Stammers
Legend
Posts: 38,187
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1739
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
RE: University of Miami NIL deal pays $6000 to all 90 players
(07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote: (07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote: (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: (07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote: I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.
But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.
P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.
You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.
All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...
Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.
I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.
I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.
Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.
Couldn't a company or booster theorize that the players are wholly responsible for the athletic department's revenues, and base payments on that? The local celebrity getting $500 might be responsible for 5% of sales. The player are responsible for 100% of revenues.
|
|