NIL and money for athletes

[darkcheck]

Please someone explain this to me like I’m 5 years old, because sometimes mentally I am. I’ll start by saying I’m pro college athletes getting paid. I also realize that the line of questioning here won’t lead to a solution, we have NIL the way it is. Please don’t respond with Capt Obvious comments, I’m really working to understand all this and am happy to defer to those of you that know more.

With the release of the Sargent article and the potential infighting of our fan base, isn’t the biggest villain in the athletes getting paid the ncaa and conferences? In the NFL the main source of revenue is tv contracts, right? Don’t the players get like 50.5% of that? Where does all the tv money go in ncaa for football and basketball? Again, please, like I’m five years old. Maybe I’m missing an expense or step. It seems the root of the problem is the ncaa sharing. Then the extra money doesn’t have to come from the fan base. While the Knights of the Raritan do amazing work, it seems like the fans have to pay twice. And we’re made to feel guilty if we don’t. Thank you In advance for the replies and education in understanding the inner workings here. Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy New Year to all!

 

[robcac26]

Hit the nail on the head. The NCAA allowing NIL payments just shows they never actually were opposed to paying athletes, they just didn't want it to come out of their own coffers.

 

[jaydogsmooth1]

The short version is the NCAA is corrupt, enforces penalties arbitrarily to suit their needs, and as usual, has been late to the party due to negligence and greed

 

[WhiteBus]

Please someone explain this to me like I’m 5 years old, because sometimes mentally I am. I’ll start by saying I’m pro college athletes getting paid. I also realize that the line of questioning here won’t lead to a solution, we have NIL the way it is. Please don’t respond with Capt Obvious comments, I’m really working to understand all this and am happy to defer to those of you that know more.

With the release of the Sargent article and the potential infighting of our fan base, isn’t the biggest villain in the athletes getting paid the ncaa and conferences? In the NFL the main source of revenue is tv contracts, right? Don’t the players get like 50.5% of that? Where does all the tv money go in ncaa for football and basketball? Again, please, like I’m five years old. Maybe I’m missing an expense or step. It seems the root of the problem is the ncaa sharing. Then the extra money doesn’t have to come from the fan base. While the Knights of the Raritan do amazing work, it seems like the fans have to pay twice. And we’re made to feel guilty if we don’t. Thank you In advance for the replies and education in understanding the inner workings here. Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy New Year to all!

The money goes to the conferences. That's why we're in the best conference in the country!!

 

[NickRU714]

Please someone explain this to me like I’m 5 years old, because sometimes mentally I am. I’ll start by saying I’m pro college athletes getting paid. I also realize that the line of questioning here won’t lead to a solution, we have NIL the way it is. Please don’t respond with Capt Obvious comments, I’m really working to understand all this and am happy to defer to those of you that know more.

With the release of the Sargent article and the potential infighting of our fan base, isn’t the biggest villain in the athletes getting paid the ncaa and conferences? In the NFL the main source of revenue is tv contracts, right? Don’t the players get like 50.5% of that? Where does all the tv money go in ncaa for football and basketball? Again, please, like I’m five years old. Maybe I’m missing an expense or step. It seems the root of the problem is the ncaa sharing. Then the extra money doesn’t have to come from the fan base. While the Knights of the Raritan do amazing work, it seems like the fans have to pay twice. And we’re made to feel guilty if we don’t. Thank you In advance for the replies and education in understanding the inner workings here. Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy New Year to all!

Long story short: Yes.

Using pro sports (NBA) as the model:
The teams/league take in all the revenue (media, gameday, advertising, etc,).
These get sorted ultimately into "Basketball Related Income" (for college it would be "athletics related income").
This is the money that gets split between the "owners/teams" and the "players".
The usual lockouts and arguments between Players Union and League/Team is what does and doesn't go into BRI and what the percentage split it (50-50, 49-51 etc).
Income that isn't part of BRI gets kept by the team.

People like to say "the players are already getting paid with scholarships".
No problem.
Let that money come out of the players share of the money then.

The main problem is ADs have never had to be accountable for how they spend revenue.
College athletics is (likely) very fiscally irresponsible.
They get 100% of the "athletics related income" and literally spend OVER 100%.
That is why "fans/donors" are required to help fund day to day operations.
It's always "we need more money to compete, we can't do this without private donors/money".

You've never seen a report saying "NY Giants want to fire HC Joe Judge but can't afford it. They are looking for private donors to fund the buyout". The teams deal with it themselves - and then pass along the cost to fans via ticket prices and etc.

There would need to be SIGNIFICANT spending cuts on behalf of the ADs to get their houses in order just to be at 100% of "athletics related income". Let alone get down to 50%.

A major part of this is would be reducing "non-revenue sports spending".
I've long advocated for this sports to be fully funded directly by the University and not get subsidized by Football/Basketball.

 

[darkcheck]

Long story short: Yes.

Using pro sports (NBA) as the model:
The teams/league take in all the revenue (media, gameday, advertising, etc,).
These get sorted ultimately into "Basketball Related Income" (for college it would be "athletics related income").
This is the money that gets split between the "owners/teams" and the "players".
The usual lockouts and arguments between Players Union and League/Team is what does and doesn't go into BRI and what the percentage split it (50-50, 49-51 etc).
Income that isn't part of BRI gets kept by the team.

People like to say "the players are already getting paid with scholarships".
No problem.
Let that money come out of the players share of the money then.

The main problem is ADs have never had to be accountable for how they spend revenue.
College athletics is (likely) very fiscally irresponsible.
They get 100% of the "athletics related income" and literally spend OVER 100%.
That is why "fans/donors" are required to help fund day to day operations.
It's always "we need more money to compete, we can't do this without private donors/money".

You've never seen a report saying "NY Giants want to fire HC Joe Judge but can't afford it. They are looking for private donors to fund the buyout". The teams deal with it themselves - and then pass along the cost to fans via ticket prices and etc.

There would need to be SIGNIFICANT spending cuts on behalf of the ADs to get their houses in order just to be at 100% of "athletics related income". Let alone get down to 50%.

A major part of this is would be reducing "non-revenue sports spending".
I've long advocated for this sports to be fully funded directly by the University and not get subsidized by Football/Basketball.

Thank you so much for this breakdown I appreciate it. Love when you say “fine deduct scholarships from the athletes share of revenue”

 

[RUBlackout]

Long story short: Yes.

Using pro sports (NBA) as the model:
The teams/league take in all the revenue (media, gameday, advertising, etc,).
These get sorted ultimately into "Basketball Related Income" (for college it would be "athletics related income").
This is the money that gets split between the "owners/teams" and the "players".
The usual lockouts and arguments between Players Union and League/Team is what does and doesn't go into BRI and what the percentage split it (50-50, 49-51 etc).
Income that isn't part of BRI gets kept by the team.

People like to say "the players are already getting paid with scholarships".
No problem.
Let that money come out of the players share of the money then.

The main problem is ADs have never had to be accountable for how they spend revenue.
College athletics is (likely) very fiscally irresponsible.
They get 100% of the "athletics related income" and literally spend OVER 100%.
That is why "fans/donors" are required to help fund day to day operations.
It's always "we need more money to compete, we can't do this without private donors/money".

You've never seen a report saying "NY Giants want to fire HC Joe Judge but can't afford it. They are looking for private donors to fund the buyout". The teams deal with it themselves - and then pass along the cost to fans via ticket prices and etc.

There would need to be SIGNIFICANT spending cuts on behalf of the ADs to get their houses in order just to be at 100% of "athletics related income". Let alone get down to 50%.

A major part of this is would be reducing "non-revenue sports spending".
I've long advocated for this sports to be fully funded directly by the University and not get subsidized by Football/Basketball.

Spot on.

Revenue should be shared from the Conference/NCAA to athletes and potentially put in a trust somewhere until they move on so it is deferred somehow to ensure they are setup post college.

They should eliminate any type of pay for play. I just don't know how they would solve for individual earnings via advertising(like Instagram influencers) or camps, etc or at least properly regulate it. Hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

This would all make sense where we are headed with super conferences. Once the revenue is shared with athletes the average fan/donor can go back to just donating to the schools again for infrastructure and scholarships again as continue that arms race.