Paying College Athletes/Letting Them Get Endorsements

[AZ_]

Ultimately, there is a Grand Canyon sized runway to agree to allow players a share of the revenue pools generated by media rights.




Similarly, there is mutual interest in creating an agreement which satisfies the need for NIL and player economic rights and freedoms without being considered employees.

Its simply a matter of one side agreeing to participate in that quest instead of spending millions in legal fees and hoping a more conservative Congress quashes the interest without giving an inch.

Allowing them to continue hoarding the wealth within a non-profit entity that doesn't benefit the athletes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Ultimately, there is a Grand Canyon sized runway to agree to allow players a share of the revenue pools generated by media rights.




Similarly, there is mutual interest in creating an agreement which satisfies the need for NIL and player economic rights and freedoms without being considered employees.

Its simply a matter of one side agreeing to participate in that quest instead of spending millions in legal fees and hoping a more conservative Congress quashes the interest without giving an inch.

Allowing them to continue hoarding the wealth within a non-profit entity that doesn't benefit the athletes.

Sure, the NCAA can agree to a share of payouts, but that still doesn't address all the other claims regarding whether or not student athletes are considered "employees" for purposes of union organization, minimum wage, workers comp, etc.

 

[AZ_]

Sure, the NCAA can agree to a share of payouts, but that still doesn't address all the other claims regarding whether or not student athletes are considered "employees" for purposes of union organization, minimum wage, workers comp, etc.

Sure, but makes the argument of athletes is far less credible in a world where the NCAA now allows the athletes to share in revenues from the profits they're reaping from the labor of athletes.

Its the early framework for a broader agreement between the NCAA and athletes, only problem is that one side is begging Congress to restrict the rights of those athletes and taking their side.

The athletes, by and large, do not want to create a situation where they are employees because it opens them up to taxation and other problems they don't necessarily want to be a part of. They feel as though they've been forced into it as their last means of negotiating.

“I’ve seen college athletics leaders say they want a sustainable and ‘legally defensible model.’ They then say Congress is the only place that can create that model. What they really mean is Congress is the only place that can allow for a model with the restrictions they want,”

There is ample runway to create an equitable agreement that is legally defensible without being considered employees.

Allow NIL with clear rules & regulations around what universities can provide, allow revenue sharing and earned revenue for tournament & championship participation.

 

[2 For The Brew]

NIL compensation is taxable whether cash or noncash.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, taxes are another issue. The moment you declare that college athletes are employees, scholarships and anything else they receive from schools becomes taxable.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Sure, but makes the argument of athletes is far less credible in a world where the NCAA now allows the athletes to share in revenues from the profits they're reaping from the labor of athletes.

You can't really have an agreement between the NCAA and "athletes", for the reasons I gave. Essentially, you have to consider "athletes" for what they are - a very disparate, constantly changing group of hundreds of thousands of individuals. "Agreement" is legally impossible.

Its the early framework for a broader agreement between the NCAA and athletes, only problem is that one side is begging Congress to restrict the rights of those athletes and taking their side.

To be very clear, and this admittedly doesn't reflect well on me at all, my preference is for no action by Congress because I think the end result will be a massive shit show that will not be good for either athletes or the schools. But I personally find it very entertaining when people get exactly what they ask for and screw themselves.

But in this thread, I'm just approaching it analytically.
Whatever Congress comes up with could favor either athletes or schools - that's less important than actually having a stable set of binding rules because a private agreement is not possible.

The athletes, by and large, do not want to create a situation where they are employees because it opens them up to taxation and other problems they don't necessarily want to be a part of. They feel as though they've been forced into it as their last means of negotiating.

"By and large" doesn't matter because it literally takes only one athletes to bring a case, and one judge among the tens of thousands nationwide to rule in his or her favor. And the reason that's a real risk is because student athletes have wildly different financial interests. A kid on a partial scholarship with no NiL may have a lot more interest in being declared an employee than a kid with a $1M/year NiL deal.

 

[AZ_]

You can't really have an agreement between the NCAA and "athletes", for the reasons I gave. Essentially, you have to consider "athletes" for what they are - a very disparate, constantly changing group of hundreds of thousands of individuals. "Agreement" is legally impossible.

Frankly, no it isn't...

NCAA adopts interim name, image and likeness policy

NCAA college athletes will have the opportunity to benefit from their name, image and likeness beginning Thursday. Governance bodies in all three divisions today

www.ncaa.org

Here is the agreement they made re: NIL

Sure, athletes can challenge that system via the courts -- but would find it increasingly difficult in a world where the NCAA isn't restricting their economic rights and offering them a share of the pie (which they've earned, and is RIGHT to do -- but often doesn't factor in)

To be very clear, and this admittedly doesn't reflect well on me at all, my preference is for no action by Congress because I think the end result will be a massive shit show that will not be good for either athletes or the schools. But I personally find it very entertaining when people get exactly what they ask for and screw themselves.

But in this thread, I'm just approaching it analytically.
Whatever Congress comes up with could favor either athletes or schools - that's less important than actually having a stable set of binding rules because a private agreement is not possible.

Quite disingenuous to suggest that this is what athletes wanted.

Congress is not working towards the athletes interests, they're being lobbied by a well-funded, non-profit entity to help maintain their ability to hoard the wealth developed by selling the rights to college athletics. After said entity was rightly destroyed in the courts for attempting to argue the legality of the status quo.

Athletes want to work with the NCAA on an equitable agreement that allows NIL and revenue sharing.


Sure, the NCAA has no current obligation to provide that...

Thus forcing the hands of athletes to stand up legal challenges to their system.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Sure, athletes can challenge that system via the courts -- but would find it increasingly difficult in a world where the NCAA isn't restricting their economic rights and offering them a share of the pie (which they've earned, and is RIGHT to do -- but often doesn't factor in)

Wait - Doesn't this exactly prove my point? That agreement is from 2021. Yet even after that was adopted: 1) a federal judge in the Third Circuit has ruled that student athletes are "employees", 2) Dartmouth athletes have voted to unionize, and 3) part of the very agreement you cite was just tossed by a different federal judge.

Court injunction bars NCAA from enforcing NIL rules on recruitment - SportsPro

US district judge's ruling allows college recruits to sign NIL deals without breaking the association’s rules until the case is concluded.

www.sportspromedia.com

Congress is now working towards the athletes interests, they're being lobbied by a well-funded, non-profit entity to help maintain their ability to hoard the wealth developed by selling the rights to college athletics. After said entity was rightly destroyed in the courts for attempting to argue the legality of the status quo.

I understand opposing a particular law as being unfavorable for athletes. I just don't know why anyone would automatically prefer ad hoc opinions by different judges in different jurisdictions to a consistent federal solution. Shouldn't it depend on the specifics of the law?

Athletes want to work with the NCAA on an equitable agreement that allows NIL and revenue sharing.

Not every athlete's idea of what is fair or right is the same. Not even close, really. I mean, what about scholarship athletes whose sports don't produce significant revenue or have significant NiL? For some of them, employee status would be the goal, and they couldn't care less about revenue sharing or NiL.

Thus forcing the hands of athletes to stand up legal challenges to their system.

Right. And they're going to keep doing that as long as there are any athletes (or agents/advisors/family members) who believe that the current system doesn't maximize what is best for each of them as individuals.

Quite disingenuous to suggest that this is what athletes wanted

Either they want a system with no Congressional regulation and everything being decided by individual judges, or they want Congress to step in.

 

[jjvors]

Other states will have to do it too or California schools will have a massive recruiting advantage...unless the NCAA bans them, lol

If I were the NCAA, that's what I'd do. Let them start their own league.

 

[jjvors]

Then perhaps it’s the NCAA’s job to limit what players can be paid by way of making rules and enforcing them. Q’s idea of increasing a stipend could make sense. But kids spending their entire collegiate careers making money for schools and getting essentially nothing out of it but the same education as anyone else doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense. Some schools are barely on the map without their sports programs.

Can somebody remind me of why NCAA players aren’t paid in the first place other than that they just never were? What am I missing?

No problem. This is the historic division between amateur and professional. The idea is college's main goal is education. Sports are just part of the enrichment experience. That's the history for the past 120 years.

If you wish to pay athletes in college, as another poster said, they become professionals and college education is unimportant. I'm not sure that's the message the colleges want to send.

It's really a question of what the goals of the NCAA are: become a minor league for professional athletics or continue as an extracurricular activity for college students.

 

[jjvors]

Nobody is asking the universities to pay them.

They’re saying that kids can earn money based on their image and likeness. It has nothing to do at all with the issues you’re bringing out.

It appears like you’re missing the entire point of what’s being discussed.

The issue has definitely been confused in this thread. I've read through it to this point and athlete salaries, medical benefits, and commercial endorsements have all been discussed.

I think student athletes are legally entitled to benefit off their images, but that would end their amateur status and eligibility for NCAA. That would require the NCAA to change its eligibility rules. A rich student/parent/organization could sue the NCAA for this right.

 

[jjvors]

The case that SCOTUS addressed wasn't a labor law case -- it was an antitrust case. There is a labor case working its way through the Third Circuit where a lower court judge held that student athletes are "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It's been appealed and argued to the Third Circuit but I don't think they've decided yet. Two other Circuits have held that they are not employees, so if the Third comes down differently, it'll go to the Supreme Court. I do think the Third Circuit will reject the employee claim, though.

Personally, I think being considered employees would be a disaster for the vast majority of college athletes but hey, they're entitled to advocate for it if they wish. I would just add that as a matter of principle, I don't see why the exact same arguments shouldn't apply to high school athletes as well.

I'm curious as to where you stand on the question of whether NCAA athletes should be considered employees or not. All? Some? None?



I'm not sure the context in which you mean "profit", but almost all schools are literally non-profit, and the vast majority of athletic departments run in the red. If you mean "profit" in the sense of "athletics are part of an overall school environments that attracts more kids to attend the school, and that benefits the schools", then sure. Although that applies to libraries, student centers, etc..





The increased sophistication of players and agents made this Wild West situation inevitable -- there is nothing the schools really could have done to prevent things from getting to this point because it was and is in the interests of the highest-end athletes to push for NiL's and player movement. The more they fight the "wild west situation", the more they'll open themselves up to potential lawsuits, etc.. There's a big one right now over past denials of NiL, so if the NCAA tries something to limit them, they're just buying another lawsuit. There isn't a "middle ground" on which you are ever going to get universal agreement, so it is always going to come down to the law.

I personally see this as a no-win situation for the schools/NCAA. I think letting it all go to shit (or at least, the Wild West) and saying "well, if this is what Congress and the courts want, this is what you get", is probably the best alternative they have.

My opinion (I'm no lawyer) is that without a contractual agreement, student athletes cannot be considered employees. They tried out for the team voluntarily and were selected for it, with no a priori payment agreement. That is the nature of amateur athletics and extracurricular sports.

 

[jjvors]

As Jay Bilas argues in the tweet I’ll post in this response, the NCAA is staring at a freight train coming down the tracks in the form of this anti-trust case they are destined to get tagged in, for billions in damages.

How House v. NCAA could change the landscape of college sports

Since Name, Image and Likeness reform in college athletics took effect in July 2021, the next step in securing student-athletes' rights was to determine a

www.si.com

It’s not a question of which athletes are employees of the university, it’s a question of how the contracts for these employees should be structured in compliance with the law.

If minimum wage is the fair market value for women’s soccer, so be it. Let the market set value for the top players, be it monetary value or equivalent akin to the college scholarship model we’re currently in.





The NCAA is paying the damages, not the schools.

They are profiting from the free labor of these kids. Not paying their tuition, their room and board. Nothing.





Allowing players to sign contracts with these schools, with the inclusion of a “buyout” clause (similar to coaches), does seem like the model which makes the most sense for this NCAA system to survive.

Schools want to pay top players and amateurs should be free to earn what money is available in a free market.

If you want to transfer, the new school picks up your buyout.



Sports are about the hard work and merit, be the best and you can achieve.

Bilas makes a ton of great points here:

Thanks for a great explanation on the lawsuit. That clarified a lot for me.

I don't see how it can be a class ruling. As the NCAA argued, each NIL has a different value and most student athletes have no value in NIL at all.

Certainly the students always have their NIL rights, the NCAA notwithstanding. But that doesn't make them and all college athletes employees. Those seem to be two distinct issues.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Thanks for a great explanation on the lawsuit. That clarified a lot for me.

I don't see how it can be a class ruling. As the NCAA argued, each NIL has a different value and most student athletes have no value in NIL at all.

Certainly the students always have their NIL rights, the NCAA notwithstanding. But that doesn't make them and all college athletes employees. Those seem to be two distinct issues.

NiL itself doesn't really have anything to do with being an employee because it is being paid by a third party who has no actual control over the player. The "employee" issue arises out of receiving a scholarship and/or stipend. Or to some, the mere fact that the student participated in a sport that generates any revenue at all for the school should be enough, regardless of what the student actually receives.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's really a question of what the goals of the NCAA are: become a minor league for professional athletics or continue as an extracurricular activity for college students.

The goals of the NCAA (and we're actually really taking about schools/organizations outside the NCAA as well) is to have pure student athletes, but courts aren't permitting that so it is pretty much out of the NCAA's hands at this point. As noted above, they came to an NiL agreement that a single judge determined three years later was too restrictive. Specifically, that judge found that the NCAA can't restrict NiL negotiations during recruiting or while in the portal. So basically, it has to be open bidding for players at all times.