JohnnyU
Footballguy
Manchester United
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Should there be a cap on NIL? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
That makes sense. So I guess, what if the athletes just received some (relatively) small player-by-player abitrated portion of that revenue? I guess that still wouldn't solve the disparity problem ... Big schools would be in big conferences being paid big money ... Players going to those schools would be getting more money ...
Current College Sports Television Contracts
Trying to figure out which network has tv rights for which conference and for which sports or games? Check our updated list.businessofcollegesports.com
That's starting to sound almost like these student-athletes are university employees. Be wary, no one wants to go there ...
eighsse2
Footballguy
Okay, so, the money that the athletes receive is from what again? Local business donations or something? And endorsements from major companies? If I'm correct about that, then why would that even have such a big impact on big schools getting the best players? I mean I guess you're in the spotlight more if you're the QB for Alabama versus QB for Youngstown State. But if you are considered a superstar prospect, you are still very well-known even if you're at a small school. Also when there are donations, are they donations for a specific purpose, "I'm donating $20,000 to QB Fred Smith if he plays here" or is it some pool that the school distributes?That makes sense. So I guess, what if the athletes just received some (relatively) small player-by-player abitrated portion of that revenue? I guess that still wouldn't solve the disparity problem ... Big schools would be in big conferences being paid big money ... Players going to those schools would be getting more money ...Current College Sports Television Contracts
Trying to figure out which network has tv rights for which conference and for which sports or games? Check our updated list.
That's starting to sound almost like these student-athletes are university employees. Be wary, no one wants to go there ...
Enzo....the Baker
Footballguy
FUND Foundation
Friends of the University of Notre Dame Inc ("FUND") is a nonprofit that uses the Name, Image and Likeness of University of Notre Dame student-athletes to help promote charitable organizations that they are passionate about.
www.fundfoundation.org
The above is Notre Dames
Cincinnati has their own, Cincy Reigns
Essentially, these are "non profit" entities that support the athletes
My son is going through the recruiting process right now. At a recent unnamed Big 10 school visit, players get 3k for each semester of good grades.
How? Through NIL
Crazy.....wild, wild, west
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Are you kidding me? You think the NCAA can limit how much a person is allowed to make off their name, image and likeness? You are trolling right?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
They've been doing it our entire lives up until the past year or two, so not all that crazy to think it might be legal. Careers have been ruined over free shoes and tattoos.
massraider
Footballguy
Fantastic question, and you won't get a good answer from anyone.
NIL can be organized through a Collective, which is simply a booster club, that pulls booster money together, and can make offers.
But it is very important to remember that the collectives are there for one stop shopping for players choosing their school, and players are free to make whatever deals they like on their own. Just like any other American. The collectives are not the last money they can make, it is simply better for the schools to have their booster money organized. You don't want a 3 star OT having to try and negotiate with a local car dealership as a high school senior.
When a player is recruited, they can have an idea of what the collective will pay. Once they are on campus, they are free to make any deals they want for a local restaurant, card shows, appearances, whatever.
massraider
Footballguy
LINK
The trial against the NCAA lasted from June 9 to June 27, 2014.[17] Final written closing statements were submitted on July 10.[18]
On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws.[19] She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.[20]
The NCAA subsequently appealed the ruling,[20] arguing that Wilken did not properly consider NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In that case, the NCAA was denied control of college football television rights.[21] The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal.[22] The NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs.[23]
Aftermath[edit]
As a result of O'Bannon, a number of other class-action lawsuits filed by student athletes against the NCAA and colleges followed, challenging other restrictions on educational funds as being anti-competitive. These were combined into a single suit also heard by Judge Wilken, who ruled against the NCAA in March 2019 and required the NCAA to allow students to obtain other non-cash scholarships, internships and other support beyond the full cost-of-attendeance for academic purposes.[24] Some of these benefits include private tutoring, advanced class selection and access to exclusive college benefits. The court worried that allowing college athletes to profit off their name and likeness would allow large schools with large fanbases to offer more money to players. These non-cash benefits are services all colleges can provide which makes the competitive landscape to recruit talent fair for all colleges.[6]The Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling on appeal, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision in June 2021 in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston.[25][26] On July 1, 2021, the NCAA announced the board had agreed to new rules that removed restrictions on college athletes from entering paid endorsements and other sponsorship deals, and from using agents to manage their publicity. Students would still be required to inform the school of all such activities, with the school to make determinations if those activities violate state and local laws.[27]
EA Sports, which had published the NCAA-sports based games, left that market; NCAA Basketball 10 (published in 2009) was the final game in that series, while the NCAA terminated its license with EA during the events of O'Bannon after the release of NCAA Football 14 (published in 2013) over licensing rates.[28] In February 2021, EA Sports subsequently announced a new series that would be called EA Sports College Football they expect to launch in 2024. It will not use any player likenesses to respect the ruling of O'Bannon, bypassing the NCAA, but will still license college logos, uniforms, and stadiums through the Collegiate Licensing Company.[29]
msudaisy26
Footballguy
It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread that it is illegal because of the ruling massraider linked above and he continues to ignore it. So it is pretty stupid and annoying.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Did the link say anything about limits? Barring and limiting are two different things. Not reading all of that.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
The NCAA can't cap, what a business or person will pay someone. It isn't their money. Plus read above.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Surely you realize the absurdity of considering absurd the notion that something that was done for decades could be done.
ETA: I assume you are correct, it's not about that, but about the plausibility of it being possible to limit it when it was limited at $0 before.
It's like if someone said they should limit how much pot you can have on you, now that pot is legal (in many states), and the response was "how can you possibly think it could be legal to limit that!?" Even if it's correct that the new law doesn't limit it, it's obviously not an absurd idea.
rockaction
Footballguy
This has delved into stupid territory, as msudaisy is saying. It'd be restraint of trade and violate antitrust law. If they (the courts and the Supreme Court) already ruled that the rules violated the antitrust laws before, they're not carving out an exception so that the NCAA can kinda sorta restrain trade.
It's like strenuously objecting in A Few Good Men
It's like strenuously objecting in A Few Good Men
msudaisy26
Footballguy
It has been pointed out multiple times to him. It would lose in court in 5 seconds and that is why the NCAA won't challenge it. Mass linked the ruling and he still refuses to believe it. In Johnny's original post he says forgive my ignorance and when it is pointed out he just ignores it.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Barring and limiting are two different things
msudaisy26
Footballguy
It isn't their money. It would be like your golf league telling your employer how much they can pay you and you deliver pizzas for a living.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Would lose and did lose on limiting the NILare two different things
Last edited:
rockaction
Footballguy
They're barred from limiting. If they had the right, they'd be exercising it. The Courts unequivocally said "restraint of trade" and told them no.
They got their hand slapped. The oral questioning at the Supreme Court, especially from the conservative justices, bordered on ridicule of the NCAA's position. I remember reading articles about it.
rockaction
Footballguy
There is no cap. You're being obdurate and ruining your own thread. If you want to take a normative position like "Should there be a cap?" by all means, take the normative position that there should be. When it's told to you that they can't, that's a different debate entirely, and one in which you seem way out of your league and element.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
No you just have trouble comprehending the ruling and understanding antitrust laws.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Thank you Rock, but even arguing for a cap is basically a whole new issue.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Because they liked the system the way it was and profited billions from it. Now we are like 2 steps away from completely removing the NCAA from the major cash sports.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Wait, why would they profit less now? They get the bulk of their money from the TV deals, right? Why would that change?
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Because they won't be involved and they are losing power.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I meant NIL where I said cap, corrected
eighsse2
Footballguy
Hmm. So you're saying there could be no NCAA. There would still be these separate conferences making TV deals, but without the NCAA running things? Who would oversee things, like the rules of college football, officiating, all of that?
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I don't know, but there has been talk and maybe I am being a little aggressive saying two steps away, but it isn't crazy to think the NCAA won't be apart of MAJOR college football by time 2030 rolls around.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I meant NIL where I said cap. I corrected that. Was it Peyton Manning that saiid there should be a limit on NIL? Why would he say that if it was already illegal?
rockaction
Footballguy
Okay. That clarifies. I can tell you if you read the tea leaves of the Alston decision, the NCAA does not want to wind up in front of the Supreme Court again about NIL. The NLRB just ruled that Dartmouth student-athletes could unionize. The last thing the NCAA wants is for student-athletes to be considered employees and thus share in the revenues for football and basketball. The other sports would fold if they weren't profitable and basketball and football would look totally different. The NCAA is now in a weird position of trying to carve out NIL to be as lucrative and easy as possible so that these employee cases don't wind up making their way through the Courts.
You thought college sports was ruined by NIL? Wait for these rulings.
rockaction
Footballguy
Because Peyton Manning is not Brett Kavanaugh, Johnny.
eighsse2
Footballguy
I think, probably, everyone wants parity to some extent. But there has never really been parity. Listen, I'm a Buckeyes fan, I'm more than happy to be a perennial contender out of what 120+ Division I schools? Been in the final four, what about half the time since it has existed? That s ridiculous. I'd still be happy to see more parity, though. But I'm not totally convinced that the NIL stuff will actually move the needle much on parity, though it could.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they? I get it what you said about the NCAA and probably losing however, but that day hasn’t arrived as far as I know.
massraider
Footballguy
You are asking all the right questions.
A collective draws money from boosters and local businesses. Where was that money going before the players were allowed to get endorsements?
To the schools. Now when they reach out to the boosters, there's X amount of money not going to the school in donations. Instead, it goes the the players.
That's why they care.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
How do you distinguish bribery from donations? It’s still illegal to bribe a player to come to your school.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Also, I understand and totally agree that people should be able to do what they want with their own money and their own matters ... to an extreme, personally. But that wouldn't necessarily prevent a body that regulates college sports from saying "your team includes members whose NIL sum is above the threshhold, you cannot have all of them playing for your team". Now how would that be resolved?? I have no idea. But I don't see why that would infringe on the free market any more than the NFL salary cap does. "Johnny Quarterback is making too much and has put you over your limit. Someone must be cut for someone cheaper. Whoever you cut is free to go to a team that has the cap room to contain him."
massraider
Footballguy
People either have NIL rights, or they don't.
Once you have a right to them, there are no limits. It has been ruled, appealed, and ruled again.
Endorsements.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Interesting. So by proxy, the schools are paying some amount of these players' incomes, relative to the past ways at least.
ETA: Why were boosters and local businesses donating to their local schools in the first place if it wasn't for acquiring players? For the other costs of running the program? Coaching, staff, facilities, etc?
msudaisy26
Footballguy
At that point you have to unionize and share everything.
massraider
Footballguy
There is no cap on endorsements in the NFL.
That's not correct. The school isn't paying anything to the players.
These are not salaries. These are endorsement deals, and no one has a right to stop any person from signing a deal with Nike, or Cheez-It, or Bob's Discount Furniture.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
So you don’t think there should be a line drawn somewhere, I get it. Should NFL players union challenge the salary cap? A cap on rookie deals?
eighsse2
Footballguy
First point taken, that makes sense.
Second point, the booster and local business donations specifically, not the endorsement money. I understand no money is going from the school to the player. But relative to pre-NIL days, it is.
massraider
Footballguy
There is no salary cap on endorsements. In any sport, anywhere.
The Memphis Grizzlies players are at a NIL disadvantage to Lakers players, because they get less endorsements.
The NBA has managed to survive.
eighsse2
Footballguy
I guess all we can do, or all I'm going to do at this point, is watch, and see if the parity suffers. Hey, if it becomes so partial that there are only 32 schools that are competitive, cut Division I down to 32 schools if you have to, that is plenty enough teams for the NFL to be interesting. Sad for the rest, but that's what it is.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
What are the ratings for the NBA? All they do anymore is shoot 3s, dunk, and don’t play defense
massraider
Footballguy
NBA is crushing it.What are the ratings for the NBA? All they do anymore is shoot 3s, dunk, and don’t play defense
rockaction
Footballguy
You should read Kavanaugh's concurrence in the case. What he did is called dicta. It's when a judge foreshadows what a future ruling would look like if certain elements of the case were brought to the Court again. Even though the Court reaches no decision on the merits, it's a guidepost. He said, in his concurrence, that restraints of trade by the NCAA raise serious antitrust questions. He said that not calling students employees raised antitrust questions.
Judges usually don't go out of their way to do this unless they individually want to get it on the record or if they know they have the votes should the issue come to pass. Given that Alston was 9-0 and Kavanaugh wrote a scathing indictment of the NCAA's model in his concurrence, one can consider the possibility that the dicta was both because he wanted it on record and he has the votes behind his reasoning.
Specifically to a cap on benefits for student-athletes, he says:
If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining
compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some diffi-
cult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly en-
sue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation
to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports?
Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive
compensation? How would any compensation regime com-
ply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some-
thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve
competitive balance, how would that cap be administered?
And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I stu-
dent athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly
compensating some or all of those student athletes?
Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in
ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option.
Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in
collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agree-
ment) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the rev-
enues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how pro-
fessional football and basketball players have negotiated
for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football,
Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Bas-
ketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Win-
ter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be
resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation re-
gime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.
To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain
important traditions that have become part of the fabric of
America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the
packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s
lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track
and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball
World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes
on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s
decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the
backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated.
Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with
agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the
theory that their product is defined by not paying their
workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles
of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should
be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.
Last edited:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.
rockaction
Footballguy
NIL rights were statutory and then the NCAA acquiesced because of Kavanaugh's dicta. The Court didn't rule on NIL.
Here, I've followed this and read the case. I can take it from here.
rockaction
Footballguy
I haven't said a thing about NIL or the transfer portal and how it is affecting collegiate sports. It's probably bad for them. Better than unpaid labor while fatcat, billion dollar deals get struck with no compensation to the labor. That's downright un-American, if you ask me, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, no liberal pinkos, are all over it.
One other thing. Why pose your question as an innocuous, I want to know question when you've already made up your mind. Why not just say that?
