There are about 11,000 scholarship football players in the FBS, not to mention the ones in the FCS. Out of that number, how many do you suppose will receive significant payments for their name, image or likeness? And of those who do, how many will actually produce a commercial benefit to whoever it is that's paying them?
My guess is - not a lot. I believe if a significant number of athletes will start to share in the obscene amounts of money their schools are receiving through their talent and efforts, it will have to come from legislation allowing cash payments that somehow don't result in athletics becoming taxable enterprises in the process.
SCOTUS may pave the way for that soon, but the details will ultimately have to be hammered out in the political arena, and that will be messy and time consuming. I believe that, if the NCAA and its member schools don't want to be at the mercy of congress, they need to get ahead of this, and draft their own legislative proposals that protect their interests while providing reasonable compensation to the athletes.
What might that legislation look like?
1) If "significant payments" = > 0, than the number is over 11,000. Every single FBS college football player has a NIL worth something, if only for the EA Sports and group license money.
2) If "significant payments" = > 100,000, I reckon the number is relatively small, but may still surprise you. Remember, NIL means an athlete can collect money from their social media channels as well. Good at Youtube, good at Twitch, but you're a backup at MTSU? Doesn't matter, you can cash in.
The single biggest beneficiary of this rule change is going to be women athletes. You're all going to be surprised how many of them, even at small schools, will make at least four figures a year.
Football has such a large roster that the percentages will be less than other sports. I think you will see NIL be utilized in basketball (especially men's basketball), softball, baseball, and volleyball. I think we tend to associate NIL with traditional forms of advertising and marketing, but a large number of student-athletes will be able to monetize their social media accounts on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, etc. Personally, I don't see the appeal of social media (I know, I know, you think I'm just an old man... well I'm only 34. And I have better things to do than yell at strangers on the internet), but it is a factor in advertising; why else would beauty product companies provide free samples to people on YouTube? Football and MBB might have the more traditional NIL contracts (shoe deals, Subway commercials, etc.), but don't discount the ability for students to make money in ways that you or I don't really care about (with apologies to TikTokers and makeup aficionados everywhere).
Are you guys suggesting athletes start a GoFundMe account in hopes that complete strangers will give them money because they are a reserve on the women's volleyball team? Or for that matter, because they are a third sting tackle on the football team?
And what "image" would an e-sports company be using for a football player who never removes his helmet or has his name on the back of his jersey? I don't think for profit enterprises are going to pay athletes for purely altruistic reasons, so unless the individual athlete has commercial value I don't see him cashing in.
It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
(04-12-2021 08:00 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote: [ -> ]1) If "significant payments" = > 0, than the number is over 11,000. Every single FBS college football player has a NIL worth something, if only for the EA Sports and group license money.
2) If "significant payments" = > 100,000, I reckon the number is relatively small, but may still surprise you. Remember, NIL means an athlete can collect money from their social media channels as well. Good at Youtube, good at Twitch, but you're a backup at MTSU? Doesn't matter, you can cash in.
The single biggest beneficiary of this rule change is going to be women athletes. You're all going to be surprised how many of them, even at small schools, will make at least four figures a year.
EXCELLENT POINT.
I see it with my own kids: YouTube, Twitch and TikTok stars are every bit as famous to them as movie stars... and those top social media stars are getting compensated quite well. The number of people that will watch a prominent person play a video game will *astound* you.
Contestants on reality TV shows (such as The Bachelor franchise shows), even the ones that might get eliminated in the very first episode with little screen time, are often able to parlay that exposure into lots of followers on Instagram and other social media channels... and that all leads to endorsements (e.g. pay per post) and there's legit money there.
Look at the number of Instagram and Twitter followers that top athletes have at even the high school level. That's frankly a better base of people to leverage for endorsements deals than any other type of background at that age. These are young, super in-shape, highly successful and motivated people. Even the non-football/basketball players are going to be pretty socially influential on any given college campus. If companies are paying eliminated Bachelor contestants serious money to drop an endorsement on their Instagram feeds, think of what college athletes are worth who actually have *real* accomplishments?
This is where we need to think like young people (with the self-realization that I'm not a young person anymore). The way that young people consume media is actually quite tailor-made for all college athletes (not just the Trevor Lawrence/Cade Cunningham superstars) to leverage NIL to receive compensation.
(04-12-2021 08:12 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]And what "image" would an e-sports company be using for a football player who never removes his helmet or has his name on the back of his jersey? I don't think for profit enterprises are going to pay athletes for purely altruistic reasons, so unless the individual athlete has commercial value I don't see him cashing in.
The image they're paying for would be the football player's presence on Twitch, Youtube and Twitter, not as much what he's doing on ESPN.
You basically have to look at this as two different jobs. You have a handful of athletes who are going to get AAA brand interest for being amazing athletes. You have a LOT of college athletes who are going to get local, regional and digital brand interest because they're good at the internet. They don't HAVE to be good at sports to be good at the internet, but that probably helps.
(04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
Totally agree here Frank.
As to your point about seeing NIL different from other forms of compensation that gets mixed because of the suit against caps on stipends and SCOTUS will have be very direct in how they distinguish that from NIL when they rule upon that case.
(04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
Basically your suggesting free agency with booster organizations or well heeled fans paying the freight. Essentially I figure you’ll end up with something similar to the the old “ bag men” recruiting system that’s covered in a plausible NIL wrapper. Such transaction could take the form of a lump sum personal appearance fee to attend a private event—-or they could be a more traditional use of name and image in actual advertising. My guess is most will get the one time lump sum “personal appearance” fee as it’s easy for anyone to do—and the “appeance” could be anything from a golf outing to his kids birthday party—-it doesn’t much matter cuz it’s basicslly just a cover for third party pay for play.
(04-12-2021 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
Basically your suggesting free agency with booster organizations or well heeled fans paying the freight. Essentially I figure you’ll end up with something similar to the the old “ bag men” recruiting system that’s covered in a plausible NIL wrapper. Such transaction could take the form of a lump sum personal appearance fee to attend a private event—-or they could be a more traditional use of name and image in actual advertising. My guess is most will get the one time lump sum “personal appearance” fee as it’s easy for anyone to do—and the “appeance” could be anything from a golf outing to his kids birthday party—-it doesn’t much matter cuz it’s basicslly just a cover for third party pay for play.
Everything that you've stated is 100%, completely fine from my perspective. The intimation that there's somehow something wrong with any of this has long been perplexing to me as a lifetime observer of big-time college sports.
Many parties (schools, boosters, local businesses) have a direct interest (whether financial or emotional) in schools having winning teams, particularly in football and men's basketball. So, it's basic economics that when players on those teams are getting compensated at a much lower level than what that direct interest would otherwise translate to in a free market, something else (e.g. bag men) will inevitably step in. If NIL effectively brings "bag men" into the light as engaging in on-the-table transactions as opposed to under-the-table transactions, then that's a positive thing to me. As long as it's out in the open, I frankly don't care. It's a whole lot more genuine than non-profit institutions pretending that they're upholding some grand principles of amateurism while they're simultaneously signing multi-billion dollar television deals.
(04-12-2021 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
Basically your suggesting free agency with booster organizations or well heeled fans paying the freight. Essentially I figure you’ll end up with something similar to the the old “ bag men” recruiting system that’s covered in a plausible NIL wrapper. Such transaction could take the form of a lump sum personal appearance fee to attend a private event—-or they could be a more traditional use of name and image in actual advertising. My guess is most will get the one time lump sum “personal appearance” fee as it’s easy for anyone to do—and the “appeance” could be anything from a golf outing to his kids birthday party—-it doesn’t much matter cuz it’s basicslly just a cover for third party pay for play.
Everything that you've stated is 100%, completely fine from my perspective. The intimation that there's somehow something wrong with any of this has long been perplexing to me as a lifetime observer of big-time college sports.
Many parties (schools, boosters, local businesses) have a direct interest (whether financial or emotional) in schools having winning teams, particularly in football and men's basketball. So, it's basic economics that when players on those teams are getting compensated at a much lower level than what that direct interest would otherwise translate to in a free market, something else (e.g. bag men) will inevitably step in. If NIL effectively brings "bag men" into the light as engaging in on-the-table transactions as opposed to under-the-table transactions, then that's a positive thing to me. As long as it's out in the open, I frankly don't care. It's a whole lot more genuine than non-profit institutions pretending that they're upholding some grand principles of amateurism while they're simultaneously signing multi-billion dollar television deals.
I'll be honest with you---I think letting booster clubs and individuals be in charge of recruiting is a massive disaster just waiting to happen. Id rather straight up pay for play. At least the schools would still be in charge of the process. It would at least be more honest. I think once this comes to pass I'll probably be done with college sports. I suspect Im not alone in this view.
(04-12-2021 07:37 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]There are about 11,000 scholarship football players in the FBS, not to mention the ones in the FCS. Out of that number, how many do you suppose will receive significant payments for their name, image or likeness?
I suspect two kinds of athletes will generate good NIL:
1) Extremely prominent star male D1 football or basketball players - Trevor, Zion, Burrow, those types. Obviously, they are few in number.
2) Some "Hot" female athletes in any sport. These women can leverage social media like Instagram. For example, there are some female college cheerleaders who have 1 million+ Instagram followers. They are making money off that. But there aren't that many either because competition is strong there too.
But overall, probably 99% of all athletes will make little or nothing. Maybe a few bucks for appearing in a team calendar or a nominal payment for appearing in a College Football video game or something. Now a Trevor Lawrence will get a larger payment for that kind of thing too. But the generic athlete will get a nominal payment.
(04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
The one issue that I think schools will be able to leverage is use of their trademarked items. For example, a Trevor Lawrence might be worth more in an endorsement ad if he is wearing his Clemson uniform than if not. And IIRC, Clemson owns the rights to that uniform.
Even with cheerleaders with big Instagram followings, it is often crucial to their image that they are affiliated with a school and wear the uniform in their videos, etc.
So I suspect that deals will be made such that the school shares in the NIL income in exchange for use of their uniforms, etc. And IMO it is reasonable that they share in that.
(04-12-2021 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 07:37 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]There are about 11,000 scholarship football players in the FBS, not to mention the ones in the FCS. Out of that number, how many do you suppose will receive significant payments for their name, image or likeness?
I suspect two kinds of athletes will generate good NIL:
1) Extremely prominent star male D1 football or basketball players - Trevor, Zion, Burrow, those types. Obviously, they are few in number.
2) Some "Hot" female athletes in any sport. These women can leverage social media like Instagram. For example, there are some female college cheerleaders who have 1 million+ Instagram followers. They are making money off that. But there aren't that many either because competition is strong there too.
But overall, probably 99% of all athletes will make little or nothing. Maybe a few bucks for appearing in a team calendar or a nominal payment for appearing in a College Football video game or something. Now a Trevor Lawrence will get a larger payment for that kind of thing too. But the generic athlete will get a nominal payment.
That's how I see it. And the players that get paid big bucks won't get it for long because they'll be off to the pros as soon as they can. That fifth year senior isn't likely to be in high demand for appearance money.
That's why the other question I posed is what kind of compensation is likely to become available for the little guys, if any? And how would it be structured so we don't have wild west free agency where coaches have to recruit their own players every year in addition to recruiting high school players?
(04-12-2021 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
Basically your suggesting free agency with booster organizations or well heeled fans paying the freight. Essentially I figure you’ll end up with something similar to the the old “ bag men” recruiting system that’s covered in a plausible NIL wrapper. Such transaction could take the form of a lump sum personal appearance fee to attend a private event—-or they could be a more traditional use of name and image in actual advertising. My guess is most will get the one time lump sum “personal appearance” fee as it’s easy for anyone to do—and the “appeance” could be anything from a golf outing to his kids birthday party—-it doesn’t much matter cuz it’s basicslly just a cover for third party pay for play.
Everything that you've stated is 100%, completely fine from my perspective. The intimation that there's somehow something wrong with any of this has long been perplexing to me as a lifetime observer of big-time college sports.
Many parties (schools, boosters, local businesses) have a direct interest (whether financial or emotional) in schools having winning teams, particularly in football and men's basketball. So, it's basic economics that when players on those teams are getting compensated at a much lower level than what that direct interest would otherwise translate to in a free market, something else (e.g. bag men) will inevitably step in. If NIL effectively brings "bag men" into the light as engaging in on-the-table transactions as opposed to under-the-table transactions, then that's a positive thing to me. As long as it's out in the open, I frankly don't care. It's a whole lot more genuine than non-profit institutions pretending that they're upholding some grand principles of amateurism while they're simultaneously signing multi-billion dollar television deals.
I'll be honest with you---I think letting booster clubs and individuals be in charge of recruiting is a massive disaster just waiting to happen. Id rather they make 3 rules. The players must enroll in the school they play for. Schools no longer offer scholarships (Title 9 ends). Schools pay the players directly. At least that way the schools are in control of the recruiting process. Basically what you'll end up with is a few players getting a windfall, most players getting enough to pay for school (essentially a scholarship), and least desired players will basically be getting the equivalent of a partial scholarship. The vast majority of the benefit of free agency will accrue to handful of stars---just like it does in real leagues.
I agree that players need to enroll in the school that they play for. That's a given.
Scholarships aren't going away (as all discussions are absolutely about compensation above and beyond scholarships, including the current Supreme Court case) and, even if they did, it might actually be *harder* for schools to comply with Title IX. With scholarships, you can at a minimum show that you're spending as much on scholarship opportunities across different groups in order to comply with the law. If you take that away, then there ends up being more of a focus on facilities and other factors (including the direct payments that you've mentioned), which schools definitely do NOT want. The "If the players are getting paid, then take away scholarships!" argument is one that only exists in message boards like this one. It has no traction whatsoever within the broader public discussion.
Clearly, I'm in favor of schools paying players directly, but you seem to be arguing that there needs to be a rule in place that such direct payments would *preclude* third party endorsement payments. Once again, that type of restriction would be a prima facie antitrust violation and the only way that it could conceivably be legal is if the players unionize and collectively bargain restrictions... which is an even worse outcome for the schools.
Ultimately, if there is going to be unequal compensation between players, the schools would much rather (both legally and financially) have a third party make up the difference as opposed to having direct payments (which schools would have to pay and then also encounter Title IX issues). Even though I'm in favor of direct payments to players as a free market principle, I think the third party NIL compensation is a more *practical* way to address the core issues since third parties can reflect a true free market in a way schools simply aren't allowed to do.
(04-12-2021 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's too late. The time for the NCAA to have drafted their own legislative proposals was many years ago. It's 100% their own fault - they stuck their heads in the sand with a hypocritical stance of making incredible amounts of money based on a guise of amateurism and they're now going to get a new system forced upon them.
Also, it's very important to not see NIL compensation and direct player compensation as one and the same.
NIL is really about the ability for athletes to earn money from *third parties* that are NOT the school - endorsements, video game image licensing, shoe contracts, etc. IMHO, there is no "reasonableness" standard to be applied here: athletes can (and should) make as much third party endorsement money as the free market will bear. Any type of attempt to cap that compensation is inherently a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. There also isn't any worry about Title IX on this matter. I think NIL legislation is pretty simple: allow athletes to seek the same type of third party compensation that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STUDENT can get.
Direct player compensation from schools is trickier because of Title IX and other compliance issues. This is where what would be rational in a free market (paying stars in football and men's basketball more money than all other athletes at the school) collides with other legal issues that complicate the ability to have a pure free market.
What I *don't* think the NCAA can get away with any longer is trying to argue that the fact that some (or even most) athletes don't produce revenue means that *no one* can get direct compensation. That has always been a terrible argument on its face. Frankly, most employees in all industries are "cost centers" that don't produce revenue, yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be receiving compensation for our labor.
I agree. But I also don't think it follows logically that if
one athlete is getting paid,
every athlete must get paid. Even in business there are some unpaid interns who do it for the experience and opportunity to move up to a paying position at some point. And others who earn entry level wages.
Let's not forget that every scholarship athlete is already getting paid. Just not as much as some of them are worth. If we think they aren't being paid enough, in essence we are saying we need to increase the minimum wage for football players, or basketball players beyond what they are already getting over and above their tuition, books and fees.
(04-12-2021 08:12 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Are you guys suggesting athletes start a GoFundMe account in hopes that complete strangers will give them money because they are a reserve on the women's volleyball team? Or for that matter, because they are a third sting tackle on the football team?
And what "image" would an e-sports company be using for a football player who never removes his helmet or has his name on the back of his jersey? I don't think for profit enterprises are going to pay athletes for purely altruistic reasons, so unless the individual athlete has commercial value I don't see him cashing in.
No. What I am suggesting is that a reserve women's volleyball player should be able to profit off an invention or patent she creates, her YouTube channel where she makes skits/funny videos with friends that are popular (or "viral" as the kids call it), receive a payout as part of the Twitch partnership program, or any other way that any other student is able to earn money. Just because someone is an athlete does not mean that every other means of profiting off creativity should be monopolized by the NCAA.
I'm increasingly concerned that the combination of much looser transfer rules and direct player compensation will create a system worse than any professional franchise has to deal with. If every athlete is a free agent every year, and there are no limits on compensation, there will be chaos beyond our imagination, and college sports as we know them could cease to exist.
(04-12-2021 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 07:37 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]There are about 11,000 scholarship football players in the FBS, not to mention the ones in the FCS. Out of that number, how many do you suppose will receive significant payments for their name, image or likeness?
I suspect two kinds of athletes will generate good NIL:
1) Extremely prominent star male D1 football or basketball players - Trevor, Zion, Burrow, those types. Obviously, they are few in number.
2) Some "Hot" female athletes in any sport. These women can leverage social media like Instagram. For example, there are some female college cheerleaders who have 1 million+ Instagram followers. They are making money off that. But there aren't that many either because competition is strong there too.
But overall, probably 99% of all athletes will make little or nothing. Maybe a few bucks for appearing in a team calendar or a nominal payment for appearing in a College Football video game or something. Now a Trevor Lawrence will get a larger payment for that kind of thing too. But the generic athlete will get a nominal payment.
That's how I see it. And the players that get paid big bucks won't get it for long because they'll be off to the pros as soon as they can. That fifth year senior isn't likely to be in high demand for appearance money.
That's why the other question I posed is what kind of compensation is likely to become available for the little guys, if any? And how would it be structured so we don't have wild west free agency where coaches have to recruit their own players every year in addition to recruiting high school players?
I suspect very little.
As for having to "re-recruit" your own players, I think with the transfer portal we're almost at that point now anyway, especially for guys who "provide depth" from the coach's point of view, but from the player's point of view it's "not much playing time".
(04-12-2021 11:07 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2021 08:12 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Are you guys suggesting athletes start a GoFundMe account in hopes that complete strangers will give them money because they are a reserve on the women's volleyball team? Or for that matter, because they are a third sting tackle on the football team?
And what "image" would an e-sports company be using for a football player who never removes his helmet or has his name on the back of his jersey? I don't think for profit enterprises are going to pay athletes for purely altruistic reasons, so unless the individual athlete has commercial value I don't see him cashing in.
No. What I am suggesting is that a reserve women's volleyball player should be able to profit off an invention or patent she creates, her YouTube channel where she makes skits/funny videos with friends that are popular (or "viral" as the kids call it), receive a payout as part of the Twitch partnership program, or any other way that any other student is able to earn money. Just because someone is an athlete does not mean that every other means of profiting off creativity should be monopolized by the NCAA.
I agree with that. But that isn't what NIL addresses.