Can/Will they modify NIL..ever?
- Thread starter SBP
- Start date
Eventually these students will be judged to be employees. Collective bargaining and contracts can accomplish most of what people want. But once they are employees, the big thing to watch for is if the governing law for student athletes shifts from title 9 (ensuring gender equity) to employment law which bans discrimination based on sex. In other words, if there is a job available, it needs to be open to men and women equally, and the best candidate wins without regard to their gender. Same thing for compensation - objective measures of performance would need to dictate compensation. So if the job is to be a strong athlete, men will mostly win. The whole idea of gender parity in college athletics would be challenged.
Last edited:
i dont know what i meant to say there. My point was mesnt to be the ability to transfer enhances total player NIl $s
Seems like a stretch given that there are women's pro sports leagues all over the place.
Maybe. But those women's leagues get compensated based on market conditions. Title 9 is not in play forcing similar salaries as the men's pro leagues. Nor does there need to be the same number of women's leagues as men's leagues.
If the student athletes are employees, and the sports are professionalized, how can Title 9 exist and say that there needs to be gender parity?
Well, if you are saying this opens the door for not needing gender parity, sure. If you are saying that this will prevent institution for pursuing gender parity if they want to, then I refer to my previous reply. I'm not sure which one you mean.
Indeed, it has been argued that Title VII would give more protection to women in college athletics than Title IX does and that therefore it would be good for college athletes to be classified as employees.
https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...=&httpsredir=1&article=1397&context=sportslaw
I don't think it does even the first. It's possible for Title VII *and* Title IX to apply. So classifying athletes as employees under Title VII doesn't exempt the educational institution from Title IX.
In addition, the language of Title IX says that schools may not discriminate on the basis of sex. That language isn't much different from Title VII's ban on discrimination in employment. But no one has ever argued (at least not successfully) that a school could comply with Title IX just by declaring all of its teams to be co-ed.
Sorry I should have been more clear. I'm saying one of the obstacles to universities playing a more formal role in compensating student athletes is Title 9. Because then they might have to offer equal compensation to all athletes and teams. This would make the cost unreasonable and could tank any new system or force the cutting of all non-revenue sports or other bad things. But if the athletes are now employees Title 9 may no longer apply.
As with most things in the law, we'd have to see. But the interpretations you suggest are far from inevitable IMHO.
I’m just saying it’s something to watch out for as a possibility that would have big implications.
Pretty much this - what is the ROI on having the star college player doing a commercial for you. Now put said college player in Rutgers where most of the state only recognizes RU Athletics if they are winning big. Definitely not working here. On the whole (barring very few players) this is just money laundering for boosters to get players.
YES 100% ripping the soul out of the game. Definitely needs guardrails and to be regulated - HOWEVER, this should have been done at the beginning as the cats out of the bag now. No thought by the NCAA - all they did was make a much worse version of the pro game where everyone is on a 1 year contract - INSANE! I predict all players will become unionized which will then make the NCAA as we know it today part of the walking dead.....and oh yeah say goodbye to the olympic sports at schools. It's a grim future, but also a very realistic one as far as I'm concerned - such a shame the NCAA was the absolute wrong governing body for the moment.
It took the Supreme Court's infinite wisdom two and half years to destroy college basketball. I still haven't even looked at a tournament bracket; the sport sucks now.
When we aren’t in it I have no interest
I used to. Now I don't. I used to know the top players on all the top 10 teams. Now I know exactly one player (Edey) who was never on Rutgers at some point. I remember when you used to look at a team and say, "Well, they are middle-of-the-pack now, but wait two years until these guys are all seniors!" LOL - now "these guys" will all be seniors on other teams in two years.
So?
I thought People always say "its the name on the front - not the name on the back."
With the name on the front, the name on the back has no value.
Now people are all upset over losing the names on the back?
Almost implies the names on the back have value on their own.......
The fact that CFB and CBB have to support Olympic sports is the grim past/present.
Take away all media revenue - Rutgers, NJ, Federal Govenment, USOC wouldn't find value in spending money on supporting and developing US Olympic sports?
Nothing is preventing Rutgers/NJ from continuing to spend a couple tens of millions on Olympic sports if CFB/CBB break away.
Considering the $3+B budget, $30m on Olympic sports isn't that big an expense.
the judicial system will always side with these athletes especially since the far majority are minority so there will be almost no restrictions once the box or bag so to speak was opened. RIP college athletics. Its paid professional sports and then we have people coming here and saying dont criticize the players, they are young blah blah blah...they are basically employees now, lets cut the charade.
just wait until the equity for womens sports is coming...no way they allow all this money to flow around without requirement womens sports to receive half the chunk despite bringing in little revenue
just wait until the equity for womens sports is coming...no way they allow all this money to flow around without requirement womens sports to receive half the chunk despite bringing in little revenue
The issue much bigger than getting someone to underwrite the olympic sports for the year. We are no longer talking about Student Athletes who are part of the school or program - we are talking about UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES of the school. This comes with a ton of legal wrangling, health insurance, pensions, profit sharing (TV Revenue, Advertising, Gate, etc.) and I've probably only scratched the surface. And while maybe men's basketball and football could justify the financials of this because of the revenue they bring in - you can't say the same about the swim team or field hockey or track & field or baseball or softball - and the list just goes on and on of the financial abyss this would throw the non-revenue sports into. Let's also not forget if you have mens sports, then your must have equity with women's sports. No way that system is sustainable - 80% plus of sports would die a fast death at a majority of universities. Perhaps the only schools who could afford it are the Ivies because their endowments are so huge. I love college sports, but we are all on the titanic - this needs to change and NOW!
That’s a level of spending that, when they think is for football, drives sports opponents crazy. It is also roughly what we are spending now for the non revenue sports.
Rutgers athletics are not supported by football and basketball. Football makes a tiny profit and basketball bleeds profusely.
At Rutgers, Olympic sports are funded by student fees, not football and basketball. Rutgers, a B1G university, takes 8 figures out of students' pockets to put into athletics, the most in the B1G.
Me I would support a Cap System of a sort via the NIL
Annual Cap on what you make as a frosh say 4k per month and that number goes up as you move up in your class. But all classmates would be getting the same amount of NIL money.
That is strictly NIL Dollars.
All of the other dollars you can make via advertisements both print and media that's on you . You can have either family members or a " representative " develop that for you.
The big problem here is you need every Power 5 school to be on the same sheet of music and with this type of thing it's impossible.
Annual Cap on what you make as a frosh say 4k per month and that number goes up as you move up in your class. But all classmates would be getting the same amount of NIL money.
That is strictly NIL Dollars.
All of the other dollars you can make via advertisements both print and media that's on you . You can have either family members or a " representative " develop that for you.
The big problem here is you need every Power 5 school to be on the same sheet of music and with this type of thing it's impossible.
It seems to me this is an overstatement. Football and basketball money do, after all, help to pay the bills. Nor do student fees entirely make up the difference; instead, the Board of Governors sets aside money to help close the gap. (This is why some faculty oppose intercollegiate athletics so much; they think that Board of Governors money should be going to other purposes.) I very much doubt that the athletic programs would be self-supporting if football and basketball did not exist.
In addition, I think we have to differentiate between men's basketball and women's basketball. The former makes a profit; the latter runs at a considerable loss. At least that was true in the most recent numbers I've seen.
Here is my math.
Football: $2 million profit
Men's basketball: $2 million loss
Women's basketball: $5 million loss
Other sports: $23 million loss
Total athletic department: $28 million loss
Please note the above amounts start with sport-specific revenues and expenses. Media rights revenue is allocated by sport, with 77% going to football and 15% to men's basketball. Athletics facility debt service is allocated 50% to football, 10% each to men's and women's basketball, and 30% to the other sports.
Where do your numbers come from? I remember seeing the NCAA's numbers when broken down by sport, and men's basketball was profitable. It seems to me that its expenses are much lower than football and that men's basketball draws a lot of spectators.
Thank you for asking. My numbers come from the Rutgers version of the annual financial report the NCAA requires all Division I athletics departments to submit.
Where did you see the NCAA’s numbers showing men’s basketball was profitable?
Last fiscal year, Rutgers football outspent men’s basketball $49 million to $14 million. These numbers do not include debt service on the football stadium expansion and basketball training facility loans.
On spectators, Rutgers reports attendance of 8,000 for every game, no matter how many spectators show up. Men’s basketball ticket sales revenue is between $3 and $4 million.
Thanks for letting me know. The figures I remember are from 5-10 years ago. I'm surprised that men's basketball operates so much in the red.
My guess is that the attendance figures are tickets sold, not fannies in the seats. That seems to be the practice these days.
Similar threads
