|
NIL
Jun 12, 2023 13:38:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jun 12, 2023 13:38:43 GMT -5
Well, it gets too far away from the purpose of this board, but the political reality is no. One of the most powerful tools for politicians is the ability to create, preserve, and take away deductions from different voting classes and corporations. They're not going to be able to stop accessing a major tool of their power and influence. It's not just a United States thing. It's every representative government. Or even autocratic governments. As crazy as it sounds, it's better than it once was. Also, tax avoidance is only about 1% of GDP, which is good. The alternative to tax deductions is subsidies, which does the same thing, but is politically more difficult for emotional reasons, rather than logical ones. The crazy thing are industries like tobacco which enjoy considerable subsidies and then also face higher taxes. Some of the same thing happens with oil and gas, too. Also, tax breaks are easier to get by with foreign competitors than industry subsidies are, in general. Everyone likes to cry foul on unfair competitive advantages when subsidies are introduced. They do as well for deductions, but not as vociferously. you are right, not the right forum, however 1% of GDP is over 200 billion dollars...doesn't sound like an insignificant sum to me. To expect 100% tax collection is unrealistic. Measuring by GDP is a much more accurate reflection for the general level of compliance than real dollars. It’s not a bad thing to have a big economy (not necessarily an unmitigated good either, of course). Measuring in real terms punishes countries with larger economies whose rate of tax compliance is actually quite high in relative terms.
|
|
|
NIL
Jun 12, 2023 14:41:58 GMT -5
Post by bbg95 on Jun 12, 2023 14:41:58 GMT -5
I'm not an expert on tax law, but I would guess the IRS is right. I didn't realize that the contributions to the collectives were being treated as tax exempt in the first place. Anyway, it was inevitable that the government would try to regulate NIL in some way, even if it's just to tax the money.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 13:35:37 GMT -5
Post by pointillinois on Jul 11, 2023 13:35:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 11, 2023 13:51:23 GMT -5
It would be a very interesting world if people were willing to pay that kind of money to endorse and support students in engineering, music, medicine, art history, physics, etc. Guess it's more impressive to people if you can throw a tight spiral or make a one-handed dunk.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jul 11, 2023 14:08:50 GMT -5
That number is going to go way up at UT. I’m sure everyone else is working on it, too, but we’ve just scratched the surface still. It doesn’t say in that tiny article, but the Texas state bill that limits the FOIA information from being released also allows NIL contributions to go towards priority seating if it’s to an NIL collective approved by the university. Which helps in a number of ways for creating more competitive control over the NIL process, along with greatly incentivizing contributions. It’s not just UT that will “benefit.” It’s all the schools in the state. Although I think the whole thing is terrible for college athletics as a whole, but NIL is going to continue to be a boon for UT.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 14:18:02 GMT -5
Post by pointillinois on Jul 11, 2023 14:18:02 GMT -5
Thanks, I expected that number to be a lot higher. I'm sure it will be in the near future. I've read about Texas A&M leading the charge to give NIL donors priority access to things and not a fan of that model. Illinois is going quite well for Football and Men's Basketball, but I don't get the sense that it's trickled down very far from those two behemoths.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 11, 2023 14:40:01 GMT -5
I think NIL money will continue to grow for about 4-5 years, then it will plateau, and eventually revert a bit. Donors will realize that the ROI isn't what they expected. It will end up being more targeted and situational and not just about collectives splashing money around.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 14:57:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jul 11, 2023 14:57:30 GMT -5
It would be a very interesting world if people were willing to pay that kind of money to endorse and support students in engineering, music, medicine, art history, physics, etc. Guess it's more impressive to people if you can throw a tight spiral or make a one-handed dunk. It’s market rates. It’s not like people in other fields aren’t compensated at exorbitant rates. Check the salary a true quantum physicist earns on Wall Street versus what they earn for pure research. Heck, plenty of people these athlete’s age are earning huge incomes via competitive gaming, twitch streaming, OnlyFans, etc.. They may not have college boosters spending money on them for competitive purposes, but similar amounts are out there. Hence the change in the NIL rules in the first place. It was unfair to allow one class of people to not be able to earn money through NIL when so many of their peers are able to. I have to admit the market rewards all kinds of compensation for activities I do not value that much, and doesn’t compensate many activities I wish earned more, but for us to create a society that reflects my values rather than the current compensation picture would require a government intervention level I’m not entirely comfortable with.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 15:03:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jul 11, 2023 15:03:32 GMT -5
I think NIL money will continue to grow for about 4-5 years, then it will plateau, and eventually revert a bit. Donors will realize that the ROI isn't what they expected. It will end up being more targeted and situational and not just about collectives splashing money around. To me the only thing that’s going to make it plateau is federal legislation that monitors and/or has rules limiting it. Outside of that it’s like saying pro athletes are going to see their salaries plateau if there wasn’t any kind of collective bargaining agreement in place.. thecreason there’s a collective bargaining agreement in place is to limit outlier behavior. Or at least punish it severely. There are people who are willing to spend a fortune to see their alma mater win at the highest level. That’s the ROI.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 15:20:38 GMT -5
Post by huskerjen on Jul 11, 2023 15:20:38 GMT -5
I think NIL money will continue to grow for about 4-5 years, then it will plateau, and eventually revert a bit. Donors will realize that the ROI isn't what they expected. It will end up being more targeted and situational and not just about collectives splashing money around. To me the only thing that’s going to make it plateau is federal legislation that monitors and/or has rules limiting it. Outside of that it’s like saying pro athletes are going to see their salaries plateau if there wasn’t any kind of collective bargaining agreement in place.. thecreason there’s a collective bargaining agreement in place is to limit outlier behavior. Or at least punish it severely. There are people who are willing to spend a fortune to see their alma mater win at the highest level. That’s the ROI. It's still result vs. expectation. What's the definition of "winning at the highest level"? Only one team wins the national title in a given sport per year. Even the wealthiest donors aren't going to give away millions a year for zero championships, which will be the overwhelming result for most programs. The wealthy didn't become wealthy by being wasteful, this is especially true when the tax breaks go away. Eventually you'll get a lot of, "I already donated $5 million to this program's collective and we haven't won sh*t...call me back when you win a championship." But sure, Joe Nobody will keep giving a hundred bucks a year or whatever. That's nice, but it's not going to win an arms race regardless of how big the alumni base happens to be.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 15:23:47 GMT -5
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 11, 2023 15:23:47 GMT -5
Do people really donate to school athletics because they expect the programs to win championships? Or are most of the donations more so they can get access -- VIP treatment, best seats and luxury boxes, social events with the coaches and players, etc.?
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 15:25:24 GMT -5
Post by huskerjen on Jul 11, 2023 15:25:24 GMT -5
Do people really donate to school athletics because they expect the programs to win championships? Or are most of the donations more so they can get access -- VIP treatment, best seats and luxury boxes, social events with the coaches and players, etc.? That's a good point, and it's certainly true for some donors, but NIL has inflated the cost of VIP perks. I think the whales still want championships. They get the VIP treatment regardless.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 16:20:34 GMT -5
Post by ay2013 on Jul 11, 2023 16:20:34 GMT -5
It would be a very interesting world if people were willing to pay that kind of money to endorse and support students in engineering, music, medicine, art history, physics, etc. Guess it's more impressive to people if you can throw a tight spiral or make a one-handed dunk. It’s market rates. It’s not like people in other fields aren’t compensated at exorbitant rates. Check the salary a true quantum physicist earns on Wall Street versus what they earn for pure research. Heck, plenty of people these athlete’s age are earning huge incomes via competitive gaming, twitch streaming, OnlyFans, etc.. They may not have college boosters spending money on them for competitive purposes, but similar amounts are out there. Hence the change in the NIL rules in the first place. It was unfair to allow one class of people to not be able to earn money through NIL when so many of their peers are able to. I have to admit the market rewards all kinds of compensation for activities I do not value that much, and doesn’t compensate many activities I wish earned more, but for us to create a society that reflects my values rather than the current compensation picture would require a government intervention level I’m not entirely comfortable with. But I think that's Mike's point in the first place. Does it actually bode well for the future when in the 21st century the larger "market" isn't valuing valuable skills. When we have an entire generation able to make easy money making social media posts about makeup tips, competitive video gaming, or having casual sex, who ends up doing the work we actually NEED done? We are already living in a world where expertise/intelligence continues to be politicized and devalued. It makes for an interesting future, that's for sure.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 16:29:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jul 11, 2023 16:29:07 GMT -5
To me the only thing that’s going to make it plateau is federal legislation that monitors and/or has rules limiting it. Outside of that it’s like saying pro athletes are going to see their salaries plateau if there wasn’t any kind of collective bargaining agreement in place.. thecreason there’s a collective bargaining agreement in place is to limit outlier behavior. Or at least punish it severely. There are people who are willing to spend a fortune to see their alma mater win at the highest level. That’s the ROI. It's still result vs. expectation. What's the definition of "winning at the highest level"? Only one team wins the national title in a given sport per year. Even the wealthiest donors aren't going to give away millions a year for zero championships, which will be the overwhelming result for most programs. The wealthy didn't become wealthy by being wasteful, this is especially true when the tax breaks go away. Eventually you'll get a lot of, "I already donated $5 million to this program's collective and we haven't won sh*t...call me back when you win a championship." But sure, Joe Nobody will keep giving a hundred bucks a year or whatever. That's nice, but it's not going to win an arms race regardless of how big the alumni base happens to be. Mmmmm. You’re thinking of this rationally, when we’re not talking about rational behavior. You’re right. Only one school wins a national championship. And when that one school wins a national championship because they’ve weaponized NIL, everyone else is either going to give up and quit competing, or they’re going to spend more money in an effort to be even more competitive in that arena. I can’t say what choice every other school is going to make, but I can say that the people invested in IT’s success in athletics have not even begun to approach their maximum level. For decades they’ve felt hamstring by amateur rules in terms of compensating players under the table. The wealthiest people I know feel like NIL has provided a legitimate way to compete with everyone else in ways they weren’t able to before, and the checkbooks are going to open even wider in the future than they have so far until someone tells them in a compelling way they can’t do that any more. And viewing the landscape, the only body I see capable of that is Congress, while assignjng or creating an enforcement body to make sure the new rules - whatever they are - are followed. The biggest issue with all of this is the further lack of transparency. It’s like if Major League Baseball has a free agency where no one really knew how much each player was getting paid. Things get out of whack very quickly. Information is siloed and weaponized. And middle men get very very enriched.
|
|
|
NIL
Jul 11, 2023 16:30:40 GMT -5
Post by staticb on Jul 11, 2023 16:30:40 GMT -5
How much have donations dropped at Texas?
The thought was that colleges were initially against NIL because the money that boosters gave to the school would now go to athletes.
|
|