https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ource-says
Quote:SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff will meet with United States senators in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to ask for legislative help surrounding name, image and likeness policies.
Quote:Kliavkoff contacted Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, whom he knows from their time working together at RealNetworks. He and Sankey will be meeting with Cantwell and Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, and are hoping to meet with other senators from both parties.
"The goal is to discuss a few of the issues facing college athletics with influential senators," Kliavkoff said. "I think it's more likely that we eventually get federal legislation on name, image and likeness, but we're also interested in discussing all of the harm that will come to student-athletes if they are deemed to be employees."
So will Sankey meet with my moronic junior senator?
(05-05-2022 02:12 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ource-says
Quote:SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff will meet with United States senators in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to ask for legislative help surrounding name, image and likeness policies.
Quote:Kliavkoff contacted Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, whom he knows from their time working together at RealNetworks. He and Sankey will be meeting with Cantwell and Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, and are hoping to meet with other senators from both parties.
"The goal is to discuss a few of the issues facing college athletics with influential senators," Kliavkoff said. "I think it's more likely that we eventually get federal legislation on name, image and likeness, but we're also interested in discussing all of the harm that will come to student-athletes if they are deemed to be employees."
So will they also ask them to legislate coaches, ADs, conference commissioners and administrators contract? Can they also legislate TV contracts?
I wouldn’t interpret the goal of federal NIL legislation to be limiting compensation. The primary purpose of it would be to have a national standard as opposed to the 50 different state standards that we have now.
(05-05-2022 07:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn’t interpret the goal of federal NIL legislation to be limiting compensation. The primary purpose of it would be to have a national standard as opposed to the 50 different state standards that we have now.
Per the article, they have a second purpose, to ask that players not be deemed university employees, as that will open up a whole new can of worms.
(05-05-2022 07:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn’t interpret the goal of federal NIL legislation to be limiting compensation. The primary purpose of it would be to have a national standard as opposed to the 50 different state standards that we have now.
which would limit compensation
I'm honestly looking forward to seeing how this plays out. We all know big differences between conservatives and liberals sometimes come down to States vs. Federal, so it will be interesting to see where the line is drawn here, and if people from the usual "states rights" states will want the federal oversight put in there to help regulate it.
(I'm not trying to start a political argument here, it's genuinely going to be interesting to me to see where this will land)
(05-05-2022 07:26 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2022 07:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn’t interpret the goal of federal NIL legislation to be limiting compensation. The primary purpose of it would be to have a national standard as opposed to the 50 different state standards that we have now.
Per the article, they have a second purpose, to ask that players not be deemed university employees, as that will open up a whole new can of worms.
That's a difficult issue to ask congress to regulate.
If they want a federal law that says athletes who are paid a salary by the university to play their sport are not employees -- there's no chance a law like that will be passed.
If they want a federal law that says athletes who are paid to play their sport by someone other than the university are not employees -- that is still difficult. AFAIK, laws defining who is an employee don't require that the employee's compensation be paid directly by the employer.
And, even if they did, we could reasonably question any university's claim that they have nothing to do with NIL compensation paid to athletes. Many college athletic departments have publicized NIL deals or the availability of an NIL pool for their athletes. BYU publicized the "NIL" deal that pays the tuition and room and board of walk-on football players at BYU. Earlier this week, Wichita State fired its athletic director for not doing enough to get Wichita State boosters to offer NIL deals to the school's athletes and recruits.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...nil-market
Quote:Wichita State fired athletic director Darron Boatright on Wednesday amid growing criticism over the university's inability to compete in the new market of name, image and likeness payments to athletes.
Quote:Critics targeted Boatright in recent weeks because Wichita State had not raised funds after the Supreme Court lifted a ban on college athletes being compensated for their names, images and likenesses, The Wichita Eagle reported. They said it was Boatright's responsibility to ensure the school's donors were aware of the new rules and be prepared with incentives to retain current players and attract new ones.
The men's basketball program had eight scholarship players enter the NCAA transfer portal this spring.
Does that sound like the university has nothing to do with NIL compensation being paid to its athletes? Of course not.
(05-05-2022 07:26 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2022 07:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn’t interpret the goal of federal NIL legislation to be limiting compensation. The primary purpose of it would be to have a national standard as opposed to the 50 different state standards that we have now.
Per the article, they have a second purpose, to ask that players not be deemed university employees, as that will open up a whole new can of worms.
The second point should tell you how weak they are afraid their first point is. Nobody heads to meet politicians without a stated goal to serve as a sacrificial lamb in negotiations. Pay for play is going to happen. So sacrifice that in hopes of progress on guidelines for NIL.
The word today is that they were essentially rebuffed.
Now Sankey and Kliavkoff can say, "Well, we tried!" "Now let's breakaway and set our own rules as a league."
(05-05-2022 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2022 07:26 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]Per the article, they have a second purpose, to ask that players not be deemed university employees, as that will open up a whole new can of worms.
That's a difficult issue to ask congress to regulate.
If they want a federal law that says athletes who are paid a salary by the university to play their sport are not employees -- there's no chance a law like that will be passed.
How do you distinguish between student athletes at High Schools and those at Colleges and those who compete in football and basketball vs. water polo or soccer and those who are DI and those who are DIII.
Which are employees, and subject at least to minimum-wage laws, and perhaps antitrust action against university-employers who have formed combinations to limit salary competition?
The Sankey/Kliavkoff argument should've been clear and simple: college sports involves teams from multiple states. California shouldn't be making laws that impact Texas, and vice versa. Nationwide sports leagues require nationwide laws.
Some quotes from Senator Blackburn:
https://twitter.com/espnrittenberg/statu...L2TrRl0_qg
Needless to say, a lot of quotes about protecting student-athletes and not a single word about worrying about how colleges are impacted (along with critiques of the NCAA). As I’ve said many times here, letting student-athletes get paid as much as possible seems to be the one thing that Republicans and Democrats are united on here. We may get federal legislation in order to address the patchwork quilt of state laws, but anyone that thinks that politicians on either side of the aisle are interested in actually capping or reducing NIL compensation are seriously misreading where the general public (not old school fans posting on message boards) is on this issue.
(05-05-2022 07:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2022 07:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn’t interpret the goal of federal NIL legislation to be limiting compensation. The primary purpose of it would be to have a national standard as opposed to the 50 different state standards that we have now.
which would limit compensation
Not really. Players are not employees as we speak——yet under NIL there is no limit on the compensation they can potentially receive. My sense is the schools are fighting a losing battle. The players will be considered employees before long. The only avenue I see to avoid them eventually being direct employees of the schools is to make them employees of the leagues instead. That wouldnt solve all the issues, but it would at least create some separation.
(05-06-2022 08:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]Some quotes from Senator Blackburn:
https://twitter.com/espnrittenberg/statu...L2TrRl0_qg
Needless to say, a lot of quotes about protecting student-athletes and not a single word about worrying about how colleges are impacted (along with critiques of the NCAA). As I’ve said many times here, letting student-athletes get paid as much as possible seems to be the one thing that Republicans and Democrats are united on here. We may get federal legislation in order to address the patchwork quilt of state laws, but anyone that thinks that politicians on either side of the aisle are interested in actually capping or reducing NIL compensation are seriously misreading where the general public (not old school fans posting on message boards) is on this issue.
Agree, although we’ve seen a lot of things done under the ruse of “protecting student athletes”. Just as you say, it wouldn’t be prudent to sell changes that limit compensation as anything but protecting the students. Well have to see how genuine this is, but her constituents are likely paying 7 figures to restart their football program, so I doubt she has political reasons to be viewed as limiting compensation
College ADs and Administrations are now soapboxing how they need to protect athletes from NIL. To protect them from the burdens of having to navigate business dealings and all the exploitation of lawlessness. Working hard on the false dilemma of either the worst of NIL or protect the athletes. Frank, there are horror stories of players selling a lot of future upside to agents and not aware of tax laws.
I hope legislators are wise enough to see that employment and CBAs have been successful in preventing this at the professional levels.
(05-06-2022 08:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]Some quotes from Senator Blackburn:
https://twitter.com/espnrittenberg/statu...L2TrRl0_qg
Needless to say, a lot of quotes about protecting student-athletes and not a single word about worrying about how colleges are impacted (along with critiques of the NCAA). As I’ve said many times here, letting student-athletes get paid as much as possible seems to be the one thing that Republicans and Democrats are united on here. We may get federal legislation in order to address the patchwork quilt of state laws, but anyone that thinks that politicians on either side of the aisle are interested in actually capping or reducing NIL compensation are seriously misreading where the general public (not old school fans posting on message boards) is on this issue.
I don’t know what they could legally do to cap nil. Maybe they could do some regulation. But capping or forcing colleges to spread it around wouldn’t work without unions agreeing.
(05-05-2022 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]If they want a federal law that says athletes who are paid a salary by the university to play their sport are not employees -- there's no chance a law like that will be passed.
The IRS already considers the part of a scholarship that covers things other than tuition, books and fees to be taxable income. Presumably, that means the schools must report payments for room, board and FCOA stipends to the IRS. What form do they use to report that income -- W-2, 1099 MISC or 1099 NEC? Does anyone here have direct knowledge to answer that question?
If it's something other than a W-2, hasn't the federal government already deemed them to not be employees? To leave that in place, no laws are needed. But to change that there would have to be a federal law enacted (or a court ruling in response to a lawsuit).
Are students in work-study programs paid in cash by the hour considered employees? How about cheerleaders and marching band members who receive financial aid (or are they paid as a tuition credit if they are paid at all)?
These are pretty far reaching questions that have long been considered settled law. But until now, so was the right to an abortion. Even "settled law" can be changed.
Interstate commerce
The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.
When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.
Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.
Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.
(05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Interstate commerce
The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.
When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.
Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.
Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.
I'm not that concerned about tying players to schools. I think the main thing is to treat them as much as possible like other students. That means they can change schools if things aren't working the way they want.
(05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Interstate commerce
The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.
When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.
Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.
Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.
I don't know that NIL will be more regulated in the future than it is now. But I suspect that folks at the IRS have been reading the same stories about what's happening with schools and individual college athletes as we have, and will have something to say about the tax implications of these deals.
They could very well decide that some of these deals between corporations, whether for profit or non-profit, are actually sham transactions, and therefore not deductible by a for profit business or allowed for a non-profit because they are expenditures for purposes other than those which gave rise to their non-profit status.
Perhaps some of the sugar daddies funding salaries for the Texas offensive line are planning on taking a tax deduction for making a "donation" to a 501-c(3) corporation that will have those linemen make a few PSA's promoting some charitable cause. To the extent that those payments are above the fair market value of those promos they could deem the "donations" to actually be gifts subject to gift taxes (which are paid by the donor, not the donee).
The IRS doesn't need new legislation to make such determinations. They can simply apply the same standards they have always used when auditing corporate and individual tax returns. That could throw cold water on a lot of these "creative" deals that are thinly veiled recruiting tactics.
(05-07-2022 08:07 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Interstate commerce
The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.
When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.
Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.
Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.
I don't know that NIL will be more regulated in the future than it is now. But I suspect that folks at the IRS have been reading the same stories about what's happening with schools and individual college athletes as we have, and will have something to say about the tax implications of these deals.
They could very well decide that some of these deals between corporations, whether for profit or non-profit, are actually sham transactions, and therefore not deductible by a for profit business or allowed for a non-profit because they are expenditures for purposes other than those which gave rise to their non-profit status.
Perhaps some of the sugar daddies funding salaries for the Texas offensive line are planning on taking a tax deduction for making a "donation" to a 501-c(3) corporation that will have those linemen make a few PSA's promoting some charitable cause. To the extent that those payments are above the fair market value of those promos they could deem the "donations" to actually be gifts subject to gift taxes (which are paid by the donor, not the donee).
The IRS doesn't need new legislation to make such determinations. They can simply apply the same standards they have always used when auditing corporate and individual tax returns. That could throw cold water on a lot of these "creative" deals that are thinly veiled recruiting tactics.
Interesting point.