Should there be a cap on NIL? (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

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?

To get others opinions on it?

 

[msudaisy26]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

 

[rockaction]

To get others opinions on it?

Ah, I see. Always a good idea, even if your mind has already been made up. You presented it more innocently than that, but I should know better. This is the internet and you have your point to make, so forget the nods toward inquiry, we'll just give you a platform and let you tut-tut.

 

[eighsse2]

I guess my stance on the whole "they should receive money because they're working" deal is that that is just not correct. If they choose to do it because they like playing football, then they're volunteering. If they choose to do it because it's their avenue to a shot at the NFL, then they're agreeing that it's worth it to them. Either way, really, that is the implication. "I'm doing this thing, without pay, because I have made the calculations, and it is worth it to me. Why would I do it of I didn't think it worth it?" A far, far cry from being an employee.

 

[JohnnyU]

To get others opinions on it?

Ah, I see. Always a good idea, even if your mind has already been made up. You presented it more innocently than that, but I should know better. This is the internet and you have your point to make, so forget the nods toward inquiry, we'll just give you a platform and let you tut-tut.

Yes, I voiced my opinion, and sincerely wanted to know.what others think and whether anyone agreed with me. Not trying to be an arse here. I hope that isn’t frowned upon, not tut-tut. No need to PM me again, not for this, I conceded. No Mas. The last thing I wanted was this kind of blasting back at me.

 

[JohnnyU]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

 

[rockaction]

To get others opinions on it?

Ah, I see. Always a good idea, even if your mind has already been made up. You presented it more innocently than that, but I should know better. This is the internet and you have your point to make, so forget the nods toward inquiry, we'll just give you a platform and let you tut-tut.

Yes, I voiced my opinion, and sincerely wanted to know.what others think and whether anyone agreed with me. Not trying to be an arse here. I hope that isn’t frowned upon, not tut-tut. No need to PM me again, not for this, I conceded. No Mas

Okay. I'm certainly not upset by it. You're fine. Do what you will. But this was always going to be a tut-tutting exercise in the end.

No PM forthcoming. I was concerned for your health a few days back and you assuaged any fear I had. I was happy to hear you're doing well.

You'll get nothing hidden from me. When I disagree with you I'm certainly going to tell you. I do that enough. Carry on, JohnnyU. World's changing. Don't let the rotation on the axis knock you down.

 

[JohnnyU]

To get others opinions on it?

Ah, I see. Always a good idea, even if your mind has already been made up. You presented it more innocently than that, but I should know better. This is the internet and you have your point to make, so forget the nods toward inquiry, we'll just give you a platform and let you tut-tut.

Yes, I voiced my opinion, and sincerely wanted to know.what others think and whether anyone agreed with me. Not trying to be an arse here. I hope that isn’t frowned upon, not tut-tut. No need to PM me again, not for this, I conceded. No Mas

Okay. I'm certainly not upset by it. You're fine. Do what you will. But this was always going to be a tut-tutting exercise in the end.

No PM forthcoming. I was concerned for your health a few days back and you assuaged any fear I had. I was happy to hear you're doing well.

You'll get nothing hidden from me. When I disagree with you I'm certainly going to tell you. I do that enough. Carry on, JohnnyU. World's changing. Don't let the rotation on the axis knock you down.

Wouldn’t a change of rotation of the earth on its axis cause tidal waves? Is that what’s coming in college sports?

 

[rockaction]

Is that what’s coming in college sports?

You ask jokingly, but I think Kavanaugh was all ready and had the votes to rule on either employment or collective bargaining in favor of the student-athletes, but as the judges noted about five times in the case, the parties representing the student athletes didn't bring any claims or appeals to the Supreme Court regarding Alston. The NCAA appealed the limited decision of the district and appeals courts, and since the Supreme Court is only going to rule on cases or appeals before it, the questions (Are student-athletes employees? Do they deserve compensation somehow if they're not?) were not at hand and the judges didn't rule. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh took pains to point this out, and it seems the student-athletes and their representatives missed out on a huge opportunity and ruling.

I get the distinct feeling that the whole concurrence was Kavanaugh saying that he would side with the student-athletes if they claimed they were employees of some sort. It's not too hard to figure out he was looking for a way to justly compensate them for their efforts in billion-dollar endeavors.

And that's what I think is coming if the Court composition remains the same. And that, JohnnyU, will be your tidal wave.

 

[JohnnyU]

Is that what’s coming in college sports?

You ask jokingly, but I think Kavanaugh was all ready and had the votes to rule on either employment or collective bargaining in favor of the student-athletes, but as the judges noted about five times in the case, the parties representing the student athletes didn't bring any claims or appeals to the Supreme Court regarding Alston. The NCAA appealed the limited decision of the district and appeals courts, and since the Supreme Court is only going to rule on cases or appeals before it, the questions (Are student-athletes employees? Do they deserve compensation somehow if they're not?) were not at hand and the judges didn't rule. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh took pains to point this out, and it seems the student-athletes and their representatives missed out on a huge opportunity and ruling.

I get the distinct feeling that the whole concurrence was Kavanaugh saying that he would side with the student-athletes if they claimed they were employees of some sort. It's not too hard to figure out he was looking for a way to justly compensate them for their efforts in billion-dollar endeavors.

And that's what I think is coming if the Court composition remains the same. And that, JohnnyU, will be your tidal wave.

Is no limits on NIL bad for college sports? Or nothing to see here and find something else to worry about?

 

[msudaisy26]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

 

[JohnnyU]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

….college sports be damned?

 

[msudaisy26]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

….college sports be damned?

People be damned?

 

[rockaction]

Is no limits on NIL bad for college sports? Or nothing to see here and find something else to worry about?

The honest answer is it depends how you define "bad." If you define "bad" as easier access to transferring and more of it, then probably yeah, it's bad. If you define "bad" in terms of equitable treatment of athletes, then no, not bad.

Because what is "bad" for college sports is such a wide range of things that you need to narrow it down.

 

[JohnnyU]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

….college sports be damned?

People be damned?

Alrighty then. I suppose that is finished.

 

[JohnnyU]

Is no limits on NIL bad for college sports? Or nothing to see here and find something else to worry about?

The honest answer is it depends how you define "bad." If you define "bad" as easier access to transferring and more of it, then probably yeah, it's bad. If you define "bad" in terms of equitable treatment of athletes, then no, not bad.

Because what is "bad" for college sports is such a wide range of things that you need to narrow it down.

What about some of the cons mentioned above. Do you agree with all of them? If not, which do you agree with and which do you disagree?

 

[msudaisy26]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

….college sports be damned?

People be damned?

Alrighty then. I suppose that is finished.

Your question is dumb. Just because something is changing doesn't mean it is bad or the end, but you go to the worst possible outcome because you don't like how much NIL can be had. They will adjust.

 

[rockaction]

In other words, if you prefer the current and past model where guys aren't essentially free agents for NIL money, then no, you're not going to like where NIL is headed.

If you prefer student-athletes remain student-athletes and not student-athlete employees, then NIL keeps it away from the Courts so long as the athletes don't decide to forge ahead with their claims as being employees from coming to the fore.

It really depends on how you look at the reality of it.

But if you think it's going back to the past, no way is it. The genie is way, way out of the bottle. A cap on NIL

 

[JohnnyU]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

….college sports be damned?

People be damned?

Alrighty then. I suppose that is finished.

Your question is dumb. Just because something is changing doesn't mean it is bad or the end, but you go to the worst possible outcome because you don't like how much NIL can be had. They will adjust.

Don’t get personal. I can respect your stance. Afford me the same courtesy.

 

[JohnnyU]

In other words, if you prefer the current and past model where guys aren't essentially free agents for NIL money, then no, you're not going to like where NIL is headed.

If you prefer student-athletes remain student-athletes and not student-athlete employees, then NIL keeps it away from the Courts so long as the athletes don't decide to forge ahead with their claims as being employees from coming to the fore.

It really depends on how you look at the reality of it.

But if you think it's going back to the past, no way is it. The genie is way, way out of the bottle. A cap on NIL

I don’t think it should go back to the past. I’m in favor of NIL. I just think no limits could be bad eventually.

 

[msudaisy26]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

College sports shouldn't damage a person's ability to make as much money as the want or someone will pay them.

….college sports be damned?

People be damned?

Alrighty then. I suppose that is finished.

Your question is dumb. Just because something is changing doesn't mean it is bad or the end, but you go to the worst possible outcome because you don't like how much NIL can be had. They will adjust.

Don’t get personal. I can respect your stance. Afford me the same courtesy.

I am sorry, but a half dozen people in the thread told you it was illegal to cap what they make and it took 30 posts of arguing plus a link to the the ruling and you still didn't want to believe us. This seemed quicker.

 

[rockaction]

Do you agree with all of them? If not, which do you agree with and which do you disagree?

A long time ago I sort of decided in my own head that collegiate sports—especially big-time collegiate sports—really didn't belong at institutions of higher learning. I observe that these young men were unfortunately uncompensated professionals, designed to make universities and alumni feel good about themselves while keeping the gravy train running in terms of endowments, prestige, and cold hard cash. I thought it was borderline criminal of the universities to use these young men without adequately compensating them for their labor. It was galling that you could have such an obvious structure of professionalism within supposedly amateur ranks. I'll never forget Brian Bosworth's NCAA shirt the game he was suspended for steroids. National Communists Against Athletics, I believe it read, and I remember thinking he had it about right.

I stopped thinking so knee-jerk about it for a while until I then went to college. And again, it came back to me. For I then stopped thinking about the beauty of college sports when almost our entire hockey team was recruited from Canada and often belonged nowhere near or around our university classrooms. They were a professional, almost hired unit, foreigners playing for a school so that it might satisfy its own pomp, circumstance, and gift coffers. It was silly to me. The students could have easily fielded a D II or D III team from students that were able to meet the academic rigors, but that wasn't the way the school and athletics worked. So you had the collegiate experience numbed for those who wanted to truly be student-athletes in the real sense, and it was unpaid for those who brought dollars to the university. It seemed like a big lose-lose proposition for everybody involved, from the students to the alumni to the hired hands playing the sport.

So big-time college sports is still silly to me. Sure, I'm a sucker for UConn Men's Basketball, but I can see where the student-athletes remain much different than your average person on campus. The life experience is totally different, the goals and aims different from the other students that they go to class with. It's glaring and obvious. IMO, the mission of the university should be about learning and should only include sports to the degree that it confers character and a well-rounded persona to the student body. That's really it. I love athletic exploits—don't get me wrong—but only within the context of the mission of the university.

So I really don't care about college sports, if you ask me. The only thing I care about is the football feeder system to the football professional league. So if you're asking me how I really feel, I feel like I wouldn't care if you dropped a bomb on the sporting institutions of collegiate football so long as you didn't hurt the NFL. My judgments generally stem from that thought. And I don't see how NIL or unionization and bargaining hurts that system in the end.

 

[massraider]

I don’t think it should go back to the past. I’m in favor of NIL. I just think no limits could be bad eventually.

Let me ask you this: Have you considered any ways it could potentially be good for college football? Even considered it?

I like to remember that people in general are pretty bad at predicting all of the consequences of various changes to the status quo.

No offense, but when they don't even know what the thing is, their prediction powers tend to be even weaker.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don’t think it should go back to the past. I’m in favor of NIL. I just think no limits could be bad eventually.

Let me ask you this: Have you considered any ways it could potentially be good for college football? Even considered it?

I like to remember that people in general are pretty bad at predicting all of the consequences of various changes to the status quo.

No offense, but when they don't even know what the thing is, their prediction powers tend to be even weaker.

I don’t know if it will cause havoc for sure, but after reading some of the criticisms of not limiting NIL, I’m not sure it won’t either. I suppose we will find out. Without repeating myself I’ll just stop here.

 

[massraider]

I think you can make a case that it will level the playing field.

Nick Saban and Dabo Sweeney weren't against NIL because they thought it was going to be great for the big schools.

 

[FairWarning]

I don’t think it should go back to the past. I’m in favor of NIL. I just think no limits could be bad eventually.

Let me ask you this: Have you considered any ways it could potentially be good for college football? Even considered it?

I like to remember that people in general are pretty bad at predicting all of the consequences of various changes to the status quo.

No offense, but when they don't even know what the thing is, their prediction powers tend to be even weaker.

I look at college hoops and see CFB going down the same path - not all the same reasons though. Since college football rivalries and traditions have gone by the wayside over the last 20 years, I wouldn’t mind seeing conferences formed by NIL money.

 

[CalBear]

There was a time when some people thought that free agency would destroy pro sports. Our presence here suggests that it didn't.

The only way a cap could be imposed is the same way caps are imposed in the NFL: through ratification of negotiated agreements with a recognized player's union. We're at least a few years away from something like that in college sports.

 

[-OZ-]

I'm doing this thing, without pay, because I have made the calculations, and it is worth it to me. Why would I do it of I didn't think it worth it?" A far, far cry from being an employee.

Sports still take work, and the players bring value to the universities.
In a similar way, actors in non blockbuster movies or background “extras” might be working in those movies hoping to land bigger roles in the future, they’re still employees. If they can get compensation, they should. IMO of course.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I'm doing this thing, without pay, because I have made the calculations, and it is worth it to me. Why would I do it of I didn't think it worth it?" A far, far cry from being an employee.

Sports still take work, and the players bring value to the universities.
In a similar way, actors in non blockbuster movies or background “extras” might be working in those movies hoping to land bigger roles in the future, they’re still employees. If they can get compensation, they should. IMO of course.

I expect for the vast majority of college football players the current system works pretty well. I think the NCAA could do a much better job representing the interests of those athletes than they are doing, but generally the trade-off of playing college sports in exchange for a scholarship and other benefits is a fair one for about 99% of these students. The vast majority of college athletes including football players across three divisions have no designs on a professional career or NIL income. But for that group of top level D1 football players who expect to play professionally, the hook is the NFL draft eligibility restriction which requires them to be three years removed from high school before being draft-eligible. MLB drafts kids from college and directly from high school and puts them into an extensive farm system funded by the MLB teams. The next NBA draft will probably see 6 or 7 of the top ten picks being kids who have never played in college (Europe-based) with the rest being one and done 19 year olds. In contrast, the symbiotic NFL-NCAA relationship provides the League with a free farm system allowing them to take on rookies who are 20 or 21 years old with several years of high level training development after high school. When these kids join the NFL and sign their first professional contract at 21, their income is subject to collective bargaining restrictions negotiated by a union they’ve never belonged to. If these kids were soccer players in Europe, South America or Asia they would get room, board and education from a young age and would be signing their first professional contract at age 18 with whichever club they want, anywhere in the world.

In the US today, kids who are exceptional baseball or soccer players are not playing for their high schools. They are playing for private clubs which in some cases are set up like boarding schools with dorms and classrooms but with daily training, travel etc. Youth football is still rooted in high schools and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. There is a large amount of recruiting in high school football and NIL money as well as bribery and other benefits is probably a bigger thing than we realize but I think so long as the NFL forces top players to go to college there is a big roadblock to massive change away from the current free-farm-league system in football.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm doing this thing, without pay, because I have made the calculations, and it is worth it to me. Why would I do it of I didn't think it worth it?" A far, far cry from being an employee.

Sports still take work, and the players bring value to the universities.
In a similar way, actors in non blockbuster movies or background “extras” might be working in those movies hoping to land bigger roles in the future, they’re still employees. If they can get compensation, they should. IMO of course.

I expect for the vast majority of college football players the current system works pretty well. I think the NCAA could do a much better job representing the interests of those athletes than they are doing, but generally the trade-off of playing college sports in exchange for a scholarship and other benefits is a fair one for about 99% of these students. The vast majority of college athletes including football players across three divisions have no designs on a professional career or NIL income. But for that group of top level D1 football players who expect to play professionally, the hook is the NFL draft eligibility restriction which requires them to be three years removed from high school before being draft-eligible. MLB drafts kids from college and directly from high school and puts them into an extensive farm system funded by the MLB teams. The next NBA draft will probably see 6 or 7 of the top ten picks being kids who have never played in college (Europe-based) with the rest being one and done 19 year olds. In contrast, the symbiotic NFL-NCAA relationship provides the League with a free farm system allowing them to take on rookies who are 20 or 21 years old with several years of high level training development after high school. When these kids join the NFL and sign their first professional contract at 21, their income is subject to collective bargaining restrictions negotiated by a union they’ve never belonged to. If these kids were soccer players in Europe, South America or Asia they would get room, board and education from a young age and would be signing their first professional contract at age 18 with whichever club they want, anywhere in the world.

In the US today, kids who are exceptional baseball or soccer players are not playing for their high schools. They are playing for private clubs which in some cases are set up like boarding schools with dorms and classrooms but with daily training, travel etc. Youth football is still rooted in high schools and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. There is a large amount of recruiting in high school football and NIL money as well as bribery and other benefits is probably a bigger thing than we realize but I think so long as the NFL forces top players to go to college there is a big roadblock to massive change away from the current free-farm-league system in football.

Very well stated.

 

[Gatorman]

I'm doing this thing, without pay, because I have made the calculations, and it is worth it to me. Why would I do it of I didn't think it worth it?" A far, far cry from being an employee.

Sports still take work, and the players bring value to the universities.
In a similar way, actors in non blockbuster movies or background “extras” might be working in those movies hoping to land bigger roles in the future, they’re still employees. If they can get compensation, they should. IMO of course.

I expect for the vast majority of college football players the current system works pretty well. I think the NCAA could do a much better job representing the interests of those athletes than they are doing, but generally the trade-off of playing college sports in exchange for a scholarship and other benefits is a fair one for about 99% of these students. The vast majority of college athletes including football players across three divisions have no designs on a professional career or NIL income. But for that group of top level D1 football players who expect to play professionally, the hook is the NFL draft eligibility restriction which requires them to be three years removed from high school before being draft-eligible. MLB drafts kids from college and directly from high school and puts them into an extensive farm system funded by the MLB teams. The next NBA draft will probably see 6 or 7 of the top ten picks being kids who have never played in college (Europe-based) with the rest being one and done 19 year olds. In contrast, the symbiotic NFL-NCAA relationship provides the League with a free farm system allowing them to take on rookies who are 20 or 21 years old with several years of high level training development after high school. When these kids join the NFL and sign their first professional contract at 21, their income is subject to collective bargaining restrictions negotiated by a union they’ve never belonged to. If these kids were soccer players in Europe, South America or Asia they would get room, board and education from a young age and would be signing their first professional contract at age 18 with whichever club they want, anywhere in the world.

In the US today, kids who are exceptional baseball or soccer players are not playing for their high schools. They are playing for private clubs which in some cases are set up like boarding schools with dorms and classrooms but with daily training, travel etc. Youth football is still rooted in high schools and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. There is a large amount of recruiting in high school football and NIL money as well as bribery and other benefits is probably a bigger thing than we realize but I think so long as the NFL forces top players to go to college there is a big roadblock to massive change away from the current free-farm-league system in football.

Very well stated.

Agreed.

My Take on this: I'm an NFL fan before I am a college fan (I know, Gatorman. Who knew when we started all this 30+ years ago the name would stick), but even guys I know who live and breathe Gator football are not thrilled with this as it gives you no time to "like" a player before they hit the portal. Moreover, its' burning out good coaches who don't want to have to not just recruit high schoolers, but now re-recruit their guys and go out and get other guys from other schools. I think that ratings sooner or later will go down on college football and basketball. It may be a while as realignment and the larger football championship field will keep eyes on screens for a bit longer, but when a guy like etienne flips from UF to UGa who wants to watch that?

Now, I think it is huge for womens sports as the NIL money going to Female athletes is something they aren't as likely to see on their WNBA contracts or as gymnasts, etc. The "top heaviness" and mercenary style this is taking on in mens sports is a little annoying.

Not sure there is a good solution as the NCAA really screwed the pooch here, but if anything, I'd at least implement a "conference clause" where the player can opt out into the tranfer portal but not into the same conference. Also, considereing some of this NIL money is coming from boosters with shady business ventures (ie ponzi style schemes) there should be some vetting of the people who donate to the collectives.

 

[CalBear]

the symbiotic NFL-NCAA relationship provides the League with a free farm system allowing them to take on rookies who are 20 or 21 years old with several years of high level training development after high school.

It isn't a symbiotic relationship, it's a parasitic one.

 

[massraider]

I was reading about Kobie Turner, the Rams rookie DT.

He transferred from Richmond to Wake Forest for his senior year. Went from off the map to 3rd rounder, because he was able to transfer easily.

We might wind up with more athletes at the schools they should be at, and maybe it all gets better.

 

[wlwiles]

I'm all for athletes being able to earn as much $ as they can however they can. The athletes are not to blame for any of the current landscape, they're taking advantage of a system that they're in.

But every school has an NIL collective, and it's funded by the fans and the boosters of the school, which is bass-ackwards. The institution(s) profiting off the Name, Image, and Likeness of the players need to foot the bill. Crowdsourcing bribe money to offer $ to recruits while you offer $ to your existing players to not transfer while also offering $ to players in the transfer portal is just utter madness. It's collegiate wide free agency every single year, and it's unsustainable.

 

[massraider]

. It's collegiate wide free agency every single year, and it's unsustainable

Why

 

[Faust]

NIL and transfer portal effect: More college players eschewing the NFL Draft

 

[CalBear]

I'm all for athletes being able to earn as much $ as they can however they can. The athletes are not to blame for any of the current landscape, they're taking advantage of a system that they're in.

But every school has an NIL collective, and it's funded by the fans and the boosters of the school, which is bass-ackwards. The institution(s) profiting off the Name, Image, and Likeness of the players need to foot the bill. Crowdsourcing bribe money to offer $ to recruits while you offer $ to your existing players to not transfer while also offering $ to players in the transfer portal is just utter madness. It's collegiate wide free agency every single year, and it's unsustainable.

The very few cases of institutions which profit from college sports, only profit because of fans and boosters. If the institution had to fund it themselves there would be no college football programs.

Even given contributions from fans and boosters, something like 80% of institutions do no better than break even on sports. The median net from 2019 is -$18.8M/year. Now with that booster money getting sucked into NIL collectives, it's going to get even worse for the non-Alabamas of the world.

 

[Da Guru]

Brett Kavenaugh and friends haven’t ruled on NIL limits have they?

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.

Ok, I concede. When it all goes to hell in a hand basket don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Lol, so because it is different and you like your college football it is okay to take away the rights those athletes.

Holy ****.

I‘m fine with NIL, but think there should be limits. I wouldn’t want it to damage college sports.

Too late, NCAA lost control too early in the game.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Private equity firms are about to get involved. Imagine Alabama having a $1b line of credit for NIL funds in exchange for a % of profits. They already own parts of multiple sports teams. Now the pga tour. College football is a bigger pie to own.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think NIL is good for the kids. It allows kids to stay in school, enjoy the experience and not be forced to make a poor decision about turning pro too quickly.

I think the transfer portal is bad.

 

[-OZ-]

I'm all for athletes being able to earn as much $ as they can however they can. The athletes are not to blame for any of the current landscape, they're taking advantage of a system that they're in.

But every school has an NIL collective, and it's funded by the fans and the boosters of the school, which is bass-ackwards. The institution(s) profiting off the Name, Image, and Likeness of the players need to foot the bill. Crowdsourcing bribe money to offer $ to recruits while you offer $ to your existing players to not transfer while also offering $ to players in the transfer portal is just utter madness. It's collegiate wide free agency every single year, and it's unsustainable.

This is one of the times where the people who care the most are footing the bill, while the college gets to carry on without paying the players their boosters want.
Sure, the players help the college, but all the college would do is pass the cost on to the fans.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I'm all for athletes being able to earn as much $ as they can however they can. The athletes are not to blame for any of the current landscape, they're taking advantage of a system that they're in.

But every school has an NIL collective, and it's funded by the fans and the boosters of the school, which is bass-ackwards. The institution(s) profiting off the Name, Image, and Likeness of the players need to foot the bill. Crowdsourcing bribe money to offer $ to recruits while you offer $ to your existing players to not transfer while also offering $ to players in the transfer portal is just utter madness. It's collegiate wide free agency every single year, and it's unsustainable.

It also doesn't pay off as much as boosters wish to think. UVA is #12 in booster dollars to athletics. They crush in non-revenue sports, but in football they are generally terrible. And football is what pays off. Not baseball, lacrosse, and swimming. Texas A&M is #2 and their ROI is pretty low. Other than equestrian have they won anything in the last 25 years? They got about $900 million at A&M for nada.

 

[wlwiles]

I'm all for athletes being able to earn as much $ as they can however they can. The athletes are not to blame for any of the current landscape, they're taking advantage of a system that they're in.

But every school has an NIL collective, and it's funded by the fans and the boosters of the school, which is bass-ackwards. The institution(s) profiting off the Name, Image, and Likeness of the players need to foot the bill. Crowdsourcing bribe money to offer $ to recruits while you offer $ to your existing players to not transfer while also offering $ to players in the transfer portal is just utter madness. It's collegiate wide free agency every single year, and it's unsustainable.

The very few cases of institutions which profit from college sports, only profit because of fans and boosters. If the institution had to fund it themselves there would be no college football programs.

Even given contributions from fans and boosters, something like 80% of institutions do no better than break even on sports. The median net from 2019 is -$18.8M/year. Now with that booster money getting sucked into NIL collectives, it's going to get even worse for the non-Alabamas of the world.

When i say "institutions" I don't mean exclusively the universities. Yes they're a part of it, but the NCAA, the college bowl games, the March Madness folks, CBS/TNT/TruTV, the men's College World Series, the women's College World Series, ESPN/Disney, ABC, SEC Network, Longhorn Network, Big10 Network, ACC Network, NCAA football video games/whatever company makes that game, etc are all institutions that profit off the players. There are billions of dollars being passed back and forth in TV deals and exclusive rights to games and hosting giant tournaments and ad revenue for TV and lining the pockets of bowl game CEOs etc. etc.

Maybe I'm an idiot or being naive or obtuse but this seems so simple to me. NIL is supposed to compensate players for their name, image, and likeness. People/institutions are profiting off of using the players' NIL. Those that are profiting owe the players for using their NIL so that they can make that profit. The average fan like you or me does not gain anything or profit in any way from a player's NIL, but we're being asked to fund it.

 

[-OZ-]

The average fan like you or me does not gain anything or profit in any way from a player's NIL, but we're being asked to fund it.

Yet, we don’t need to fund anything here. You can choose to.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Why can't NIL be calculated afterward, based on the actual cost of licensing name, image and likeness? As in, do the actual accounting to see what the value was for that player, then pay them the value calculated?

That way it becomes something other than a signing bonus, and players still get compensated for their actual NIL contributions.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Why can't NIL be calculated afterward, based on the actual cost of licensing name, image and likeness? As in, do the actual accounting to see what the value was for that player, then pay them the value calculated?

That way it becomes something other than a signing bonus, and players still get compensated for their actual NIL contributions.

Most NIL deals don't really have a tangible value. If an athlete becomes a social media brand ambassador for a burger joint on campus, what calculations are you doing there?

 

[massraider]

As in, do the actual accounting to see what the value was for that player, then pay them the value calculated?

Who is doing the accounting, and who is paying the money? The collectives?

The collectives are set up with boosters and the schools, but they aren't the final word. Arch Manning got whatever he arranged from the UT collective, and I am quite sure made his own deals as well. The collectives are the main source of NIL money for most players, but these kids can go and hustle for whatever sponsor they can get.

The collectives can account for their money, but they have no say over all the money athletes have access to.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Federal judge enjoins enforcement of all current NCAA NIL rules. This is the case brought by the AG’s of Tennessee and Virginia against the NCAA. A preliminary injunction ruling like this normally means the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail absent extraordinary circumstances. The parties had delayed this ruling for a couple of months signaling a settlement but the judge just stepped in and more or less ended the discussion.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2024/pr25-18.pdf

 

[rockaction]

The ghosts of the uncompensated are dancing on the NCAA's grave right now.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The ghosts of the uncompensated are dancing on the NCAA's grave right now.

Terrelle Pryor's tattoos and Reggie Bush's Heisman ...