NIL Donor Fatigue Increasing

[mildone]

Forgive me for being a persnickety lawyer, but there never was an NIL decision. The Supreme Court in the Alston case upheld a district court decision saying that the NCAA rules limiting the educational benefits that schools could offer athletes was an unreasonable restraint on trade and so was a violation of the federal antitrust laws. The issue of whether the NCAA's rules forbidding NIL are an antitrust violation has not been fully litigated. Rather, the NCAA dropped most of its restrictions on NIL after Alston. It figured, apparently, that it would lose in court. In addition, there were already states allowing NIL and those state laws would stay in place even if the NCAA convinced the federal courts that its NIL rules didn't violate the antitrust laws.

As for the whining . .. change is hard for all of us.

That's a fair point, persnickety or not. And I appreciate you educating me about it.

But I think it's also probably moot because, as you said, the NCAA seems to have concluded, apparently along with all the schools involved so far, that any further litigation would almost certainly fail to limit, and might expand, the players' ability to earn money from their participation in college sports.

Because it's hard to see how, if fully litigated, the courts could decide that college athletes can be prevented from seeking compensation for the use of their own name and likeness. At least not while others (non-college athletes) are permitted to do so, or while other entities besides college athletes can do so leveraging those same college athletes.

I *could* see schools and NCAA trying to figure out some way to force all students at all schools to kick some of their income back to the schools and NCAA. The argument being that, without the schools, the athlete wouldn't have that income source. No school could do it on it's own without risking losing the best athletes to schools that don't do it. Maybe it could be done legislatively though, requiring it for all schools. I really have no idea.

Students can go out and earn money all they want while in college. But those who participate in research projects can be prohibited, through NDAs and the like, from independently profiting directly from intellectual property owned by the schools, or even indirectly based on that IP.

But I don't really see that as analogous enough to the athletes' situations. Perhaps it is and I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Brisket and Bourbon]

THAT will be the final straw for many RU fans.

There are 24 to 36 or so programs that can maintain the insane money game…they have donors with deep deep pockets with histories of spending. RU, Vandy, Mississippi State, Minnesota, BC, Syr type programs are not in that bunch.

That reality will hit hard…and that stratification in status will be starkly clear like never before.

 

[retired711]

That's a fair point, persnickety or not. And I appreciate you educating me about it.

But I think it's also probably moot because, as you said, the NCAA seems to have concluded, apparently along with all the schools involved so far, that any further litigation would almost certainly fail to limit, and might expand, the players' ability to earn money from their participation in college sports.

Because it's hard to see how, if fully litigated, the courts could decide that college athletes can be prevented from seeking compensation for the use of their own name and likeness. At least not while others (non-college athletes) are permitted to do so, or while other entities besides college athletes can do so leveraging those same college athletes.

I *could* see schools and NCAA trying to figure out some way to force all students at all schools to kick some of their income back to the schools and NCAA. The argument being that, without the schools, the athlete wouldn't have that income source. No school could do it on it's own without risking losing the best athletes to schools that don't do it. Maybe it could be done legislatively though, requiring it for all schools. I really have no idea.

Students can go out and earn money all they want while in college. But those who participate in research projects can be prohibited, through NDAs and the like, from independently profiting directly from intellectual property owned by the schools, or even indirectly based on that IP.

But I don't really see that as analogous enough to the athletes' situations. Perhaps it is and I'm just not seeing it.

I agree that the NCAA would have lost if it had litigated the issue of whether to allow NIL at all. It is hard to explain with a straight face why everyone but the athlete should be able to benefit from his fame. But I think the NCAA can successfully defend rules forbidding NIL from being used as incentives for an athlete to pick or stay at a particular school. We'll find this out, I suppose, as the Tennessee case continues to be litigated.

You raise an interesting question about whether an athlete could be required to give some of his earnings to the school -- maybe @Knight Shift, our intellectual property expert, has a view.

Just so everyone knows, the test here is what is called "a rule of reason"-- this kind of restraint on trade is allowed if the courts can be persuaded that it is reasonable. It is hard to predict the result in advance as with the many other times in the law where a test of "reasonableness" is used.

 

[Brisket and Bourbon]

…it is interesting how the college “arms race” used to mean get the snazziest, most techie, and flashy practice facility with the best weights and cool giant screens and you could distinguish yourself. While facilities still matter, the highly sought-after recruits who can make more money than the school president of the institution they “represent” are likely not to care…they want minimum “college” inconvenience and maximum payment.

School fight song? Alma mater? What is that?

SMU was a program well ahead of its time…original NIL 🤣

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Forgive me for being a persnickety lawyer, but there never was an NIL decision. The Supreme Court in the Alston case upheld a district court decision saying that the NCAA rules limiting the educational benefits that schools could offer athletes was an unreasonable restraint on trade and so was a violation of the federal antitrust laws. The issue of whether the NCAA's rules forbidding NIL are an antitrust violation has not been fully litigated. Rather, the NCAA dropped most of its restrictions on NIL after Alston. It figured, apparently, that it would lose in court. In addition, there were already states allowing NIL and those state laws would stay in place even if the NCAA convinced the federal courts that its NIL rules didn't violate the antitrust laws.

As for the whining . .. change is hard for all of us.

In my mind, the "NIL decision" was the SC coming in and saying the NCAA had a monopoly. Everything after that was going to be found to be an unreasonable restraint of trade. I'd even be willing to consider there were issue-by-issue debates to be had ... but the SC stepped in and explicitly said the conferences and the schools could institute these restraints, but the NCAA could not.

The whole decision, of course, falls on its own face because it also describes the NCAA players as being compensated by the schools (ie, paid - which makes it professional sports) which means the NCAA couldn't possibly have a monopoly (particularly in football and mens basketball - which is what makes all the money anyway). The NCAA lawyers were awful, but someone on the SC should have been smart enough to step in and say, "Um, how can the NCAA have a monopoly on football for pay if these same players can play in the NFL or the XFL?"

 

[retired711]

In my mind, the "NIL decision" was the SC coming in and saying the NCAA had a monopoly. Everything after that was going to be found to be an unreasonable restraint of trade. I'd even be willing to consider there were issue-by-issue debates to be had ... but the SC stepped in and explicitly said the conferences and the schools could institute these restraints, but the NCAA could not.

The whole decision, of course, falls on its own face because it also describes the NCAA players as being compensated by the schools (ie, paid - which makes it professional sports) which means the NCAA couldn't possibly have a monopoly (particularly in football and mens basketball - which is what makes all the money anyway). The NCAA lawyers were awful, but someone on the SC should have been smart enough to step in and say, "Um, how can the NCAA have a monopoly on football for pay if these same players can play in the NFL or the XFL?"

You equate "compensation" with being paid, but to the Court, educational and similar benefits are "compensation."

The Court says that the NCAA has monopoly power (even the NCAA conceded that was true), but still uses a rule of reason to decide whether the restrictions are valid. In fact, the district court upheld some of the NCAA's restrictions on scholarships and the athletes didn't even challenge that holding.

Finally, as you and I have discussed in the past, conferences and the schools can establish restraints -- but an express or tacit agreement among them to do so would be as subject to challenge as the NCAA's rules. The reason is that individual conferences and schools don't have monopoly power -- but a combination of them very well could.

BTW, there actually is a passage in the Court's opinion saying that the NCAA can prohibit educational "compensation" from being offered by outsiders such as auto dealers and boosters. But apparently the NCAA doesn't think it can use that language to justify NIL prohibitions.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

BTW, there actually is a passage in the Court's opinion saying that the NCAA can prohibit educational "compensation" from being offered by outsiders such as auto dealers and boosters. But apparently the NCAA doesn't think it can use that language to justify NIL prohibitions.

Why would they? As we've been told repeatedly by our resident lucrative t-shirt business owner, none of the players care about educational compensation. Of course, I would have killed for it when I was a walkon, but what do I know?

 

[Panthergrowl13]

I agree that the NCAA would have lost if it had litigated the issue of whether to allow NIL at all. It is hard to explain with a straight face why everyone but the athlete should be able to benefit from his fame. But I think the NCAA can successfully defend rules forbidding NIL from being used as incentives for an athlete to pick or stay at a particular school. We'll find this out, I suppose, as the Tennessee case continues to be litigated.

You raise an interesting question about whether an athlete could be required to give some of his earnings to the school -- maybe @Knight Shift, our intellectual property expert, has a view.

Just so everyone knows, the test here is what is called "a rule of reason"-- this kind of restraint on trade is allowed if the courts can be persuaded that it is reasonable. It is hard to predict the result in advance as with the many other times in the law where a test of "reasonableness" is used.

The NIL payments now are like the Wild West with potential out of control spending for National Championships.

However, I think the situation will be resolved in some manner that will be acceptable to the Courts and the participating Universities because it has to be. What form it will take I'm not sure.

As I stated before the NFL (Business) imposes restrictions on teams (Salary Caps) that all NFL teams must adhere to.

Legal restrictions

Businesses for example can benefit from Patent Law to take an invention developed by an individual or Research Team at that business and keep all the financial benefits within the company with little or minimal benefits to the actual discoverer. An example would be coming up with a break through drug which everyone in the World want and bring in multiple Billions of Dollars per year for the company for 17 years or more. The stock price of the company would substantially increase allowing the CEO to be greatly compensated as well as the VP of Sales etc.
However, how much does the Research Team financially get compensated. The business community has hundred of stories detailing with such a situation I have described. Company Patent Law could be changed to include a clause that would would give the Research Team say maybe 1% or less of gross profit for 17 years but it won't.

Jones Salk who discovered the first vaccine for Polio did not Patent the invention because he said the discovery belonged to the world.

Don't know how the NIL issue will be resolved but it will be because it must be.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Knight Shift]

What Saban says makes sense, but he was making what, $11M per year? Rings a little hollow, but good points made anyway. Money does not build character. Some of these recruits do desperately need money. But the first question on their minds should be how are you going to develop us into better players. And for the parents- how are you going to develop my kid a person and for life after football.




SVP weighs in too:

 

[retired711]

Why would they? As we've been told repeatedly by our resident lucrative t-shirt business owner, none of the players care about educational compensation. Of course, I would have killed for it when I was a walkon, but what do I know?

Of course, the whole reason the athletes brought the Alston litigation was to get more educational benefits by having the courts declare illegal the NCAA's limits on those benefits. I don't know who the "resident lucrative t-shirt business owner" is (and I"m not sure I want to know), but clearly at least some players care very much about educational compensation.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

What Saban says makes sense, but he was making what, $11M per year? Rings a little hollow, but good points made anyway.

He was probably making minimum wage at age 30 trying to learn his craft.

 

[Ridge 22]

True NIL and/or players receiving a cut of the media revenue is one thing, but this is not that. If it were, fans wouldnt need to be the ones paying the players. The fact that we are tells you their true NIL value is not significant in most cases. It is not a sustainable model to keep expecting the fans to continue to ante up more and more $ to pay the players, along with their other contributions. Just a broken and stupid model.

 

[Knight Shift]

He was probably making minimum wage at age 30 trying to learn his craft.

That is a very fair point, and I agree to a degree. Where I start to wonder is what is a fair value for a college football coach (not pro), but maybe we need to drop the illusion of "not pro" because college football is a big money business. Guess we should hate the game and not the "players/coaches."

 

[RutgHoops]

Forgive me for being a persnickety lawyer, but there never was an NIL decision. The Supreme Court in the Alston case upheld a district court decision saying that the NCAA rules limiting the educational benefits that schools could offer athletes was an unreasonable restraint on trade and so was a violation of the federal antitrust laws. The issue of whether the NCAA's rules forbidding NIL are an antitrust violation has not been fully litigated. Rather, the NCAA dropped most of its restrictions on NIL after Alston. It figured, apparently, that it would lose in court. In addition, there were already states allowing NIL and those state laws would stay in place even if the NCAA convinced the federal courts that its NIL rules didn't violate the antitrust laws.

As for the whining . .. change is hard for all of us.

While the Supreme Court didn't make an "NIL decision" it was apparent in the Alston decision that the NCAA relying on free labor was going to lose BIG if it ever came again before the Court. Justice Kavanaugh in his concurrence clearly states what the NCAA would be up against should it ever find itself before the Court again on the topic (bold added for emphasis):

" The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws. The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction, and I join the Court’s excellent opinion in full.
But this case involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA’s compensation rules—namely, the rules restricting the education-related benefits that student athletes may receive, such as post-eligibility scholarships at graduate or vocational schools. The rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules are not at issue here and therefore remain on the books. Those remaining compensation rules generally restrict student athletes from receiving compensation or benefits from their colleges for playing sports. And those rules have also historically restricted student athletes from receiving money from endorsement deals and the like.
I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

 

[NickRU714]

He was probably making minimum wage at age 30 trying to learn his craft.

How much was the program he worked for making?

 

[NickRU714]

This whole “young people shouldn’t make money” is a crazy position.

Should Dylan and Ace make minimum wage in the NBA at age 20?

 

[Ridge 22]

This whole “young people shouldn’t make money” is a crazy position.

Should Dylan and Ace make minimum wage in the NBA at age 20?

You seem to be conflating several issues into one. No one is saying they shouldn't be able to earn money. But fans paying players just to be on the team is not that model. Let them go earn true NIL for whatever they can get in the marketplace. Or earn a piece of the media money. But why should any fan have to pay the players directly? Further, there have to be some boundaries put around it. Otherwise, it is the NFL or NBA, without the benefit of a draft, player contracts to restrict movement, and a salary cap to govern how much can be spent per team. What we have in college right now is the worst aspects of all these models, with a complete lack of rules or governance.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

How much was the program he worked for making?

Well, one can presume he didn't make any real money until he became Defensive Coordinator at Michigan State sometime between 1983-87 (he would have been 34 in 1985). He got his first Head Coach job (at Toledo in 1990) at age 39. In 1982 he was the DB coach at Navy and I guarantee that was like making minimum wage.

Hard to believe he survived without NIL/tattoo money at age 18.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

This whole “young people shouldn’t make money” is a crazy position.

Should Dylan and Ace make minimum wage in the NBA at age 20?

Should they have to go to the NBA team that drafts them? Shouldn't they be allowed to just pick the team that will pay them the most and sign there immediately?

 

[NickRU714]

You seem to be conflating several issues into one. No one is saying they shouldn't be able to earn money. But fans paying players just to be on the team is not that model. Let them go earn true NIL for whatever they can get in the marketplace. Or earn a piece of the media money. But why should any fan have to pay the players directly? Further, there have to be some boundaries put around it. Otherwise, it is the NFL or NBA, without the benefit of a draft, player contracts to restrict movement, and a salary cap to govern how much can be spent per team. What we have in college right now is the worst aspects of all these models, with a complete lack of rules or governance.

The irony of your first sentence is very amusing - you are the one conflating multiple issues.
I was specifically commenting on the reoccurring topic of "these are young kids - they don't deserve money. Coaches deserve their money because they earned it by making minimum wage when they were young."

Since you want to conflate several issues, I'll go with you.

1. Actually there are many people saying the players shouldn't be able to earn money (beyond a scholarship). They are "young" and haven't "earned it" yet is a common refrain.
2. Why should fans have to pay the players directly? Better question - why shouldn't they? You know fans already pay players indirectly (mandatory donation go towards scholarships which is the "payment" players already go). Why would you expect the AD to incur the rising cost of player payment and not make fans pay it?
   They make fans pay for every other AD expense. Fans made this bed - now they need to sleep in it.
3. The rules or governance would require the conferences to actually work together as partners and not adversaries. NFL or NBA don't have the NFC East battling the AFC South for more media money or trying to poach teams from each other. Until conferences work together, there will be no rules or governance.

 

[RutgHoops]

Should they have to go to the NBA team that drafts them? Shouldn't they be allowed to just pick the team that will pay them the most and sign there immediately?

Should the Owners have to give the players 50% of the revenue? Should the Owners be forced to adhere to a salary cap?

There is a collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners. The players "give something" like allowing a draft and not having free agency every year and the owners "give something" like guaranteeing 50% of league revenue goes to players' salaries.

I assume you understand this but there is no collective bargaining agreement in college athletics. College athletes have not bargained away any of their free market rights. Therefore, college athletes are (now) permitted the same free market rights the same as anyone who applies for a job on Wall Street or a tech firm or the real estate industry.

 

[NickRU714]

Well, one can presume he didn't make any real money until he became Defensive Coordinator at Michigan State sometime between 1983-87 (he would have been 34 in 1985). He got his first Head Coach job (at Toledo in 1990) at age 39. In 1982 he was the DB coach at Navy and I guarantee that was like making minimum wage.

Hard to believe he survived without NIL/tattoo money at age 18.

How much was the HC making at MSU or Navy?
How much was he making as HC at Toledo?

Hard to believe that a HC survived without multi million dollar contracts, country club memberships and clothing stipends when they were a HC.

 

[NickRU714]

The NIL payments now are like the Wild West with potential out of control spending for National Championships.

However, I think the situation will be resolved in some manner that will be acceptable to the Courts and the participating Universities because it has to be. What form it will take I'm not sure.

As I stated before the NFL (Business) imposes restrictions on teams (Salary Caps) that all NFL teams must adhere to.

Legal restrictions

Businesses for example can benefit from Patent Law to take an invention developed by an individual or Research Team at that business and keep all the financial benefits within the company with little or minimal benefits to the actual discoverer. An example would be coming up with a break through drug which everyone in the World want and bring in multiple Billions of Dollars per year for the company for 17 years or more. The stock price of the company would substantially increase allowing the CEO to be greatly compensated as well as the VP of Sales etc.
However, how much does the Research Team financially get compensated. The business community has hundred of stories detailing with such a situation I have described. Company Patent Law could be changed to include a clause that would would give the Research Team say maybe 1% or less of gross profit for 17 years but it won't.

Jones Salk who discovered the first vaccine for Polio did not Patent the invention because he said the discovery belonged to the world.

Don't know how the NIL issue will be resolved but it will be because it must be.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Regarding the Patent Law items: aren't those people being paid and compensated for their work? The reason they give up ownership of their IP is that they are getting paid for it.

The idea (not from you) that athletes should GIVE BACK money to Athletic Departments (that make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS in revenues) is possibly one of the worst takes on the board.
That as nonsensical as Athletic Departments (that make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS in revenue) forcing fans to "donate" additional money to them.

 

[dconifer]

I have to LOL at the term "donor fatigue." It's right up there with "sanitation engineer."

 

[greenknight]

I don't have an issue with Coaching Salaries. Just like CEO's of any major business.

NIL just has to be addressed in some way. And if courts are now making that impossible- then change the transfer rules. We can't have both in this sport and survive

Should be 1 transfer ONLY need to stop the wild wild west and get them to think if transferring is really worth it. 2 any player opting out of any game or season should have to either forfeit their NIL or Scolarship. This is the big boy world now, there needs to repercussions for your actions....you are being paid for your services. The current shitshow is a total disaster of a scenario

The major reason I am against NIL as it currently stands is that said players are getting a full scolarship to advance their education. I as a fan should not be expected to donate to school that essentially goes to scholarships and also donating to NIL. I am not helping to pay put others kids thru college & also to play and also pay for my kids to go to college

They are bleeding fans way too much. I've contributed like many here to stadium expansion multiple x's probably in the area of 12 times during expansion phase, I've donated many tickets to bowl games on top of the seat donation for 4 seats yearly and $500 to parking yrly to stay in parking lot while already paying $40/gm for parking. Its ridiculous

 

[retired711]

While the Supreme Court didn't make an "NIL decision" it was apparent in the Alston decision that the NCAA relying on free labor was going to lose BIG if it ever came again before the Court. Justice Kavanaugh in his concurrence clearly states what the NCAA would be up against should it ever find itself before the Court again on the topic (bold added for emphasis):

" The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws. The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction, and I join the Court’s excellent opinion in full.
But this case involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA’s compensation rules—namely, the rules restricting the education-related benefits that student athletes may receive, such as post-eligibility scholarships at graduate or vocational schools. The rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules are not at issue here and therefore remain on the books. Those remaining compensation rules generally restrict student athletes from receiving compensation or benefits from their colleges for playing sports. And those rules have also historically restricted student athletes from receiving money from endorsement deals and the like.
I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

Just remember that Justice Kavanaugh was speaking only for himself. Maybe there would be a majority for his position, but not necessarily. A lot would depend on the record that would be made in the trial court on whether the NCAA could justify its restraints as reasonable. The NCAA has stopped trying to ban NIL, but is still trying to restrict its use as a recruitment/retention device. The rule of reason will apply in judging whether those limits are valid.

 

[greenknight]

Honestly if it keeps going down this endless path of greed and craziness I wouldnt mind seeing colleges folding their athletic programs
or remove themselves from.the NIL world. You want to play here student 1st and foremost. There is nothing saying any school needs to provide NIL they can choose to not partake

 

[Ridge 22]

The idea (not from you) that athletes should GIVE BACK money to Athletic Departments (that make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS in revenues) is possibly one of the worst takes on the board.
That as nonsensical as Athletic Departments (that make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS in revenue) forcing fans to "donate" additional money to them.

Some of your takes in this thread are just bizarre. You understand that revenue is just 50% of the equation, right? Making over $100M in revenue (to use your number) DOES NOT mean a school is net positive overall from an income perspective. Expenses matter. So do money losing programs schools are forced to field. How many schools do you think run OVERALL ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS that at least break even? Probably not too many. if i am a school, and football makes money, but my other sports all lose money (which the school HAS TO OPERATE due to Title IX), and I am in the red overall, I probably dont want to now also pay the players a share of that $100m because now I lose even more overall (even though football itself may remain net positive). Again, the entire system is broken and needs to be re-thought.

 

[Knight Shift]

This whole “young people shouldn’t make money” is a crazy position.

Should Dylan and Ace make minimum wage in the NBA at age 20?

What do G League players or players in Europe make? Minor league baseball players vs. Major League.

G-League: Last time I saw it, it was around $40,000 in 2022.

XFL players make $59,000 minimum, some more.


$40-60K, that's about the value of the free education, room, board and perks a scholarship player receives. More at a private school.

See, some of us don't have a problem with them making money. In essence they are getting paid, because they are getting a thing of value (an education and room and board) that others have to pay for out of their own pockets. That's not good enough? OK, let's take the scholarship and room and board away and pay them $40,00 per year like the G League. Fair? Of course it is!!!

 

[Knight Shift]

Regarding the Patent Law items: aren't those people being paid and compensated for their work? The reason they give up ownership of their IP is that they are getting paid for it.

The idea (not from you) that athletes should GIVE BACK money to Athletic Departments (that make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS in revenues) is possibly one of the worst takes on the board.
That as nonsensical as Athletic Departments (that make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS in revenue) forcing fans to "donate" additional money to them.

And see my point above, players are getting paid by getting free room, board and perks. If you don't like that, then let's take that a way and pay them the value of the free room, board and perks, and they can't play ball until they pay for the room, board and perks that used to be free.

 

[RutgHoops]

Some of your takes in this thread are just bizarre. You understand that revenue is just 50% of the equation, right? Making over $100M in revenue (to use your number) DOES NOT mean a school is net positive overall from an income perspective. Expenses matter. So do money losing programs schools are forced to field. How many schools do you think run OVERALL ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS that at least break even? Probably not too many. if i am a school, and football makes money, but my other sports all lose money (which the school HAS TO OPERATE due to Title IX), and I am in the red overall, I probably dont want to now also pay the players a share of that $100m because now I lose even more overall (even though football itself may remain net positive). Again, the entire system is broken and needs to be re-thought.

Why is his take more "bizarre" thank folks who see $1B television contracts being signed by conferences and believe the athletes playing the sport are entitled to room, board, books and an education? The free market has been crystal clear that college football players and college basketball players command more than that as compensation. Why should Kyle Monangai or Caleb Williams care if field hockey or wrestling or track and field loses money? If they are "worth" $500k or $1M in a free market why should they except $60k compensation (the rough value of a scholarship)?

I know I have written this before, but there is not one person advocating for the "old system" who would trade $1M comp for $60k. Not one. And not one would (or should) care that other parts of the "business" lose money as a justification for that reduced comp.

 

[yesrutgers01]

And see my point above, players are getting paid by getting free room, board and perks. If you don't like that, then let's take that a way and pay them the value of the free room, board and perks, and they can't play ball until they pay for the room, board and perks that used to be free.

When our son was playing- that was pretty much all you expected. On the other hand- you had some kids from lower level income families getting and extra $2-3k stipend on top of the room and board. Others from very low income family that got the extra stipend cash and also always seemed to be driving brand new Chargers and such...lol

Even though we could have even paid for his education- it was still something special for it to be paid for because of his hard work. But man- it would have still been nice to even get an extra 2-3k a month. He was excited when he got a check for somewhere around $2k when Ryan Hart won his NIL lawsuit and Madden and such had to pay out.

 

[Knight Shift]

Why is his take more "bizarre" thank folks who see $1B television contracts being signed by conferences and believe the athletes playing the sport are entitled to room, board, books and an education? The free market has been crystal clear that college football players and college basketball players command more than that as compensation. Why should Kyle Monangai or Caleb Williams care if field hockey or wrestling or track and field loses money? If they are "worth" $500k or $1M in a free market why should they except $60k compensation (the rough value of a scholarship)?

I know I have written this before, but there is not one person advocating for the "old system" who would trade $1M comp for $60k. Not one. And not one would (or should) care that other parts of the "business" lose money as a justification for that reduced comp.

See my post above on what G League and XFL players get paid. About $45-60K. Maybe a few rare players deserve some more. But the large majority of them? Not more than the value of their free tuition, room, board and perks. If they want to earn some extra, maybe someone will buy their swag with their name/number on it, and good for them.

You $1B television contract is an eye-popping number, but how much of that makes it to each University? We know that number--it's about $70M per school. They have expenses too to run the cost of the operation. Not a lot left over. What are you suggesting is a fair "wage" for the star running back of a mediocre/middling program like Rutgers?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

How much was the HC making at MSU or Navy?
How much was he making as HC at Toledo?

I have no idea. But I do know that in all three instances, the person had 10+ years of employment experience and was responsible for managing 100+ people.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

There is a collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners. The players "give something" like allowing a draft and not having free agency every year and the owners "give something" like guaranteeing 50% of league revenue goes to players' salaries.

Yes, but Harper and Bailey had no voice in that bargaining agreement. They didn't even have a vote on who the union representatives would be. They will simply be told, "Take it or leave it."

 

[Ridge 22]

Why is his take more "bizarre" thank folks who see $1B television contracts being signed by conferences and believe the athletes playing the sport are entitled to room, board, books and an education? The free market has been crystal clear that college football players and college basketball players command more than that as compensation. Why should Kyle Monangai or Caleb Williams care if field hockey or wrestling or track and field loses money? If they are "worth" $500k or $1M in a free market why should they except $60k compensation (the rough value of a scholarship)?

I know I have written this before, but there is not one person advocating for the "old system" who would trade $1M comp for $60k. Not one. And not one would (or should) care that other parts of the "business" lose money as a justification for that reduced comp.

My larger point is that it isnt fair to expect the schools to give up more of their revenues while they lose money on athletics overall running mandatory programs such as women's volleyball, etc. Everything about college sports and how it operates feels broken right now

 

[retired711]

It sounds like there's widespread agreement here that NIL is OK when the player makes it through genuine agreements with outsiders (for instance, Caitlin Clark getting paid by Nike to endorse their products). It also sounds like there's widespread agreement that fans shouldn't be solicited to pay money for "NIL" deals between the player and boosters that are designed to make the player come to or stay at a particular school.

That leaves debate about direct compensation from schools to athletes. I don't think anyone sees anything wrong with graduate students receiving financial aid and, in addition, being employed as teaching assistants. If you see athletics as being valuable to the school (and everyone here does), is there any difference between paying grad students to teach and paying athletes to play? I'm not sure I know the answer, and would like to hear what the rest of you think.

 

[RutgHoops]

See my post above on what G League and XFL players get paid. About $45-60K. Maybe a few rare players deserve some more. But the large majority of them? Not more than the value of their free tuition, room, board and perks. If they want to earn some extra, maybe someone will buy their swag with their name/number on it, and good for them.

You $1B television contract is an eye-popping number, but how much of that makes it to each University? We know that number--it's about $70M per school. They have expenses too to run the cost of the operation. Not a lot left over. What are you suggesting is a fair "wage" for the star running back of a mediocre/middling program like Rutgers?

Using your example a G league HC makes $250k/year. Bill Self makes $9M/year. Tom Izzo makes $6.5M/year. Are you suggesting college HCs should be making $300k/year?

If you are suggesting "NIL" isn't the optimal system for college athletics then I would agree it is not. The current construct will clearly devolve in to "haves" and "have nots". And I think the thread title is correct as I believe "NIL fatigue" will set in at lots of schools. But male college athletes in football and basketball at P4 programs aren't "worth" just a scholarship. That has been clearly proven since NIL became a thing. No one is forcing donors to donate to NIL collectives. No one is forcing schools and NIL collectives to pay these athletes. The free market has determined their worth to a school.

 

[Knight Shift]

Using your example a G league HC makes $250k/year. Bill Self makes $9M/year. Tom Izzo makes $6.5M/year. Are you suggesting college HCs should be making $300k/year?

If you are suggesting "NIL" isn't the optimal system for college athletics then I would agree it is not. The current construct will clearly devolve in to "haves" and "have nots". And I think the thread title is correct as I believe "NIL fatigue" will set in at lots of schools. But male college athletes in football and basketball at P4 programs aren't "worth" just a scholarship. That has been clearly proven since NIL became a thing. No one is forcing donors to donate to NIL collectives. No one is forcing schools and NIL collectives to pay these athletes. The free market has determined their worth to a school.

Talk about moving the goalposts. Is this some sort of gotcha game?

What has a player fresh out of high school proven to the world that his/her "media rights" slice is worth more than $60K per year (including their free tuition, room, board, perks, etc)?

And don't come back with what coaches make. It's really irrelevant at this moment. Tom Izzo has been a coach for how long? Most would think he spent a lot of years paying his dues. What has some young kid out of high school or 3 years in college done to pay his dues? Are you familiar with the concept of working your way up the ladder? Sheesh, are all of these kids Veruca Salt?

 

[RutgHoops]

Talk about moving the goalposts. Is this some sort of gotcha game?

What has a player fresh out of high school proven to the world that his/her "media rights" slice is worth more than $60K per year (including their free tuition, room, board, perks, etc)?

And don't come back with what coaches make. It's really irrelevant at this moment. Tom Izzo has been a coach for how long? Most would think he spent a lot of years paying his dues. What has some young kid out of high school or 3 years in college done to pay his dues? Are you familiar with the concept of working your way up the ladder? Sheesh, are all of these kids Veruca Salt?

How did I move the goalposts? You compared the worth of a G league player to a college basketball player and somehow comparing a G league HC salary to an college HC salary is apples and oranges? Really?

No network is paying $1.15B/year to televise the XFL. FOX/FS1, CBS, NBC and Big Ten Network are paying $1.15B/year to televise B1G football. That's why kids who play football in the B1G are getting more than a scholarship (and getting more than an XFL player). If the XFL got a $1B/year television contract I guarantee the average XFL player would get more $59k/year.