From The AP:
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon.
Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics:
Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter?
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA.
Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from?
A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress "those are resources and revenues that don't exist." Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through "talent fees," concession price hikes and "athletic fees" added to tuition costs.
Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes?
A: Scholarships and "cost of attendance" have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won.
Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now?
A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game.
Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes?
A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools fight to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes.
Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all?
A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate "market value" for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states.
Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed?
A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness).
Q: Who will get most of the money?
A: Because football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well.
Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes?
A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players — not just a portion — eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit.
Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right?
A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits, but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
Gonna be a big mess.. but will be interesting to see how things shake out. There are a number of angles, but one I'm interested in is the structure of arrangements... as to timing of payments and related services... can I, as a school, structure deals such that there is a fairly hefty retention bonus built it.. e.g., for college basketball, x% of your 2025-26 payments are subject to you not entering the transfer portal during the notification window... similar things are happening today with brokered deals... where funds are dangled in front of athletes.. and when they stay, boom,... big pay day.
I also want to create a company that makes it easy for fans to 'tip' players... e.g., Damarius goes off for 28 points and a crazy dunk en route to us beating UCONN.. and I'm several beers deep and want to 'thank him'.. I can, with a few clicks on my phone or computer, send him $100 for his efforts.... well, $100, less what my company takes for setting up this 'marketplace'.
At least they have finally figured everything out.
I also presume that somewhere in this ruling that the law of Unintended Consequences was repealed.
That law is universal and eternal.
I question how this impacts schools like MU that don't have the financial resources of the larger state schools in the SEC and Big 10 that capitalize on larger alumni bases and football revenue. It will be a shame if the smaller private schools end up getting boxed out from getting and retaining the higher profile players. I like the notion of multi-year contractual arrangements with players to curtail all the transferring that's going on.
College sports won't be the same for a number of reasons. I suspect one change will be that fans will be quicker to single out players for criticism. The fact that they are only college kids 18-23 will be outweighed by the fact that the players are professionals and many will be making more than most folks in the stands. Players that age in the NBA have certainly been subject to criticism.
MU fans never criticize players.
Quote from: tower912 on June 08, 2025, 05:54:35 PMMU fans never criticize players.
I only started doing so when they put the last names on the jerseys.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 08, 2025, 06:05:24 PMI only started doing so when they put the last names on the jerseys.
I started doing that when NIL became a thing. A free education used to be worth something. Now they can get paid to entertain me? Unbelievable.
Quote from: Superfan on June 08, 2025, 05:24:40 PMI question how this impacts schools like MU that don't have the financial resources of the larger state schools in the SEC and Big 10 that capitalize on larger alumni bases and football revenue. It will be a shame if the smaller private schools end up getting boxed out from getting and retaining the higher profile players. I like the notion of multi-year contractual arrangements with players to curtail all the transferring that's going on.
Good news is the small private schools don't have to pay 105 football players before they get to their basketball roster.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 08, 2025, 06:46:55 PMGood news is the small private schools don't have to pay 105 football players before they get to their basketball roster.
A CBS Sports article named the Big East a "Winner" in this due to that very reason. FWIW.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on June 08, 2025, 05:36:22 PMCollege sports won't be the same for a number of reasons. I suspect one change will be that fans will be quicker to single out players for criticism. The fact that they are only college kids 18-23 will be outweighed by the fact that the players are professionals and many will be making more than most folks in the stands. Players that age in the NBA have certainly been subject to criticism.
So Scoop game threads will get even more toxic? Now "fans" like joyless willie will be calling hard-working, team-oriented, defensive standouts "
overpaid piles of dung"?
Will there be academic requirements?
Quote from: MU82 on June 08, 2025, 07:06:41 PMSo Scoop game threads will get even more toxic? Now "fans" like joyless willie will be calling hard-working, team-oriented, defensive standouts "overpaid piles of dung"?
I think that's right. Think GB Packer fans reactions to Estus Hood and Dan Devine's dog.
Two big aspects:
1. Colleges can't afford this. Most are barely breaking even, and college sports are already a significant net loss. There isn't just an extra $20M lying around.
2. This will be a bigger deal for small private schools, that can't transfer that much extra expense on a smaller student base.
3. State schools will transfer tax payer dollars to schools to offset the cost, putting them at even a bigger net advantage.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 07, 2025, 10:33:57 AMI also want to create a company that makes it easy for fans to 'tip' players... e.g., Damarius goes off for 28 points and a crazy dunk en route to us beating UCONN.. and I'm several beers deep and want to 'thank him'.. I can, with a few clicks on my phone or computer, send him $100 for his efforts.... well, $100, less what my company takes for setting up this 'marketplace'.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyMXNydmo3YzM1aGYyd2x3cjZ4eTUwYnp3MHJ0MTRpbmV4c3JlbnB2OCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3oKIPa2TdahY8LAAxy/source.gif)
Is this the death of the NCAA and the birth of the College Sports Commission?
I think there are still too many unknowns to say anything definitively. It feels like the big conferences are still just winging it at this point.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 07, 2025, 10:33:57 AMI also want to create a company that makes it easy for fans to 'tip' players... e.g., Damarius goes off for 28 points and a crazy dunk en route to us beating UCONN.. and I'm several beers deep and want to 'thank him'.. I can, with a few clicks on my phone or computer, send him $100 for his efforts.... well, $100, less what my company takes for setting up this 'marketplace'.
Gotta make them employees first. That way the first 25k is tax free if its cash.
Quote from: forgetful on June 09, 2025, 08:41:51 AMTwo big aspects:
1. Colleges can't afford this. Most are barely breaking even, and college sports are already a significant net loss. There isn't just an extra $20M lying around.
2. This will be a bigger deal for small private schools, that can't transfer that much extra expense on a smaller student base.
3. State schools will transfer tax payer dollars to schools to offset the cost, putting them at even a bigger net advantage.
I think the key is that schools will pay "up to about $20.5 million". The Power 6 will hit the cap. The smaller schools will pay what they can, and will be able to lure lesser talent. Just like before.
I listened to this podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ncaas-corporate-makeover/id1762692129?i=1000711976337) by John Ourand today about the changing role of the athletic director in a post-House world. The long and short of it is that you are likely going to see more movement from the professional sports world to the college one because of the resource allocation issues involved. Makes me wonder if MU had run its AD search a couple years later if they would make the same decision.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 09, 2025, 03:15:58 PMI listened to this podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ncaas-corporate-makeover/id1762692129?i=1000711976337) by John Ourand today about the changing role of the athletic director in a post-House world. The long and short of it is that you are likely going to see more movement from the professional sports world to the college one because of the resource allocation issues involved. Makes me wonder if MU had run its AD search a couple years later if they would make the same decision.
I think they were well aware of what the landscape was likely to be when they made the hire.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 09, 2025, 03:38:50 PMI think they were well aware of what the landscape was likely to be when they made the hire.
Hmmm...
Quote from: BrewCity83 on June 09, 2025, 02:37:47 PMI think the key is that schools will pay "up to about $20.5 million". The Power 6 will hit the cap. The smaller schools will pay what they can, and will be able to lure lesser talent. Just like before.
Nova was loaded under Jay and there are a lot of schools with larger alumni bases than Nova so I am not sure what you mean by smaller schools.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on June 09, 2025, 02:37:47 PMI think the key is that schools will pay "up to about $20.5 million". The Power 6 will hit the cap. The smaller schools will pay what they can, and will be able to lure lesser talent. Just like before.
It's also going to reinvigorate cheating in college basketball, because there are P4 schools that will allocate the majority of their money to football and be left with less in the legal coffers than Big East programs can spend. If football gets 75% of the pie, that only leaves $5M (at most) for MBB, and someone like Repole could just say to St. John's "here's $10M for MBB." Do we really think that SEC coaches, many of whom have been pros at the cheating game for decades, are suddenly going to throw up their hands and say "oh well, it's the Big East, what can you do?"
This coupled with the rumors/stories about private equity getting involved, I have a feeling anyone who thought this whole process was about to get cleaned up will be sorely disappointed.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on June 09, 2025, 10:43:19 AM(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyMXNydmo3YzM1aGYyd2x3cjZ4eTUwYnp3MHJ0MTRpbmV4c3JlbnB2OCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3oKIPa2TdahY8LAAxy/source.gif)
Why hasn't this been created for existing pro athletes? If it existed do you think it would be successful?
Quote from: THRILLHO on June 10, 2025, 07:36:43 AMWhy hasn't this been created for existing pro athletes? If it existed do you think it would be successful?
Many of these things already exist, just need a major celebrity to use them.
https://tiptopjar.com/
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 10, 2025, 06:48:37 AMIt's also going to reinvigorate cheating in college basketball, because there are P4 schools that will allocate the majority of their money to football and be left with less in the legal coffers than Big East programs can spend. If football gets 75% of the pie, that only leaves $5M (at most) for MBB, and someone like Repole could just say to St. John's "here's $10M for MBB." Do we really think that SEC coaches, many of whom have been pros at the cheating game for decades, are suddenly going to throw up their hands and say "oh well, it's the Big East, what can you do?"
This coupled with the rumors/stories about private equity getting involved, I have a feeling anyone who thought this whole process was about to get cleaned up will be sorely disappointed.
You maybe onto something here. Besides the SEC, I can't imagine Kansas, Michigan, Arizona and the like being content with a level playing field. It's not "
If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying", it is more like "
If you ain't cheating, you are fired."
Quote from: WhiteTrash on June 10, 2025, 08:54:50 AMYou maybe onto something here. Besides the SEC, I can't imagine Kansas, Michigan, Arizona and the like being content with a level playing field. It's not "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying", it is more like "If you ain't cheating, you are fired."
Good. The sport is more fun when there is cheating.
I don't think all of the discussion really matters. At the end of the day, this is still an attempt by the power conferences to control how much players can earn.
Two years at most until the terms (and limitations) of this settlement are challenged in court.
Good work if you can get it ...
The attorneys who shepherded the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in over $475 million in plaintiff legal fees, and that figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. (From Yahoo Sports)
Quote from: Jockey on June 10, 2025, 10:50:38 AMI don't think all of the discussion really matters. At the end of the day, this is still an attempt by the power conferences to control how much players can earn.
Two years at most until the terms (and limitations) of this settlement are challenged in court.
Not if they are codified into federal law with an antitrust exemption, which I see as the most likely outcome here. It looks like there are going to be some compromises as well to make it more bipartisan in nature.
Quote from: THRILLHO on June 10, 2025, 07:36:43 AMWhy hasn't this been created for existing pro athletes? If it existed do you think it would be successful?
I think sending $10 Ben Gold's way is a little more impactful than sending $10 to Pat Connaughton. But either way money is money.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 10, 2025, 06:48:37 AMIt's also going to reinvigorate cheating in college basketball, because there are P4 schools that will allocate the majority of their money to football and be left with less in the legal coffers than Big East programs can spend. If football gets 75% of the pie, that only leaves $5M (at most) for MBB, and someone like Repole could just say to St. John's "here's $10M for MBB." Do we really think that SEC coaches, many of whom have been pros at the cheating game for decades, are suddenly going to throw up their hands and say "oh well, it's the Big East, what can you do?"
This coupled with the rumors/stories about private equity getting involved, I have a feeling anyone who thought this whole process was about to get cleaned up will be sorely disappointed.
I don't think there's chance in the world that the Big East (or any other non-football conference) will wind up with a structural advantage in funding player acquisition going forward.
1. While football squads are larger, it's also harder for an individual player to make the case that they're a standout that deserves a large payout from the school. Sure, you might see outsized payouts for a handful of key players like a start QB or receiver, but you're not going to see 50 players suck up all school provided funding because it's a large team. At the same time, you don't need to pay 15 basketball players multi-million contracts to have a good team--just like in the pros, you'll have 2-3 highly compensated stars, and a bunch of others getting the minimum.
2. The House money paid by the school is only one of three pillars of funding for athletes. From the Q*A posted: "Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes
and the collectives are still in the game."
That implies that while the BE teams may have equal size of school-provided funds, however the P4 schools with their larger alumni networks will still be able to tap into larger collective funds. And the P4 schools' greater visibility within their states and nationally (also coupled with larger alumni networks) will drive more third-party sponsorship deals for their athletes. At the end of the day, the BE (nor any other non-football conference) will likely not have a sizeable financial advantage for their basketball programs.
3. The P4 are not going to enter into a suicide pact for basketball, and characterizing their efforts to create an even playing field with the Big East (and other basketball-only conferences) is not "cheating." The P4 are creating a new entity not only for themselves, but for anyone that wants to play them to adhere to a common set of rules--specifically to prevent the teams from the Big East and others from buying their way to a structural advantage in basketball.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 10, 2025, 11:11:58 AMNot if they are codified into federal law with an antitrust exemption, which I see as the most likely outcome here. It looks like there are going to be some compromises as well to make it more bipartisan in nature.
I have reservations if that will ever happen. This is a power move by the B10 & SEC, so it may be hard to get enough Senators on board for legislation that is mainly just for Power conferences.
This is where the unintended consequences may rear its head. Even if the power conferences get their wish, it gives the govt a cudgel to step in and threaten them if they try to make new rules.
Quote from: Jockey on June 10, 2025, 11:43:20 AMI have reservations if that will ever happen. This is a power move by the B10 & SEC, so it may be hard to get enough Senators on board for legislation that is mainly just for Power conferences.
This is where the unintended consequences may rear its head. Even if the power conferences get their wish, it gives the govt a cudgel to step in and threaten them if they try to make new rules.
The legistation empowers the NCAA and whatever that new body is called to make the rules.
What does this mean then for schools who have long been completely hamstrung by high academic standards and therefore missing out on the state's best recruits like UW was?
Quote from: The Sultan on June 10, 2025, 11:58:27 AMThe legistation empowers the NCAA and whatever that new body is called to make the rules.
Yes. And sooner or later, those rules will be challenged in court for one of a myriad of reasons.
Quote from: Jockey on June 10, 2025, 02:02:53 PMYes. And sooner or later, those rules will be challenged in court for one of a myriad of reasons.
You should probably read up on the proposed legislation a little more instead of simply guessing.
Quote from: The Equalizer on June 10, 2025, 11:31:19 AMThe House money paid by the school is only one of three pillars of funding for athletes. From the Q*A posted: "Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game."
That implies that while the BE teams may have equal size of school-provided funds, however the P4 schools with their larger alumni networks will still be able to tap into larger collective funds.
This is the key IMHO. If NIL continues to be unregulated, will anything else matter much in the competitive-balance realm?
Our collective is supposedly doing A-OK under current rules (or lack thereof), but won't it always be dwarfed by those supporting lots and lots and lots of P4 schools?
Quote from: MU82 on June 10, 2025, 02:23:21 PMThis is the key IMHO. If NIL continues to be unregulated, will anything else matter much in the competitive-balance realm?
Our collective is supposedly doing A-OK under current rules (or lack thereof), but won't it always be dwarfed by those supporting lots and lots and lots of P4 schools?
Yes, assuming the wealthy donors keep ponying up money. Imagine dropping a couple of million on a player or two for your 'team' and they slide into the tournament as a 9 seed and get smoked. That same guy dropping the money may think twice about doing it again.
Look no further than Rutgers. They're going to have two draft picks probably in the top 5, and they managed to go 15-17. Great waste of money, even if it's just pocket change for some rich prick.
Quote from: MU82 on June 10, 2025, 02:23:21 PMThis is the key IMHO. If NIL continues to be unregulated, will anything else matter much in the competitive-balance realm?
Our collective is supposedly doing A-OK under current rules (or lack thereof), but won't it always be dwarfed by those supporting lots and lots and lots of P4 schools?
The proposed federal legislation includes some items that will limit the collectives
**Schools pay athletes directly. They will not be considered employees. There will be a cap in place that will be adjusted annually.
**NIL deals of $600 or more must be reported by the student athlete. They will be vetted to determine if they are legitimate, and not just used for recruiting. State NIL rules would be preempted by this legislation.
**The NCAA and/or the new College Sports Commission would be responsible for setting rules and punishments for schools that violate them. The NCAA and CSC would be granted antitrust exemption.
**Talk that schools must provide health care for student athletes related to their sport for up to two years after their eligibility ends.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 10, 2025, 02:45:04 PMThe proposed federal legislation includes some items that will limit the collectives
**Schools pay athletes directly. They will not be considered employees. There will be a cap in place that will be adjusted annually.
**NIL deals of $600 or more must be reported by the student athlete. They will be vetted to determine if they are legitimate, and not just used for recruiting. State NIL rules would be preempted by this legislation.
**The NCAA and/or the new College Sports Commission would be responsible for setting rules and punishments for schools that violate them. The NCAA and CSC would be granted antitrust exemption.
**Talk that schools must provide health care for student athletes related to their sport for up to two years after their eligibility ends.
Helpful but let's just wait for JayBee tell us all the things schools can't do but do anyway.
Quote from: Shaka Shart on June 10, 2025, 02:01:21 PMWhat does this mean then for schools who have long been completely hamstrung by high academic standards and therefore missing out on the state's best recruits like UW was?
IMO enrollment of the players will be optional. Not sure you can prevent someone from earning money playing basketball if they can't score a 20 ACT, just like you can't prevent someone from getting a chemistry scholarship if they can't dribble a basketball. I could be wrong, but pro sports doesn't require any certain academic qualification.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 10, 2025, 02:45:04 PMThe proposed federal legislation includes some items that will limit the collectives
**Schools pay athletes directly. They will not be considered employees. There will be a cap in place that will be adjusted annually.
**NIL deals of $600 or more must be reported by the student athlete. They will be vetted to determine if they are legitimate, and not just used for recruiting. State NIL rules would be preempted by this legislation.
**The NCAA and/or the new College Sports Commission would be responsible for setting rules and punishments for schools that violate them. The NCAA and CSC would be granted antitrust exemption.
**Talk that schools must provide health care for student athletes related to their sport for up to two years after their eligibility ends.
Interesting. Thanks for providing this quick look at the legislation re NIL.
Just remember: If, and when, Congress passes legislation on this, it is temporary until lawsuits occur and courts become the arbiter, or until there is new legislation.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 10, 2025, 02:45:04 PMThe proposed federal legislation includes some items that will limit the collectives
**Schools pay athletes directly. They will not be considered employees. There will be a cap in place that will be adjusted annually.
**NIL deals of $600 or more must be reported by the student athlete. They will be vetted to determine if they are legitimate, and not just used for recruiting. State NIL rules would be preempted by this legislation.
**The NCAA and/or the new College Sports Commission would be responsible for setting rules and punishments for schools that violate them. The NCAA and CSC would be granted antitrust exemption.
**Talk that schools must provide health care for student athletes related to their sport for up to two years after their eligibility end
.
Really feels like this will be challenged in court. Consider Nijaree Canady at Texas Tech. The clearinghouse would likely invalidate her $1M deal while JT Toppin is reportedly getting four times that. There will be suits over what market value is and discrimination cases when a male athlete at the same school can make $4M while a $1M is invalidated. The $600 cap is also a problem. Just set up an autograph signing and label it as $599 apiece. 100 autographs later and you've basically got $60k without going over the cap.
But of course, it'll really just lead back to cheating. As soon as schools run into the cap, it'll be back to the hotel room with a duffel bag of cash.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 10, 2025, 05:21:35 PMReally feels like this will be challenged in court. Consider Nijaree Canady at Texas Tech. The clearinghouse would likely invalidate her $1M deal while JT Toppin is reportedly getting four times that. There will be suits over what market value is and discrimination cases when a male athlete at the same school can make $4M while a $1M is invalidated. The $600 cap is also a problem. Just set up an autograph signing and label it as $599 apiece. 100 autographs later and you've basically got $60k without going over the cap.
But of course, it'll really just lead back to cheating. As soon as schools run into the cap, it'll be back to the hotel room with a duffel bag of cash.
As long as kids play for the name on the front of the jersey now like Don Kojis
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 10, 2025, 05:21:35 PMReally feels like this will be challenged in court. Consider Nijaree Canady at Texas Tech. The clearinghouse would likely invalidate her $1M deal while JT Toppin is reportedly getting four times that. There will be suits over what market value is and discrimination cases when a male athlete at the same school can make $4M while a $1M is invalidated. The $600 cap is also a problem. Just set up an autograph signing and label it as $599 apiece. 100 autographs later and you've basically got $60k without going over the cap.
But of course, it'll really just lead back to cheating. As soon as schools run into the cap, it'll be back to the hotel room with a duffel bag of cash.
I am sure there will be lawsuits no doubt. However the problem is that with a lot of this codified into law, including the anti-trust exemption, there are less avenues for a defendant to win. For instance, if SA's aren't employees, discrimination based on gender becomes a lot more problematic. While I have not seen the actually law as written, my guess is that they have carved out a Title IX exemption as well.
But yes, this is going to make cheating more prevalent because this is forcing schools to underpay for student athletics in relation to the demand for their services. You can't fight economics - it always wins.
Here is The Athletic's take on new NIL rules ...
That brings us to today, when that new review system, called NIL Go, launches. NIL Go is overseen by the CSC and managed by the accounting firm Deloitte.
NIL Go is the most pivotal — and persnickety — element of this entire new universe: Athletes must self-report into the NIL Go system any third-party NIL deal worth $600 or more for review. (As my colleague Stewart Mandel pointed out: "Which, in the major sports, is pretty much all of them.")
Deals that don't meet a hazy "fair-market value" criteria will be flagged, rejected or sent to arbitration. (But wait: Isn't "market value"... what the market is willing to pay?)
One college football team's personnel director put it bluntly to my colleague Justin Williams:
"If you tell a booster or business owner they can't give a star player $2 million, there will be lawsuits. There's no enforcing this. Fair market value? F— Deloitte. This is going to get even crazier."
Mandel says every legal expert he has talked to thinks NIL Go won't survive a legal challenge. Williams predicts the return of the old-school college football "bag man."
Here's the upshot: The system goes live today, and Seeley, his CSC investigators and Deloitte can try to constrain the (ironically pretty efficient!) competitive forces that have always and will always dominate college sports.
Between revenue sharing and NIL ("Go" or no go), the biggest, most well-funded college programs will be spending $50 million or more — per year — on their programs (and that doesn't count ever-increasing coach or AD or GM salaries). The only limit is that there are no limits.
Judges can rule. Policies can change. Accounting firms can require a login. But Buddy Booster is going to find a way to get that recruit for their program.
Time for me to re-join the firm!
The lawsuits will come quick. They will come from players, universities, and conferences. Right now, there are no correct answers.
And if legislation is passed by Congress, there will be more lawsuits.
On the plus side, it will be great fun to watch.
The irony here is that the named plaintiff House in this case was a swimmer and the result of this settlement will likely gut non-revenue sports like swimming and track and eliminate thousands of roster spots for student-athletes.
Athletes need to be employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain on what the rules should be. The blueprint has been around for long, long time.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 10, 2025, 02:45:04 PM**NIL deals of $600 or more must be reported by the student athlete. They will be vetted to determine if they are legitimate, and not just used for recruiting. State NIL rules would be preempted by this legislation.
**The NCAA and/or the new College Sports Commission would be responsible for setting rules and punishments for schools that violate them. The NCAA and CSC would be granted antitrust exemption.
Phewf at least things are totally different now and we wont have any of the same pre-NIL investigation and enforcement problems!
Quote from: MUBurrow on June 11, 2025, 02:01:26 PMPhewf at least things are totally different now and we wont have any of the same pre-NIL investigation and enforcement problems!
Right? You'd think we would learn a lesson here, but I guess not...
Quote from: MUBurrow on June 11, 2025, 02:01:26 PMPhewf at least things are totally different now and we wont have any of the same pre-NIL investigation and enforcement problems!
Finally, Chico's other shoe will drop
Quote from: WhiteTrash on June 11, 2025, 11:17:31 AMAthletes need to be employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain on what the rules should be. The blueprint has been around for long, long time.
Athletes really wanted this, and they were constantly rebuffed. The way things have been the last few years, I doubt athletes would have wanted it - they could do better in a wild-wild-west system of no checks or balances.
Going forward, it's hard to tell if unionizing would be good or bad for them. But I'm guessing that "management" - after being dead-set against it for decades - would love the opportunity to collectively bargain over all this stuff rather than the alternative.
Quote from: MU82 on June 11, 2025, 04:01:33 PMAthletes really wanted this, and they were constantly rebuffed. The way things have been the last few years, I doubt athletes would have wanted it - they could do better in a wild-wild-west system of no checks or balances.
Going forward, it's hard to tell if unionizing would be good or bad for them. But I'm guessing that "management" - after being dead-set against it for decades - would love the opportunity to collectively bargain over all this stuff rather than the alternative.
That's doutbtful. The management is pretty much going to get most of what they want if this law is passed. They get a salary cap without any of the responsibilities that come with making them employees.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 11, 2025, 04:07:00 PMThat's doutbtful. The management is pretty much going to get most of what they want if this law is passed. They get a salary cap without any of the responsibilities that come with making them employees.
Maybe ... until the lawsuits start.
Interesting times.
If they become employees do they still have to take classes and/or take money (scholarships) for classes if they choose to do so?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 12, 2025, 09:15:54 AMIf they become employees do they still have to take classes and/or take money (scholarships) for classes if they choose to do so?
Yes. Just like regular ole student employees do.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 12, 2025, 09:15:54 AMIf they become employees do they still have to take classes and/or take money (scholarships) for classes if they choose to do so?
Hope not.
Quote from: PointWarrior on June 10, 2025, 02:53:48 PMHelpful but let's just wait for JayBee tell us all the things schools can't do but do anyway.
Seems like a tax nightmare for these kids. The 24% single tax bracket starts at $100,000. As they will be independent contractors they will have a 15.3% self employment tax. In addition they may have state income tax in each state they play a game in!
Quote from: The Sultan on June 12, 2025, 09:24:44 AMYes. Just like regular ole student employees do.
...but they could flunk their classes and still play ball because that is what they were hired to do.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 12, 2025, 03:56:06 PM...but they could flunk their classes and still play ball because that is what they were hired to do.
Regular ole student employees can flunk their classes and still do whatever their job entails because that's what they were hired to do.
Quote from: Marqevans on June 12, 2025, 03:15:35 PMSeems like a tax nightmare for these kids. The 24% single tax bracket starts at $100,000. As they will be independent contractors they will have a 15.3% self employment tax. In addition they may have state income tax in each state they play a game in!
Having to pay a success tax because you make too damn much money beats the hell out of not even being able to afford a pizza - which was the case for many college basketball players not all that long ago.
Female athletes have filed a suit claiming that the settlement violates Title ix and want their fair share (sources of revenues be damned).
Quote from: Nukem2 on June 12, 2025, 04:51:57 PMFemale athletes have filed a suit claiming that the settlement violates Title ix and want their fair share (sources of revenues be damned).
I've been told colleges have unlimited money.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 12, 2025, 04:00:57 PMRegular ole student employees can flunk their classes and still do whatever their job entails because that's what they were hired to do.
But those kids aren't entertaining me and my delusional belief about playing for the name on the front of the jersey
Quote from: Marqevans on June 12, 2025, 03:15:35 PMSeems like a tax nightmare for these kids. The 24% single tax bracket starts at $100,000. As they will be independent contractors they will have a 15.3% self employment tax. In addition they may have state income tax in each state they play a game in!
Yes. There will be massive tax violations.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 12, 2025, 10:01:01 PMYes. There will be massive tax violations.
That's not a crime anymore
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 13, 2025, 07:04:58 AMThat's not a crime anymore
Depends who's doing it, aina?
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 13, 2025, 08:50:16 AMDepends who's doing it, aina?
Correct. The Hausers would be safe. Theo John? Not so much
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-kentuckys-bold-move-shifting-to-llc-model-could-provide-blueprint-to-navigating-revenue-sharing-era/
Kentucky athletic Department now an LLC.
Quote from: Marqevans on June 12, 2025, 03:15:35 PMSeems like a tax nightmare for these kids. The 24% single tax bracket starts at $100,000. As they will be independent contractors they will have a 15.3% self employment tax. In addition they may have state income tax in each state they play a game in!
I'd hope that the athletic departments are giving the players some support on this front. e.g. "Set up account X, withhold amount Y, etc." Just tossing 17-22 year olds a big ole novelty check and hoping they don't get scooped up by the IRS is probably not gonna end up in a Best Practices case study.
Quote from: jficke13 on July 06, 2025, 08:58:37 PMI'd hope that the athletic departments are giving the players some support on this front. e.g. "Set up account X, withhold amount Y, etc." Just tossing 17-22 year olds a big ole novelty check and hoping they don't get scooped up by the IRS is probably not gonna end up in a Best Practices case study.
While I do hope they get good advice, a lot of them have agents and parents who can help them navigate this as well.
It's only a matter of time before "kids" are in major tax trouble
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 07, 2025, 05:11:47 AMIt's only a matter of time before "kids" are in major tax trouble
lol