Name, Image, Likeness

scottdude8 said:
In contrast to some of the initial reactions to this news, I'm 100% for this. The NCAA's exploitative behavior towards student athletes doesn't have a cut-off date, even if the monetary value of it has skyrocketed more recently. Braylon Edwards and Denard Robinson in particular are two legendary Michigan players whose highlights get played on repeat on places like BTN... BTN (and in turn B1G schools) rakes in advertising dollars while those two guys see nothing. I don't see how that's fair.

The $50 million dollar figure is obviously staggering, but I imagine it's meant to be as an initial position. I imagine the actual monetary value will be much more reasonable, but still something that every collegiate athlete should be entitled to. As the NCAA likes to say, "Most athletes go pro in something other than sports," but the more real slogan should be "not all our athletes succeed in their professional athletics endeavors." Both Edwards and Robinson (relatively) disappointed in the NFL, which makes the NIL income they lost out on all the more impactful.

I'm trying to sift through the annoying legal nonsense in these type of stories (which I imagine we'll see a bunch more of) and instead think about the people. And I don't see why we should begrudge this human beings getting some reasonable compensation for their efforts as collegiate athletes, even if it's decades late.
Click to expand...
I wish the NCAA would have exploited me like that. Nothing says exploited victim like like big time college athletes. Poor guys. They really had it bad. Just glad my alarmingly unathletic ability rescued me from the same fate.
 
The NCAA will be subject to a steady rain of antitrust and right-of-publicity lawsuits for a while. Unless it can shave off most (nearly all?) of that liability with statute-of-limitations defenses, it may be forced to go through a strategic bankruptcy and reorganization to shed all the liabilities. Certainly, it has thought of doing so. The same applies to conferences, which are also usually defendants. Strategic bankruptcy is commonplace in the corporate world.

Before the NCAA does so, it needs to clean up its potential liability for current practices or the bankruptcy won't dispose of the problem. I see zero chance of a Congressional liability bail-out. That leaves the NCAA, conferences, and individual schools with three options:

1. Accept that it's a free market for the services of athletes with no salary/NIL cap. Any cap violates antitrust law. I prefer this free-market solution over the next option. Yes, you won't have a level playing field, but there hasn't been one in a long time, perhaps ever.

2. Accept unionization and get a collective bargaining agreement. That's problematic for public schools in many states, but if there's a will do so, a way can be found.

3. Go DIII. In other words, back away from paying all that is legal to compete for the best recruits. You can back all the down to no scholarships or other payments, or something between there and what the free-market competitors pay.
 
LeadingEdge said:
2. Accept unionization and get a collective bargaining agreement. That's problematic for public schools in many states, but if there's a will do so, a way can be found.
Click to expand...
I'll keep hammering away at this, but it's not just problematic for state schools. It's problematic for every school that is a non-profit (i.e. all of them). The current IRS rules covering non-profit educations institutions explicitly allow for non-profits to operate amateur sports leagues. They do not allow non-profits to operate professional sports leagues. Schools aren't going to want to go in that direction unless they're sure there's a firm pathway through that thicket.
 
www.espn.com

Vols up ticket costs by 10% to help pay athletes

Tennessee is increasing the cost of tickets for all sports by 10%, with the "talent fee" being used to help pay athletes as part of the revenue-sharing plan.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

I don’t know how this changes the equation between the school and the athletes but I don’t understand how this isn’t pay for play which I didn’t think was allowed directly by the schools.

Danny White is doing pretty well for himself, hopefully Kevin can now enjoy retirement knowing that at least one of his kids is doing ok. 😀
 
Phredd3 said:
I'll keep hammering away at this, but it's not just problematic for state schools. It's problematic for every school that is a non-profit (i.e. all of them). The current IRS rules covering non-profit educations institutions explicitly allow for non-profits to operate amateur sports leagues. They do not allow non-profits to operate professional sports leagues. Schools aren't going to want to go in that direction unless they're sure there's a firm pathway through that thicket.
Click to expand...
Can’t they spin off their athletics to separate corporations?
 
DangerDevil said:
I don’t know how this changes the equation between the school and the athletes but I don’t understand how this isn’t pay for play which I didn’t think was allowed directly by the schools.

Danny White is doing pretty well for himself, hopefully Kevin can now enjoy retirement knowing that at least one of his kids is doing ok. 😀
Click to expand...
I think the bolded is correct. But, follow the money. The more the school takes in (10% surcharge on tickets), the less the school has to hit up boosters for that money, which the boosters can then fund their "collective", which eventually ends up in the players' hand. Is this right?
 
hallcity said:
Can’t they spin off their athletics to separate corporations?
Click to expand...
I'm not a field expert, so I can't say for sure, but suffice it to say that it is not clear if a fully-owned, for-profit sports subsidiary could employ school students as athletes. Obviously this part of the law hasn't been tested, and maybe the IRS just won't try to fight it, but I'd guess it is going to make it's way into the courts sooner or later. We've already had someone float the idea of having investors in the athletic department. Somebody is going to do something that crosses lines soon, and we'll see what the courts do. I don't know how it ends, I just know that the road ahead isn't clear.
 
Phredd3 said:
I'm not a field expert, so I can't say for sure, but suffice it to say that it is not clear if a fully-owned, for-profit sports subsidiary could employ school students as athletes. Obviously this part of the law hasn't been tested, and maybe the IRS just won't try to fight it, but I'd guess it is going to make it's way into the courts sooner or later. We've already had someone float the idea of having investors in the athletic department. Somebody is going to do something that crosses lines soon, and we'll see what the courts do. I don't know how it ends, I just know that the road ahead isn't clear.
Click to expand...
In order for someone to be accused of "crossing the line," someone somewhere needs to know if those lines exist, and if so, where they are.
 
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 said:
In order for someone to be accused of "crossing the line," someone somewhere needs to know if those lines exist, and if so, where they are.
Click to expand...
We're talking about IRS lines, not NCAA ones, so they're are definitely lines there, I'm just not sure exactly where. As far as I know, nobody does. Crossing them is playing with fire. I don't expect Duke to take the lead in pushing those particular boundaries, though I'm sure we'll enthusiastically fill any spaces we are sure we can occupy. Somebody will push the boundaries and figure out exactly where the lines are, though, because that's just what people do.
 
Phredd3 said:
We're talking about IRS lines, not NCAA ones, so they're are definitely lines there, I'm just not sure exactly where. As far as I know, nobody does. Crossing them is playing with fire. I don't expect Duke to take the lead in pushing those particular boundaries, though I'm sure we'll enthusiastically fill any spaces we are sure we can occupy. Somebody will push the boundaries and figure out exactly where the lines are, though, because that's just what people do.
Click to expand...
I will agree that the IRS is FAR more likely to find and define those lines than the NCAA is. And the IRS won't care about the PR of chasing 18 year olds with six and seven figures in their bank accounts.
 
azzefkram said:
Definitely an interesting move. He apparently walks away from about $20M.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming he has made plenty as he has been there for a while, plus I think he has written books, etc. Though I was somewhat surprised at how much he was actually making.

I assume he has to move near St. Bonaventure, which is an outer suburb of Buffalo. He can live like a king there on what he has already made. But he has to live in an outer suburb of Buffalo. Not my cup of tea, but I work closely with a lot of people in Buffalo who love it there.
 
camion said:
I believe school slogan goes something like, "It isn't about the winning, it's about the collecting."
Click to expand...
This part is particularly hilarious:
“Rob Sine, the CEO of Blueprint Sports, which runs UNLV’s NIL collective, denied the claim, stating, “There were no formal NIL offers made during Mr. Sluka’s recruitment process. Additionally, Friends of UNILV did not finalize or agree to any NIL offers while he was part of the team, aside from a completed community engagement event over the summer.”

CNN has reached out to Cromartie for comment.

UNLV Athletics issued a statement on Wednesday in response to the alleged agreement.

“Football player Matthew Sluka’s representative made financial demands upon the University and its NIL collective in order to continue playing. UNLV Athletics interpreted these demands as a violation of the NCAA pay-for-play rules, as well as Nevada state law,” the school stated.

“UNLV does not engage in such activity, nor does it respond to implied threats. UNLV has honored all previously agreed-upon scholarships for Matthew Sluka.”

Seems like UNLV and their collective are shocked, and offended to learn that a player assumed they would be involved in a tawdry “pay for play” scheme. Yeah right, that’s not happening anywhere, especially not at UNLV.
 
MChambers said:
https://dukemag.duke.edu/stories/money-ball "As NIL consumes college sports, Duke courts success."
Click to expand...
I don't know how many of you are aware of the DukeMag cover story on NIL. It is an excellent primer on NIL's history, the overall lay of the land, and Duke's outlook and strategies. Duke is all in and seeking competitive advantage.

A key comment: To understand the new reality, Paul Haagen, co-director of the Center for Sports Law and Policy at Duke Law School, looks at the big picture.

“The lay of the land is that the antitrust cases have gone against the NCAA sufficiently consistently that there is now an unwillingness to defend restrictive practices,” Haagen says. “And athletes, institutions and regulatory bodies are all scrambling to figure out where they are.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top