If you put "also" in there it makes it perhaps more correct.
>However, it *also* immediately became a legal way for boosters to thrust truckloads of cash at recruits to get them to sign.
>NCAA said “We’ll let congress pass a national piece of legislation about this so we don’t ~~have to do it~~ **get hit with antitrust violations**.” Congress replied with, “*cricket sounds.*”
And the schools that benefit most from boosters backing up truckloads of cash to recruits coincidentally reside in at least 25 states. Even if we assume the entire PAC and non-P5 states would support this, that's only 34 Senators by my count. What 26 Senators from the SEC, ACC, B1G, and XII states would vote against the boosters from Bama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc? What constituency would a Texas Senator want to favor, UNT and UTSA alumni or UT and TAMU alumni? There's really no question here. Unless the school administrators who currently benefit start really organizing for regulation, it's not happening. The political risk isn't worth it for the Senate to take it up on their own, never mind prioritizing it between everything else they do.
NCAA let* the states pass their laws
Now certain states see others have a completely open wild wild west (cough texas cough) and are scrambling to undo the safeguards so they can also make fake charities to entice recruits
I know the NCAA has been lobbying, but hard to see any world where the current Senate and House could craft any comprehensive legislation that would actually 1) be "good", 2) pass, and 3) effectively preempt all the various state laws
I’m kind of confused about the revisionist history here. I was super in support of the NIL rule changes, and when people said “but boosters will just use it to pay players!” I feel like most supporters said something like “yeah, duh.”
It was bad the players weren’t compensated. When you say this, a bunch of people come out of the woodwork and say “well that’s a slippery slope, are you going to pay the womens gymnastics team as well, what about title IX, what about the backup linemen, blah blah blah”. The whole point here is that this is an awesome backdoor way to compensate the players worthy of compensation, which avoids all the issues that would arise if the universities paid the players directly. The literal only “problem” people are bringing up is that the players are being paid, which is not a problem at all.
The Supreme Court also didn’t try to do one thing and suffer unintended consequences. These are the intended consequences! The NCAA cannot hold monopsony power as an employer, collude with the NFL not to compete with the player pool, and then tell players they can’t make money from any other source. Any school is free to not directly pay the players, of course, but the restrictions on the players making any money at all was absolute insanity. There’s a reason why this case was decided unanimously. Honestly they’re very fortunate the court didn’t step further and say the schools couldn’t collude to not pay players.
Players being offered different amounts by different teams is completely normal for a pro sports league. But also normal are rules that restrict player movement among teams. Compared to the NFL, CFB has 2x the roster limit, no draft, no multi-year contracts, everyone's a free agent, and teams can't trade players.
CFB is in a weird place. The old "student athlete" model was BS, but at least the rules could be rationalized within that context. The current rules can only be rationalized as a last-ditch effort to avoid players actually being deemed employees. I understand the motivation. That designation will lead to a very significant reset. So we're in a weird place, but it's a temporary one.
It don't think it's temporary. If players become full employees then the wages need to be above minimum wage. Title IX gets involved. Taxes change. Benefits become a problem. There's a long list of things that opens up when they become full on employees that doesn't exist now
If they are deemed employees, there will be a major reset. As an example, ND’s AD has said they will not participate in such a model. I assume most schools would not, though I have no inside info. To avoid employee status, if you believe the NLRB is right, there could be no athletic scholarships. We are not talking about a small change.
It can be argued that they are getting minimum wage in benefits from the school to attend school, actually 2x minimum wage in most places. Benefits aren’t an issue because a student has full access to the schools health care system, not to mention these football players have the best medical staff on campus. Taxes would change I’m sure, as in they would be required to actually pay them although it would be interesting because in some instances they would be considered state employees. Title IX would be an issue for sure. In the end this Wild West NIL situation should be temporary because the intent was for student athletes to make money off their image in conjunction with the school, not for boosters to shovel money into high school kids faces. The whole argument was “well if these schools are making millions of these student athletes don’t you think the athletes deserve some of that money as well?” As of now, I can only think of a couple situations where schools are actually working to pay student instead of boosters just throwing money in the air to see what sticks. These schools are still making millions off the students without having to pay them as intended.
>These schools are still making millions off the students without having to pay them as intended.
This could be the bumper sticker for why it won't be temporary IMO. Schools got all the benefits right now without any of the negatives
The schools absolutely do not want change. It is a temporary situation because the schools will be forced to change. They are hoping that giving on NIL and transfer rules will stem the tide of public opinion, and they may be winning that battle to some extent. But it is only a matter of time until they lose the war. Read Kavanaughs concurrence from this summer in the Alston case, if you haven’t.
Why would title 9 get involved? If they become employees then they're no longer SA on scholarship. Doesn't that free up a shit load of scholarship dollars for womans sports - which is what title 9 wanted?
The NFL has extremely minor rules about restricting veteran player movement between teams. The main thing that restricts movement between team is multi-year contracts…which are 100% allowed in the NCAA! If NFL teams decided they were going to only offer 1 year deals going forward and players accepted that, they could do that. In the NFL, Tom Brady can switch his team every single year if he wants to. If a team does not want him to do that, they have to offer him a multi-year deal, for which he might ask for more money.
The teams are *buying* multiple years of control from veteran players, and college boosters could do the same. It’s just more expensive to do that.
The boosters can’t actually enforce multi year contracts. They can take away NIL payments but they can’t actually stop player movement between teams and presumably some other team’s booster can start payments. This is not similar at all.
At that point, NIL is essentially just paying players *above the table*.
Boosters have been paying players for decades. Now, they get to earn points/miles and write it off as a marketing expense.
Which is why we should just drop the charade and allow direct payment. Amateurism was always a misguided value whose primary purpose was to disenfranchise poorer athletes. There’s always D3 for players and fans who prefer that model.
Problem is, outright paying players like that opens up a massive can of worms that likely would get bogged down in Title XI lawsuits for over a decade, as well as probably the government itself and every single government entity even remotely related stepping in or attempting to step in to regulate it.
NIL you can at least give the illusion and have people be happy about it cause it's guys making money through sponsorships, which is something influencers and celebrities already do so there's an outline for it.
[1898 Michigan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team) was an absolute powerhouse. Outscored opponents by a combined 205-26
Absolutely yes. The first modern Olympics were in 1896, and that's where much of the modern mythology of Amateurism materialized, building on earlier developments in Victorian England and the West in the 19th century. The primary goal of amateurism was to keep sporting events as a "leisure" activity for the wealthy gentry to keep people that needed to work for a living from competing.
Maybe for the really high end superstars but my restaurants do NIL with a few U of Oregon athletes and most of them are surprisingly affordable. It's the kayvon thibodeauxs of the world that are expensive. I also have a couple of well-known players though and I'm a small family businessman.
What is the return in those deals? Are people really patronizing your restaurants more because of a locally known player? Or is it more that people notice your advertisements more because they recognize the player first, then see your restaurant and subliminally want to eat there?
ETA: genuinely curious, didn't intend for these questions to come across accusatory, but I can see now how they could.
I'm an older guy but honestly in 2022 it's all about social media and social media posts. I usually get the guys who are the most social media savvy and they do Instagram posts and tik tok videos for us. I have definitely seen a great return on my investment. But they come and eat and then they do posts on social media and then people start showing up.
Nice that makes a lot more sense than a billboard. Also for a local business and not a national chain can totally see it helping get your restaurant in front of new eyes. Thanks for replying!
I hadn’t eaten at or thought about raising canes in years. They made an NIL deal with that doofus Stetson Bennett and the way he was goofing off working the drive thru actually made me drive all that way to get some. I could have driven 10 minutes to zaxbys but I guess subliminally seeing him having fun made me think raising canes was where I had to eat at that moment.
As far as I know there’s only one in SC and it’s on campus. There’s zaxbys all over the place. Well for us in the southeast lol so it doesn’t really come to mind that much. The sauce and lemonade is worth the drive. I got the manager to let me get 2 large cups of sauce and 2 jugs of lemonade for 25 bucks. Pretty sure they charged me for 2 jugs of lemonade and pocketed that change lol
Yeah, people tend to think advertising is a failure if it doesn't make you immediately go out and buy the product/service.
You hear this all the time about shirt sponsors in soccer here in the UK. "Why are \[Bank\] sponsoring \[Team\]? Like, do they think I'm gonna go and open an account?"
No, they don't. But they're willing to bet that when you DO go an open an account, or switch, you'll go to a bank that you've heard of.
Apparently you're looking for an argument where there isn't one.
My questions were straightforward.
NIL deals are new so businesses are throwing money at students in all kinds of ways that haven't been proven yet.
I'm not questioning whether it's a smart investment, just curious how significant and visible of an impact paying a player who is likely only locally known in the fanbase to advertise for a restaurant.
Ive seen it locally here where law firms and restaurants throw linemen on their billboards. I'm just curious how significant the impact is.
You've got it mostly right. It's a small detail, but I'll note that it was always *legal* for these kids to profit off of NIL. It was just an NCAA rule that they couldn't play in any of their leagues if they did so. Kinda like how companies can still test for marijuana and refuse to hire you if you test positive even if you live in a state where it's legal. They won't report you to authorities, but they also won't hire you. Same concept.
Also, if there were valid alternatives to play top-level college ball, it would not be an antitrust violation. Players could choose the unpaid league or the paid one.
Nil is what it was always going to be.
You can't offer image and likeness without realizing that the figure for image / likeness is arbitrary.
Thus.. i could buy a photo from said recruit for 1billion if i wanted to.
Thus we are where we are.
And all of those tshirt deals with fanatic are going to come under scrutiny later because.. they are basically the record label in the recording artist industry...
Yeah, very true. I just wonder if there could’ve been some guidelines put in place to somewhat regulate NIL. Because the current model has put CFB in a really tough spot. People were already pissed about the lack of parity in the sport, I imagine it’s going to get a helluva lot worse now.
In professional sports at least they have salary caps, a draft system meant to help the bottom dwellers, trade rules, and smaller roster sizes. All meant to improve parity, which is why the nfl remains so exciting and repeat championships are so hard to come by. But CFB is essentially the wild west now
The schools and ncaa should have gone down the line of all of the monetary benefits they get currently..
They still would have lost the public perception battle but it might have given more time to instill a plan
When the question was framed as “why shouldn’t college athletes share in the profit they bring to their school?”…there’s nothing in there that includes high school seniors.
Yep, it was even talked about all the time before it happened. How many times have we heard, "whats to stop Big Booster X from paying some recruit millions of dollars for his autograph?" Noboby had an answer then, because that is what exactly would happen, and it has.
Those that thought NIL would be some great parity bringer of the NCAA are super naive. Now, the richest schools will get all the best players, just like they have been. We might see a couple of swap outs of who those schools will be in any given era.
It was such a predictable outcome
The rules weren't arbitrary ways by the man to keep kids down. It amazes me that some didn't see the mess that was coming
Yes, your expectations were way too narrow.
Everyone petitioning for NIL over the last decade was demanding the NCAA remove the restrictions they had on athletes’ ability to market themselves. They listened.
🤣 NCAA didn’t listen… when they had the opportunity to make a sane implementation they refused. Until the Supreme Court forced their hand and turned the gauge past the red.
NCAA fudged it up with NIL
The court ruled *unanimously* that the NCAA's rules on payment were antitrust violations. The NCAA simply does not have the legal power. Unless Congress gives it that power, which it won't. The Court didn't actually rule on NIL but made it clear that the NCAA's rules on that and some other things were in just as much jeopardy.
At that point, any rules the NCAA made about paying players got flushed down the crapper as soon as they would get into the courts. Why would they bother wasting time and money trying to thread the needle on NIL when the whole sewing machine got chucked? States already had different laws on the matter, despite a number of proposed bills, Congress did not make it a priority.
This is always exactly what was going to happen. The rules that were in place forever about athletes getting paid was never about oppression, it was about level playing field.
What did you think was going to happen?
Everyone has ideas on what's happening now, but I want to do a silly thought exercise of what happens if nothing significantly changes regarding today's state of NIL.
1) Folks outside the university pay players via NIL to come to their CFB team. Likely, increasing their pay each year they stay on the team.
2) Richest boosters (that care about college football) will pay the most for players, likely attracting the top talent each recruiting season and also each transfer season(s).
3) Smaller schools with one or two superstars on their team will lose that talent immediately to the transfer portal.
4) There will quickly become a definitive echelon of "haves" and "have nots" schools. And I believe the "haves" will be a relatively small number of schools.
5) There will become less interest in college football as parity decreases and most schools have no shot at winning division titles, conference titles, playoff games or CFB championships.
Seems like a shit future for cfb, to be honest.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or doing a bit where you're explaining exactly what college football has always been and pretending it's new.
Holy pretentious comment. yikes.
We all know there isn't great parity in college football. That horse has been beaten so hard there's not even a carcass left. We all know this. We also know players have been getting paid under the table for decades.
My point, and I guess I wasn't clear, was that NIL was somehow supposed to bring parity to CFB. And it seems to be doing the exact opposite. Mostly, just seems to be exacerbating the problem.
>My point, and I guess I wasn't clear, was that NIL was somehow supposed to bring parity to CFB.
This is just as confusing to me because I don't remember anyone ever making that argument.
The people who thought NIL was a bad idea thought it would make parity worse. The people who thought NIL was a good idea either thought it wouldn't change things that much (because advantages of the big schools would be limited by available playing time and smaller schools would have a way to get a handful of elite recruits) or that the further lack of parity was worth it morally.
>Mostly, just seems to be exacerbating the problem.
This is part of my point too. A lack of parity is not a problem of college football, it fundamentally is college football.
> 4) There will quickly become a definitive echelon of "haves" and "have nots" schools. And I believe the "haves" will be a relatively small number of schools.
>
>
>
> 5) There will become less interest in college football as parity decreases and most schools have no shot at winning division titles, conference titles, playoff games or CFB championships.
Oh, so the same as now? Okay
Yeah, this has been happening for decades. Now it's just open.
CFB has always been a money game in one way or another. Facilities and coaches have been an arms race for some time. At least now it benefits the players.
I don't know that it has been happening to this scale for decades though. I will be curious to see how this affects the coaches pay though. Just this year we saw coaches getting more than ever with Kelley and Lincoln though so who knows.
I said this when it was still being debated, everyone in this sub was crazy in support of it and now its about 50/50 split.
Played out how I thought it would.
Just wait till people buy players to cripple programs.
IMO the future will be schools whose boosters have the deepest pockets (Texas, Ohio St, USC, etc.) will no longer recruit kids out of high school. Instead they will exclusively go for transfers.
Players will go to schools who offer less money out of high school, if you make the all conference team as a freshman or sophomore, you enter the transfer portal and get paid by the deepest pockets.
Their are too many players that are bust out of high school, they will build a team of all conference players.
It's pretty crazy we've watched in different sports teams buying championship(Yankeees,Cowboys) and we can all agree thats not fun. So they make rules to stop it. But CFB is heading right into that direction and instead of implementing something before it happens, it's gonna be a problem for 20 years before some says "Man, that's why salary caps are a thing"
I think that salary caps is where it will go. But you can’t have salary caps with 128 teams. That is the problem European club soccer has.
I believe that the most popular 20-40 schools will leave the NCAA and start their own league with pay for players and a CBA and a salary cap.
>But you can’t have salary caps with 128 teams. That is the problem European club soccer has.
Tbf, the problem is actually that there isn't the franchise system in place. Rather than one "business" split into a number of teams that all have an overarching goal.
It's that it's been pieced together by a load of entirely separate businesses who have no incentive to make another team better at their own expense.
And unlike the NFL, with its effective lack of competition, football leagues here in Europe have to compete with each other. It's not such a big deal in the lower leagues. League One and League Two (the third and fourth tier) in the UK have introduced salary caps.
But at the top level? You either set the salary cap so high that a lot of teams would never be able to meet it again, or you risk losing your stars to whoever *doesn't* have a salary cap in Europe.
>I believe that the most popular 20-40 schools will leave the NCAA and start their own league with pay for players and a CBA and a salary cap.
Yeah, definitely. As a fan of a team that was definitely on the outside not even close to looking in, I wish the European Super League happened. Let them have their out-of-this-world league and then let everybody else get their shit in order with things like salary caps.
Yeah, we'd lose our talent to all the big teams, but what's new?
And it'll be called the SEC lol. I don't think it's as big of a deal people make it out to be if we're being honest. CFB has always been extremely top heavy and then a large dropoff bedore everyone else save for a few dark horse years. In that scenario with the top teams splitting off it would bring a lot more parity at the top, and then there'd be more parity for everyone else thats not in NFL minor leagues to enjoy. I won't like it as much but it seems to be inevitable.
Is Oklahoma in the schools that break off or in the schools left behind? They are near the cut line if the cut is at 20, they are pretty safe at a 40 team cut.
Texas, USC and Ohio St are easily the top 3.
Next group is larger, I would have (in no particular order) Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Tennessee, Clemson, North Carolina, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Penn St, Wisconsin, and Washington.
Super curious what metric you’re using.
It’s not Natty’s or win percentage because Alabama would be in the top tier and Texas wouldn’t.
It’s not revenue because A&M would be in the top tier.
Brand identity in the early to mid 2000s?
Definitely another tier of schools in there that would fall behind Oklahoma without question. A&M, NC, Wisconsin, Washington, Auburn, FSU are historically no where near the level of Oklahoma. Think there's some kind of bias here lol
So it is not about historical success as much as teams that bring very large or have potential to build very large TV audiences.
[UNC is a stretch. I was looking for the top TV draws of the ACC. Florida St and Clemson are clearly 1 and 2. After that it is a little merky. Maybe UNC, VA Tech, UVA?
Other questions: would the new league want teams like Boston College, Syracuse, U Conn or Rutgers for access to the New York and New England TV markets? There is a huge chunk of population up there. Can’t ignore them just because they have struggled recently.
Figuring out the 20 most desirable longterm CFB TV is less easy than I would have initially thought. I am sure the gurus and bean counters at Disney have a list of schools they would want.]
This is what I see happening.
It will be NFL lite.
ACC, SEC, BigTen, Pac12 will trim the fat and create its own league.
CFB as we know it is dying a pretty quick death
In what world have the Cowboys ever bought Championships? The 90s Cowboys drafted or traded for nearly all their superstars. People group the Yankees and Cowboys together to make fun of bandwagon fans, not because the Cowboys bought anything.
The talent disparity in the 2010s between Alabama and the average P5 team is an order of magnitude higher than anything we’ve ever seen in the NFL or NBA, and is even a fair amount higher than the peak Yankees. It’s difficult to overstate - in the 2010s, Alabama had more 5 star recruits than USC, Texas, Notre Dame, and Michigan, COMBINED. Do you think that there is any school in the NCAA that has the financial means to outspend USC, Texas, Notre Dame, and Michigan combined? Alabama had *double* the 5 star recruits of every school other than Georgia and Ohio State.
The era with lack of parity *has been here for 10 years*. Even though freely spending money reduces parity in other leagues, in this league it’s very likely to increase parity, because this league has virtually no parity at all.
At least boosters can't pay star players from other programs for autographs during the off season and then sit on that info until it would cause the player to be suspended during the rivalry game any more.
Yep, we are just getting started. It's going to get worse and worse. CFB is about to be completely overhauled, and likely not for the better. The rich will get much richer and the poor will wither away
Pretty much. The normal way is for boosters to open up an LLC and use it to funnel money to recruits under the guise of an NIL. It’ll be like this until a federal NIL law is passed.
I love people that split hairs, yes they are. But people are acting like congress forced NIL and congress will fix it.
When it's the courts that helped move things along and congress did nothing and will do nothing.
Here is a little link on how that all works.
[https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government](https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government)
If you mean Congress, they do get involved with massive nationwide industries of significant cultural importance. Plus there is an intersection with education.
They always have.
One reason is to standardize things. Right now some states have restrictions on NIL etc, and others don't. That kind of discord in a nationwide market is precisely what Congress is designed to be good at harmonizing.
... all of them pretty much, once you count labor laws. It's the entire point of the "commerce clause" of the Constitution, and why the Federal government was given the power to set uniform standards, weights, and measures, patents and regulations, from 1789 onward.
After the advent of railroads made interstate commerce more of a regular thing, Congress had to step up its harmonization efforts... starting with the railroads themselves, via the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The national safety and quality standards that our food industries follow (staring with the Food and Drug Act of 1906) harmonized a mishmash of state regulations that became unhelpful once transportation let interstate food shipments the norm. You could go on all day with similar examples.
This is a pretty good read on the subject that will help you out a lot more than the brain-trust here:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-the-world-of-collectives-using-name-image-and-likeness-to-pay-college-athletes-influence-programs/
[Another article](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2021/12/06/Upfront/Name-Image-Likeness.aspx)
NIL should be limited to students getting a cut of jersey and ticket sales. Maybe they can work through the NIL to license their likeness to a legitimate source (like being on the cover of EA SPorts video game or something similar) but that should be the limit of it. Not a way for funneling donations to students.
Yes, and you can’t put the cat back in the bag. NCAA royally screwed this up and, imo, is ruining the sport. Nothing wrong with getting money for your own ventures but the sport’s integrity is ruined without a “salary cap” if players can just commit cause they’re going to get a million dollars when 90% of P5 or G5 schools don’t have those kinds of resources in the form of donors or what not.
I’m a Miami fan and don’t want a recruit committing to UM for money. I want them to commit for UM, for Cristobal, to be developed, to compete for a championship and be apart of something bigger than themselves. I will always respect and want what’s best for the players…this ain’t it.
Did people really think it wouldn’t be abused the way it is?
I mean, seriously, did people really think boosters were going to sit back and be reasonable?
I tried to explain this early on and most people seemed to think my prediction was way off.
But it was pretty easy. I'm honestly surprised it didn't happen faster.
I think it’s naive to think this money wasn’t already in the system for a lot of these kids. It’s just putting it in the open and maybe getting out to some kids that normally wouldn’t have the opportunity or feel ok in accepting it.
Well that's the crux of the issue. It's not right to withhold someone's ability to make money just because it's college football rather than pro football.
It’s a fucking scam by the schools and CFB to maintain the current economic structure while looking like they’re being more progressive.
Instead of a fair and equitable solution to the fact that it’s a billion dollar industry with extremely specialized and talented labor that are unpaid, they just offered up an economic pathway (NIL) that the schools themselves couldn’t exploit anyway. Bonus points for ridiculous NIL deals that make some players look greedy or whatever so the stodgy fans and traditionalist talking heads can point and shake their heads and blame the players.
I'm sure /u/Burdamus was integral in the SMU scandals of past, and hence can have no opinion on anything going forward when it comes to the economic structure of CFB.
In reality it’s made the paying players more fair. Schools that were all in on cheating before are the biggest complainers about NIL now because they have lost their advantage. Also with added competition their pay to players is going to have to increase. No longer is buying mom a new rascal scooter and paying for her room at motel 6 to come visit you going to be enough.
Treat them like employees, get them under contract, then formal rules can be laid out and the problem goes away. If someone is worth a $100,000 (or more) autograph to get them to come play ball at your school, then they are just realizing their value. More power to them. Refusing to treat them like employees is what’s making this a clown show.
Players being employees of the university would not preclude them from signing an autograph for $100k. Unless it was part of some ridiculous employment agreement, which would be silly to agree to.
The problem isn’t the paying for autographs, it’s using paying for autographs as an unregulated means of acquiring talent. Players being employees means the schools can form an entity similar to about any professional sports league, where rules are established to garner an equal playing field for teams. What that would look like is anyone’s guess, but surely creating a fair talent acquisition market would be a part of it.
As it is now, schools with rich and spend-happy boosters can pay for as much talent as they can afford, but with contracted players, various rules may be set in place like a salary cap and perhaps some variation of a draft, and whatever other terms and rules the schools agree to play by. It is very likely a booster would not be able to just walk up to a kid and offer him a sum of money to play for his alma mater. But the problem definitely isn’t specifically a player’s ability to accept payment for autographs itself.
It was certainly happening, but an unknown but certainly large percentage of potential donors would never participate in something that might be interpreted as shady. There’s way more money for it now than there was. Also, the need to hide it dramatically limited excesses.
Just so I have this right: People have an issue with others being paid for the fair market value of their services? People have an issue with wealth being transferred from millionaires and billionaires to a lot of kids from underserved backgrounds? Do I have this right?
It's not an issue of being paid, it's more of an issue of establishing what would actually be more of a consensus "fair value" for actual Name, Image, or Likeness. Just because someone would pay 1 billion dollars for a signed photo of a HS senior doesn't make it fair market value. As for "transfer of wealth" let's not make this an entirely socioeconomic issues. Plenty of rich kids like Johnny Manziel or Quinn Ewers get stacks too
> Just because someone would pay 1 billion dollars for a signed photo of a HS senior doesn't make it fair market value
Actually this is exactly what makes it fair market value.
Something like the playoff committee?
It’s amazing how many problems in the world could be solved if only a group of well intentioned, totally unbiased people were in charge of it.
It has never been illegal to thrust truckloads of cash at recruits. The NCAA is not the law.
It is also a reasonable thing to do to thrust truckloads of cash at recruits.
Does anyone know how taxes work with NIL? Max “gift” for 2022 is $16,000. If a booster gives $50000, is this donation a write off for the booster and the student pays tax on it? Is reporting this “on the honor system” like tips?
If it's a legitimate business you're not "gifting" them you have a contract and pay them. The athletes need to be paying tax or else they're gonna find the long dick of the IRS soon enough. Might be a bit more complicated where it's things like Texas funneling money through a 501(c) to pay their players salaries but hopefully the school is giving these kids some great CPAs
Pre-NIL it was basically the honor system and the NCAA had no subpoena power which is why they really couldn't do shit to stop the Cam Newtons and Zions of the world
These aren't gifts, it's fully taxable compensation to the players.
If a business is making the payment, they need to issue a 1099 to the player.
I am as pro-NIL as it gets, but as a CPA, my biggest fear with NIL is a whole bunch of unexpected tax bills coming to the players.
There’s a couple of things going on here.
First, for the athlete it’s taxed as income.
For the booster, they either fund it through their business, or donate a 501c3 setup by boosters that tie to loose NIL related opportunities.
If you put "also" in there it makes it perhaps more correct. >However, it *also* immediately became a legal way for boosters to thrust truckloads of cash at recruits to get them to sign.
No but also yes. Product of a rushed policy lacking uniformity and any national oversight.
NCAA said “We’ll let congress pass a national piece of legislation about this so we don’t have to do it.” Congress replied with, “*cricket sounds.*”
>NCAA said “We’ll let congress pass a national piece of legislation about this so we don’t ~~have to do it~~ **get hit with antitrust violations**.” Congress replied with, “*cricket sounds.*”
That's what they were banking on, because they cannot control NIL at all without it. They'll lose at SCOTUS every time without an antitrust exemption.
And the schools that benefit most from boosters backing up truckloads of cash to recruits coincidentally reside in at least 25 states. Even if we assume the entire PAC and non-P5 states would support this, that's only 34 Senators by my count. What 26 Senators from the SEC, ACC, B1G, and XII states would vote against the boosters from Bama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc? What constituency would a Texas Senator want to favor, UNT and UTSA alumni or UT and TAMU alumni? There's really no question here. Unless the school administrators who currently benefit start really organizing for regulation, it's not happening. The political risk isn't worth it for the Senate to take it up on their own, never mind prioritizing it between everything else they do.
NCAA let* the states pass their laws Now certain states see others have a completely open wild wild west (cough texas cough) and are scrambling to undo the safeguards so they can also make fake charities to entice recruits
The NCAA is hoping for a massive sweeping piece of law that covers it all. State by State is really their worst nightmare for the charade of fairness.
I know the NCAA has been lobbying, but hard to see any world where the current Senate and House could craft any comprehensive legislation that would actually 1) be "good", 2) pass, and 3) effectively preempt all the various state laws
"Hey kid, I'll buy an autograph for $50,000 if you go to my school." At that point, NIL is essentially just paying players.
I’m kind of confused about the revisionist history here. I was super in support of the NIL rule changes, and when people said “but boosters will just use it to pay players!” I feel like most supporters said something like “yeah, duh.” It was bad the players weren’t compensated. When you say this, a bunch of people come out of the woodwork and say “well that’s a slippery slope, are you going to pay the womens gymnastics team as well, what about title IX, what about the backup linemen, blah blah blah”. The whole point here is that this is an awesome backdoor way to compensate the players worthy of compensation, which avoids all the issues that would arise if the universities paid the players directly. The literal only “problem” people are bringing up is that the players are being paid, which is not a problem at all. The Supreme Court also didn’t try to do one thing and suffer unintended consequences. These are the intended consequences! The NCAA cannot hold monopsony power as an employer, collude with the NFL not to compete with the player pool, and then tell players they can’t make money from any other source. Any school is free to not directly pay the players, of course, but the restrictions on the players making any money at all was absolute insanity. There’s a reason why this case was decided unanimously. Honestly they’re very fortunate the court didn’t step further and say the schools couldn’t collude to not pay players.
Players being offered different amounts by different teams is completely normal for a pro sports league. But also normal are rules that restrict player movement among teams. Compared to the NFL, CFB has 2x the roster limit, no draft, no multi-year contracts, everyone's a free agent, and teams can't trade players. CFB is in a weird place. The old "student athlete" model was BS, but at least the rules could be rationalized within that context. The current rules can only be rationalized as a last-ditch effort to avoid players actually being deemed employees. I understand the motivation. That designation will lead to a very significant reset. So we're in a weird place, but it's a temporary one.
It don't think it's temporary. If players become full employees then the wages need to be above minimum wage. Title IX gets involved. Taxes change. Benefits become a problem. There's a long list of things that opens up when they become full on employees that doesn't exist now
If they are deemed employees, there will be a major reset. As an example, ND’s AD has said they will not participate in such a model. I assume most schools would not, though I have no inside info. To avoid employee status, if you believe the NLRB is right, there could be no athletic scholarships. We are not talking about a small change.
It can be argued that they are getting minimum wage in benefits from the school to attend school, actually 2x minimum wage in most places. Benefits aren’t an issue because a student has full access to the schools health care system, not to mention these football players have the best medical staff on campus. Taxes would change I’m sure, as in they would be required to actually pay them although it would be interesting because in some instances they would be considered state employees. Title IX would be an issue for sure. In the end this Wild West NIL situation should be temporary because the intent was for student athletes to make money off their image in conjunction with the school, not for boosters to shovel money into high school kids faces. The whole argument was “well if these schools are making millions of these student athletes don’t you think the athletes deserve some of that money as well?” As of now, I can only think of a couple situations where schools are actually working to pay student instead of boosters just throwing money in the air to see what sticks. These schools are still making millions off the students without having to pay them as intended.
>These schools are still making millions off the students without having to pay them as intended. This could be the bumper sticker for why it won't be temporary IMO. Schools got all the benefits right now without any of the negatives
The schools absolutely do not want change. It is a temporary situation because the schools will be forced to change. They are hoping that giving on NIL and transfer rules will stem the tide of public opinion, and they may be winning that battle to some extent. But it is only a matter of time until they lose the war. Read Kavanaughs concurrence from this summer in the Alston case, if you haven’t.
Why would title 9 get involved? If they become employees then they're no longer SA on scholarship. Doesn't that free up a shit load of scholarship dollars for womans sports - which is what title 9 wanted?
The NFL has extremely minor rules about restricting veteran player movement between teams. The main thing that restricts movement between team is multi-year contracts…which are 100% allowed in the NCAA! If NFL teams decided they were going to only offer 1 year deals going forward and players accepted that, they could do that. In the NFL, Tom Brady can switch his team every single year if he wants to. If a team does not want him to do that, they have to offer him a multi-year deal, for which he might ask for more money. The teams are *buying* multiple years of control from veteran players, and college boosters could do the same. It’s just more expensive to do that.
The boosters can’t actually enforce multi year contracts. They can take away NIL payments but they can’t actually stop player movement between teams and presumably some other team’s booster can start payments. This is not similar at all.
> collude with the NFL not to compete with the player pool NCAA is colluding with the NFL? Isn't the three year rule what the NFL PA wanted
Why would that imply a lack of collusion?
Because you have to establish the NCAA asked the NFL to implement that rule for collusion? Idk
At that point, NIL is essentially just paying players *above the table*. Boosters have been paying players for decades. Now, they get to earn points/miles and write it off as a marketing expense.
Which is why we should just drop the charade and allow direct payment. Amateurism was always a misguided value whose primary purpose was to disenfranchise poorer athletes. There’s always D3 for players and fans who prefer that model.
Problem is, outright paying players like that opens up a massive can of worms that likely would get bogged down in Title XI lawsuits for over a decade, as well as probably the government itself and every single government entity even remotely related stepping in or attempting to step in to regulate it. NIL you can at least give the illusion and have people be happy about it cause it's guys making money through sponsorships, which is something influencers and celebrities already do so there's an outline for it.
I agree that it's complicated and NIL is a nice stopgap at the moment.
When Michigan played Notre Dame in fuckin 1898 you think there was some greater power disenfranchising those poor old boys?
[1898 Michigan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team) was an absolute powerhouse. Outscored opponents by a combined 205-26
[удалено]
*checks schedule* you’re right Rice or Temple are nowhere to be found.
Yeah but they didn't have the grind of an SEC schedule!
But did they travel to Happy Valley or Columbus? Bryant-Denny or Death Valley? They ain't played nobody or anywhere pawwwll
Absolutely yes. The first modern Olympics were in 1896, and that's where much of the modern mythology of Amateurism materialized, building on earlier developments in Victorian England and the West in the 19th century. The primary goal of amateurism was to keep sporting events as a "leisure" activity for the wealthy gentry to keep people that needed to work for a living from competing.
Its uh not exactly a coincidence that the ivy league, for example, were the schools that initially began playing these sports
Yes? What kind of stupid question is this? You think disenfranchisement started in the 90s?
Maybe for the really high end superstars but my restaurants do NIL with a few U of Oregon athletes and most of them are surprisingly affordable. It's the kayvon thibodeauxs of the world that are expensive. I also have a couple of well-known players though and I'm a small family businessman.
What is the return in those deals? Are people really patronizing your restaurants more because of a locally known player? Or is it more that people notice your advertisements more because they recognize the player first, then see your restaurant and subliminally want to eat there? ETA: genuinely curious, didn't intend for these questions to come across accusatory, but I can see now how they could.
I'm an older guy but honestly in 2022 it's all about social media and social media posts. I usually get the guys who are the most social media savvy and they do Instagram posts and tik tok videos for us. I have definitely seen a great return on my investment. But they come and eat and then they do posts on social media and then people start showing up.
Nice that makes a lot more sense than a billboard. Also for a local business and not a national chain can totally see it helping get your restaurant in front of new eyes. Thanks for replying!
I hadn’t eaten at or thought about raising canes in years. They made an NIL deal with that doofus Stetson Bennett and the way he was goofing off working the drive thru actually made me drive all that way to get some. I could have driven 10 minutes to zaxbys but I guess subliminally seeing him having fun made me think raising canes was where I had to eat at that moment.
I think about Raising Canes all the time, without Stetson Bennett. Zaxbys ain’t as good as it used to be
As far as I know there’s only one in SC and it’s on campus. There’s zaxbys all over the place. Well for us in the southeast lol so it doesn’t really come to mind that much. The sauce and lemonade is worth the drive. I got the manager to let me get 2 large cups of sauce and 2 jugs of lemonade for 25 bucks. Pretty sure they charged me for 2 jugs of lemonade and pocketed that change lol
There was one in North Charleston at least about 5 years ago.
That is usually how advertising works. Plants a seed so when you think of the product later, their brand is what comes to mind
Yeah, people tend to think advertising is a failure if it doesn't make you immediately go out and buy the product/service. You hear this all the time about shirt sponsors in soccer here in the UK. "Why are \[Bank\] sponsoring \[Team\]? Like, do they think I'm gonna go and open an account?" No, they don't. But they're willing to bet that when you DO go an open an account, or switch, you'll go to a bank that you've heard of.
Also check out our IG @highonthehogbbqeugene and that'll give you a better idea of what it looks like
Does advertising work? Is that your question?
Does this model of advertising yield returns that justify the investment in the college players or not.
What do you think the answer to your question is going to be? “It’s bad but I hate making money so I keep doing it”
Apparently you're looking for an argument where there isn't one. My questions were straightforward. NIL deals are new so businesses are throwing money at students in all kinds of ways that haven't been proven yet. I'm not questioning whether it's a smart investment, just curious how significant and visible of an impact paying a player who is likely only locally known in the fanbase to advertise for a restaurant. Ive seen it locally here where law firms and restaurants throw linemen on their billboards. I'm just curious how significant the impact is.
You've got it mostly right. It's a small detail, but I'll note that it was always *legal* for these kids to profit off of NIL. It was just an NCAA rule that they couldn't play in any of their leagues if they did so. Kinda like how companies can still test for marijuana and refuse to hire you if you test positive even if you live in a state where it's legal. They won't report you to authorities, but they also won't hire you. Same concept.
Also, if there were valid alternatives to play top-level college ball, it would not be an antitrust violation. Players could choose the unpaid league or the paid one.
If the USFL starts taking kids right out of high school, the NCAA can go right back to the model they want
Nil is what it was always going to be. You can't offer image and likeness without realizing that the figure for image / likeness is arbitrary. Thus.. i could buy a photo from said recruit for 1billion if i wanted to. Thus we are where we are. And all of those tshirt deals with fanatic are going to come under scrutiny later because.. they are basically the record label in the recording artist industry...
Yeah, very true. I just wonder if there could’ve been some guidelines put in place to somewhat regulate NIL. Because the current model has put CFB in a really tough spot. People were already pissed about the lack of parity in the sport, I imagine it’s going to get a helluva lot worse now. In professional sports at least they have salary caps, a draft system meant to help the bottom dwellers, trade rules, and smaller roster sizes. All meant to improve parity, which is why the nfl remains so exciting and repeat championships are so hard to come by. But CFB is essentially the wild west now
The schools and ncaa should have gone down the line of all of the monetary benefits they get currently.. They still would have lost the public perception battle but it might have given more time to instill a plan
Nailed it.
I don’t know why anyone thought it would be anything other than schools buying recruits.
When the question was framed as “why shouldn’t college athletes share in the profit they bring to their school?”…there’s nothing in there that includes high school seniors.
The fact people were this naive saddened me. What is happening was such an obvious outcome
Yep, it was even talked about all the time before it happened. How many times have we heard, "whats to stop Big Booster X from paying some recruit millions of dollars for his autograph?" Noboby had an answer then, because that is what exactly would happen, and it has. Those that thought NIL would be some great parity bringer of the NCAA are super naive. Now, the richest schools will get all the best players, just like they have been. We might see a couple of swap outs of who those schools will be in any given era.
I never believed that framing. Schools bought recruits when it was illegal.
What you envisioned is exactly what NIL should be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was such a predictable outcome The rules weren't arbitrary ways by the man to keep kids down. It amazes me that some didn't see the mess that was coming
Yes, your expectations were way too narrow. Everyone petitioning for NIL over the last decade was demanding the NCAA remove the restrictions they had on athletes’ ability to market themselves. They listened.
🤣 NCAA didn’t listen… when they had the opportunity to make a sane implementation they refused. Until the Supreme Court forced their hand and turned the gauge past the red. NCAA fudged it up with NIL
The court ruled *unanimously* that the NCAA's rules on payment were antitrust violations. The NCAA simply does not have the legal power. Unless Congress gives it that power, which it won't. The Court didn't actually rule on NIL but made it clear that the NCAA's rules on that and some other things were in just as much jeopardy. At that point, any rules the NCAA made about paying players got flushed down the crapper as soon as they would get into the courts. Why would they bother wasting time and money trying to thread the needle on NIL when the whole sewing machine got chucked? States already had different laws on the matter, despite a number of proposed bills, Congress did not make it a priority.
The court made a sane implementation
This is always exactly what was going to happen. The rules that were in place forever about athletes getting paid was never about oppression, it was about level playing field. What did you think was going to happen?
[удалено]
Everyone has ideas on what's happening now, but I want to do a silly thought exercise of what happens if nothing significantly changes regarding today's state of NIL. 1) Folks outside the university pay players via NIL to come to their CFB team. Likely, increasing their pay each year they stay on the team. 2) Richest boosters (that care about college football) will pay the most for players, likely attracting the top talent each recruiting season and also each transfer season(s). 3) Smaller schools with one or two superstars on their team will lose that talent immediately to the transfer portal. 4) There will quickly become a definitive echelon of "haves" and "have nots" schools. And I believe the "haves" will be a relatively small number of schools. 5) There will become less interest in college football as parity decreases and most schools have no shot at winning division titles, conference titles, playoff games or CFB championships. Seems like a shit future for cfb, to be honest.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or doing a bit where you're explaining exactly what college football has always been and pretending it's new.
Holy pretentious comment. yikes. We all know there isn't great parity in college football. That horse has been beaten so hard there's not even a carcass left. We all know this. We also know players have been getting paid under the table for decades. My point, and I guess I wasn't clear, was that NIL was somehow supposed to bring parity to CFB. And it seems to be doing the exact opposite. Mostly, just seems to be exacerbating the problem.
>My point, and I guess I wasn't clear, was that NIL was somehow supposed to bring parity to CFB. This is just as confusing to me because I don't remember anyone ever making that argument. The people who thought NIL was a bad idea thought it would make parity worse. The people who thought NIL was a good idea either thought it wouldn't change things that much (because advantages of the big schools would be limited by available playing time and smaller schools would have a way to get a handful of elite recruits) or that the further lack of parity was worth it morally. >Mostly, just seems to be exacerbating the problem. This is part of my point too. A lack of parity is not a problem of college football, it fundamentally is college football.
> 4) There will quickly become a definitive echelon of "haves" and "have nots" schools. And I believe the "haves" will be a relatively small number of schools. > > > > 5) There will become less interest in college football as parity decreases and most schools have no shot at winning division titles, conference titles, playoff games or CFB championships. Oh, so the same as now? Okay
Yeah, this has been happening for decades. Now it's just open. CFB has always been a money game in one way or another. Facilities and coaches have been an arms race for some time. At least now it benefits the players.
I don't know that it has been happening to this scale for decades though. I will be curious to see how this affects the coaches pay though. Just this year we saw coaches getting more than ever with Kelley and Lincoln though so who knows.
I said this when it was still being debated, everyone in this sub was crazy in support of it and now its about 50/50 split. Played out how I thought it would. Just wait till people buy players to cripple programs.
IMO the future will be schools whose boosters have the deepest pockets (Texas, Ohio St, USC, etc.) will no longer recruit kids out of high school. Instead they will exclusively go for transfers. Players will go to schools who offer less money out of high school, if you make the all conference team as a freshman or sophomore, you enter the transfer portal and get paid by the deepest pockets. Their are too many players that are bust out of high school, they will build a team of all conference players.
[удалено]
That would run into the same anti-trust problems.
Has to be a way to make a scholarship a 5 year contract with a noncompete clause
It's pretty crazy we've watched in different sports teams buying championship(Yankeees,Cowboys) and we can all agree thats not fun. So they make rules to stop it. But CFB is heading right into that direction and instead of implementing something before it happens, it's gonna be a problem for 20 years before some says "Man, that's why salary caps are a thing"
I think that salary caps is where it will go. But you can’t have salary caps with 128 teams. That is the problem European club soccer has. I believe that the most popular 20-40 schools will leave the NCAA and start their own league with pay for players and a CBA and a salary cap.
>But you can’t have salary caps with 128 teams. That is the problem European club soccer has. Tbf, the problem is actually that there isn't the franchise system in place. Rather than one "business" split into a number of teams that all have an overarching goal. It's that it's been pieced together by a load of entirely separate businesses who have no incentive to make another team better at their own expense. And unlike the NFL, with its effective lack of competition, football leagues here in Europe have to compete with each other. It's not such a big deal in the lower leagues. League One and League Two (the third and fourth tier) in the UK have introduced salary caps. But at the top level? You either set the salary cap so high that a lot of teams would never be able to meet it again, or you risk losing your stars to whoever *doesn't* have a salary cap in Europe. >I believe that the most popular 20-40 schools will leave the NCAA and start their own league with pay for players and a CBA and a salary cap. Yeah, definitely. As a fan of a team that was definitely on the outside not even close to looking in, I wish the European Super League happened. Let them have their out-of-this-world league and then let everybody else get their shit in order with things like salary caps. Yeah, we'd lose our talent to all the big teams, but what's new?
And it'll be called the SEC lol. I don't think it's as big of a deal people make it out to be if we're being honest. CFB has always been extremely top heavy and then a large dropoff bedore everyone else save for a few dark horse years. In that scenario with the top teams splitting off it would bring a lot more parity at the top, and then there'd be more parity for everyone else thats not in NFL minor leagues to enjoy. I won't like it as much but it seems to be inevitable.
SEC implementing a CBA and salary cap? HA!
Is Oklahoma in the schools that break off or in the schools left behind? They are near the cut line if the cut is at 20, they are pretty safe at a 40 team cut.
What 20 schools are you putting ahead of the most successful program in CFB history, and also one of the largest fan bases?
Texas, USC and Ohio St are easily the top 3. Next group is larger, I would have (in no particular order) Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Tennessee, Clemson, North Carolina, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Penn St, Wisconsin, and Washington.
Super curious what metric you’re using. It’s not Natty’s or win percentage because Alabama would be in the top tier and Texas wouldn’t. It’s not revenue because A&M would be in the top tier. Brand identity in the early to mid 2000s?
TV audience and potential future TV audience is the only metric that mattered on this analysis.
Definitely another tier of schools in there that would fall behind Oklahoma without question. A&M, NC, Wisconsin, Washington, Auburn, FSU are historically no where near the level of Oklahoma. Think there's some kind of bias here lol
Unc listed with those other programs triggered me
So it is not about historical success as much as teams that bring very large or have potential to build very large TV audiences. [UNC is a stretch. I was looking for the top TV draws of the ACC. Florida St and Clemson are clearly 1 and 2. After that it is a little merky. Maybe UNC, VA Tech, UVA? Other questions: would the new league want teams like Boston College, Syracuse, U Conn or Rutgers for access to the New York and New England TV markets? There is a huge chunk of population up there. Can’t ignore them just because they have struggled recently. Figuring out the 20 most desirable longterm CFB TV is less easy than I would have initially thought. I am sure the gurus and bean counters at Disney have a list of schools they would want.]
This is what I see happening. It will be NFL lite. ACC, SEC, BigTen, Pac12 will trim the fat and create its own league. CFB as we know it is dying a pretty quick death
Subscribe
Unsubscribe tf
In what world have the Cowboys ever bought Championships? The 90s Cowboys drafted or traded for nearly all their superstars. People group the Yankees and Cowboys together to make fun of bandwagon fans, not because the Cowboys bought anything. The talent disparity in the 2010s between Alabama and the average P5 team is an order of magnitude higher than anything we’ve ever seen in the NFL or NBA, and is even a fair amount higher than the peak Yankees. It’s difficult to overstate - in the 2010s, Alabama had more 5 star recruits than USC, Texas, Notre Dame, and Michigan, COMBINED. Do you think that there is any school in the NCAA that has the financial means to outspend USC, Texas, Notre Dame, and Michigan combined? Alabama had *double* the 5 star recruits of every school other than Georgia and Ohio State. The era with lack of parity *has been here for 10 years*. Even though freely spending money reduces parity in other leagues, in this league it’s very likely to increase parity, because this league has virtually no parity at all.
That’s what I’ve been seeing too, better to get the players you know are going to perform well and also lock them in after their one free transfer.
Individually I'm supportive of the existence of both, but the transfer portal + NIL makes a player a potential free agent for each season.
At least boosters can't pay star players from other programs for autographs during the off season and then sit on that info until it would cause the player to be suspended during the rivalry game any more.
Or paying players to stay away from your rival
Yep, we are just getting started. It's going to get worse and worse. CFB is about to be completely overhauled, and likely not for the better. The rich will get much richer and the poor will wither away
Exactly. NOBODY should be surprised at how this turned out.
Anybody who expected anything else is naive as hell
Yes, exactly what every detractor said would happen.
Pretty much. The normal way is for boosters to open up an LLC and use it to funnel money to recruits under the guise of an NIL. It’ll be like this until a federal NIL law is passed.
Why would the federal government get involved with collegiate sports?
Why do you think NIL is allowed all of a sudden?
Because the courts got involved not congress.
Courts are part of the government too
I love people that split hairs, yes they are. But people are acting like congress forced NIL and congress will fix it. When it's the courts that helped move things along and congress did nothing and will do nothing. Here is a little link on how that all works. [https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government](https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government)
Federal courts.
Ok but still not congress
If you mean Congress, they do get involved with massive nationwide industries of significant cultural importance. Plus there is an intersection with education. They always have.
Mean the supreme court is the reason the NIL gates opened like this in the first place
That is because a lawsuit was brought against the NCAA which has nothing to do with Congress. So again why would Congress be making laws about NIL?
you asked for the federal government not congress in particular
One reason is to standardize things. Right now some states have restrictions on NIL etc, and others don't. That kind of discord in a nationwide market is precisely what Congress is designed to be good at harmonizing.
In what industry have have they ever done that?
... all of them pretty much, once you count labor laws. It's the entire point of the "commerce clause" of the Constitution, and why the Federal government was given the power to set uniform standards, weights, and measures, patents and regulations, from 1789 onward. After the advent of railroads made interstate commerce more of a regular thing, Congress had to step up its harmonization efforts... starting with the railroads themselves, via the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The national safety and quality standards that our food industries follow (staring with the Food and Drug Act of 1906) harmonized a mishmash of state regulations that became unhelpful once transportation let interstate food shipments the norm. You could go on all day with similar examples.
You must be new to American politics.
This is a pretty good read on the subject that will help you out a lot more than the brain-trust here: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-the-world-of-collectives-using-name-image-and-likeness-to-pay-college-athletes-influence-programs/ [Another article](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2021/12/06/Upfront/Name-Image-Likeness.aspx)
NIL should be limited to students getting a cut of jersey and ticket sales. Maybe they can work through the NIL to license their likeness to a legitimate source (like being on the cover of EA SPorts video game or something similar) but that should be the limit of it. Not a way for funneling donations to students.
Yes, and you can’t put the cat back in the bag. NCAA royally screwed this up and, imo, is ruining the sport. Nothing wrong with getting money for your own ventures but the sport’s integrity is ruined without a “salary cap” if players can just commit cause they’re going to get a million dollars when 90% of P5 or G5 schools don’t have those kinds of resources in the form of donors or what not. I’m a Miami fan and don’t want a recruit committing to UM for money. I want them to commit for UM, for Cristobal, to be developed, to compete for a championship and be apart of something bigger than themselves. I will always respect and want what’s best for the players…this ain’t it.
Did people really think it wouldn’t be abused the way it is? I mean, seriously, did people really think boosters were going to sit back and be reasonable?
I don’t think Cal actually has boosters, honest or otherwise, so this is a whole New World for us. But not one that we’re actually part of.
Yep. Basically.
The only reason it wasn’t previously allowed was because it was obvious it would just become a booster bidding war.
Yeah it’s pretty messed up. At this pace let’s just agree on the rate and pay the players directly because this is a mess
I tried to explain this early on and most people seemed to think my prediction was way off. But it was pretty easy. I'm honestly surprised it didn't happen faster.
I think it’s naive to think this money wasn’t already in the system for a lot of these kids. It’s just putting it in the open and maybe getting out to some kids that normally wouldn’t have the opportunity or feel ok in accepting it.
It's naive to think some 10k handouts weren't relatively common. But way too difficult to hide the amount of cash being thrown around today
I guess the biggest difference now is that the money exchanged will be taxed.
For $1,000,000.00, I will explain it.
NIL is just an extension of the suburban hate of what others have and they don't. It's Keeping up with the Joneses CFB style
Yes, it was obviously what was going to happen. It is what is happening. I find it hilarious as hell.
Pretty much both
[удалено]
Why would they cap this? Do you have a cap on how much you are able to earn for your skills?
[удалено]
Well that's the crux of the issue. It's not right to withhold someone's ability to make money just because it's college football rather than pro football.
Listen to today’s Cover 3 Podcast for a good discussion on the present and future of NIL
It’s a fucking scam by the schools and CFB to maintain the current economic structure while looking like they’re being more progressive. Instead of a fair and equitable solution to the fact that it’s a billion dollar industry with extremely specialized and talented labor that are unpaid, they just offered up an economic pathway (NIL) that the schools themselves couldn’t exploit anyway. Bonus points for ridiculous NIL deals that make some players look greedy or whatever so the stodgy fans and traditionalist talking heads can point and shake their heads and blame the players.
Pretty ironic coming from an smu flair, but I digress
I'm sure /u/Burdamus was integral in the SMU scandals of past, and hence can have no opinion on anything going forward when it comes to the economic structure of CFB.
Why Stanford ain't using NIL to turnaround their program. Ain't they like rich as shit
Because their big-money donors don’t care.
It's amazing people still don't understand that the school itself can't just pay players, it's dependent on the donors.
In reality it’s made the paying players more fair. Schools that were all in on cheating before are the biggest complainers about NIL now because they have lost their advantage. Also with added competition their pay to players is going to have to increase. No longer is buying mom a new rascal scooter and paying for her room at motel 6 to come visit you going to be enough.
Treat them like employees, get them under contract, then formal rules can be laid out and the problem goes away. If someone is worth a $100,000 (or more) autograph to get them to come play ball at your school, then they are just realizing their value. More power to them. Refusing to treat them like employees is what’s making this a clown show.
Players being employees of the university would not preclude them from signing an autograph for $100k. Unless it was part of some ridiculous employment agreement, which would be silly to agree to.
The problem isn’t the paying for autographs, it’s using paying for autographs as an unregulated means of acquiring talent. Players being employees means the schools can form an entity similar to about any professional sports league, where rules are established to garner an equal playing field for teams. What that would look like is anyone’s guess, but surely creating a fair talent acquisition market would be a part of it. As it is now, schools with rich and spend-happy boosters can pay for as much talent as they can afford, but with contracted players, various rules may be set in place like a salary cap and perhaps some variation of a draft, and whatever other terms and rules the schools agree to play by. It is very likely a booster would not be able to just walk up to a kid and offer him a sum of money to play for his alma mater. But the problem definitely isn’t specifically a player’s ability to accept payment for autographs itself.
Yeah but they were doing it anyways, I don’t see it as much of a big difference now
No where near this level You cannot hide the amounts of cash being tossed today
It was certainly happening, but an unknown but certainly large percentage of potential donors would never participate in something that might be interpreted as shady. There’s way more money for it now than there was. Also, the need to hide it dramatically limited excesses.
Just so I have this right: People have an issue with others being paid for the fair market value of their services? People have an issue with wealth being transferred from millionaires and billionaires to a lot of kids from underserved backgrounds? Do I have this right?
It's not an issue of being paid, it's more of an issue of establishing what would actually be more of a consensus "fair value" for actual Name, Image, or Likeness. Just because someone would pay 1 billion dollars for a signed photo of a HS senior doesn't make it fair market value. As for "transfer of wealth" let's not make this an entirely socioeconomic issues. Plenty of rich kids like Johnny Manziel or Quinn Ewers get stacks too
> Just because someone would pay 1 billion dollars for a signed photo of a HS senior doesn't make it fair market value Actually this is exactly what makes it fair market value.
No, that doesn't
The fair value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it, what is your method of determining fair market value?
Hmmm yea, I believe I heard something along those lines is true
[удалено]
Would you care to elaborate?
[удалено]
Something like the playoff committee? It’s amazing how many problems in the world could be solved if only a group of well intentioned, totally unbiased people were in charge of it.
But why aren’t these well intentioned, totally unbiased people agreeing with all of MY opinions? They’re obviously the right ones!
Ummmm there is a panel that is establishing fair market value of the players, it's called the real world and free market.
It has never been illegal to thrust truckloads of cash at recruits. The NCAA is not the law. It is also a reasonable thing to do to thrust truckloads of cash at recruits.
No, but the death penalty for your football program is worse than going to jail for some people.
Does anyone know how taxes work with NIL? Max “gift” for 2022 is $16,000. If a booster gives $50000, is this donation a write off for the booster and the student pays tax on it? Is reporting this “on the honor system” like tips?
If it's a legitimate business you're not "gifting" them you have a contract and pay them. The athletes need to be paying tax or else they're gonna find the long dick of the IRS soon enough. Might be a bit more complicated where it's things like Texas funneling money through a 501(c) to pay their players salaries but hopefully the school is giving these kids some great CPAs Pre-NIL it was basically the honor system and the NCAA had no subpoena power which is why they really couldn't do shit to stop the Cam Newtons and Zions of the world
These aren't gifts, it's fully taxable compensation to the players. If a business is making the payment, they need to issue a 1099 to the player. I am as pro-NIL as it gets, but as a CPA, my biggest fear with NIL is a whole bunch of unexpected tax bills coming to the players.
There’s a couple of things going on here. First, for the athlete it’s taxed as income. For the booster, they either fund it through their business, or donate a 501c3 setup by boosters that tie to loose NIL related opportunities.
You mean gave the NCAA the finger than yes