• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL and Revenue Sharing)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Elite high school players getting the hook up for The Opening (Nike Football Camp/Training)


Br-IIS-CUAEIx4Q.jpg
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
1) I'm pretty sure the phrase "getting paid to play" refers to scholarship athletes receiving financial compensation in exchange for their participation in a sport. Which they do.
Click to expand...

TampaBuckeyes said:
They make 30k+ a year in assistance for their full time job. Is that not enough?
Click to expand...

I presume you're both speaking of scholarships; rather than actual monetary compensation?
I don't like the idea of monetary compensation... however, it's quite disingenuous to characterize exchange of a service as monetary compensation.
The actual value of that education is highly debatable. It almost certainly does not cost the University $30k -- or whatever their listed out-of-state tuition is -- to provide that service. Nor could you argue the value of the service is connected to a "fair market value" due to the nature of how government and Universities set these prices for their own benefits; to say nothing of whether the "fair market value" is really reflected by in-state or out-of-state prices.
If anything, I would argue the in-state tuition is probably closer to the actual outlay by the University. The rest is profit or put into activities unrelated to academic services.
Finally, the actual value of that service is often dubious at the level of football and basketball -- but especially football since the NFL effectively forces aspiring professionals into the NCAA scam. Many of these students don't have any use for the service. I mean, we can joke... but Cardale Jones' tweet hit the nail on the head. He's not at Ohio State to get an education; and that holds true for quite a few DIA athletes. Be it either because their goal is to pursue being a professional athlete, or because they weren't born with the mental faculties to complete a worthwhile degree in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
kujirakira said:
I presume you're both speaking of scholarships; rather than actual monetary compensation?
I don't like the idea of monetary compensation... however, it's quite disingenuous to characterize exchange of a service as monetary compensation.
The actual value of that education is highly debatable. It almost certainly does not cost the University $30k -- or whatever their listed out-of-state tuition is -- to provide that service. Nor could you argue the value of the service is connected to a "fair market value" due to the nature of how government and Universities set these prices for their own benefits; to say nothing of whether the "fair market value" is really reflected by in-state or out-of-state prices.
Click to expand...
I was referring to that, among other things, as I alluded to in a different thread here. We can debate whether I'm correct to consider non-cash compensation as pay, but I can assure you that I'm not being disingenuous. And I would note to you that non-cash compensation for work is considered income by the IRS. And yes, the value of that non-cash compensation, whether the compensation is services received or something else, is simply what people would ordinarily pay for it. Whether you happen to personally think the services are worth that much is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck said:
Not disputing that, but if this interpretation is correct and you provide more than $800 worth of service in lieu of cash remumeration, IRS would I assume want to see a 1099 issued.

This is all part of the gray economy. IRS calls a lot of stuff income that they could never know about.
Click to expand...

They would. I don't know a single person that would actually DO that, but that would be the proper action to take. :lol:
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
I was referring to that, among other things, as I alluded to in a different thread here. We can debate whether I'm correct to consider non-cash compensation as pay, but I can assure you that I'm not being disingenuous. And I would note to you that non-cash compensation for work is considered income by the IRS. And yes, the value of that non-cash compensation, whether the compensation is services received or something else, is simply what people would ordinarily pay for it. Whether you happen to personally think the services are worth that much is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's like debating whether dolphins swim. Compensation made via the delivery of a service can be considered 'income', but nobody mentioned 'income'.
All I'm seeing is an attempt to change the goal posts.

The fact is they don't receive financial compensation. They receive a service of often dubious worth which is not easy to assign a hard monetary value to.
 
Upvote 0
kujirakira said:
That's like debating whether dolphins swim. Compensation made via the delivery of a service can be considered 'income', but nobody mentioned 'income'.
All I'm seeing is an attempt to change the goal posts.

The fact is they don't receive financial compensation. They receive a service of often dubious worth which is not easy to assign a hard monetary value to.
Click to expand...
So, I guess the dolphin bit means you are saying it is obvious that scholarship football players are paid to play college football. You just don't like their payment being referred to as "financial compensation", a term you believe should only apply to cash payment, and never to non-cash, or "cash-equivalent" payment. Additionally, you think it is difficult to valuate the cash-equivalent payment.

I'll be happy to adopt your definition and say that scholarship football players typically receive a mixed income for playing football, a minority of which is cash compensation (a "stipend") and a majority of which is cash-equivalent compensation (of which the scholarship is only a part). And I agree with you that there is no objectively certain way to valuate the various forms of cash-equivalent payment they receive.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
So, I guess the dolphin bit means you are saying it is obvious that scholarship football players are paid to play college football. You just don't like their payment being referred to as "financial compensation", a term you believe should only apply to cash payment, and never to non-cash, or "cash-equivalent" payment. Additionally, you think it is difficult to valuate the cash-equivalent payment.

I'll be happy to adopt your definition and say that scholarship football players typically receive a mixed income for playing football, a minority of which is cash compensation (a "stipend") and a majority of which is cash-equivalent compensation (of which the scholarship is only a part). And I agree with you that there is no objectively certain way to valuate the various forms of cash-equivalent payment they receive.
Click to expand...

Are misdirects your only way of debating ?
It's not my definition either.
I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but that's not my problem.
 
Upvote 0
NCAA Loses O'Bannon Case

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, in a 99-page ruling in favor of a group of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, issued an injunction that will prevent the NCAA the "from enforcing any rules or bylaws that would prohibit its member schools and conferences from offering their FBS football or Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses in addition to a full grant-in-aid."​
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top