How Much Is NIL Worth To Student Athletes?

[The Sultan]

Remember when the NCAA threatened to ban schools from states that allowed this?
It took them all of seven months to go from "this will destroy college athletics" to "sounds good to me."

And how about this spin from the NCAA. 

Dan Wolken
@DanWolken
Mark Emmert with an all-timer: "Our efforts over the years to improve the student-athlete experience have often been met with increased litigation and challenges that significantly limit the NCAA's ability to address those needs and opportunities."


"Yeah we would have done this sooner had y'all not sued us."  Unreal.

[Uncle Rico]

Remember when the NCAA threatened to ban schools from states that allowed this?
It took them all of seven months to go from "this will destroy college athletics" to "sounds good to me."

Athletes have all the leverage.  They need to use it

[MU82]

Bumping to include results of latest Axios report:

If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sports-7edd9e63-8ebf-45cd-ae68-933f422ae1b1.html

Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.

[Uncle Rico]

Bumping to include results of latest Axios report:

If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sports-7edd9e63-8ebf-45cd-ae68-933f422ae1b1.html

Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.

Huh, how about that?

[JWags85]

Bumping to include results of latest Axios report:

If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sports-7edd9e63-8ebf-45cd-ae68-933f422ae1b1.html

Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.

I think there is some fuzzy math there. I think it's an interesting discussion and shows that NLI wouldn't "hurt" women athletes like some have argued.  But this is hardly the best metric.  Arguing that someone like Macio Teague or Isiah Livers would make less in potential revenue than the literal last player off the bench for Baylor's women's team, or Nunez from Michigan, purely off of IG followers is a bit silly.

[MU82]

I think there is some fuzzy math there. I think it's an interesting discussion and shows that NLI wouldn't "hurt" women athletes like some have argued.  But this is hardly the best metric.  Arguing that someone like Macio Teague or Isiah Livers would make less in potential revenue than the literal last player off the bench for Baylor's women's team, or Nunez from Michigan, purely off of IG followers is a bit silly.

Yeah, there's a lot of theoretical mumbo-jumbo going on, but I have no doubt that many female athletes would benefit from being able to use their NIL (while remaining eligible to compete in college) to make money as "influencers." There was another report last year hypothesizing that women gymnasts, volleyball players and others would be among the top NIL earners.

[Galway Eagle]

Yeah, there's a lot of theoretical mumbo-jumbo going on, but I have no doubt that many female athletes would benefit from being able to use their NIL (while remaining eligible to compete in college) to make money as "influencers." There was another report last year hypothesizing that women gymnasts, volleyball players and others would be among the top NIL earners.

For what it's worth I 100% can see Gymnasts be the biggest recipients... never underestimate the amount of creepy people on the internet that'll surplus people actual interested in the sport.

That being said, I think that once these players can start making virtual "train like DJ Carton" workouts or dunk videos, etc. then you'll see a much more accurate picture.

[MU82]

Supreme Court to hear arguments today.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/ncaa-college-athlete-compensation-case-comes-before-the-supreme-court.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20210331&instance_id=28678&nl=dealbook&regi_id=108420427&segment_id=54563&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa

The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear arguments from the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a case over whether the organization can cap education-related benefits paid to college athletes.

The case comes amid a broader debate over compensation for student athletes and in the middle of the NCAA's March Madness basketball tournament, which will hold its women's and men's championship games on Sunday and Monday. Some athletes playing in the games have sought to pressure the organization over its compensation policies, using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty.

The NCAA has fought to protect the "amateur" quality of its games for years, though it has gradually allowed larger payments to some athletes, including full cost of attendance scholarships since 2015. The NCAA is in the process of reforming its policies to allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, though the effort was delayed earlier this year amid Justice Department scrutiny.

The case is the first one related to the NCAA to make it to the country's highest court since the 1984 case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in which the justices struck down the organization's plan for televising football games.

[Herman Cain]

Supreme Court to hear arguments today.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/ncaa-college-athlete-compensation-case-comes-before-the-supreme-court.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20210331&instance_id=28678&nl=dealbook&regi_id=108420427&segment_id=54563&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa

The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear arguments from the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a case over whether the organization can cap education-related benefits paid to college athletes.

The case comes amid a broader debate over compensation for student athletes and in the middle of the NCAA's March Madness basketball tournament, which will hold its women's and men's championship games on Sunday and Monday. Some athletes playing in the games have sought to pressure the organization over its compensation policies, using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty.

The NCAA has fought to protect the "amateur" quality of its games for years, though it has gradually allowed larger payments to some athletes, including full cost of attendance scholarships since 2015. The NCAA is in the process of reforming its policies to allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, though the effort was delayed earlier this year amid Justice Department scrutiny.

The case is the first one related to the NCAA to make it to the country's highest court since the 1984 case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in which the justices struck down the organization's plan for televising football games.

The case is being styled as an Anti Trust type issue. The NCAA will lose and amateurism will go by the way side. Schools will be able to pay players and Players will be able to generate revenues off their likeness and off campus services. It will be an open market and many different payment mechanisms will evolve.

[MU82]

The case is being styled as an Anti Trust type issue. The NCAA will lose and amateurism will go by the way side. Schools will be able to pay players and Players will be able to generate revenues off their likeness and off campus services. It will be an open market and many different payment mechanisms will evolve.

We'll see. Capitalists and those who value freedom -- like you and me -- should be all for that.

[MU82]

Four states -- Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and New Mexico -- already have NIL laws in place that take effect as early as July 1. And according to Iowa's Jordan Bohannon, NCAA president Mark Emmert told a group of basketball players last week that there was nothing the NCAA could do to stop those state's laws from taking effect. The same will be the case in states were new laws get passed in the coming months.

"He said he wouldn't punish them," Bohannon said. "I countered and asked what about the states that don't have name, image and likeness? He really didn't give much detail with that response. He said that he hoped something happened with Congress or the NCAA before that happens."

But nothing has happened. Emmert and the NCAA has kept delaying, delaying, delaying, tying things up in courts and endless nonsense, and now apparently they are powerless. They are paralyzed by a major Supreme Court lawsuit that could determine the extent of their powers. Early questioning by justices suggested that they are not sympathetic to the NCAA.

Arkansas, last Wednesday, became the 11th state to pass some kind of law allowing college athletes to cash in on their NIL rights. Georgia has a July 1 bill awaiting the governor's signature. South Carolina is rushing an NIL bill through, with the full support of Clemson and USC. California, the first state to pass an NIL bill, may move up its effective date from 2023.

With no national laws and/or NCAA rules imminent, the states that have passed NIL laws figure to have a major recruiting advantage.

What a shyte show. Another outstanding production by the NCAA.

Let's go, Wisconsin. Get something passed.

[cheebs09]

I would guess as soon as UW loses a football recruit to an NIL state, we will see some movement into Wisconsin.

[MU82]

NCAA could have gotten in front of this, could have worked with universities and key lawmakers to enact a national policy.

Instead, they chose to fight a battle they had zero chance of winning.

[MUFanSince77]

The things I think people tend to forget in this argument are the dependency of the athletes value on the existing college sports structure and the dependency of non-revenue sports on football and men's basketball.

While the debate is about NIL, the fabric of college sports, as imperfect as it can be is delicately intertwined based on concepts of amateurism and play in exchange for education.

If we suddenly take this and make it effectively a pay for value model whether based on NIL or compensating players for the value they provide in terms of revenue earned the house of cards collapses. 

The two things that happen will first be the virtually unlimited influence that shoe companies, boosters, agents and other invested interests will have on athletes.  That will super charge the corruption on a currently imperfect but managed system.  When suddenly there is no ability to control or regulate there stops being any concept of an education for play model and the need for colleges goes away as it is just another flavor of pro sports. 

The other aspect, less the NIL and more the paying of players, is the funding of non-revenue sports by football and men's basketball.  When the same pot of money is pushed more to those who generate it, the funding for the other scholarships and other sports is no longer there.  Title IX while wonderful from an equity and fairness lens is predicated on the availability of scholarship $s.  When the men's sports are no longer viable the others will fall as well. 

This isn't an argument for the purity of current college sports but the truly bad apples and real corruption is the 20 to the 80 so it is still by and large positive.  When the restrictions on payments and involvement of external parties is relaxed with either NIL or compensating players the dominos and overall system will ultimately fall.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

NCAA has figured out how to manage athlete employment. I trust they will figure out how to manage NIL

[Billy Hoyle]

There won't be "bidding wars" -- at least not at first, and not in the sense that we associate the term with, as in free-agent pro athletes. There will be rules in place to mitigate the effects of this ... if the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)

Bidding wars are already happening, before NIL is even in permissible. Schools are making promises in the recruiting process and kids are buying it.

Ideally the bill that goes into effect is the House bill sponsored by Rep. Gonzalez. The Senate Bill (Booker/Blumenthal) would be a disaster.

[Shooter McGavin]

NCAA has figured out how to manage athlete employment. I trust they will figure out how to manage NIL
[/quote

I think title 9 will eventually have to go away.  We're all rooting for a professional model, right? This is an eventual consequence of this new thinking. Men's professional sports don't have to pay for their women counterparts or other non revenue men's sports and neither should men's college (professional) sports. Only the men's basketball and football teams at most schools will have enough self generating revenue to survive.   

The rest (non revenue men's and women's sports) should be club. Let's just tear down the entire current structure.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

NIL will have no impact on Title IX

[MUFanSince77]

The players who make a significant amount for NIL are typically at the largest, most successful programs.  Those who would pay athletes for their NIL would incentivize athletes to go to certain programs over others.  If athletes want to maximize their NIL returns they would not allow themselves to be restricted from going to these institutions.  When suddenly all of the best/most valuable athletes only go to the top programs, even more than today the playing field becomes even more tilted than today when an education at a good school, good coaching, etc. are equalizing factors.  Money tips those scales.  When suddenly the revenue factor only exists at selected institutions the money is no longer there at the others and scholarship funding goes away as well.
Those that survive are just glorified semi-pro so why keep up the facade of "college" sports at that point.

The same arguments for NIL exist for providing athletes a greater share of revenue, i.e., paying players which leaves a smaller pot for everyone else.

Capitalism in terms of NIL is very "fair" and likely the most supportable legal argument but taken to its likely logical end will undoubtedly result in the collapse of college sports as we know them.  Not right away but eventually.  We'd all be better served to stand in support of a truer education for play model and structure it more like baseball where you either skip college altogether or at least have to stay in school for three years and get most of your education completed before going pro.  Effectively a contractual arrangement into which both parties go in with eyes open.  The value the institutions get from athletes allows those individuals and many others to get educations.  If they don't like it go pro and the value is yours.  What we'd find is most won't be as valuable as as individual contributors relying solely on their talent as they thought without the benefit of the institutional structure created by college basketball.  A select few will be more ready, turn out to be stars and reap the benefits.  Don't accelerate the collapse for those few.

[MU82]

Bidding wars are already happening, before NIL is even in permissible. Schools are making promises in the recruiting process and kids are buying it.

As I said in the post you quoted: If the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)

The players who make a significant amount for NIL are typically at the largest, most successful programs.

Well, since nobody has made anything from NIL yet, not sure how you can know this.

Several studies already have been done, and you might be surprised that athletes who are expected to do best under an NIL-compensation model will include volleyball players, gymnasts, swimmers and women's basketball players.

[MUFanSince77]

Hmm, that's an interesting point with the non-revenue sports athletes as effectively they achieve their fame and consequently their NIL value via competition outside the context of collegiate athletics, is in an individual sport and the argument for denying them the value of those efforts is substantially weakened.  From a legal perspective it might be hard to differentiate between those athletes and the stats of college football or basketball.  Clearly allowing a star swimmer, gymnast or volleyball who achieves notoriety in the Olympics with his/her own resources to not profit from that while continuing to compete in college when the college contributes little to those athletes' fame or value.  In the end if legally these can't be differentiated so be it.  I still believe that the structure and resources of college basketball give as much to the athletes in terms of fame as their own talent outside of a select few.  Much less of a pure legal argument than one that this seems to be something that will have consequences where our honest selves will look back and see this at its eventual end and wish we could have only focused more on the educational value and kept the professionals in pro sports.

[Billy Hoyle]

As I said in the post you quoted: If the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)

Well, since nobody has made anything from NIL yet, not sure how you can know this.

Several studies already have been done, and you might be surprised that athletes who are expected to do best under an NIL-compensation model will include volleyball players, gymnasts, swimmers and women's basketball players.

The NCAA tried with their legislation that was to have been passes In January. Instead, the Federal Government told them to table it.

I did write the testimony to help get my state's NIL bill tabled though.

[The Sultan]

The players who make a significant amount for NIL are typically at the largest, most successful programs. 

Because now the top players go all sorts of places right?

Sorry, but this isn't that hard.  Letting them earn off their likeness, at no direct cost to the school, is a no-brainer that a decade from now no one will figure out what the big deal was.  Just like amateurism at the Olympics.

[MU82]

Hmm, that's an interesting point with the non-revenue sports athletes as effectively they achieve their fame and consequently their NIL value via competition outside the context of collegiate athletics, is in an individual sport and the argument for denying them the value of those efforts is substantially weakened.  From a legal perspective it might be hard to differentiate between those athletes and the stats of college football or basketball.  Clearly allowing a star swimmer, gymnast or volleyball who achieves notoriety in the Olympics with his/her own resources to not profit from that while continuing to compete in college when the college contributes little to those athletes' fame or value.  In the end if legally these can't be differentiated so be it.  I still believe that the structure and resources of college basketball give as much to the athletes in terms of fame as their own talent outside of a select few.  Much less of a pure legal argument than one that this seems to be something that will have consequences where our honest selves will look back and see this at its eventual end and wish we could have only focused more on the educational value and kept the professionals in pro sports.

It's easy for us old-timers to tell college athletes what we think they should value.

It's just another change. College sports have survived a zillion of them. In our lifetimes, there were college sports programs that didn't let Blacks participate. Woman couldn't participate in scholarship sports, either. Each time change occurred, it was gonna be "the eventual end" in someone's eyes.

[JWags85]

I would guess as soon as UW loses a football recruit to an NIL state, we will see some movement into Wisconsin.

I would imagine with Emperor Barry moving on, this will have some more legs.  He was pretty emphatically against it.

My biggest hope and excitement with all of this is a return of a CBB game for PS/XBOX