NCAA moving towards allowing NIL

[MU82]

I've stayed out of Version #741 of this debate, except for guru bringing up my name.

My views are well known, as are Rico's, as are guru's, as are TAMU's. Not gonna take part in this ridiculous clubbing of a deceased pony again ... especially since NIL compensation is gonna happen and there isn't a damn thing anybody here can do about it, whether for or against it.



Have a good night, y'all.

[Herman Cain]

Okay here's my question...if this proves true that one of the biggest avenue of money making will be basically running ads/promotions on athletes social media, how many followers will these athletes lose because people get tired of checking that athletes social media and seeing ads run all the time?? I'm asking because I don't know that answer, but i would think they would lose many. I can tell you me personally, there is nothing I hate more than pop ups and banner ads etc on websites I visit, that's why I have several ad blockers that pretty much block every ad on every website I ever go to. It's annoying. I would think that many others would feel the same way in regards to visiting someone's social media and seeing an ad or promotion. I see no ads on twitter now, the last thing I want to do is see an ad from an athlete I follow on twitter. That's not why I visit their page. I know I'm only one person but if this is what started happening, I would simply un follow that person. I'm just not interested in seeing them promote some product I'd likely never have any interest in buying anyway.

When I think of NIL and the kinds of deals SA's can get I think of the one's that can sign autographs and actually make a lot doing that(non revenue athletes aren't going to make much doing this) or a car dealership offering a six figure deal to the star QB to promote their dealership, they aren't going to do that for a women's soccer player. That's where the top athletes will benefit the most.

My guess, is the schools will act as master agents and enter into licensing deals with the sponsors and the student athletes will get paid out of the pool of revenues. Some opt out provision will be created for the kids who think they can do better on their own. Schools with deep pocketed supporters will be able to legally pay the opt out kids directly and also pay for the support type players through the master license.  Should actually work pretty smoothly and going rates should be established.

[MUDPT]

Okay here's my question...if this proves true that one of the biggest avenue of money making will be basically running ads/promotions on athletes social media, how many followers will these athletes lose because people get tired of checking that athletes social media and seeing ads run all the time?? I'm asking because I don't know that answer, but i would think they would lose many. I can tell you me personally, there is nothing I hate more than pop ups and banner ads etc on websites I visit, that's why I have several ad blockers that pretty much block every ad on every website I ever go to. It's annoying. I would think that many others would feel the same way in regards to visiting someone's social media and seeing an ad or promotion. I see no ads on twitter now, the last thing I want to do is see an ad from an athlete I follow on twitter. That's not why I visit their page. I know I'm only one person but if this is what started happening, I would simply un follow that person. I'm just not interested in seeing them promote some product I'd likely never have any interest in buying anyway.

When I think of NIL and the kinds of deals SA's can get I think of the one's that can sign autographs and actually make a lot doing that(non revenue athletes aren't going to make much doing this) or a car dealership offering a six figure deal to the star QB to promote their dealership, they aren't going to do that for a women's soccer player. That's where the top athletes will benefit the most.

None. They will probably lose no followers. Are you on Instagram?

And your other point about non revenue sports, do you know any D1 athletes? Ones I know, have known are a pretty tight group. I don't see jealousy being an issue if another athlete makes money from a sponsorship. They probably would use the extra cash to buy booze for everyone.

[panda]

None. They will probably lose no followers. Are you on Instagram?

And your other point about non revenue sports, do you know any D1 athletes? Ones I know, have known are a pretty tight group. I don't see jealousy being an issue if another athlete makes money from a sponsorship. They probably would use the extra cash to buy booze for everyone.

His entire argument is, "maybe the kids won't like it." And "maybe they'll lose social media followers!"

Ok fair enough - Point our who the student athletes are who oppose it. It should be really easy to find right?

[lawdog77]

My guess, is the schools will act as master agents and enter into licensing deals with the sponsors and the student athletes will get paid out of the pool of revenues. Some opt out provision will be created for the kids who think they can do better on their own. Schools with deep pocketed supporters will be able to legally pay the opt out kids directly and also pay for the support type players through the master license.  Should actually work pretty smoothly and going rates should be established.

What happens if an Adidas kid wants to go to a Nike School?

[jesmu84]

Okay here's my question...if this proves true that one of the biggest avenue of money making will be basically running ads/promotions on athletes social media, how many followers will these athletes lose because people get tired of checking that athletes social media and seeing ads run all the time?? I'm asking because I don't know that answer, but i would think they would lose many. I can tell you me personally, there is nothing I hate more than pop ups and banner ads etc on websites I visit, that's why I have several ad blockers that pretty much block every ad on every website I ever go to. It's annoying. I would think that many others would feel the same way in regards to visiting someone's social media and seeing an ad or promotion. I see no ads on twitter now, the last thing I want to do is see an ad from an athlete I follow on twitter. That's not why I visit their page. I know I'm only one person but if this is what started happening, I would simply un follow that person. I'm just not interested in seeing them promote some product I'd likely never have any interest in buying anyway.

When I think of NIL and the kinds of deals SA's can get I think of the one's that can sign autographs and actually make a lot doing that(non revenue athletes aren't going to make much doing this) or a car dealership offering a six figure deal to the star QB to promote their dealership, they aren't going to do that for a women's soccer player. That's where the top athletes will benefit the most.

Are you on Instagram? Ads all over the place.
Are you on Facebook? Everyone I know seems to be trying to sell me something.
Etc

Social media has accepted/embraced/normalized marketing/ads

[WhiteTrash]

Nike (and Adidas, Under Armor, etc.) is already paying athletic programs and college athletes. The height of ignorance would be pretending shoe companies have to decide between paying the school or the student athletes when they already pay both. They'd just be able to do so legally.

A FBI investigation turned up a relative handful of schools cheating with payments to players. You seem to believe that this is happening everywhere. If MU and most or every school is cheating then your argument holds water.

[Herman Cain]

What happens if an Adidas kid wants to go to a Nike School?

All of that Shoe Company Hijinx goes away in this Scenario,because everything is transparent .

[lawdog77]

All of that Shoe Company Hijinx goes away in this Scenario,because everything is transparent .

Do shoe companies sponsor NBA teams? NFL teams?  If not, then the $$$ may go away from NCAA teams. 

[Herman Cain]

Do shoe companies sponsor NBA teams? NFL teams?  If not, then the $$$ may go away from NCAA teams.

Shoe companies will still sponsor equipment for colleges and will be able to make other investments in a more transparent way. No more under the table, with all the associates handlers involved. Everyone should be better off.

[muguru]

Are you on Instagram? Ads all over the place.
Are you on Facebook? Everyone I know seems to be trying to sell me something.
Etc

Social media has accepted/embraced/normalized marketing/ads

That's why there are ad blockers...I never see any ad's anywhere and it's glorious

[jesmu84]

That's why there are ad blockers...I never see any ad's anywhere and it's glorious

No. You don't understand how this works.

Are you on Instagram?

[muguru]

No. You don't understand how this works.

Are you on Instagram?

I'm signed up for instagram but never post anything

[lawdog77]

Shoe companies will still sponsor equipment for colleges and will be able to make other investments in a more transparent way. No more under the table, with all the associates handlers involved. Everyone should be better off.

Will they? Will Nike sponsor Bowling Green for example, if they have a sure fire first rounder decked out in Converse gear?

[Herman Cain]

Will they? Will Nike sponsor Bowling Green for example, if they have a sure fire first rounder decked out in Converse gear?

The shoe companies make equipment sponsorship deals with the schools presently. Nothing about that will change. There  will be hot competition among the shoe companies to enter into some kind of master image licensing deals with certain schools and likely the two different forms of sponsorship will end up being bundled. I think this is all a positive in that it is fully disclosed and the market will determine the values . As I speculated earlier in this thread, I think there will be some kind of individual opt out provision on the master image licensing. However, given the nature of college sports, those athletes will be few and far between.

The more I think about it, I think the image licensing may even extend to conferences. So each school acts as master agent for the student imaging, and then they band together in their conference and sell those rights. Makes things very easy and potentially even more beneficial.

[brewcity77]

Will they? Will Nike sponsor Bowling Green for example, if they have a sure fire first rounder decked out in Converse gear?

I imagine they will restrict who players can represent. If a team is using licensed Nike gear, the players can likely be required to wear that gear, at least on the court. I expect we'll see those sorts of agreements lining up, at least as long as the players are in school.

[MU82]

ADs Mike White of Duke and Bubba Cunningham of UNC, along with former player and current lobbyist Tom McMillen, have accomplished something seemingly impossible:

They have gotten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to agree on something.

Last week, McMillen came right out and admitted that opposition to NIL compensation was based on "losing income because it goes to the athlete."

That led U.S. Rep. Mark Walker, a Republican, to blast McMillen and the ADs, who also have made recent comments against compensating athletes for NIL:

"Tom McMillen's fear-mongering statements are wrong. The NCAA made over one billion dollars last year. They will likely make even more next year. Why are they so concerned with a college softball player earning a few hundred dollars by hosting a skills clinic in their hometown?

"In every aspect of their lives, (college athletes) are told what to do and when. Then they find out they have no rights to their name or image. No right to earn even modest income for work or talent.

"Their system is wrong. The NCAA and their athletic directors need to understand that their monopoly is falling and they would be better served by coming to the table to develop solutions, rather than trying to die on a hill attempting to restrict the basic rights of young men and women."

After White and Cunningham cried about how NIL compensation for athletes would wound college sports, Wiley Nickel, a Democratic NC state senator, said White "makes over $1.45 million per year off the backs of an unpaid student workforce, and is defending the system that makes him rich."

He then added:

"The NCAA will never change unless legislatures across the country step in to force the issue. The old system where the athletes had to play for 'the love of the game' while the NCAA and universities reap huge profits off their hard work is quickly coming to an end."

Congratulations, to White, Cunningham and McMillen. Unity at last!

[Shooter McGavin]

The last paragraph is debatable.  Are all Universities making a profit of the student athletes?  Or are most Sports programs running at a deficit.  There is still confusion on this issue even at the highest levels (our lawmakers) it seems.

Can someone tell us how many programs are making a profit after the money is dispersed to the rest of the nonprofit student athletes and the facilities they play in/on?

Are law makers really blown away by billions of dollars divided by thousands?  That would sound better if it was 1950 but in 2020 not so much. 

My point is most colleges are not making out like bandits.  So that part of the argument needs to go away. 

Students making money off their hard work and NIL is the only argument that is valid IMO.

[WhiteTrash]

"Tom McMillen's fear-mongering statements are wrong. The NCAA made over one billion dollars last year. They will likely make even more next year. Why are they so concerned with a college softball player earning a few hundred dollars by hosting a skills clinic in their hometown?

"In every aspect of their lives, (college athletes) are told what to do and when. Then they find out they have no rights to their name or image. No right to earn even modest income for work or talent.

"Their system is wrong. The NCAA and their athletic directors need to understand that their monopoly is falling and they would be better served by coming to the table to develop solutions, rather than trying to die on a hill attempting to restrict the basic rights of young men and women."

After White and Cunningham cried about how NIL compensation for athletes would wound college sports, Wiley Nickel, a Democratic NC state senator, said White "makes over $1.45 million per year off the backs of an unpaid student workforce, and is defending the system that makes him rich."

He then added:

"The NCAA will never change unless legislatures across the country step in to force the issue. The old system where the athletes had to play for 'the love of the game' while the NCAA and universities reap huge profits off their hard work is quickly coming to an end."

Congratulations, to White, Cunningham and McMillen. Unity at last!

The NCAA made a billion dollars? That is so far from the truth it is laughable. I guess the US government makes a trillion dollars a year and puts it in the bank also.

I get the logic for NIL but it comes with a cost. Are AD's and coaches overpaid? Maybe. Should woman's diving be non-scholarship? Maybe.

This is really about moving money to other places (men's basketball and football players) not that there is more money to be had.

[Herman Cain]

ADs Mike White of Duke and Bubba Cunningham of UNC, along with former player and current lobbyist Tom McMillen, have accomplished something seemingly impossible:

They have gotten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to agree on something.

Last week, McMillen came right out and admitted that opposition to NIL compensation was based on "losing income because it goes to the athlete."

That led U.S. Rep. Mark Walker, a Republican, to blast McMillen and the ADs, who also have made recent comments against compensating athletes for NIL:

"Tom McMillen's fear-mongering statements are wrong. The NCAA made over one billion dollars last year. They will likely make even more next year. Why are they so concerned with a college softball player earning a few hundred dollars by hosting a skills clinic in their hometown?

"In every aspect of their lives, (college athletes) are told what to do and when. Then they find out they have no rights to their name or image. No right to earn even modest income for work or talent.

"Their system is wrong. The NCAA and their athletic directors need to understand that their monopoly is falling and they would be better served by coming to the table to develop solutions, rather than trying to die on a hill attempting to restrict the basic rights of young men and women."

After White and Cunningham cried about how NIL compensation for athletes would wound college sports, Wiley Nickel, a Democratic NC state senator, said White "makes over $1.45 million per year off the backs of an unpaid student workforce, and is defending the system that makes him rich."

He then added:

"The NCAA will never change unless legislatures across the country step in to force the issue. The old system where the athletes had to play for 'the love of the game' while the NCAA and universities reap huge profits off their hard work is quickly coming to an end."

Congratulations, to White, Cunningham and McMillen. Unity at last!

I completely agree that the imaging issue is about carving up the pie. I think the whole notion of amateurism needs to be re-evaluated. So I am definitely a proponent of the students getting an income stream from use of their images etc .

However, I also believe that only a handful of exceptions, almost every kid is fairly compensated by the scholarship mechanism.  Lets use Duke as an example. The kid who is the 13 man on Duke's roster is still getting about $80,000 tax free annually tax free.  The kid who plays in an equivalency sport  at Duke ( Limited number of Scholarships spread across the team ) is getting the benefit of admission and a discount on tuition which is attractive.

At the end of the day the big dollars in college sports are in media rights. Endorsements and image likeness will be worth something, but to have value , will have to be a supplement to the existing model rather than a replacement .

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

At the end of the day the big dollars in college sports are in media rights. Endorsements and image likeness will be worth something, but to have value , will have to be a supplement to the existing model rather than a replacement .

If I were to predict the largest value will be shoe companies locking in future NBAers to contracts.  This will continue to impact where they go to school as well to max the investment.  If one-and-done is still a thing this will happen to a greater magnitude with that group.

[Spotcheck Billy]

If/When the NBA allows high school players to enter the draft will shoe companies be looking to sign high schoolers as the next Lebron? Will they be restricted the way college players currently are?

[MU82]

If we start with a rule that the university president - and not a coach - must be each university's highest-paid employee, it would leave a ton of money left over to fund an entire athletic program and also make sure athletes are compensated for their NILs.

I know that will never happen - and before brains explode, I'm not seriously proposing it - but to hear coaches and ADs whine as a group about athletes making a pittance while many of them make life-changing $$ every single year ... it just makes me laugh at the hypocrisy.

They don't deserve it ... cuz we want it!

Or as their lobbyist McMillen said: We hate to be "losing income because it goes to the athlete."

McMillen must be new at lobbying, because telling the truth usually gets a lobbyist in big trouble!!

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

If we start with a rule that the university president - and not a coach - must be each university's highest-paid employee, it would leave a ton of money left over to fund an entire athletic program and also make sure athletes are compensated for their NILs.

Actually it would cause college presidents to be overpaid compared to the market.

[Galway Eagle]

If/When the NBA allows high school players to enter the draft will shoe companies be looking to sign high schoolers as the next Lebron? Will they be restricted the way college players currently are?

They already are supposed to be but a lot less resources for state athletic associations to investigate. I actually tried to point this out awhile back regarding Basketball and Football players that play for sell out crowds in massive stadiums/arenas and everybody said it was negligible but I disagree.