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

[ScriptOhio]

Issue of "fairness" aside, I think this will be the end of college sports as we know them.

Athletes free to make money off likeness does not equal paid salary from school. No.

cincibuck is right, recruiting will just be a "bidding war". Highest bid will sign the recruits.

School A: Come here and you'll get $100K in t-shirt sales.

School B: No come here and you'll get $150K in t-shirt sales.

School C: Come to school C and you'll get $200K in t-shirt sales.

The schools won't have to pay anything. The wealthy fans/boosters and shoe/jersey companies will guarantee/underwrite the t-shirt sales too. It wouldn't surprise me to see some "fat cat" supporter of a school set up a charity like "clothes for third world poor kids"; have the charity buy the t-shirts, ship them to a 3rd world country for distribution, and write the expense of the shirts off on his taxes, i. e. he gets a tax write off for the money he spent to get the recruit to come to the school of his choice.

 

[colobuck79]

Oregon isn't governed by California law.

Well, duh, I was extrapolating this to the entire country, which is where this seems to be headed. There aren't any billionaires in California right? Right?

 

[buchtelgrad04]

Why does everybody automatically assume boosters will be allowed to roam free? There’s already rules in place to make boosters off limits. Why would that change?

Every time this topic comes up, people make all kinds of outrageous claims that are driven solely by the fear of having their entertainment disturbed.

Nobody knows how this will play out, but have made all types of illogical assumptions.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

cincibuck is right, recruiting will just be a "bidding war". Highest bid will sign the recruits.

School A: Come here and you'll get $100K in t-shirt sales.

School B: No come here and you'll get $150K in t-shirt sales.

School C: Come to school C and you'll get $200K in t-shirt sales.

The schools won't have to pay anything. The wealthy fans/boosters and shoe/jersey companies will guarantee/underwrite the t-shirt sales too. It wouldn't surprise me to see some "fat cat" supporter of a school set up a charity like "clothes for third world poor kids"; have the charity buy the t-shirts, ship them to a 3rd world country for distribution, and write the expense of the shirts off on his taxes, i. e. he gets a tax write off for the money he spent to get the recruit to come to the school of his choice.

Eh, any fat cats would be better to pay them as spokespeople --- business expenses are better than charitable donations.

 

[Jaxbuck]

What's to keep a billionaire (Phil Knight, eg) from giving $100k each to incoming recruits to do adds for local donut shops, pawn shops, liquor stores, convenience stores, etc.?

Theoretically, nothing.

That's my point about letting the free market play out for a bit to see how things shake out. There is a certain point of reality where ROI is going to come into play. None of us know where that will fall.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Why does everybody automatically assume boosters will be allowed to roam free? There’s already rules in place to make boosters off limits. Why would that change?

Every time this topic comes up, people make all kinds of outrageous claims that are driven solely by the fear of having their entertainment disturbed.

Nobody knows how this will play out, but have made all types of illogical assumptions.

And there has been absolutely no booster "illegal activity" at any school since these NCAA booster "off limit rules" have been in place, right?

 

[buchtelgrad04]

And there has been absolutely no booster "illegal activity" at any school since these NCAA booster "off limit rules" have been in place, right?

There is no full scale “bidding war” like you assumed. Your imagination ran wild.

Are there people getting money to go certain places? Sure, but why are you so confident rules will allow bidding wars?

 

[Best Buckeye]

Most colleges, if not all, want all their students to be students and not pro players in college. I think it would be very hard to police any type of payments made for any purpose in regards to players themselves. For example if players were allowed to charge for their autograph there is no way to be aware if a "booster" were to pay $10,000. for an autograph.
In my mind if a player receives payment for anything other than NCAA allowances he is considered a "pro" and not eligible to play any college sport. Or if a player obtains agent even.
Cinci was spot on.
So I am against payments to players not allowed by the NCAA. There is already a disparity on what colleges say they are allowed to assist their players/prospective recruits .

 

[ScriptOhio]

Kentucky has ‘Fair Pay to Play’ legislation in the works

They’re coming so fast and furious that it’s becoming almost impossible to keep up.

It’s been one day since California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the landmark Fair Pay to Play Act into law, state lawmakers from Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota and now Kentucky have announced plays to write copycat bills in their respective states.

Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Kentucky joined the fray today. Kentucky Sports Radio‘s Matt Jones reports that “a Kentucky stat legislator” is working on a bill similar to California’s, though Jones does not name the legislator.
Looks like it is happening quickly...


Again, news that a single legislator is cooking up a bill is a long, long way from that bill becoming law and that law surviving an inevitable court challenge from the NCAA.

But it is a sign that the NCAA’s defenses are weakening.

Seriously, try to imagine the NCAA giving Kentucky the boot and then asking CBS and TNT to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to televise an NCAA Tournament that does not include Kentucky or Louisville.

Entire article: https://collegefootballtalk.nbcspor...as-fair-pay-to-play-legislation-in-the-works/

I'm guessing that John Calipari is against this "pay for play" legislation as he probably doesn't want a "level playing field".

 

[Jaxbuck]

There is no full scale “bidding war” like you assumed. Your imagination ran wild.

Are there people getting money to go certain places? Sure, but why are you so confident rules will allow bidding wars?

I think the bidding war from boosters thing makes sense at a very superficial level but here is the real world rub;

If superbooster says to a local business give high school kid Johhny Gun 100K to endorse your mattress store;

Said business owner now has two choices

1. Use his own money and write it off. Real world, there has to be some actual value in it for him/her or it isn't going to happen.
2. Take money from booster to give to spokesperson. Real world, you just created a taxable event and all the fun that comes with that or issues that arise from trying to conceal that.

Thus my point about real world businesses, taxes and profit doing an ice bucket challenge on a lot of these notions we get about the endorsement market going berserk.

Once you make a prohibited item legal it removes the black market for it and lowers the price.

 

[scarletmike]

I wonder if there might be a way to limit this to purely school/NCAA-related likeness usage. Write a narrow rule allowing players (of any sport) to profit off of their usage in marketing materials/promos/etc. from the school/conference/NCAA media partners. This allows our favorite video game(s) to come back, tries to keep the lid on general usage and the fears of "bidding wars," and addresses the main grievance (at least IMO) from the athletes that the school/NCAA/partners are profiting off their backs while receiving none of those benefits (not that I necessarily agree with that view, but that's a different conversation about the worth of the "education"). I can't imagine it would have that huge of an impact on the payouts that schools/conferences receive, but the impact in the locker room would be up for question, since the 3rd stringers and even probably half of the 1st stringers hardly see airtime in a way that would give them any payout.

 

[zincfinger]

Why does everybody automatically assume boosters will be allowed to roam free? There’s already rules in place to make boosters off limits. Why would that change?

Every time this topic comes up, people make all kinds of outrageous claims that are driven solely by the fear of having their entertainment disturbed.

Nobody knows how this will play out, but have made all types of illogical assumptions.

I have no idea what distinction you are making between a "booster", and a company paying a player for an endorsement, or to use his name or image for business. Is it that "boosters" pay players for nothing, whereas companies pay players for legitimate business purposes?

 

[Jaxbuck]

I wonder if there might be a way to limit this to purely school/NCAA-related likeness usage. Write a narrow rule allowing players (of any sport) to profit off of their usage in marketing materials/promos/etc. from the school/conference/NCAA media partners. This allows our favorite video game(s) to come back, tries to keep the lid on general usage and the fears of "bidding wars," and addresses the main grievance (at least IMO) from the athletes that the school/NCAA/partners are profiting off their backs while receiving none of those benefits (not that I necessarily agree with that view, but that's a different conversation about the worth of the "education"). I can't imagine it would have that huge of an impact on the payouts that schools/conferences receive, but the impact in the locker room would be up for question, since the 3rd stringers and even probably half of the 1st stringers hardly see airtime in a way that would give them any payout.

The problem with that is that it doesn't allow the golf or equestrian prodigy the ability to make money off their own endorsements for clubs/saddles (as an example).

So, if I am understanding this law correctly, it is to help the student athlete and it is for all athletes not just football?

I wouldn't think it in the spirit of the law to limit what that Olympic sport athlete could do with his/her own likeness.

Just off the top of my head

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I have no idea what distinction you are making between a "booster", and a company paying a player for an endorsement, or to use his name or image for business. Is it that "boosters" pay players for nothing, whereas companies pay players for legitimate business purposes?

There are ncaa rules regarding boosters (people who give money to schools)

The biggest problem won’t be with boosters, it’ll be with people who don’t fit the ncaa definition of booster

 

[Dryden]

What's to keep a billionaire (Phil Knight, eg) from giving $100k each to incoming recruits to do adds for local donut shops, pawn shops, liquor stores, convenience stores, etc.?

Honestly, I'm less concerned about east & west coast entrepreneurs getting involved than I am old Big-8/SWC oil tycoons. The coastal elites have been cheating for decades and are still so incompetent they can't buy UCLA a basketball title (and you only have to pay five guys). Old-money oil guys like T Boone Pickens (RIP) or Jerry Jones paying guys to go to Oklahoma St and Arkansas?

Frankly, I'm surprised Texas didn't think of this first.