadishu, they would have tried to. they went to a soft target inside nairobi because that's where people didn't have their guard up. it's because the somali

government, which is on its feet and operating, it has a long way to go, but they've made progress. it's because of that that they weren't able to strike in somalia. the sad fact is that as somali gets stronger i suspect al-shabab will look for soft targets out of somalia. that's a tragedy and that's why the international community has to stay strong in terms of sharing information and in terms of going after al-shabab. i maintain that if they could have struck somalia, they would have. the fact that they didn't indicates that they could not. that's cold comfort to the people in nairobi, and my heart goes out to them but we need to keep the pressure on al-shabab and strengthen somalia, and keep communications and intelligence sharing. >> to your point, if they can strike outside of somalia, the concern raised your district has

somali ,many have somalia descent. you thought al-shabab recruitment drives in your state are over. are you concerned that they're not, and that some of these young men could strike in the united states? >> well, what i meant is not that their recruitment was over, but that they aren't been successful recently. of course we have to stay vigilant. we have to make sure that we're talking to our young people, we're gathering intelligence. we got to let people know that al-shabab is nowhere, they're not offering a future. they're offering only death, destruction and hatred and their philosophy is bankrupt. we need to give young people alternatives and make sure that young people are not vulnerable to the message that al-shabab are pushing towards them. one of the things that they were trying to do is provoke an overreaction so that they could some how claim they're standing

up for somalis. this is not true. this claim that they're trying to make that they're standing up for somalis or muslims is false. they're a neo-listic group of murderers and we have to side against them. >> important point. keith ellison, thank you for joining us on "consider this" today. >> thank you. coming up, iranian president hasan arhassan rouhani is reacht with words. and what do you think, our social media producer hermela aragawi has "s" is fielding your questions.

>> much was made of the handshake that never happened between president obama and iranian president hassan rouhani. but the so-called snub is part of the charm offense that th "the l.a. times" calls rouhani mania. we have international security expert at mit, thanks for coming after the dinner, jim. what struck you the most welcome wha?what was the most important thing you saw tonight. >> this guy is not ahmadinejad. he's not ahmadinejad in a variety of different ways. he's a completely different person in style, inclination, and i think in goal. the second thing i would say the kind through crystal clear is

they want to deal. they want to deal now. they want to get it done and get it done quick. he wants something to come back to his constituency in tehran and say, look, you voted for change. >> and that message came across? >> huge. >> you feel like he's backed up by the supreme leader? >> he was acting with confidence, and the foreign minister, who i've known for years, spoke with confidence. if you look at the supreme leaders' comments, speeches he has made, he's supporting him. the supreme leader has been skeptical, people have come and said we want to deal with the united states. he would say you go and do that, best of luck and when you come back empty handed, i won't be surprised. he's skeptical but he's willing to give rouhani some rope, some room. >> and you're familiar with mahmoud ahmadinejad. his predecessor. >> just a dramatic difference on every

level? >> with ahmadinejad, he's an unusual character. i've spent over 20 hours with him. it's always about him. he was going to be the smartest guy in the room. even if he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, he was going to be the smartest guy in the room. he had to be the center. rouhani is different. it's clear because of his political training it's about a process and getting a result. so ahmadinejad would give these long answers and flowery language. this guy is a practical, prudent, politicall organized, political guy. >> was there anything off limits. >> we talked about women's rights, afghanistan, the whole gamut of issues. >> did they talk about the handshake? he explained it was a quote, very sensitive subject. there really are no problems in terms of shaking mr. obama's

hand in negotiating but we have not talked at that level in 35 years. we did not have enough time to make that happen. how did he address that tonight? >> i think he said a similar thing. i can't quote directly from the meeting because we have certain rules i'm under here. but the key word that he mentioned that you just mentioned. this is a complicated history. there are lots of ways for these things to go wrong. he's about results. he's not opposed to meeting with obama, but he wants result that would lead to result that would lead to result. >> because he's dealing with two constituencies at home. he has the hard liners. >> exactly. >> and does the germ public want reform with the united states? >> sure, the think the centrists would be open to that. still there are a lot of folks in iran that have favorable attitudes towards americans, but a lot don't. we threatened to use force. we keep that option on the table and we sanctioned them.

folks have used force against us and sanctioned us, we would be pretty upset. >> he mentioned that in his peach at the u.n. the other day. >> gentlemen. >> let's go back to the reaction in iran. there was a little bit of a holocaust translation that came up. let's listen to what rouhani said. >> i said before that i'm not a historian personally, when it comes to speaking to the dimensions of the holocaust as such i can tell you any crime that happens in history against humanity including the crime that the nazis committed towards the jews and non-jewish people is reprehensible and condemnable. >> then he comes out and said that cnn fabricated that translation. that's not what he said. then cnn said the translator was presented by the iranian government.

>> there are going to be hard line con sit wen constituencies in iran, just like there are in the u.s. and they may feel uncomfortable negotiating with the great satan. isn't it great that we don't have a president that isn't a holocaust admirer. >> we'll talk about that in a minute but we have reaction to that. let's go to hermela aragawi. >> thanks, on twitter, what difference does it make to israel? >> that's a great question. i think certainly there are some issues obviously between the two countries that remain. they fear one another. they are adversaries. but i think israel and the israeli public felt much more threatened by a person who would deny the existence of the holocaust.

>> and calling for their destruction. >> yes. i think that does reverberate in israel much more so than we'll see with rouhani. >> the document in the "washington post." we brought it up last night. the document described rouhani's charm offensive or dismissed it by smile and enrich. pretty much saying that the iranians are stringing us along to give themselves time to create more nuclear weapons . >> this baffles me. >> why? >> it does not apply here. some conditions, the country is not doing something. then during negotiations they do it. then they string out the negotiations to ply for time.

they'll continue enriching. during negotiations. we have not had negotiations until 2009. >> they'll get to the point of nuclear weapons. >> no, the dni, the director of national intelligence said that iran does not have an active nuclear program. they had one before and halted it in 2003. they testified that they have not made the addition to pursue nuclear weapons. they have the capability because they can enrich. they can do it later on, but they have not made that choice. that's why it's important to put them on a different track. >> i have a different question. rouhani is coming across rather grandfatherly. listen to him speaking english last night on cnn. >> i would like to say american people i bring peace

and friendship from iranians to americans. >> did he speak english at the dinner tonight? did he come across that way? >> well, i would say two things. he didn't speak english in his answers, but he did not use headphones for translation. he listened to all of us in english, absolutely. then he responded in farsi. i would say that he was pretty chill in that clip. tonight we saw different things. he spoke quite strongly about different parts of the nuclear issue, but he's a pretty even-keeled guy based on the couple of hours that i spent. >> was he running the show or was the foreign minister running the show? >> it was definitely the president. although the foreign minister spoke because the president was running late. >> and he and secretary of state john kerry will begin their negotiations. >> yes. >> is it

, he has spent time in our country, is that why so many experts on iran optimistic? >> i think so. >> and is it fair. >> that's a fair question to ask. just because you know someone and you like them, does that mean they're going to do the right thing? the reason why we say that is because he's a very skilled diplomat. he helped in afghanistan. he was one of the people that help negotiate the 2003 freeze on iran's nuclear program. and that was a success. i know john kerry. he knows these issues well. it's a good pairing. >> american people, not hopeful in a poll of president obama's handling of iran. 39% only approve of the president's handling of iran. 44% disapprove, and they're

dubious if relations are going to improve with iran. the people in the room, were they hopeful? >> they want a small deal. they're not looking for a big deal. they're looking for a small deal to build momentum. >> initially. >> yes, exactly right. small deal on nuclear that both sides can walk out and be happy with, and then that's the basis for more. all of us who have done this for a long time. i don't blame the american people for being skeptical. we've had this problem with iran for 30 years. and both sides have missed opportunities. there were times when the americans blew it, and there were times when the iranians blew it. they were sitting there and something could be done and then the opportunity is lost. could that happen? it could. it could be the same 'ol movie all over again. but this is as good a shot these two countries have had in 10, 15 years. >> let's hope that the opportunity isn't lost.

we appreciate your insights and it must have been fascinating. >> it was fun. >> up next forget the hype. what impact is obamacare having on small business owners. millions who need assistance now. we appreciate you spending time with us tonight. up next is the golden age of hollywood going golden but elsewhere. why l.a.'s mayor has declared a state of emergency for the entertainment industry there. next.

faultlines investigates the epidemic of overcrowding in women's prisons. >> the system is setup to do exactly what it's doing - to break people and to keep them broken. my name is jonathan betz. i'm from dallas, texas, and i'm an anchor for al jazeera america. >>my name is ranjani chakraborty, i'm from houston, texas. >>i'm kim bondy. >>nicole deford. >>and i'm from new orleans. >>san francisco, california. when i was a little kid, i just really loved the news. >>news was always important in my family. >>i knew as a kid that was exactly what i wanted to do. >>i learned to read by reading the newspaper with my great-grandfather every morning. >>and i love being able to tell other people stories. >>this is it, i want to be a part of this. >>this is what really drove me to al jazeera america. >> a week long series on the cost of healthcare continues with the impact on small businesses. premiums nationwide would be 16%

less than first thought. and 95% of unininsured people will live in states where the premiums are aspected. as expected. still companies must supply insurance or face a fine. the first 30 employees would not cause any fine. the penalties would begin with the 31st employee and on up. companies with with 25 employees or fewers would receive a subsidy. we have a business owner who doesn't like the law because it has a whole host of unknown laws

tha laws. now mike qualifies for the subsidies but he would provide the insurance any way because he feels like it's the right thing to do. you are already covering your full time employees their full premiums but you say the law is taking away your ability to expand. why would it really affect you if you're already paying coverage? >> well, my concern is that as somebody who has voluntarily provided health insurance for 25 years i've run the business, i'm concerned i'm going to be able to do that in the future. the unknowns about this law are affecting my investment, how much i'm willing to invest, how aggressive i want to be. it's such a potential increase in investment. i don't know how much to budget for because it's such a dramatic change. >> mike, you have 12 employees

and you're already getting the sub yesterda subsidies from obamacare. how has it affected your costs. >> we received $5,000 per year for the last three years to help offset the cost of our employees' insurance. that's in the form of income tax available for companies of 25 employees or lower. i would like to see that threshold go up to 50 so business owners like joe would qualify potentially qualify for those federal income tax credits. >> i hit to pit you guys against each other but does it upset you that a smaller business like mike's is getting the subsidies, and you're not? who should get the subsidies. >> it's tough. how do i explain to my employees if i'm bidding against a company that has a lower expense base

than ours, it's the government picking winners and losers . and helps other people. >> isn't it easier to like the law when you're getting federal funds to cover some of your insurance costs? >> well, i think that's fair. i think that in fairness of small mom and pop businesses, we have six employees who utilize the coverage because they're covered under their spouse or parents, we have the negotiating power of six employees which isn't much to work with. joe does have 48--44 employees, that is a little more leverage. it's not a lot but still more than six. the affordable care act has somewhat leveled the playing

field for small companies like us that for years double digit increases for most years for health insurance. >> companies have a lot more leverage. the law includes the mandate any company with 50 employees has to provide for full-time staffers. part time workers have to work less than 30 hours a week. you're almost at that 50 threshold. what are you hearing from other business owners who are at--who are already over that 50-employee threshold, and how does it effect you as you near that then? i know you have some part-time workers . >> any new hires have been from temporary agencies or part time workers. businesses i've spoken to there is huge amounts of concern but there is so much unknown. many owners have not had the opportunity because they're so

busy running their business they don't know what is coming forth in this law. i think as it rolls out it will be more of a shock to business owners what their liabilities are potential fines, penalties, higher taxes. they're not aware of that yet. >> we have a viewer question. let'let'slet's go to hermela fo. >> do you have moral concerns along with your business concerns? we know you have to make money but where is the balance? >> as someone--i've been running the business for 25 years. it's a family-owned business. most of my employees have been with me for 20 years. i think of them as family. i'm concerned i'm not going to be able to do this going forward especially in my competition puts their employees on the exchanges.

i may be forced to do so just to compete and survive. >> as joe as been saying and as we have given the information of how this affects some businesses it can be very confusing. i'm sure you have empathy for people who are worried that they don't know what they're in for. >> absolutely. i'm glad joe brought up the exchanges. the exchanges hold forth the hope stabilizing for the first time in a long time the cost of health insurance for small business owners and their employees. we have a meeting octobe october 9th with our insurance broker we've used for five years, and we're going to be going over all the choices available under our cover health exchange here in the state of oregon. we're glad to have a state that has embraced the aca and has a well-developed exchange. we're going to be doing an employee

carrier choice where each can pick the insurance company that offers the plan that best suits them. we think some of the plans will be lower cost than the once we've been using. we've been using the one size fits none for all the years we've had it because we couldn't afford to have multiple carriers. now the exchange will be doing what we call consolidated billing where they send us the bill by each of the employees and we'll pla pay it once a monh and we're glad the employees will get the plan that they want. >> there is a lot of going back and forth. lots of misinformation, death panels on the right and guaranteed you could keep your doctor from the administration, which they have now been backing off on that.

joe, do you hope that reality will be less scary than you thought and it will be muchado about nothing. >> already, they've backed off on change, delayed--i'm not optimistic. the exchanges, being from new jersey where we're already in the top three as most expensive premiums because it's such a heavily regulated state. much of obamacare is already in place community rate, access. that's what has caused the premium rates increase, in my opinion. >> mike, we don't have too much time left, but on the flip side are you concerned that the costs might be higher than you first thought? >> well, that's been a concern every year of mine since we started offering group health insurance. it's important to remember that the

pre-affordable care act for small businesses was horrible in terms of the rates that we saw every year. i'm hopeful to see rate stabilization and i'm excited about the fact that our employees, our assets in our business, will select plans that will fit their financial and medical needs for the first time in the history of offering group insurance. >> mike and joe, i appreciate you and i wish you the best in your business dealings and covering your employees. straight ahead senator ted cruz spent 21 hours on the floor. we'll talk about one speech that was so long that it saved one >> every sunday night al jazeera america presents gripping films, from the worlds top documentary directors >> this is just the beginning of somthing much bigger... >> this sunday...the premier of "budrus" >> the primary concern of

the fronts is security that trumps everything >> how could a wall designed to divide, unite israelis and palestinians al jazeera america presents... "budrus" premiers this sunday night 9 eastern.

>> in light of ted cruz's 21 hour speech today's data dive takes a long like at the lengt lengthiest speeches in history. the texas senator spoke for 21 hours and 19 minutes.

there is he debate if it was really a filibuster. he read from dr. seuss' again eggs and ham and did a darth vader impression. cruz did not take any bathroom breaks. some suspect he used a diaper. after the senate maybe he could be a pitchman for depends. this has been a year of long speeches. rand pa paul filibustered for 12 12:52. wendy davis filibustered against a bill that later passed. strom therom arguing against the civil rights act of 1957. he was only one of a team of

senators who spent 57 days filibustering the bill that passed. and then 24-hour talk in mr. smith goes to washington. >> you think i'm licked. i'm not licked. i'm going to stay right here and fight this lost cause . >> real life senators hated that film when it came out and tried to ban it in other countries. i guess it hit too close to home. in 1913 former president teddy roosevelt's 90 minute speech saved his life before he got to deliver it at a campaign stop in milwaukee. he was shot in the case but the bullet was stopped by the glasses case and the 50-page speech that was folded over in his pocket.

he told the shocked crowd, quote, it took more than that to kill a bull moose. the bullet stayed lodged in his rib cage until he died six and a half years later. college athletes demanding their right to get paid, but that's all i have an real money. victoria azarenko ç]

>> college sports generate more than $6 billion a year. but where does that money go and is it properly benefiting college athletes? 28 college football players wore the letters" apu" on their uniforms, standing for all players united. a controversial movement calling for reform in college sports. they're now facing serious backlash. taking issue with his players involvement because they did not act with the full endorsement of the team saying quote, you can't just have six guys say, okay, this important to me, and i'm going to do this, and the other 79 not know about it. and sportcaster

dan dakich who said, it would be great if they pulled the scholarships of those who protested with the apu signs. we have with us dave ziron, are you surprised they chose to put up a stand and do this in such a public way? >> am i surprised, no. the level of frustration and anger in the ncaa players? no. i'm surprised over the amount of publicity that you said, apu got more social media mentions than sec, more than the pac 12, the big ten, the big 12. it captured the imagination. where people are at right now thinking that the ncaa is mor me of a moral sewer an players are

the only people who have the power to effect change. >> the movement seems to be growing among the players, but so is the criticism. should these guys have gone out on a limb and separated themselves from the other players on their teams? >> i was remembering an interview i did with a college athlete about five years ago who said when you play ncaa it's better just to forget that you're in the united states. just forget you're in america. i said to him, what do you mean by that? he said, any kind of conception that you have of freedom, of the declaration of independence or even just that word independence, just put it all out the window. you really are a powerless person which is the complete opposite in many respects when you're in the professional ranks. the athletes are organized. they're in unions. they have the ability to speak their mind. they have contract to greater or lesser degree are guaranteed. when you're at the college level you're there at the pleasure of the coach.

you and i have discussed this before. when you raise the issue of paying coming athletes, well, they get a four year scholarship. that's not true. it's a one-year scholarship renewed on an annual basis. you could be the class president, 4.0 gpa, and if you're not getting the job done on the field you're out. >> yes, they're not for four years. referring to what you described as a charade of amateurism. are you talking about pros organizing. is there any chance that college players will unionize and help end the charade? >> i think that's definitely the next step. you see, part of the issue is that there is so much money in collegiate sports right now there is no real incentive to change at the top. the system is not in crisis. it's only in crisis for the players themselves. but if you are a coach, if you work for the ncaa, if you're one of the 14 vice presidents who make up the $400,000 a year, who

work for the president of the ncaa makes $2 million a year. there is no incentive to change. the people who have that incentive are the players themselves. what's so interesting is that the demands they're putting forward actually you and i have been talking about compensation. they're less about compensation and more about issues of health and education. they want to make sure that there are concussion experts on the side line. they want to make sure there are trainers at every game. at some games they don't have trainers on the sidelines. they want commitments to check players for head injuries on the field. and they want to make sure if a player gets hurt they are still entitled to go to class and get an education. >> yes, some reforms not just on the compensation side. >> we've got a few commissioners making more than a million dollars. we've got coaches making more than $5 million. let's look at these other numbers.

430,000 student athletics play in ncaa sports. ncaa has yearly revenues of $800 million. athletics generate about $6.1 billion every year. how much of this money if any should go to the players? >> you would need some radical structural reform. over 95% of athletic departments lose money on an you'll basis, and 56% according to the most recent statistics of football programs alone lose money. so then people say where is the money supposed to come from to make this happen? two things that could be done right away. do away with the ncaa bureaucracy. you would be talking about freeing up millions and millions of dollars. their new headquarters in indianapolis alone cost $35 million to build. schools like ohio state have massive compliance offices that cost millions of dollars to make sure that players are living up to the ncaa rule book.

if you did weight with that bureaucracy, it would free up that money. a lot of people take exception to this. but college professors, their pay is to scale. the top professor at the university of alabama makes $150,000 a year. nick saban, football coach, $5.1 million as a base salary. what if you made the head coach of the football team not paid more than the top paid professor. a lot of people have problems with that, but my point is that the money is there. it's just a question of how it's allocated and distributed. >> and you sort of bring up this whole issue of compliance and how that's taking up all this money. why doesn't the ncaa let these guys make some money? we saw the dust up about johnny manziel, johnny football in trouble because he got paid to sign some autographs. this has happened over and over again.

is that just total waste of time? >> my friend patrick ruby describes it as the burden. there is so am language about paternalism. they use phrases like we need to protect players from agents. we need to protect players from the marketplace. the question is why? no one protected jodie foster from the marketplace when she was a student at yale from acting. no one protected the william sisters from playing tennis when they were making money doing that. the idea that they can't fend for themselves in the marketplace, but they can fend for themselves with a full class load, having to maintain a certain gpa and only use butter on their bagels at team functions and not cream cheese. that's a ncaa violation. that's a real rule.

butter is okay, but cream cheese is not. they're expected to manage that as 19-year-olds but they can't manage getting their face on a team box. >> when are players going to boycott at bowls and the final four? is that will it will take for the ncaa to finally change its policies? >> the answer to that is absolutely. roughly 90% of the budget comes from march madness. it gets more people betting on it than the super bowl. it's the biggest money extravaganza in sports from that regard. if the best player of each team walked out of court and said we're not going to play until we get a piece of that, the system would crack like an egg. but the issue, a lot of players feel they're powerless. that's what makes the apu thing so important.

you heard it-- >> they're speaking out, but one thing that always comes to my mind. where do you go with this? go athletes start getting paid, does it turn into a negotiating game? who gets paid more, the quarterback, the star linebacker. who happens to people who pay other sports. all this money goes into paying for these guys. does it come out of the other athletic programs. what about women's sports that are not revenue producing. what happens to all that money. >> terrific questions. sometimes i answer it by saying that's above my pay grade, but i do think there is a way to understand and figure it out. if you free up the funds that are taken up by the bureaucracy of the ncaa. if you free up the funds that go into paying ton of assistant coaches at the football level, you would have enough to treat all athletes on the campus as if doing athletic would be their work study. instead of working for ten hours a week in the campus bookstore you're contributing back to the

atmosphere, back to the environment at your school, and everybody is able to get some form of compensation whether it's revenue producers or not. now for those who are producing, like becoming famous, who are producing their own brand like johnny manziel. if people are willing to pay $100 for their autograph name, i think it violates the basic precepts of living in this country. your name is your name to quote mohammed ali. johnny manzel ma

>> welcome to aljazeera, i'm michelle. here are the stories we're following for you. countdown to a shutdown, with fewer than five days remaining, congress debates the budget. and john kerry gets set for high-level talks with iran. interpol, the alert for the british woman known as white widow. the clock is ticking. congress has just 4 and a half days to agree on a bill to avoid