NIL, Transfers, and Stratospheric Salaries. What Is the Future of GT Football and College Football in General?

[Root4GT]

I don’t think you can cap NIL. I believe the supreme court has already ruled on that. I think the biggest issue with NIL is its application with the transfer portal. It’s the rich schools buying the stud players off of the smaller schools – which almost always involves some sort of tampering. Tampering is nearly impossible to prove and therefore regulate.

I think the most practical way to manage NIL is to regulate transfers. If a student athlete transfers from one school to another, they have to sit out 1 year. No exceptions. The kids are free to leave whenever they want; they can go to any school they want; they are not being restricted in any way. You are not preventing the “student-athlete” from doing anything any other student could do.

For example, UCS isn’t buying Jordan Addison from Pitt after his stud sophomore season where he won the Biletnikoff award. Alabama isn’t buying Jamyr Gibbs after his sophomore season at Tech. Both of these players are going pro 3 years after high school. I think a good discussion point is whether the players should also lose a year of eligibility. It’s a privilege to play college sports. It’s not a right.

The argument always comes up, but a coach can leave at any time and coach at another school. So what. We are trying to regulate NIL from ruining college sports.

Who is the "we." The schools that generate the TV revenue that drives all of college athletics are not very concerned with the current transfer rules as they generally favor those schools. They are the golden goose that generate the enormous TV contracts.

The TV ratings for this year's Final Four will be an interesting tell to see if no name schools can actually draw eyeballs. Last year's championship game was 2 true Blood Bloods, Kansas vs UNC. This year unless UCONN is in the Final it's 3 basketball unknowns. Ratings will tell us all a lot.

 

[bobongo]

The court ruling struck out amateurism, and said “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. The schools can’t both say “we won’t pay you hourly wages or a salary” and “plus you can’t take money from elsewhere”. In fact, the original NIL was that schools made money selling the players’ names and stats to a video game company and gave nothing to the players. If the schools compensate the players, then they can restrict outside income.

There’s a non-legislative path out of this; the NCAA just doesn’t want it.

So, if the NCAA sanctions direct payments from AAs to athletes, they can forbid NIL payments? How would they differ from the pros, who get all sorts of NIL on top of their salaries? College athletes would be pros in much the same sense as NFL players.

 

[Root4GT]

So, if the NCAA sanctions direct payments from AAs to athletes, they can forbid NIL payments? How would they differ from the pros, who get all sorts of NIL on top of their salaries? College athletes would be pros in much the same sense as NFL players.

They probably can't do that. Limiting players NIL was decided in favor of the players by SCOTUS.

 

[RonJohn]

I don’t think you can cap NIL. I believe the supreme court has already ruled on that. I think the biggest issue with NIL is its application with the transfer portal. It’s the rich schools buying the stud players off of the smaller schools – which almost always involves some sort of tampering. Tampering is nearly impossible to prove and therefore regulate.

I think the most practical way to manage NIL is to regulate transfers. If a student athlete transfers from one school to another, they have to sit out 1 year. No exceptions. The kids are free to leave whenever they want; they can go to any school they want; they are not being restricted in any way. You are not preventing the “student-athlete” from doing anything any other student could do.

For example, UCS isn’t buying Jordan Addison from Pitt after his stud sophomore season where he won the Biletnikoff award. Alabama isn’t buying Jamyr Gibbs after his sophomore season at Tech. Both of these players are going pro 3 years after high school. I think a good discussion point is whether the players should also lose a year of eligibility. It’s a privilege to play college sports. It’s not a right.

The argument always comes up, but a coach can leave at any time and coach at another school. So what. We are trying to regulate NIL from ruining college sports.

I wasn't proposing an NIL cap, and I don't see how it would be possible even conceptually.

The big problem is that the NCAA was extremely restrictive on SAs, and didn't do anything even after legislation was passed and scheduled to begin.

I don't like the idea of restricting transfers either. You say that it isn't preventing them from doing anything another student couldn't do, but students are not restricted from attending school if they transfer. They are not restricted from joining clubs and organizations at the new school when the transfer. They are not restricted from playing intramural or even club sports with other schools. That is one of the items in which the NCAA was more restrictive towards SAs than schools are towards regular students.

 

[slugboy]

So, if the NCAA sanctions direct payments from AAs to athletes, they can forbid NIL payments? How would they differ from the pros, who get all sorts of NIL on top of their salaries? College athletes would be pros in much the same sense as NFL players.

There are plenty of employment contracts that prohibit or severely limit outside income in a company’s area—“no side gigs”. Like, you can’t work for a plumbing company and also do plumbing projects on the side.

They probably can't do that. Limiting players NIL was decided in favor of the players by SCOTUS.

Yes, because the players were uncompensated. If you compensate the players, you can attach strings to that compensation. It has to be fair compensation. You can’t give a player free meals and claim that’s compensation for something worth millions of dollars, but reasonable compensation is fine.

If you’ve taken a salary, you’ve been paid money to make your employer far more money. You probably wouldn’t have to look hard to find someone on a $50k salary that’s making millions for their employer, so “reasonable compensation” can be pretty elastic. And, the employer can say “no moonlighting”, and many or most employment contracts do say “no moonlighting”.

 

[RonJohn]

So, if the NCAA sanctions direct payments from AAs to athletes, they can forbid NIL payments? How would they differ from the pros, who get all sorts of NIL on top of their salaries? College athletes would be pros in much the same sense as NFL players.

They probably can't do that. Limiting players NIL was decided in favor of the players by SCOTUS.

If you are a paid employee your employer can get you to sign an employment contract and include stipulations in the employment contract. It wouldn't be smart for recruiting to limit athletes' ability to market themselves outside of any salary the school paid them, but it should be legal.

 

[bobongo]

There are plenty of employment contracts that prohibit or severely limit outside income in a company’s area—“no side gigs”. Like, you can’t work for a plumbing company and also do plumbing projects on the side.

Yeah, but in the case of the NIL, it seems such a system would fall apart very quickly because top athletes could garner far more from the NIL than they could from direct payments and simply forgo the contract. If all colleges colluded in barring them from playing, they wouldn't legally get away with that and no one's going to turn them down. They'll take top dollar and play pretty much wherever they want.

 

[bobongo]

If you are a paid employee your employer can get you to sign an employment contract and include stipulations in the employment contract.

If they could get you to sign the contract, that is.

 

[bobongo]

If you are a paid employee your employer can get you to sign an employment contract and include stipulations in the employment contract. It wouldn't be smart for recruiting to limit athletes' ability to market themselves outside of any salary the school paid them, but it should be legal.

Which is why it wouldn't work.

 

[Richard7125]

Who is the "we." The schools that generate the TV revenue that drives all of college athletics are not very concerned with the current transfer rules as they generally favor those schools. They are the golden goose that generate the enormous TV contracts.

The TV ratings for this year's Final Four will be an interesting tell to see if no name schools can actually draw eyeballs. Last year's championship game was 2 true Blood Bloods, Kansas vs UNC. This year unless UCONN is in the Final it's 3 basketball unknowns. Ratings will tell us all a lot.

Perhaps I painted with too big of a brush, but I’m under the impression most of the schools (including the blue bloods and factories) believe there needs to be some type of governor or regulation on NIL. That is the “we” I was talking about. How we regulate/manage NIL from becoming an Arms war is the difficult part.

My contention with NIL is in its application with the Transfer portal. I’m 100% for student athletes making as much money as someone is willing to pay them. I’m against schools from enticing players from my school (with lots more money) to come play for their school. This is called tampering which I believe is against the rules and for all practical purposes is impossible to prove.

 

[slugboy]

Yeah, but in the case of the NIL, it seems such a system would fall apart very quickly because top athletes could garner far more from the NIL than they could from direct payments and simply forgo the contract. If all colleges colluded in barring them from playing, they wouldn't legally get away with that and no one's going to turn them down. They'll take top dollar and play pretty much wherever they want.

1. That’s not what’s happening, and for most of these athletes what we call NIL is really “pay for play”
2. Many of us describe the NCAA as incompetent, but it’s impressive how they’ve distracted us with “NIL” instead of what the case really was about—unpaid labor and unsanctioned monopoly power
MLB and the NFL have antitrust exemptions; the NCAA wants an even better deal than those two enterprises. The NFL and MLB at least admit players work for them—the NCAA keeps pretending this isn’t a job
(Justice Kavanaugh’s comments below)

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh rips NCAA in antitrust ruling, says it 'is not above the law'

Justice Brett Kavanaugh's opinion tears into the NCAA, says its business model "would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America."

www.usatoday.com

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.

"The NCAA is not above the law."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.

"Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing."

 

[tmhunter52]

Amateurism is dead. FBS football and D1 basketball (and who knows what else) are just the pro sports’ minor leagues now. It’s all about the Benjamins. Go big or go home.

 

[Richard7125]

I wasn't proposing an NIL cap, and I don't see how it would be possible even conceptually.

The big problem is that the NCAA was extremely restrictive on SAs, and didn't do anything even after legislation was passed and scheduled to begin.

I don't like the idea of restricting transfers either. You say that it isn't preventing them from doing anything another student couldn't do, but students are not restricted from attending school if they transfer. They are not restricted from joining clubs and organizations at the new school when the transfer. They are not restricted from playing intramural or even club sports with other schools. That is one of the items in which the NCAA was more restrictive towards SAs than schools are towards regular students.

A transferring player can do everything a normal student can do. He is not sitting out of school for a year; he can join any organization, club, fraternity he wants; he can play intramurals. He simply needs to sit out a year from playing football/basketball. It’s a decision both the school and the player will need to consider especially if they are chasing NIL dollars. They have the exact same mobility and freedoms as any regular student.

 

[bobongo]

Many of us describe the NCAA as incompetent, but it’s impressive how they’ve distracted us with “NIL” instead of what the case really was about—unpaid labor and unsanctioned monopoly power
MLB and the NFL have antitrust exemptions; the NCAA wants an even better deal than those two enterprises. The NFL and MLB at least admit players work for them—the NCAA keeps pretending this isn’t a job

Yes, I suspect the NCAA isn't really interested in fixing this problem anyway, as it isn't a problem from their standpoint. I just can't imagine AA contract money being able to compete with NIL offerings or come anywhere near them for top athletes, even if the NCAA wanted to allow such, which they probably don't.

 

[slugboy]

Yes, I suspect the NCAA isn't really interested in fixing this problem anyway, as it isn't a problem from their standpoint. I just can't imagine AA contract money being able to compete with NIL offerings or come anywhere near them for top athletes, even if the NCAA wanted to allow such, which they probably don't.

They’re continuing to ignore what the Supreme Court said. Setting up NIL collectives where players get money everywhere except from the AA shows the the NCAA is maintaining the fiction that the players aren’t employees.
Kavanaugh was clear that he considered the players to be employees.

 

[RonJohn]

A transferring player can do everything a normal student can do. He is not sitting out of school for a year; he can join any organization, club, fraternity he wants; he can play intramurals. He simply needs to sit out a year from playing football/basketball. It’s a decision both the school and the player will need to consider especially if they are chasing NIL dollars. They have the exact same mobility and freedoms as any regular student.

That is one of the ways that NCAA athletes have NOT been treated like regular students. If they are simply college students who engage in intercollegiate sports, then treat them like college students who compete in intercollegiate sports. Do club sports restrict whether a student can transfer to another school and play in the club there? Do club sports prevent members from earning money, unless it is provided from the club? No. NCAA athletes were treated far differently than normal students.

I am not in favor of college athletics being professional athletics. However, the NCAA has treated athletes as employees and has had extreme restrictions on what they can and cannot do. I don't think college athletics would be in the NIL mess it is in today had they been treating student-athletes as students 20, 30, or 50 years ago. 15 years ago, scholarships were limited to 1 year. A football program could revoke the scholarship at any time. The SA could not decide to go to another school without sitting out of competition for a year. (even a walk on). The NCAA went after a football player at UCF for having a monetized YouTube channel. That channel wasn't even financially successful at the time they went after him. The actions and policies of the NCAA are what caused this mess.

 

[bobongo]

They’re continuing to ignore what the Supreme Court said. Setting up NIL collectives where players get money everywhere except from the AA shows the the NCAA is maintaining the fiction that the players aren’t employees.
Kavanaugh was clear that he considered the players to be employees.

It begs the question, if players are employees, wouldn't minimum wage laws and all other laws regarding employment kick in, contract or no contract?

 

[slugboy]

It begs the question, if players are employees, wouldn't minimum wage laws and all other laws regarding employment kick in, contract or no contract?

It’s surprising that the court didn’t do more:

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote->
Gorsuch wrote that the lower courts' decision is consistent with established antitrust principles, and thus the Court upheld the ruling, but did not attempt to make any judgment on the aspect related to whether student athletes should receive further pay as this was beyond the remit of the court. Gorsuch acknowledged that "some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief" in addressing the apparent discrepancy of compensation between student athletes and the coaches and administrators of the NCAA.

Also->
This ruling only concerned education-related payments and did not address restrictions on direct compensation payment to athletes. However, it also opened the door for the possibility of future court cases concerning this matter.

 

[ChristoGT]

Ga Tech has 9,500 employees (1,300 academic, 8,100 admin) with a $2.1B budget - just going off of Wikipedia.
So, what if Tech did just pay it's SA's? The revenue programs would have 100-150 players, secondary would be another 400? This would be an increase of 5% over current payroll, assuming they would average being paid the average institution salary. Top revenue players get paid a higher cut but overall couldn't be higher than overall salary budget I would think.
Just throwing this out there that it isn't a huge change in budget.

 

[Richard7125]

That is one of the ways that NCAA athletes have NOT been treated like regular students. If they are simply college students who engage in intercollegiate sports, then treat them like college students who compete in intercollegiate sports. Do club sports restrict whether a student can transfer to another school and play in the club there? Do club sports prevent members from earning money, unless it is provided from the club? No. NCAA athletes were treated far differently than normal students.

I am not in favor of college athletics being professional athletics. However, the NCAA has treated athletes as employees and has had extreme restrictions on what they can and cannot do. I don't think college athletics would be in the NIL mess it is in today had they been treating student-athletes as students 20, 30, or 50 years ago. 15 years ago, scholarships were limited to 1 year. A football program could revoke the scholarship at any time. The SA could not decide to go to another school without sitting out of competition for a year. (even a walk on). The NCAA went after a football player at UCF for having a monetized YouTube channel. That channel wasn't even financially successful at the time they went after him. The actions and policies of the NCAA are what caused this mess.

I completely agree athletes had many restrictions 10, 15, 20 years ago; however, things are vastly different today and it’s today’s parameters that need to be modified, not yesterday’s parameters. Moreover, NIL is a new variable that wasn’t even in the equation before.

With my suggestion of sitting out a year, the previous school is not preventing anyone from transferring. The previous school is not preventing the student athlete from participating in any club, organization, intramurals, etc (that a regular student could do). The previous school is not preventing anyone from making money. The student athlete is being treated identically as a regular student. If a student athlete is thinking about transferring, he simply needs to weigh the pros and cons of sitting out a year. I don’t understand why that is perceived as such a hardship.