|
|
Post by Kearney Kingston on Apr 27, 2024 14:04:50 GMT -5
Can anybody explain to me exactly what created the NIL explosion and the legalities of it all. I don’t mind players getting a piece of the pie, but what % of DI athletic departments actually are in the black? The inequity of college athletics is gone forever without a reasonable limit on what universities can provide per team and player. What former athlete and attorney is responsible for forcing the NCAA to cave? Will the NCAA survive? How does Campbell compete with UNC in bags of money? I just don’t see anything positive coming from this for the fans and alumni of the schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 27, 2024 14:41:12 GMT -5
Can anybody explain to me exactly what created the NIL explosion and the legalities of it all. I don’t mind players getting a piece of the pie, but what % of DI athletic departments actually are in the black? The inequity of college athletics is gone forever without a reasonable limit on what universities can provide per team and player. What former athlete and attorney is responsible for forcing the NCAA to cave? Will the NCAA survive? How does Campbell compete with UNC in bags of money? I just don’t see anything positive coming from this for the fans and alumni of the schools. NIL emerged out of anti-trust legal challenges. The NCAA prohibiting its athletes from profiting from their own image is anti-competitive and deprives them of economic benefits they're entitled to. The current situation in college NIL is a perversion of the anti-trust ruling, because colleges (and boosters and legislatures) are using the opportunity to try to enhance their competitive position even though the crux of the NIL decision was to limit (allthough not eliminate) the NCAA monopoly. |
|
|
|
Post by volleytips101 on Apr 27, 2024 15:42:19 GMT -5
O’Bannon vs NCAA was the primary legal case that the NCAA lost that initiated NIL. It has evolved in the past 5 years through appeals to what it is now which is about as far away from what the NCAA wanted as possible.. a total free market where athletes can get paid directly for their athletic ability and their ability to market themselves based upon their ability and popularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 27, 2024 20:26:25 GMT -5
Can anybody explain to me exactly what created the NIL explosion and the legalities of it all. I don’t mind players getting a piece of the pie, but what % of DI athletic departments actually are in the black? The inequity of college athletics is gone forever without a reasonable limit on what universities can provide per team and player. What former athlete and attorney is responsible for forcing the NCAA to cave? Will the NCAA survive? How does Campbell compete with UNC in bags of money? I just don’t see anything positive coming from this for the fans and alumni of the schools. Ed O'Bannon was playing a video game and saw himself in the game, not by name but his jersey number, height, and skillset in a left handed player. He felt like he should have been compensated for that and ended up winning the case in 2014. This started or certainly accelerated a conversation about the NIL rights of college athletes. In 2019 The California Legislature passed The Fair Pay to Play Act granting their athletes the right to NIL, with the intention for it to take effect January 1 2023, setting the clock for the NCAA to figure it out. Then other states followed with earlier dates. Then Alston vs NCAA was decided on June 21, 2021 and with the result the NCAA decided to drop it's fight against NIL effective July 1. At that point the NCAA had rules, most of which were not respected and subverted. One that was problematic was that the coaches/schools were not supposed to communicate with the sponsors - I think that was before the idea of the collective had really taken shape - you don't want your coach calling Nike and asking them to pay your wide receiver. But of course it didn't end up being Nike and Wheaties that were the driver of this, but dedicated collectives. So you had collectives making offers to recruits that the coaches didn't want and weren't going to offer, so of course their was some form of communication The NCAA did penalize I think it was Miami and somebody else, but when they started investigating Tennessee the Attornies General of Tennesee and Virginia sued the NCAA for an injunction, which was granted temporarily where the NCAA is barred for enforcing any rules that limit NIL. About the only guidance that has stuck is the IRS saying that collectives are not charities, so contributions to collectives are not tax deductible. Schools that were going to try to pay NIL from their endowment of Alumni fund had to pause - I'm not sure where this stands at this point, but that might be the only real limit remaining. And the NCAA still has a rule against tampering, but at this point they've lost so many decisions that I'm not sure that would survive if challenged. And apparently in the revenue sports, everybody is tampering. So yeah, it's the wild west. Student athletes are sacrificing quality experience and personal growth for a check, which is there perogative. But supposedly many of the contracts being signed are skewed toward the collective, exploiting the athlete, but anything the NCAA does to bring order is considered interference. What happens now is anyones guess, but we probably aren't dialing this thing back. The old days are gone. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 27, 2024 20:30:14 GMT -5
Can anybody explain to me exactly what created the NIL explosion and the legalities of it all. I don’t mind players getting a piece of the pie, but what % of DI athletic departments actually are in the black? The inequity of college athletics is gone forever without a reasonable limit on what universities can provide per team and player. What former athlete and attorney is responsible for forcing the NCAA to cave? Will the NCAA survive? How does Campbell compete with UNC in bags of money? I just don’t see anything positive coming from this for the fans and alumni of the schools. Ed O'Bannon was playing a video game and saw himself in the game, not by name but his jersey number, height, and skillset in a left handed player. He felt like he should have been compensated for that and ended up winning the case in 2014. This started or certainly accelerated a conversation about the NIL rights of college athletes. In 2019 The California Legislature passed The Fair Pay to Play Act granting their athletes the right to NIL, with the intention for it to take effect January 1 2023, setting the clock for the NCAA to figure it out. Then other states followed with earlier dates. Then Alston vs NCAA was decided on June 21, 2021 and with the result the NCAA decided to drop it's fight against NIL effective July 1. At that point the NCAA had rules, most of which were not respected and subverted. One that was problematic was that the coaches/schools were not supposed to communicate with the sponsors - I think that was before the idea of the collective had really taken shape - you don't want your coach calling Nike and asking them to pay your wide receiver. But of course it didn't end up being Nike and Wheaties that were the driver of this, but dedicated collectives. So you had collectives making offers to recruits that the coaches didn't want and weren't going to offer, so of course their was some form of communication The NCAA did penalize I think it was Miami and somebody else, but when they started investigating Tennessee the Attornies General of Tennesee and Virginia sued the NCAA for an injunction, which was granted temporarily where the NCAA is barred for enforcing any rules that limit NIL. About the only guidance that has stuck is the IRS saying that collectives are not charities, so contributions to collectives are not tax deductible. Schools that were going to try to pay NIL from their endowment of Alumni fund had to pause - I'm not sure where this stands at this point, but that might be the only real limit remaining. And the NCAA still has a rule against tampering, but at this point they've lost so many decisions that I'm not sure that would survive if challenged. And apparently in the revenue sports, everybody is tampering. So yeah, it's the wild west. Student athletes are sacrificing quality experience and personal growth for a check, which is there perogative. But supposedly many of the contracts being signed are skewed toward the collective, exploiting the athlete, but anything the NCAA does to bring order is considered interference. What happens now is anyones guess, but we probably aren't dialing this thing back. The old days are gone. The NCAA has paused its enforcement actions to a great degree (in part because of legislation in various states), but it has not sanctioned direct institutional participation in NIL, and in fact, has advised that sanctions could be brought later on. |
|
|
|
Post by InTheKnow on Apr 27, 2024 22:45:05 GMT -5
This has changed college sports but it won’t compare to when each school will have to use 20% of its budget to pay players. This is the next thing. And college players will now be treated like minor leaguers. It won’t be pretty in my opinion. I can see several sports being moved down to club level.
Most of these athletes best chance to make a comfortable living are because of the degree they get. Not the NIL, etc. Many of them won’t make it to a degree if the model changes to pay to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackson5vb on Apr 27, 2024 23:01:54 GMT -5
how much are the SEC & B1G players getting in NIL this season?
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 28, 2024 7:55:49 GMT -5
but it has not sanctioned direct institutional participation in NIL, and in fact, has advised that sanctions could be brought later on. This would say that they are rapidly headed in that direction:
I don't think it will be long before "in house" NIL payments will be allowed. Personally, I greatly prefer this to booster-run "collectives" with completely opaque books and operations.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 28, 2024 7:58:47 GMT -5
This has changed college sports but it won’t compare to when each school will have to use 20% of its budget to pay players. This is the next thing. I think schools will be able to purchase athletes' NIL directly.
I don't think athletes will be employees of the school.
Those two things are worlds apart. The latter makes the athlete fall under (federal) employment law, as if they were working in the cafeteria or on the landscaping team. That should not happen, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 28, 2024 10:54:14 GMT -5
20% of its budget to pay players Going to be a lot higher number than that, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 28, 2024 11:44:08 GMT -5
but it has not sanctioned direct institutional participation in NIL, and in fact, has advised that sanctions could be brought later on. This would say that they are rapidly headed in that direction: I don't think it will be long before "in house" NIL payments will be allowed. Personally, I greatly prefer this to booster-run "collectives" with completely opaque books and operations.
The approval of in-house NIL would be a significant move, but it would not in itself solve the NIL problem. There are still a number of states with legislation on the books that prohibits institutional involvement in NIL (and also concurrently prohibit any punishment of athletes by the NCAA). This creates an unequal/disparate situation, and the next step(s) will involve either the state legislatures revising those laws--or if not, athletes/institutions challenging those NIL laws. Any of those situations will trigger another round of either court review, anti-trust review or a push for Congress to act, all of which have some degree of uncertainty. |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Apr 28, 2024 12:11:26 GMT -5
This has changed college sports but it won’t compare to when each school will have to use 20% of its budget to pay players. This is the next thing. I think schools will be able to purchase athletes' NIL directly.
I don't think athletes will be employees of the school.
Those two things are worlds apart. The latter makes the athlete fall under (federal) employment law, as if they were working in the cafeteria or on the landscaping team. That should not happen, in my opinion.
Well, it would allow them to unionize which would be a stain upon the world in a lot of people's viewpoints, and (more to the point) would be a headache for the NCAA. So no, that probably won't happen. Does this kind of thing happen in pro sports? Like, if the Lakers wanted to sign Giannis, could they have a group of local businesses come to him with a sponsorship package totaling $3 million a year if he signs with the Lakers? I'd think the NBA would call that tampering, and I just don't understand how the heck the NCAA hasn't done some sort of mass crackdown on up-front collective offers. Because those offers have created a mercenary environment in football and basketball. Right now guys are leaving because they know they have more NIL money elsewhere and no one is even bothering to complain about the tampering. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 28, 2024 16:09:30 GMT -5
The approval of in-house NIL would be a significant move, but it would not in itself solve the NIL problem. There are still a number of states with legislation on the books that prohibits institutional involvement in NIL (and also concurrently prohibit any punishment of athletes by the NCAA). This creates an unequal/disparate situation, and the next step(s) will involve either the state legislatures revising those laws--or if not, athletes/institutions challenging those NIL laws. Any of those situations will trigger another round of either court review, anti-trust review or a push for Congress to act, all of which have some degree of uncertainty. Re: the bolded, what do you define the "NIL problem" to be? Is it simply what you go on to describe, that we lack unified law around this? Or is there more to it than that? And I'm curious what you would like to see in the efforts to solve it. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 28, 2024 16:16:58 GMT -5
I think schools will be able to purchase athletes' NIL directly.
I don't think athletes will be employees of the school.
Those two things are worlds apart. The latter makes the athlete fall under (federal) employment law, as if they were working in the cafeteria or on the landscaping team. That should not happen, in my opinion.
Well, it would allow them to unionize which would be a stain upon the world in a lot of people's viewpoints, and (more to the point) would be a headache for the NCAA. So no, that probably won't happen. Does this kind of thing happen in pro sports? Like, if the Lakers wanted to sign Giannis, could they have a group of local businesses come to him with a sponsorship package totaling $3 million a year if he signs with the Lakers? I'd think the NBA would call that tampering, and I just don't understand how the heck the NCAA hasn't done some sort of mass crackdown on up-front collective offers. Because those offers have created a mercenary environment in football and basketball. Right now guys are leaving because they know they have more NIL money elsewhere and no one is even bothering to complain about the tampering. This is a really interesting and great question/hypothetical.
My understanding is that there are legal exemptions to antitrust law for collective bargaining agreements, like those between the player's union and the league. Thus the league being legally able to place restrictions on players selling their NIL rights, to avoid the hypothetical you propose.
I know this is somewhat lame, and take it for what it's worth (and may include errors), but I got the following from ChatGPT:
In the United States, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are generally exempt from antitrust laws under the labor exemption. This exemption arises from the recognition of the importance of allowing workers to organize and collectively bargain with their employers without fear of antitrust liability.
The key legislation providing this exemption is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. Section 6 of the NLRA explicitly protects the rights of employees to engage in collective bargaining with their employers through representatives of their own choosing. This protection extends to agreements reached through collective bargaining, which can include terms related to wages, hours, and working conditions.
Additionally, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, as amended by the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, further solidified the exemption by prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes, except under very limited circumstances.
However, it's worth noting that this exemption has limitations. It typically applies only to agreements negotiated between employers and employees or their representatives. Agreements that involve competitors colluding on prices or other competitive aspects unrelated to labor conditions would likely not be protected under this exemption and could still be subject to antitrust scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 28, 2024 16:43:31 GMT -5
The approval of in-house NIL would be a significant move, but it would not in itself solve the NIL problem. There are still a number of states with legislation on the books that prohibits institutional involvement in NIL (and also concurrently prohibit any punishment of athletes by the NCAA). This creates an unequal/disparate situation, and the next step(s) will involve either the state legislatures revising those laws--or if not, athletes/institutions challenging those NIL laws. Any of those situations will trigger another round of either court review, anti-trust review or a push for Congress to act, all of which have some degree of uncertainty. Re: the bolded, what do you define the "NIL problem" to be? Is it simply what you go on to describe, that we lack unified law around this? Or is there more to it than that? And I'm curious what you would like to see in the efforts to solve it. The NCAA's NIL problem is that institutions are using NIL to induce athletes in order to boost their own competitiveness. The Alston decision was based on the NCAA using its monopoly on student-athletes to make the labor market (the athletes and their NIL) less competitive. Although (some) athletes are benefitting in the NIL labor market, the NCAA intrusion into the NIL labor market is increasing its monopolistic behavior rather than limiting it, and eroding it's defensible monopoly based on amateur/student-athlete status. The essential question is, if NIL deals are available, why are the institutions so desperate to corral NIL? The answer seems pretty obvious, and clearly self-serving. Panic about being less competitive is creating a stampede mentality, and it's leading towards a cliff. |
|
