NIL

[volleyguy]

Aug 10, 2023 0:37:33 GMT -5 slxpress said:

Aug 10, 2023 0:33:16 GMT -5 volleyguy said:

Yes, donors and alums are driving the push to use and/or take advantage of NIL, but the state law isn’t necessarily congruent with Federal law (or the Supreme Court decision).

Well, we’ve gone over this before. I’ll wait with bated breath to watch for someone to challenge it in court.

There are several ways it could go still, but the likelihood of a clear solution is still at least 2-3 years out imo. The quickest, most direct would be enforcement action by a government agency.

[bucky415]

My friend was watching the Johnny Manziel Netflix documentary. Texas A&M has made Jimbo Fisher one of the highest paid coaches in the sport and poured tens of millions in donor dollars into new facilities and Kyle Field upgrades, but they have not had the success he led them to. Thus, all his issues in the NFL aside, it stinks NIL wasn't around then, because he was worth more to the program than anyone then or since, and he didn't get paid for that officially.

[mervinswerved]

It's interesting to see how many people want to restrict workers' earning power in the marketplace. At least in pro sports it's been collectively bargained.

[slxpress]

Aug 10, 2023 6:37:39 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

It's interesting to see how many people want to restrict workers' earning power in the marketplace. At least in pro sports it's been collectively bargained.

Well, to me it’s a choice between restricting rights to ensure a more equitable competition or no restrictions leading to a small group of schools with the access and the willingness to spend the most money dominating competition

The NCAA tried to restrict revenue and exposure for schools and that was struck down by the courts. They tried to restrict compensation for athletes and that was struck down by the courts. If they can’t restrict revenue/exposure and they can’t restrict player compensation, who benefits the most?

As I’ve said over and over again throughout the decades, my team benefits pretty much more than anyone, but I’m still not a fan. But if this is going to be the college athletics world, I’m certainly hopeful the team/program I root for takes full advantage of it.

The big sham for me is all the cognitive dissonance required to be operating these multi billion dollar industries in the middle of institutions supposedly dedicated to higher learning. It shifts values in all kinds of ways. Except for Stanford. But even Stanford is going to have to make some kind of accommodation to the new reality to stay competitive. Especially with their Brave New Workd in terms of conference affiliation

[mervinswerved]

Aug 10, 2023 9:38:08 GMT -5 slxpress said:

If they can’t restrict revenue/exposure and they can’t restrict player compensation, who benefits the most?

The players, probably.

Salary caps don't exist to create competitive equity, they exist to limit the money owners have to spend on being competitive. Professional leagues with salary caps (or draft earning slots like in the uncapped MLB) at least have negotiated those restrictions with the player unions. I don't see how one can square capping and/or regulating NIL income unilaterally without bargaining with labor.

I *think* the way forward for college athletics is to empower the athletes to unionize and allow them to collectively bargain with the schools, conferences, or both, maybe. The NCAA or college presidents (or Congress, for that matter) imposing restrictions from above on the people creating the value is morally wrong and probably won't work.

[slxpress]

Aug 10, 2023 9:45:47 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Aug 10, 2023 9:38:08 GMT -5 slxpress said:

If they can’t restrict revenue/exposure and they can’t restrict player compensation, who benefits the most?

The players, probably.

Salary caps don't exist to create competitive equity, they exist to limit the money owners have to spend on being competitive. Professional leagues with salary caps (or draft earning slots like in the uncapped MLB) at least have negotiated those restrictions with the player unions. I don't see how one can square capping and/or regulating NIL income unilaterally without bargaining with labor.

I *think* the way forward for college athletics is to empower the athletes to unionize and allow them to collectively bargain with the schools, conferences, or both, maybe. The NCAA or college presidents (or Congress, for that matter) imposing restrictions from above on the people creating the value is morally wrong and probably won't work.

“Salary caps don't exist to create competitive equity, they exist to limit the money owners have to spend on being competitive.”

It’s both. It absolutely helps create competitive equity. Compare the NFL, with hard salary caps, to baseball, with luxury taxes. Teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City can’t compete in one sport, while they’re highly competitive in the other. A team like Green Bay, with its peculiar ownership, has no place in baseball or the NBA. It’s only the NFL, with its generous revenue sharing through its media deal and no side deals involving media rights, along with the hard caps that make it possible.

But it is restrictive.

I am not a fan at all of a unionization of an 18-22 year old work force with tremendous turnover every year taking charge of its own negotiations. What will happen is that someone is going to be in charge of that union with an outsized influence that will be extremely difficult to replace once they’re in charge. I think it has hair all over it and will be subject to abuse.

I would like to see a whole lot more transparency regarding NIL deals. To me that’s the first step. Without transparency we can’t even see what we’re working with, and middle men end up with all the power at the expense of the athlete trying to negotiate.

[mervinswerved]

Aug 10, 2023 10:06:33 GMT -5 slxpress said:

Aug 10, 2023 9:45:47 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

The players, probably.

Salary caps don't exist to create competitive equity, they exist to limit the money owners have to spend on being competitive. Professional leagues with salary caps (or draft earning slots like in the uncapped MLB) at least have negotiated those restrictions with the player unions. I don't see how one can square capping and/or regulating NIL income unilaterally without bargaining with labor.

I *think* the way forward for college athletics is to empower the athletes to unionize and allow them to collectively bargain with the schools, conferences, or both, maybe. The NCAA or college presidents (or Congress, for that matter) imposing restrictions from above on the people creating the value is morally wrong and probably won't work.

“Salary caps don't exist to create competitive equity, they exist to limit the money owners have to spend on being competitive.”

It’s both. It absolutely helps create competitive equity. Compare the NFL, with hard salary caps, to baseball, with luxury taxes. Teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City can’t compete in one sport, while they’re highly competitive in the other. A team like Green Bay, with its peculiar ownership, has no place in baseball or the NBA. It’s only the NFL, with its generous revenue sharing through its media deal and no side deals involving media rights, along with the hard caps that make it possible.

Competitive equity is a byproduct of a system designed to limit the cost of labor. And again, in the cap leagues, the unions have a say in how that cost to ownership is limited. The college athletes' labor creates value for the schools and the leagues- they should share in the revenue and have a say in how that share is determined.

But it is restrictive.

I am not a fan at all of a unionization of an 18-22 year old work force with tremendous turnover every year taking charge of its own negotiations. What will happen is that someone is going to be in charge of that union with an outsized influence that will be extremely difficult to replace once they’re in charge. I think it has hair all over it and will be subject to abuse.

You might not be a fan of it, but 18-22 year olds are perfectly capable of being in a union- they already are in many industries. If you're 18, you're a legal adult and have all the rights afforded to someone who's reached the age of majority. Being a college football player doesn't trump that nor should it. Unions choose their own leadership. If they aren't happy with their leaders, they're more than capable of replacing them.

I would like to see a whole lot more transparency regarding NIL deals. To me that’s the first step. Without transparency we can’t even see what we’re working with, and middle men end up with all the power at the expense of the athlete trying to negotiate.

It'd be easier just to pay the players. Then you wouldn't need NIL middlemen at all.

[JT]

Aug 10, 2023 10:36:53 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

It'd be easier just to pay the players. Then you wouldn't need NIL middlemen at all.

You would still have them. Just as paid professional athletes have their NIL side hustles adding significant income, so too would paid collegiate athletes.

[n00b]

Aug 10, 2023 10:36:53 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Aug 10, 2023 10:06:33 GMT -5 slxpress said:

“Salary caps don't exist to create competitive equity, they exist to limit the money owners have to spend on being competitive.”

It’s both. It absolutely helps create competitive equity. Compare the NFL, with hard salary caps, to baseball, with luxury taxes. Teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City can’t compete in one sport, while they’re highly competitive in the other. A team like Green Bay, with its peculiar ownership, has no place in baseball or the NBA. It’s only the NFL, with its generous revenue sharing through its media deal and no side deals involving media rights, along with the hard caps that make it possible.

Competitive equity is a byproduct of a system designed to limit the cost of labor. And again, in the cap leagues, the unions have a say in how that cost to ownership is limited. The college athletes' labor creates value for the schools and the leagues- they should share in the revenue and have a say in how that share is determined.

But it is restrictive.

I am not a fan at all of a unionization of an 18-22 year old work force with tremendous turnover every year taking charge of its own negotiations. What will happen is that someone is going to be in charge of that union with an outsized influence that will be extremely difficult to replace once they’re in charge. I think it has hair all over it and will be subject to abuse.

You might not be a fan of it, but 18-22 year olds are perfectly capable of being in a union- they already are in many industries. If you're 18, you're a legal adult and have all the rights afforded to someone who's reached the age of majority. Being a college football player doesn't trump that nor should it. Unions choose their own leadership. If they aren't happy with their leaders, they're more than capable of replacing them.

I would like to see a whole lot more transparency regarding NIL deals. To me that’s the first step. Without transparency we can’t even see what we’re working with, and middle men end up with all the power at the expense of the athlete trying to negotiate.

It'd be easier just to pay the players. Then you wouldn't need NIL middlemen at all.

Only if you consider an activity that thousands upon thousands of college students do completely out of enjoyment to be “labor”.

[mervinswerved]

Aug 10, 2023 12:13:57 GMT -5 n00b said:

Aug 10, 2023 10:36:53 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Competitive equity is a byproduct of a system designed to limit the cost of labor. And again, in the cap leagues, the unions have a say in how that cost to ownership is limited. The college athletes' labor creates value for the schools and the leagues- they should share in the revenue and have a say in how that share is determined.


You might not be a fan of it, but 18-22 year olds are perfectly capable of being in a union- they already are in many industries. If you're 18, you're a legal adult and have all the rights afforded to someone who's reached the age of majority. Being a college football player doesn't trump that nor should it. Unions choose their own leadership. If they aren't happy with their leaders, they're more than capable of replacing them.

It'd be easier just to pay the players. Then you wouldn't need NIL middlemen at all.

Only if you consider an activity that thousands upon thousands of college students do completely out of enjoyment to be “labor”.

Yes?

[mervinswerved]

I play pickup basketball at the University rec center a couple days a week. If ESPN started paying the college millions of dollars every year to broadcast our games, I would certainly be expecting a cut.

[AmeriCanvbdad]

sports.yahoo.com/utah-nil-group-gifts-ram-1500-trucks-to-all-85-scholarship-football-players-185618727.html


And YOU get a truck, and YOU get a truck, but not YOU!
You’re a walk on.

EDIT—- Sorry I didn’t realize this thread was on the volleyball side of things before digging it up and posting.