(12-10-2023 05:15 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 05:03 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 09:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 11:17 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  ... In the House litigation, the plaintiffs are claiming that the Power 5 conferences and NCAA have conspired to deny football and basketball (both men's and women's) players NIL money for their student-"athlete" performances. They are claiming that 75% of the value of media contracts is for football, 15% for men's basketball, 5% for women's basketball, and 5% for everything else. Further they claim that the performers should get 10% of this for use of their NIL.

For a 14-team conference with a $500M media deal, this would amount to

$31,513 for a football player (85-player roster)
$41,209 for 13 men's basketball player.
$11,905 for 15 women's basketball player.

These were estimates used to establish that the players suffered tangible damages. A court might be able to impose them, perhaps requiring back payments before trebling them because it is an antitrust claim.

But there could also be a settlement, and any future payments would subject to negotiation, either formal, or through the marketplace as more valuable performers migrated to higher-paying programs. ...

This may be the thinking behind the trust funds since they are education based. There is nothing that says that the economic value that a student-athlete receives must be limited to tuition and room and board. That is just tradition. But this would keep the universities in compliance with Title IX.

Or more recently, tuition, and room and board and the full cost of attendance.

But, yes, the trust fund system is pre-adapted to losing the House litigation -- the trust fund minimum wage number is "coincidentally" the closest round numbers figure to the football player NIL value in the damages claim, and paying a higher figure to MBB players is easily Title IX offset by also paying a higher figure to WBB players.

At the same time, the DAC subdivision requirement to make the "minimum wage" trust fund payments to a head count of half of scholarship athletes is the replacement for the removal of scholarship limits .. rather than having a hard quota scholarship limit for either revenue, break-even or subsidy sports, it provides for a luxury tax system. It also rewards the high media income athletic departments for giving full rides rather than partial rides, since it's a head count not a FTE count, which would be the luxury tax preference of the schools that are not in high media income conferences ... each additional scholarship athlete in a subsidy sport costs the school $15,000 whether they are a full ride, half ride or quarter ride scholarship student, encouraging P4 schools to give full ride scholarships to all of their scholarship students and reducing the amount of "reserves banking" of athletes that the non-P4 schools are competing for.

If the House litigation is lost, or settled in a way that requires payment of the player NIL component of the value of media contracts, the "trust funds" would indeed be NIL trust funds for the revenue sports, and for the balance of the sports a majority of the trust fund would be a fig leaf rental paymnt. For the lower media income conferences, the route toward compliance with a House settlement would be using the allowance to make direct NIL payments to satisfy whatever the terms of the House settlement may be.

There is another lawsuit that has just been filed that challenges the NCAA restrictions on economic benefits for student-athletes. It seeks to establish two classes:

(1) All DI student-athletes would form an injunctive class for which the NCAA would be enjoined from enforcing its restrictions on compensation;

(2) Football and basketball players at Power 5 schools who would be eligible for past benefits and trebled damages for antitrust violations.

The lawsuit was fresh enough that it cites the Baker letter. The lawsuit suggests it might be enough to eliminate NCAA restrictions, and instead have individual conferences setting limits. It also points out that the NCAA currently permits cash awards for conference championships. These have nothing to do with education, and are entirely based on athletic performance.

Keep the drumbeat going. I keep telling folks we need a new structure to move forward because the old one is rife with the desire to somehow dodge the rulings and will continue to play games because internally its whole structure and its organizing principle of amateurism was ingrained and cannot be wholly eliminated. They made a nice chunk of change claiming to be the mediator for athletes under the guise of amateurism while building 2 billion in endowments to support its own operation. It's a parasite from the Victorian era of thinking about athletics and has no place in our world.

Who is the chair of the DI Board of Directors?

Do you remember Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Joe Btfsplk from Lil Abner is another. Rain Cloud followed him everywhere! Grew up with Pogo, Lil Abner, Dondi and Alley Oop.

The HBCU's respond.

From D1.ticker:

SWAC Commissioner Charles McClelland, MEAC Commissioner Sonja Stills, SIAC (DII) Commissioner Anthony Holloman and CIAA (DII) Commissioner Jacqie McWilliams-Parker met with federal lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to discuss pending NIL bills they say will negatively impact HBCUs. Stills, for instance, mentioned the possibility of student-athletes becoming employees. “We know that about 80% of our students are on some type of financial aid, federal grant, etc. So, if student-athletes are employees, they will have to pay taxes. If they are already on financial aid, they will have to get a loan to pay those taxes on the salary they will be getting. So the institutions will have to find money to pay taxes for those student-athletes as well." Beyond that, Stills pointed to the impact such bills could have on their institutions writ large. “If enrollment goes down, the trickle effect is funding goes down to those institutions. It impacts the community itself because a lot of our institutions are within the inner city, in those underserved communities. And so the jobs that surround athletics will be gone. Our messaging is to understand that the bills are trying to get at this 1%. It's the 99% of us can't afford this."

https://www.si.com/college/hbcu/football...egislation

Man. These people are financial illiterates.

They get a salary and get taxed and can't pay taxes? What happened to the salary?

(12-11-2023 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  Man. These people are financial illiterates.

They get a salary and get taxed and can't pay taxes? What happened to the salary?

That part was certainly ignorant. However, to that point, student-athletes making $30k would likely not be eligible for grants (like Pell & FSEOG) at that point as the FAFSA takes the student’s earnings into more consideration than earnings of the parents.

(12-11-2023 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  Man. These people are financial illiterates.

They get a salary and get taxed and can't pay taxes? What happened to the salary?

If what they are currently receiving as athletic scholarships are converted into salary, then yes, in order to allow them to meet the cost of attendance, you have to give them enough to leave them the same amount after taxes.

That is not the substance of the recent proposal from the head of the NCAA, but it is the substance of some of the other proposals that are in front of various legislatures.

FCS scholarships are not 85 full rides, but 63 or fewer Full-Time-Equivalent scholarships, typically spread across more than 63 football players, and for schools with a large percentage of students that need financial aid to attend school at all, some of that will be the fraction of a scholarship required on top of financial aid to allow them to go to school.

(12-12-2023 10:14 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2023 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  Man. These people are financial illiterates.

They get a salary and get taxed and can't pay taxes? What happened to the salary?

If what they are currently receiving as athletic scholarships are converted into salary, then yes, in order to allow them to meet the cost of attendance, you have to give them enough to leave them the same amount after taxes.

That is not the substance of the recent proposal from the head of the NCAA, but it is the substance of some of the other proposals that are in front of various legislatures.

FCS scholarships are not 85 full rides, but 63 or fewer Full-Time-Equivalent scholarships, typically spread across more than 63 football players, and for schools with a large percentage of students that need financial aid to attend school at all, some of that will be the fraction of a scholarship required on top of financial aid to allow them to go to school.

But, Baker would be in violation against the judge's rules. The judge ruled against the NCAA as a whole, and not just for the P5 schools. Trying to break the top level away from the rest of the schools could bring the judge's wraith down the top level schools even further, and rule that they have to pay damages to the rest of the schools in the NCAA no matter what level those schools are in.