NCAA settlement approved - schools now can (and will) directly pay athletes

[THRILLHO]

Why hasn't this been created for existing pro athletes? If it existed do you think it would be successful?

[Hards Alumni]

Why 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/

[WhiteTrash]

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.

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."

[Uncle Rico]

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."

Good.  The sport is more fun when there is cheating.

[Jockey]

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.

[MU82]

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)

[The Sultan]

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.

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.

[TallTitan34]

Why 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.

[The Equalizer]

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.

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.

[Jockey]

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.

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.

[The Sultan]

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.

The legistation empowers the NCAA and whatever that new body is called to make the rules.

[Shaka Shart]

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?

[Jockey]

The 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.

[The Sultan]

Yes. 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.

[MU82]

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.

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?

[Hards Alumni]

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?

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.

[The Sultan]

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?

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.

[PointWarrior]

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.

Helpful but let's just wait for JayBee tell us all the things schools can't do but do anyway. 

[WhiteTrash]

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?

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.

[MU82]

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.

Interesting. Thanks for providing this quick look at the legislation re NIL.

[Jockey]

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.

[brewcity77]

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 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.

[Uncle Rico]

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.

As long as kids play for the name on the front of the jersey now like Don Kojis

[The Sultan]

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.

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.

[MU82]

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.