Paying College Athletes/Letting Them Get Endorsements

[AZ_]

 

[Lee]

Estimates his NIL at 111k? I dont see how that gets you a house in orlando Fl, probably about a 300k house, plus the car? Probably very low estimate on the NIL.

Cool of him to do.

 

[AZ_]

Estimates his NIL at 111k? I dont see how that gets you a house in orlando Fl, probably about a 300k house, plus the car? Probably very low estimate on the NIL.

Cool of him to do.

Gets you at least the down payment and an ability to change neighborhoods if your parents have jobs that pay enough to maintain the monthly.

Life-changing money for many of these kids.

 

[Lee]

Gets you at least the down payment and an ability to change neighborhoods if your parents have jobs that pay enough to maintain the monthly.

Life-changing money for many of these kids.

It was a surprise, not sure how you fill out an application if its a surprise. And an 18 year old doesnt have the income or credit established yet. This is based off of 21 years as a mortgage originator.

He really had to pay cash if its a surprise. If he gave her the down payment, which he is allowed, then the surprise part was played up for the camera's which is also possible.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Many schools are going to be concerned about diversion of alumni money to athletes and away from donations for other purposes. Falling enrollments are already a fact of life and tons of money going to de facto pro athletes playing for State U is going to make any case for public financial support of schools more difficult.

This won’t be a huge issue for the Alabamas and Ohio States but mid tier schools are going to think long and hard about this.

It just seems kind of a weird thing on which to spend money. Owners of teams at least reap the direct benefit of getting better players for the team they own. This is alumni basically just handing their own money to a player so that their alma mater has a better football team.

I suppose if you've got money to burn, that's one way to do it.

 

[MediumBaller]

I kind of disagree with that. You do have college football junkies who follow all the recruiting of the high end players diligently, but most fans don't. If the best 50 players in college football never went to college at all, but went straight into the pros, I'll bet it would have a negligible effect on the popularity of college football. The non "pro-prep" schools would be unaffected, and even the Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson/Texas fans would still be just as excited chasing a national championship despite the absence of some guys who skipped college completely.

It's the schools themselves - that college "brand" - competing against each other, not the individual players, that are the primary draw. Heck, college football was massively popular before pro football was big. You supported the college not because of the particular players, but because they were players representing that college.

Heck, I wish independent minor leagues would start up and siphon off the top 100 or so players from ever entering college at all. I think it would improve college football for fans.



Agree 100%

This is why I kind of disagree with the argument that the players “make millions of dollars for the schools.” I mean, technically, yeah they do. But 100k fans pack college football stadiums to watch the schools first and foremost, not to watch particular players. Take away the schools and you get the G League - minimal popularity.

I didn’t think I would hate NIL, but the combination of the transfer portal and NIL is going to ruin college sports. It already completely ruined bowl season. Players are one-year mercenaries jumping from team to team. It’s worse than the pro leagues in that regard.

 

[AZ_]

The NCAA has been and continues to be unwilling to do their jobs effectively while prioritizing the student athletes rights.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The NCAA has been and continues to be unwilling to do their jobs effectively while prioritizing the student athletes rights.

Why should member universities prioritize the economic interests/rights of a small group of student athletes?

The primary mission of the member universities isn't to promote the rights/economic of student athletes. It's to educate students, with research somewhere in there for some schools. It would seem odd for the universities to prioritize the interests of one small subclass - student athletes in revenue-producing sports - out of the entire university system.

One issue that makes this extraordinarily difficult to address even if you wanted to is the vastly different interests/value of the individual student athletes themselves. The top 1.5% of college football players who are pro prospects have vastly different interests/expectations from the other 98.5% -- not to mention being those interests being even more different from the interests of student athletes overall, and students overall, university employees, alumni, etc..

That's one reason I'd rather just see a pure minor league where you'd see the actual market value of the athletes themselves, separate from the universities, and they could then be compensated as the market determines.

 

[AZ_]

Why should member universities prioritize the economic interests/rights of a small group of student athletes?

The primary mission of the member universities isn't to promote the rights/economic of student athletes. It's to educate students, with research somewhere in there for some schools. It would seem odd for the universities to prioritize the interests of one small subclass - student athletes in revenue-producing sports - out of the entire university system.

One issue that makes this extraordinarily difficult to address even if you wanted to is the vastly different interests/value of the individual student athletes themselves. The top 1.5% of college football players who are pro prospects have vastly different interests/expectations from the other 98.5% -- not to mention being those interests being even more different from the interests of student athletes overall, and students overall, university employees, alumni, etc..

That's one reason I'd rather just see a pure minor league where you'd see the actual market value of the athletes themselves, separate from the universities, and they could then be compensated as the market determines.

Because SCOTUS has explicitly said that their model is illegal in any other form within the boundaries of labor laws in this country.

They exist (supposedly) for the student athletes, yet their model is designed to take advantage of them and profit from their labor.

The NCAA's lack of action and interest in prioritizing the economic rights of athletes is precisely why this wound up being the wild west situation they're currently in.

 

[AZ_]

The NCAA's intentional lack of action is subsequently thinning out their ability to retain top coaches and administrators across the board.



While this is spun in some circles as the fault of players seeking compensation or fair share of revenue created from their labor, there is no serious argument in which the NCAA isn't the sole stakeholder in creating laws and limits on things like NIL and transfer rules.

They're waiving the white flag, refusing to do their job effectively. Working to correct the problem would admit the illegality of their model, and saying out loud what cannot be said.

That they're stealing wealth from the labor of these kids to enrich their brand.

 

[AZ_]

This is the meager level of compensation the NCAA once refused to engage in, for fear of compensating athletes.

It amounts to believing in the myth of amateurism, in spite of all the obvious challenges and illegal restrictions of economic freedom.

 

[Lee]

This is the meager level of compensation the NCAA once refused to engage in, for fear of compensating athletes.

It amounts to believing in the myth of amateurism, in spite of all the obvious challenges and illegal restrictions of economic freedom.

I remember when I was friends with Brad Miller and NCAA Basketball 95 came out. They went out and bought the game and were very excited to see their likeness. Not saying $600 and a free game is a huge amount of money, but its more than they got in 95, lol

 

[AZ_]

I remember when I was friends with Brad Miller and NCAA Basketball 95 came out. They went out and bought the game and were very excited to see their likeness. Not saying $600 and a free game is a huge amount of money, but its more than they got in 95, lol

The reason the game shut down in the first place was that EA offered to compensate athletes to keep the game alive, the NCAA said no because it forces them to admit that these students likeness brings value.

Just a whole farce of a dynamic in which this legislative body seems to do everything except put the athletes financial interests first.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Because SCOTUS has explicitly said that their model is illegal in any other form within the boundaries of labor laws in this country.

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?

They exist (supposedly) for the student athletes, yet their model is designed to take advantage of them and profit from their labor.

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 NCAA's lack of action and interest in prioritizing the economic rights of athletes is precisely why this wound up being the wild west situation they're currently in.

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.

 

[Lee]

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 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 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 understanding the labor law creates a huge workman's comp issue with the injuries, which honestly they should. The NCAA and NFL and other leagues have been getting away for years not taking care of health issues that came about from the time these athletes played sports. Never mind the huge concussion issue in football, just lifetime knee injuries and such,.

As for profit, the athletic department as a whole doesnt make money in most schools (Purdue i can proudly say funds its athletics 100% through the athletic department, one of 13 schools as of about 5 years ago)....but some programs like football and men's basketball profit greatly and help fund the other title IX sports.