Name, Image, Likeness

[Bluedog]

Roach, Moore and Keel are doing a one day basketball camp in Apex on 8/7/21.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but does NIL allow basically unlimited "salary" for "jobs"? I know previously the NCAA restricted it, so some booster wouldn't pay an athlete $50k over the summer to say wash a few dishes. But, now, as long as you have them do some advertising/social media post for you, I'd think that basically there is no limit, right? I guess all endorsements/deals are kind of a "job." So, giving someone $1M just for the sake of it would be pretty easy to do. Of course, not suggesting that those guys are getting paid an absurd amount for the one day basketball camp.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but does NIL allow basically unlimited "salary" for "jobs"? I know previously the NCAA restricted it, so some booster wouldn't pay an athlete $50k over the summer to say wash a few dishes. But, now, as long as you have them do some advertising/social media post for you, I'd think that basically there is no limit, right? I guess all endorsements/deals are kind of a "job." So, giving someone $1M just for the sake of it would be pretty easy to do. Of course, not suggesting that those guys are getting paid an absurd amount for the one day basketball camp.

My understanding is that is precisely the case. There's no regulation of these sorts of deals now.

[Dedgummit]

I literally ran back to this thread to make sure I didn’t flub “compliment”. Jim is always watching.

Literally.

Given your above post’s apparent emphasis on the literal meaning of the word “literally”, your post seems to beg the question: Were you not, in fact, already seated at (or at the very least, already holding) an internet computing device which would then have allowed you to review your previous comment (containing the word “compliment”)— obviating the need for any “running”— when you read the other poster’s comment that then caused you such consternation as to want to review your earlier post?

[Dedgummit]

Having worked for a number of corporations and knowing budgets, I'm not holding my breath on those numbers. That money has to come from somewhere and it's going to be taken from other places. It might happen, but not without consequences.

There is a significant debate in the marketing and advertising world as to the real “worth” of these follower hordes (regardless of platform)— and whether (after an initial period of euphoria, in which some “influencers” with notable hordes are paid silly money by some naive advertisers, to hawk their products) these influencers really will be able to “monetize” their follower hordes, over the long haul. Many savvy advertising industry pros seem to think that these influencers will rapidly prove to be a “bad bet”— even at prices significantly lower than the figures currently being bandied about.

This is not to say that certain athletes, in certain sports, at certain schools, will not make extraordinary compensation (far out of proportion to any economic benefit the advertisers might accrue from said endorsements) for hawking products— because the endorsements will simply be a conduit for paying that athlete a large sum of money for playing at the school of the advertiser(s)’ preference. For example, it is not going to matter whether the new Alabama QB really produces economic benefits in proportion to the 7-figure endorsement contracts that he has already signed— those contracts are designed with the primary ulterior motive of passing (large sums of) money to him for playing football at Alabama— whether or not anyone buys even a single product that he has endorsed.

On the other hand, it might well matter (and even prove essential) that Livve at LSU can produce sufficient economic impact for her advertising sponsors, to warrant their continued interest in paying her to hawk products— as there is unlikely to be a significant demand for college gymnasts’ endorsement services, other than as a means to hawking the advertisers’ products. In other words, there is no line of people out the door, seeking to attend LSU’s gymnastics events, nor to bid marginal college gymnasts away from other colleges— as there is no profit incentive in doing so.

[Indoor66]

On the other hand, it might well matter (and even prove essential) that Livve at LSU can produce sufficient economic impact for her advertising sponsors, to warrant their continued interest in paying her to hawk products— as there is unlikely to be a significant demand for college gymnasts’ endorsement services, other than as a means to hawking the advertisers’ products. In other words, there is no line of people out the door, seeking to attend LSU’s gymnastics events, nor to bid marginal college gymnasts away from other colleges— as there is no profit incentive in doing so.

I think that this paragraph summarizes the entire fallacy of the NLI concept. Beyond a very small handful, no one will be influenced by the ad program and, even those, will have transitory interest.

[CameronBornAndBred]

On the other hand, it might well matter (and even prove essential) that Livve at LSU can produce sufficient economic impact for her advertising sponsors, to warrant their continued interest in paying her to hawk products— as there is unlikely to be a significant demand for college gymnasts’ endorsement services, other than as a means to hawking the advertisers’ products. In other words, there is no line of people out the door, seeking to attend LSU’s gymnastics events, nor to bid marginal college gymnasts away from other colleges— as there is no profit incentive in doing so.

I think that this paragraph summarizes the entire fallacy of the NLI concept. Beyond a very small handful, no one will be influenced by the ad program and, even those, will have transitory interest.

Y'all are totally missing the bigger picture for advertisers. Is gymnastics a sport with a huge following? Nope. But I bet you remember Mary Lou Retton selling the hell out of some Wheaties. Girls, (and parents with girls) will love seeing someone that they can aspire to be. It's a wholesome image, and it sells really, really well, even if there are people out there who haven't seen her perform.

[Indoor66]

Retton won olympic gold when the games were highly popular. A track star or baseball player fromDuke will not profitably promote Toyota or Back Yard BBQ.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Retton won olympic gold when the games were highly popular. A track star or baseball player fromDuke will not profitably promote Toyota or Back Yard BBQ.

Nobody from Duke that isn't on the basketball team will "profitably promote" anything. I bet Suni Lee will make someone some $ around Auburn, though.

[Dedgummit]

Nobody from Duke that isn't on the basketball team will "profitably promote" anything. I bet Suni Lee will make someone some $ around Auburn, though.

Most likely Suni Lee (and unlikely anyone else)— and the Supreme Court has said that that is fine.

[uh_no]

Most likely Suni Lee (and unlikely anyone else)— and the Supreme Court has said that that is fine.

the supreme court did not say that. they only said the NCAA could not limit educational related expenses paid by the school to the athlete. It had nothing to do with NIL.

State laws were the ultimate driver behind the NIL changes.

[Dedgummit]

Y'all are totally missing the bigger picture for advertisers. Is gymnastics a sport with a huge following? Nope. But I bet you remember Mary Lou Retton selling the hell out of some Wheaties. Girls, (and parents with girls) will love seeing someone that they can aspire to be. It's a wholesome image, and it sells really, really well, even if there are people out there who haven't seen her perform.

I remain fascinated and surprised by these social influencers’ ability to capitalize on (what I view as) their relatively modest fame (and influence)— so, of course, I stand ready to be rebuked on this topic; that said, I was passing along comments from marketing/advertising industry professionals that I have been reading— they remain VERY skeptical of the strength and duration of the interest of most traditional advertisers in paying these newly minted “celebrities” to hawk their products. Will Backyard BBQ or other such (previously modest-spending) advertisers choose to continue spending with one or more of these minor lights in the media landscape— maybe— but, it will likely be very one-off, hit-or-miss, transitory, and MODEST in size.

If Suzy Q-Score, Enormous State U’s newly arrived women’s field hockey goalie can somehow deliver some regular bump in dine-in patrons to Backyard BBQ, by regularly touting Backyard’s “Q” on her various social media pages— then that little one-off arrangement might well continue; or, if Joe B. Q (owner of Backyard BBQ) is (for one reason or another) a big fan of Enormous State’s women’s field hockey team (maybe his daughter ALSO plays for the team), then maybe an uneconomic (for Backyard BBQ) financial arrangement might continue— as a means of showing his support for the team. But, according to industry professionals, the VAST majority of these situations are NOT going to result in significant, lasting revenue/earning opportunities for these otherwise little known athletes.

[bundabergdevil]

Y'all are totally missing the bigger picture for advertisers. Is gymnastics a sport with a huge following? Nope. But I bet you remember Mary Lou Retton selling the hell out of some Wheaties. Girls, (and parents with girls) will love seeing someone that they can aspire to be. It's a wholesome image, and it sells really, really well, even if there are people out there who haven't seen her perform.

I think everyone is missing the bigger picture, too. Youth sports is a $20B market and is expected to grow substantially in coming years. Sure, the big youth sports like football, soccer, basketball and baseball are going to command a lot of attention but less popular sports that cater to upper middle class families like lacrosse, swimming, gymnastics, field hockey, etc absolutely represent significant opportunities for advertisers to capitalize on a D1 athlete’s appeal.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Y'all are totally missing the bigger picture for advertisers. Is gymnastics a sport with a huge following? Nope. But I bet you remember Mary Lou Retton selling the hell out of some Wheaties. Girls, (and parents with girls) will love seeing someone that they can aspire to be. It's a wholesome image, and it sells really, really well, even if there are people out there who haven't seen her perform.

PS, I admittedly posted kind of blindly. I'm not sure many parents out there would love seeing their girls aspire to be an Olivia Dunne, at least outside of her gymnastic endeavors.

[Dedgummit]

the supreme court did not say that. they only said the NCAA could not limit educational related expenses paid by the school to the athlete. It had nothing to do with NIL.

State laws were the ultimate driver behind the NIL changes.

I think the details of the opinion (from Kavanaugh) made it clear that “college” athletes are going to be allowed to seek compensation— above and beyond any “educational expenses” paid by the school, however great or small those educational expenses might be construed to be. If that is (or was) not made legally explicit by the Court’s already issued ruling, the (Kavanaugh) writing is on the wall for any future attempts of the NCAA trying to limit any other compensation that “college” athletes might have access to— and thus, the NCAA has apparently thrown in the towel (in a huge milestone departure from ALL past practice, by the NCAA) and (at least for the time being) essentially given up trying to limit those other forms of compensation— recognizing that, were they (the NCAA) to try to come back to the courts, to preserve any of those other former restrictions on compensation, they are highly unlikely to be successful (at least with this Court).

Your posts on this topic seem to be contending that the Supreme Court’s decision can only be read/interpreted as allowing (requiring?) that “college” athletes’ potential compensation somehow be limited to whatever educational expenses (ONLY) that the “college” athletes might have; I think that the preponderance of the evidence, from what is happening on the ground, since the Court’s ruling (and since July 1) is that there is NO SUCH LIMITATION being implemented or even attempted any more— the Alabama QB’s compensation arrangements (for WHATEVER one wants to call it— NIL, naked booster bag drops, sinecure “summer jobs”, whatever) would seem to demonstrate that NO ONE is keeping up any pretense of JUST paying these “college” athletes up to the limit of their ostensible educational expenses,

[uh_no]

I think the details of the opinion (from Kavanaugh) made it clear that “college” athletes are going to be allowed to seek compensation— above and beyond any “educational expenses” paid by the school, however great or small those educational expenses might be construed to be. If that is (or was) not made legally explicit by the Court’s already issued ruling, the (Kavanaugh) writing is on the wall for any future attempts of the NCAA trying to limit any other compensation that “college” athletes might have access to— and thus, the NCAA has apparently thrown in the towel (in a huge milestone departure from ALL past practice, by the NCAA) and (at least for the time being) essentially given up trying to limit those other forms of compensation— recognizing that, were they (the NCAA) to try to come back to the courts, to preserve any of those other former restrictions on compensation, they are highly unlikely to be successful (at least with this Court).

Your posts on this topic seem to be contending that the Supreme Court’s decision can only be read/interpreted as allowing (requiring?) that “college” athletes’ potential compensation somehow be limited to whatever educational expenses (ONLY) that the “college” athletes might have; I think that the preponderance of the evidence, from what is happening on the ground, since the Court’s ruling (and since July 1) is that there is NO SUCH LIMITATION being implemented or even attempted any more— the Alabama QB’s compensation arrangements (for WHATEVER one wants to call it— NIL, naked booster bag drops, sinecure “summer jobs”, whatever) would seem to demonstrate that NO ONE is keeping up any pretense of JUST paying these “college” athletes up to the limit of their ostensible educational expenses,

kavanaugh's opinion was a concurrence, not the opinion of the court.

In any case, yes, no such limitation is being implemented, and the writing on the wall may have been there in the concurrence, but it was ultimately not what the scotus ruled and the change in state laws was what compelled the NCAA to act.

With all the click bait deceptive headlines one sees about various court cases, SCOTUS or not, I feel precision is especially important.

[Dedgummit]

I think everyone is missing the bigger picture, too. Youth sports is a $20B market and is expected to grow substantially in coming years. Sure, the big youth sports like football, soccer, basketball and baseball are going to command a lot of attention but less popular sports that cater to upper middle class families like lacrosse, swimming, gymnastics, field hockey, etc absolutely represent significant opportunities for advertisers to capitalize on a D1 athlete’s appeal.

Probably in very modest ways, at very modest levels… there will be Paul Rabils and Michael Phelps and Suni Lees— but most athletes are going to have very limited influence (and thus appeal).

Can you name a Duke offensive lineman on the 2021 team?

Is there even one Duke football player, whose endorsement would cause you to purchase a product that he endorsed? (Ironically, the one that I might be interested in, is the biomedical engineering device that a couple of Duke’s backup players, who were BME majors, helped design, in collaboration with Duke’s Medical School— which helped Duke QB Daniel Jones recover much more quickly from his broken collarbone a few seasons ago; but THAT is the exceptional situation which does not belie the greater truth: I don’t care about most of what Duke football players might choose to endorse— but then, I don’t care about most of what ANY athlete chooses to endorse.)

[lotusland]

I think everyone is missing the bigger picture, too. Youth sports is a $20B market and is expected to grow substantially in coming years. Sure, the big youth sports like football, soccer, basketball and baseball are going to command a lot of attention but less popular sports that cater to upper middle class families like lacrosse, swimming, gymnastics, field hockey, etc absolutely represent significant opportunities for advertisers to capitalize on a D1 athlete’s appeal.

So backyard BBQ should sponsor youth sports Leagues to create goodwill within the youth swimming community. Unless the growing popularity means those kids become interested in following Duke’s swim team, there is no business benefit for Backyard BBQ to offer sponsorship deal to a Duke swimmer. They’d be better off to offer small scholarships to academically qualified swimmers for use at the college or university of their choice.

[Indoor66]

So backyard BBQ should sponsor youth sports Leagues to create goodwill within the youth swimming community. Unless the growing popularity means those kids become interested in following Duke’s swim team, there is no business benefit for Backyard BBQ to offer sponsorship deal to a Duke swimmer. They be better off to offer small scholarships to academically qualified swimmers for use at the college or university of their choice.

Or buy uniforms for the local softball team - whose members might well eat there with family & friends. That might have a business benefit.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Is there even one Duke football player, whose endorsement would cause you to purchase a product that he endorsed?

...
I don’t care about most of what Duke football players might choose to endorse— but then, I don’t care about most of what ANY athlete chooses to endorse.)

You and me both. But clearly we aren't the motivating demographic.

I still don't understand why anyone would be "influenced" by "influencers."

Or why people might buy a car based on a TV ad.

[Bluedog]

You and me both. But clearly we aren't the motivating demographic.

I still don't understand why anyone would be "influenced" by "influencers."

Or why people might buy a car based on a TV ad.

I think the thing is about "brand awareness" not that you're actually going to be convinced by somebody endorsing it. Just because Steph Curry is in Subway ad, I don't think anybody thinks "Ah, Steph Curry likes Subway! Must be good! I'll go there now." But unconsciously, you see it and Subway as an entity might come into your mindset more and IF they also deliver on the goods/quality, your inclination that was planted by Steph Curry may have had an influence. At least, that's the theory. With an advertiser like McDonald's/Coke it's all about market awareness and making it seem ubiquitous in some capacity.

Famous quote: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

Having said all the above, if you're not a pro prospect in bball or football but are a reasonable "star" in college, one could easily argue that that individual should spend MORE time monetizing their transient fame (i.e. spending 20+ hours a week on marketing/advertising etc.) to get money in your window of opportunity rather than taking that time to marginally increase your academic standing and prospects. Getting hundred of thousands or millions at 18-20 is much more valuable than a $20k boost of salary upon entering the "Real world." The ROIs will definitely have a stark difference particularly on IMMEDIATE dollars (and we're an instant gratification society). So, yeah, I think a bunch of these guys will be having full-time jobs as professional influencers/advertisers/marketers during their collegiate years so they can capitalize as quickly and as much as possible. Even if it's not un ungodly amount of money, college kids will definitely the prospect of $$ and do what they can to maximize it.