A high dollar deal that Cooper Flagg has signed with New Balance (aired during NCAAs) will be evaluated and comped differently than a deal registered for the same dollar amount by a local/regional booster car dealer. In that case, the comps would be what other pro athletes have received in similar car dealer markets.
NCAA set to allow direct payments to athletes
- Thread starter simply1
- Start date
Yeah - we will see how it plays out in the future. I have my doubts, but you're right... as of now viewership is still growing. Time will tell
They can manage because no franchise is bigger than the league itself, and are worth much less without the brand of being an NFL or NBA franchise.
There are enough franchises that don’t want Dallas or LA to use their brand advantage to circumvent the salary cap that they can enforce and get what they want in the CBA.
Actual NIL is more valuable for sponsors if a player is on a team like the Dallas Cowboys or Lakers, but the biggest brand is still the NFL and NBA, and the league strong enough to not allow those franchises to gain too much of an advantage. Although EVERYONE benefits from the league doing well in ratings, so finding a tenable compromise possible
Not true in college. There isn’t a greater good, because top schools are the top brands. Until the NIL of the schools themselves is sold in long term contracts to an investor that aggregates, it is a prisoners dilemma, corrupt arms race
In college, a top player is worth more to companies if at big brand schools.
Good luck not allowing companies like Nike or Adidas or ESPN or NBC to protect their interests by helping a Ohio St or ND football, or Duke or KU basketball, or certain conferences, to get the best players in what is kind of a vertically integrated production chain
Sweet. Unlimited deals in markets without pro sports teams then.
If Carbondale Chevrolet wants to pay SIUs 3rd string PG $10M to be on a billboard, there's nothing to compare it to so it's all good or the other extreme, does a UIC player get to sign a deal as a pro athlete in Chicago with all those big number comps while the kid in Carbondale is limited to what other Chevy Dealers in towns with populations of 20,000 have paid in the past.
You do see where this all falls apart regardless of good intentions, right?
IMO it’s not player compensation that will hurt ratings, it’s unpredictable uncapped annual free agency without contracts
But free agency, player mobility, in itself is good for fan interest. It adds another dynamic for fans to follow, and has allowed everyone to have hope for one year turnarounds. 20 years ago, following a season, you more or less knew if you’d suck the following year.
And realignment will help, as it’s functionally being driven for the increased ability of creating the matchups that casual fans want. It’s also integrating interest across multiple regions. People in the Midwest now care more about the top brands in the west, and the inverse
The supporters who pay the NIL money aren't parties to the House agreement. The NIL collectives who give the money to the players aren't parties to the House agreement. The states who have laws forbidding the NCAA/anyone else from interfering with NIL deals that college players make aren't parties to the House agreement.
If 50 other athletes of the same standing as Rocco get paid $1,000,000 to advertise for other CPA businesses, you cannot argue that $100,000,000 is FMV...
They also got the rest of the NCAA to pick up most of the liabilities in the House settlement , despite them owning most of they’re truly the biggest brands
Just like the NCAA, the effectiveness of fair rule enforcement is up to the membership of the enforcing organization. That’s the P4- but really it’s the P2 given the power dynamics
Let’s not forget the P2 got the rest of the NCAA to pick up most of the liabilities in the House settlement , despite them owning most of it as the biggest brands…so getting favorable enforcement should be easy in comparison
That's my point. There is a mechanism whether it's a hard rule or just somehow it happens that way. I'm far more of an NBA fan than a college fan. In 40+ years of watching it I can't remember single NBA marketing deal that was actually just some rich fan or rich owner paying his players above a cap or above a max deal. That SGA and Chet Holmgren ad that ran a million times during March Madness last year, that wasn't some rich oil tycoon in Oklahoma giving them $40 million over the cap and over their structured deals and pretending it was an ad then paying to run it endlessly.
Of course players know if they play in LA or New York they'll have more marketing power, but that's based on reality. Absolutely nothing like this BYU billionaire just paying his players more than Duke and we all pretend it's marketing deals. Haliburton vs Brunson is a great comparison of markets. Tyrese is infinitely more likeable and marketable but he's in less TV ads because he's tiny market and Brunson is in top basketball market. That's totally different than the Knicks wanting to pay Brunson far greater than a max deal so they just do it anyway and pretend it's a marketing deal, it's real marketing opportunities.
Last edited:
College sports create thousands of new fans each year via those who attend college. Most graduate and many of them (but not all) develop an emotional affinity for the school and the sports programs because they attended games. Because of that affinity, they become alumni that continue to support/follow/watch the sports programs for many years after they leave the school. This creates the large perpetual and potential viewership that brings the big TV deals.
The question is, will the fact that the primary sports teams (i.e. FB and MBB) are becoming more and more just a collection of paid short-term mercenaries affect that affinity that creates the perpetual supporting alumni. It will take a few years to figure this out.
They don't have a defense unless the Federal Gov't steps in and passes laws that codify it.
Right
But do you remember Stern and the Chris Paul trade saga?
Nevertheless, the main mechanism is that it’s a greater good structure. The greater good comes from the majority being satisfied with the balance of NIL and competitive balance, both of which contribute to league NIL in (essence the TV deal). Outlier franchises have no choice but to accept
That can’t happen in college until private investors buy the accumulation of NIL rights of schools on long term deals
Such a romantic, and antiquated view on why people watch.
Very doubtful player compensation will cause loss of viewership.
The new fans you reference will know nothing otherwise.
Older fans long ago lost any actual connection, and players became primarily mercenaries decades ago. How many classes did Tinsley attend after Hampton?
The most likely time you’d see player compensation cause viewership change is right away when it’s most new. Every year that goes it becomes more normal. Remember when transfers used to have to redshirt? That seems crazy now, as will players playing for free in no time
It’s not compensation itself that will lose viewership and fans. It’s the risk of competitive imbalance and hopelessness from uncapped (unfair) player compensation that could force people to check out. Fans hate their hopes being blindsided by a higher bidder, more than they are hanging on to notion there’s some connection to the athletes on TV
Yes of course. It's an advertising expense.
For example when my CPA business writes my racing business a advertising check, it's an expense for the CPA business and income to the racing business. No different than if I paid for advertising on a billboard or a tv commercial.
Last edited:
Disagree. The FMV is whatever I am willing to pay for the services.
If I have 10 tax clients who all are single with only 1 W2 and I charge 9 of them $125 to do their tax return and then I charge the 10th person $5000, if the 10th person is willing to pay the $5000 fee then that's the FV they are willing to pay. What the other 9 are willing to pay has no effect on the FV of what the 10th is willing to pay.
Buyer and seller have to both behave in their own best interests, paying $5,000 for $125 worth of services is not a rational decision.
I think that’s getting its own ball rolling from what I read. Can remember where I saw it though
Determining the intent is problematic though, as the intent is to pay to play. Proving it is difficult.
