https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Monopolies don't have to be nationwide, they can be local within just a region or even a single metro area. The fact that a state government is doing it also doesn't matter if he's suing under federal law. I think he has a strong case, limited only by the fact that it will likely take longer to resolve than he has time to profit from it.

(10-15-2025 01:46 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Monopolies don't have to be nationwide, they can be local within just a region or even a single metro area. The fact that a state government is doing it also doesn't matter if he's suing under federal law. I think he has a strong case, limited only by the fact that it will likely take longer to resolve than he has time to profit from it.

He definitely has a case, perhaps even a strong one, but it's not a slam dunk. Certainly it's odd that he chose to pursue it at all instead of taking one of the various other options open to him. My guess is either what I said above in that he wants to keep playing with his buddies, or perhaps he has a serious gf and doesn't want to leave her. If it really is about "making things better for Ohio kids 5 years from now"...well, that's not something that a 17 year old thinks about, he's just getting bad advice from someone with an agenda in that case.

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Obviously, i don't think Ohio should be forced to change, I just think they should change. What is the argument for not allowing NIL payments to high school athletes in Ohio?

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/466...profit-nil

Normally, I just assume that athletes will win these lawsuits. However, it feels like a stretch to tell the State of Ohio that they can't do what they want to do within their own borders. Is there a compelling Federal interest here, or could the kid just go to school across the border in another State, or attend a private preparatory academy and reel in all kinds of NIL? Should be an interesting case.

There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

That difference might not be relevant in this case. For years it was presumed that there was a difference between college athletes and pros. The courts will decide whether it is, and recent rulings suggest it might be hard to find a constitutional difference between a high school athlete and a college athlete when it comes to NIL.

(10-15-2025 05:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  There are 30 state associations plus the District of Columbia that allow NIL deals for high school athletes. Ohio needs to change.

Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

That difference might not be relevant in this case. For years it was presumed that there was a difference between college athletes and pros. The courts will decide whether it is, and recent rulings suggest it might be hard to find a constiturional difference between a high school athlete and a college athlete when it comes to NIL.

What about age-related work restrictions. What if OSU wants to start paying a 13 year old QB prodigy? At some level, the govt needs to have the ability to set and enforce rules. In the absence of overarching federal NIL legislation, it's reasonable for courts to defer to the individual states on the matter.

(10-15-2025 05:41 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 01:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Why? I think it’s a stupid rule, don’t get me wrong, but this is different than the NCAA’s old prohibition on NIL. For one, this isn’t a private group setting a rule, it’s a State. For another, there was no workaround for kids in college, they either gave up millions a year in endorsements or they couldn’t play football. This kid could easily go to another high school and make 6 figures right now, he just wants to be able to do it with all his buddies from elementary and middle school. He could have even reclassified and graduated a year early, as Quinn Evers did a couple years ago to go make a million bucks while riding the pine at OSU.

I also don’t think that “ ‘cause 30 other states are doing it “ is a reason to force a State to do something it disagrees with.

Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

That difference might not be relevant in this case. For years it was presumed that there was a difference between college athletes and pros. The courts will decide whether it is, and recent rulings suggest it might be hard to find a constiturional difference between a high school athlete and a college athlete when it comes to NIL.

What about age-related work restrictions. What if OSU wants to start paying a 13 year old QB prodigy? At some level, the govt needs to have the ability to set and enforce rules. In the absence of overarching federal NIL legislation, it's reasonable for courts to defer to the individual states on the matter.

There are limits on what rights those below 18 have. And for that matter with regard to drinking, those under 21. And high school students are in mandatory education. How do you separate someone making money on Tik Tok or creating memes, vs. someone getting paid to play for Friday Night HS?

The quarterback at Grimsley HS in Greensboro committed to Tennessee as a junior and the Volunteers started paying him NIL money then. The State HS Athletic ASSN. tried to stop it, but the athlete's parents sued the State and won.

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

We’ve been here for decades. Athletes are just now arriving.

The main difference is that a minor needs a parent/guardian to sign legal agreements. Child labour laws also apply.

Courts will look to case law to help decide these disputes. Precedents aplenty already exist.

As a child Dakota Fanning had an agent and got paid for her film work just as she does now, with all the attendant rights releases and NDAs. The difference then was that no contract was valid unless signed by her adult parent/guardian. That done, child labour laws were enforced on set.

Apply that framework to these situations involving high school athletes, and you get a good general idea of the shape a valid legal outcome will take. Equal protection.

(10-15-2025 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:41 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

That difference might not be relevant in this case. For years it was presumed that there was a difference between college athletes and pros. The courts will decide whether it is, and recent rulings suggest it might be hard to find a constiturional difference between a high school athlete and a college athlete when it comes to NIL.

What about age-related work restrictions. What if OSU wants to start paying a 13 year old QB prodigy? At some level, the govt needs to have the ability to set and enforce rules. In the absence of overarching federal NIL legislation, it's reasonable for courts to defer to the individual states on the matter.

There are limits on what rights those below 18 have. And for that matter with regard to drinking, those under 21. And high school students are in mandatory education. How do you separate someone making money on Tik Tok or creating memes, vs. someone getting paid to play for Friday Night HS?

How old is Jamier Brown? Many high school athletes are 18 years old.

(10-15-2025 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  There are limits on what rights those below 18 have. And for that matter with regard to drinking, those under 21. And high school students are in mandatory education. How do you separate someone making money on Tik Tok or creating memes, vs. someone getting paid to play for Friday Night HS?

Jamier Brown is not in mandatory education, not that it would matter if he was. I don't believe that the Ohio law prevents all students from making money from their NIL. Only athletes. By definition, NIL is not pay for play. SCOTUS seems to take a dim view of arbitrary limits placed on any individual's right to profit from whatever talent or notoriety they may have as long as it is legal. We may not like the expansion of this principal, but that's certainly the direction we are heading. And the article makes clear that the State of Ohio anticipated that this law would be challenged in court.

(10-16-2025 07:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  There are limits on what rights those below 18 have. And for that matter with regard to drinking, those under 21. And high school students are in mandatory education. How do you separate someone making money on Tik Tok or creating memes, vs. someone getting paid to play for Friday Night HS?

Jamier Brown is not in mandatory education, not that it would matter if he was. I don't believe that the Ohio law prevents all students from making money from their NIL. Only athletes. By definition, NIL is not pay for play. SCOTUS seems to take a dim view of arbitrary limits placed on any individual's right to profit from whatever talent or notoriety they may have as long as it is legal. We may not like the expansion of this principal, but that's certainly the direction we are heading. And the article makes clear that the State of Ohio anticipated that this law would be challenged in court.

It's a complicated case, no doubt about that. One major complication is his age. If he's already 18, that's an advantage, too.

FWIW, I would prefer that every State allows full NIL. Let the kids make as much as dumb boosters wanna pay them. $100k? $1m? $5m? Whatever. However, I also think that the Courts at all levels will be much more apt to defer to a State Legislature than they will be to defer to the NCAA. The Ohio State Legislature doesn't have a 100 year history of preventing college athletes from making money. The Ohio Legislature is elected by the people of the State. They have a long history of governing child labor laws, which will apply to the vast majority of kids looking to make NIL. A kid who isn't graduating for 18 months is probably not 18 already, he's much more likely to be 16 right now.

(10-16-2025 09:20 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 07:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  There are limits on what rights those below 18 have. And for that matter with regard to drinking, those under 21. And high school students are in mandatory education. How do you separate someone making money on Tik Tok or creating memes, vs. someone getting paid to play for Friday Night HS?

Jamier Brown is not in mandatory education, not that it would matter if he was. I don't believe that the Ohio law prevents all students from making money from their NIL. Only athletes. By definition, NIL is not pay for play. SCOTUS seems to take a dim view of arbitrary limits placed on any individual's right to profit from whatever talent or notoriety they may have as long as it is legal. We may not like the expansion of this principal, but that's certainly the direction we are heading. And the article makes clear that the State of Ohio anticipated that this law would be challenged in court.

It's a complicated case, no doubt about that. One major complication is his age. If he's already 18, that's an advantage, too.

FWIW, I would prefer that every State allows full NIL. Let the kids make as much as dumb boosters wanna pay them. $100k? $1m? $5m? Whatever. However, I also think that the Courts at all levels will be much more apt to defer to a State Legislature than they will be to defer to the NCAA. The Ohio State Legislature doesn't have a 100 year history of preventing college athletes from making money. The Ohio Legislature is elected by the people of the State. They have a long history of governing child labor laws, which will apply to the vast majority of kids looking to make NIL. A kid who isn't graduating for 18 months is probably not 18 already, he's much more likely to be 16 right now.

What do child labor laws have to do with NIL? By definition, NIL is not compensation for work performed as an employee. Nobody is likely to pay Jamier Brown to win games for his high school, or even just to play for them. His value, if he has any, is as a prized recruit and potential future college and pro star. But let me ask you all this question.

How many of us here had ever heard of Jamier Brown before this? His value as an endorser would have been close to zero. But now that he has filed his lawsuit, a lot of people have heard of him, and his market value has no doubt increased as a result of it. And that's without having played a single down with Ohio State or any other college. This case has nothing to do with child labor, any more than it would have if he were an 18 year old high school athlete instead of a 17 year old one.

(10-16-2025 05:48 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

We’ve been here for decades. Athletes are just now arriving.

The main difference is that a minor needs a parent/guardian to sign legal agreements. Child labour laws also apply.

Courts will look to case law to help decide these disputes. Precedents aplenty already exist.

As a child Dakota Fanning had an agent and got paid for her film work just as she does now, with all the attendant rights releases and NDAs. The difference then was that no contract was valid unless signed by her adult parent/guardian. That done, child labour laws were enforced on set.

Apply that framework to these situations involving high school athletes, and you get a good general idea of the shape a valid legal outcome will take. Equal protection.

Unbelievably stupid analogy. Actors work for private enterprises.

HS athletes are playing for a public school (generally) that makes no money off them.

(10-16-2025 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  The quarterback at Grimsley HS in Greensboro committed to Tennessee as a junior and the Volunteers started paying him NIL money then. The State HS Athletic ASSN. tried to stop it, but the athlete's parents sued the State and won.

Interesting. No letter of intent and the Vols were already paying him?

Maybe they should have just given him a gold Trans Am.

(10-16-2025 01:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 05:48 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  Perhaps not. But the US Constitution is a reason to force them to do it. And I wouldn't bet on Ohio's chances to win this one in court.

There is a difference between high school and college.
This is a really, really, really slippery slope we are going down. I didn't expect it to get here.

We’ve been here for decades. Athletes are just now arriving.

The main difference is that a minor needs a parent/guardian to sign legal agreements. Child labour laws also apply.

Courts will look to case law to help decide these disputes. Precedents aplenty already exist.

As a child Dakota Fanning had an agent and got paid for her film work just as she does now, with all the attendant rights releases and NDAs. The difference then was that no contract was valid unless signed by her adult parent/guardian. That done, child labour laws were enforced on set.

Apply that framework to these situations involving high school athletes, and you get a good general idea of the shape a valid legal outcome will take. Equal protection.

Unbelievably stupid analogy. Actors work for private enterprises.

HS athletes are playing for a public school (generally) that makes no money off them.

The fact that they're public actually provides the school with more restrictions regarding Constitutional violations, not more. For example, a private school (or a movie company) can restrict your free speech, while a public school can not.

The "employer" doesn't have to turn a profit for it to be deemed employment, they just have to make revenue. And high schools usually sell tickets to football games, so they ARE making revenue.