I'm skeptical too, but I think it's the only way alternative to complete chaos.
College leaders plan a crackdown on NIL collectives
- Thread starter Statefan10
- Start date
Well, they can't very well at times, but they can punish the schools/players like they have in the past. You can't provide benefits to a recruit to entice them to go to a school of your choice. So someone like that Miami guy would probably get the school/players in trouble, as he is clearly a booster. But a company like Nike or Adidas, they wouldn't be considered boosters. They aren't buying tickets or stuff like that, so that wouldn't be an issue.
I'm not saying I personally would do it this way and I am certain it wouldn't be perfect (it never has been), but it'd be a lot closer to the status quo.
The Miami guy is a good example. Couldn't do it to recruits/transfers, but once they are a student athlete at that school, they could sign them up for a NIL deal. I'm sure there would be some under the handshake deals, but just the risk of those deals becoming public and causing a player to be suspended is going to stop some of it. Just all of it, just some of it, just like today.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
Even if it goes before a court. (It's not going to)
And even if the court somehow rules that the deal is not market value. (They're not going to)
What's the end result? Does Life Wallet get punished?
Nope. It's Nigel Pack that does. They'd rule him ineligible. Again, if Life Wallet wants to pick some random guy off the street, and pay him $400,000 to be their representative, that's not illegal.
It's only Nigel Pack's status as an athlete that subjects him to further scrutiny. That, in itself, is challengeable in court, and given the Alston decision would be a minefield for the NCAA.
And as I said before, Florida has this language in their law. Other states don't. So while there's a remote chance what you're suggesting could come to fruition in Florida, in Texas it can't. It's far more likely that the Florida legislature would change their own law to remove the fair market value clause than the scenario you described. Athletics are a big deal in Florida. They're not going to let their teams be restricted by a law that other states aren't.
3:15 in video, I’ll have to do some research to find a name. Probably bs but ppl legit buy urine & bath water
What many don’t seem to understand is the magnitude of disruption. Maybe even what’s fundamentally at play.
Thinking in terms current NCAA convention is needlessly limiting, and likely wrong. In disruptive events it’s common to want to apply the change in an otherwise static ecosystem, but the NCAA as we know it isn’t a thing if Johnson vs NCAA favors Johnson
It won’t matter if it’s palatable or not if students are ruled employees. You can’t opt out of the ruling. It’s easy to have a lot of bluster now, but once you have to choose between staying at the top level by paying players or basically club sports, you quickly move on from tradition.
But there’s a big benefit from stopping this shoehorning of big business into amateurism. Finally, efficient market solutions can occur. Controlling employee benefits and inputs is FAR easier than controlling a pseudo black market of paying players. CBAs and contracts with players will be embraced.
Players will want and need CBAs more than anyone. Any asymmetrical risk situation necessitates unions. Hundreds of players with only a few years to cash in vs institutions of infinite life in far fewer numbers will quickly result in a union and CBAs
You don’t need to look far in sports to see it’s rather possible to successfully cap compensation and avoid anti-trust.
And in college athletics that’s even easier because functionally it only matters what the top-40 or 48 do. That’s what the best of the rest conference, and perhaps lower is for- letting the marketplace do the work. Players will be free to transfer or get paid whatever at a school like Iowa st that is getting $50+ million less per year and with little booster support. If those best of the rest can self-fund better play, great, but the bundled P2 will seek structure that allows for competitive balance and drive revenue
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
Fantastic post. I'm not sure we agree on the likelihood of a union for college athletes coming into existence, but I totally agree with you on the benefits of one to all parties involved.
In my mind, I don't see why Blue Blood schools would ever be in favor of a CBA, which could curtail some of their advantages. These are the power brokers of college athletics and I just don't see the incentive to them.
Additionally, it's hard for me to see the top players seeing a convincing incentive to unionize, especially because the blue blood schools recruiting them will be sure to make it worth their while to not do it.
It's a fascinating idea to explore however. Admittedly there might be angles that I'm not considering.
They had 20 plus years of watching more and more money pour into the sport, watching regional leagues become coast to coast leagues for TV money, and all they did was take their cut and cross their fingers. Don't defend the NCAA. They had all the time in the world to get support and get in front of this and didn't.
Will there be a separate union for each sport? Also, will this eliminate the 4-5 year eligibility thing? Could we see a player playing college for more years if they are compensated enough but not enough to go to the NFL? So many questions regarding the future of college athletics.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
Good questions. No idea how all of that would shake out, but it's reasonable that all those things could be explored.
Making Nigel Pack ineligible is the most rational path for resolution and put the burden on LifeWallet and Pack to challenge in court.
State NIL laws are certainly a mish-mash now and it will be the Wild West until there is uniform Federal legislation/enforcement. If/When that happens, there will likely be "market value" constraints that would prohibit obvious pay for play deals like Pack's and Wong's. And if there are challenges to the "market value" constraints, it will be time to tell those folks that non-profit universities are under no legal obligation to sponsor professional leagues (and nor should they) and go form your own pro leagues without university sponsorship, especially in light of participation in NCAA athletics is voluntary.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
a whole lot of "ifs" in there. There's no federal legislation being considered or even proposed at this point. You can wish for it to happen, but schools and fanbases have to deal with the reality of the situation, which is that it's not likely to change any time soon.
What if they set up a union for the players, and assign agents to players who then also have to act as financial planner fiduciaries on their behalf? This would help all of them learn more about handling money wisely, even the ones with no NIL money coming in. You could require players to go thru the assigned agent, and if they don't, they can't play. You could use the agents to make sure no tampering is going on, as they would have at least some desire to keep their job. They would also be in a position to see any outside illegal income and report it. I think you would still need some regulations on transferring; either you have to stay X years, or buyout clauses for transferring to compensate the prior school, something along those lines.
Who would pay for this assistance? Wouldn't this essentially be people making money off the athletic talent's of young adults? I am not saying this is right or wrong...just wondering where the pool of money resides to pay for these individuals who would be acting in the best interests of the athletes?
The current Wild West environment is going trigger a push for uniform Federal legislation.
IMO, something akin to the last part of your post is the only chance that the NCAA has to gain "control" of the current situation as it is. They have to get the state laws, or parts of the state laws, declared unconstitutional. As long as the state laws are in place, the NCAA is powerless to do anything to regulate NIL. I don't see any Federal involvement in this matter on the horizon, nor any incentive for the states to amend their laws to afford more control to the NCAA.
I think this is what the NCAA is starting to do with the announcement in the thread starter post. As you said, participation in NCAA athletics is voluntary, and the NCAA is private institution. As such, in exchange for a college scholarship and whatever ever other benefits the athletes get, and in order to maintain the integrity of their athletic competition, the NCAA can argue that they have the right to limit/prohibit NIL for those who voluntarily participate in NCAA athletics.
It might work, it might not...but I think that this their last play, and they are taking it.
All these ideas of the federal govt stepping in and imposing some regulation are pipe dreams. This will be done by the schools uniting and building a framework to manage NIL and most importantly stopping actively recruiting players that are currently enrolled at another university. Player compensation through NIL will never be capped due to all the reasons previously listed. Tampering rules will most likely be put in place to stop a player transferring in exchange for NIL or for those conversations to even happen. That is more what schools can’t stand as opposed to players getting NIL money for stupid reasons.
The Feds are the only entity with subpoena power to effectively enforce NIL laws and punish violators. And immediate eligibility for FB and BB transfers needs to be rescinded. Absent that, it will remain the Wild West.
You get one free transfer, that is never going away now. No one is ever giving subpoena power to an entity of the NCAA. Like all NCAA rules these will be loosely enforced and will be difficult to prove. Best case you might be able to suspend NIL dollars for a year after transferring or possibly cap the amount but that’s the absolute best you can hope for.
I've not understood why those that enjoy the monopolies that are recruiting with history and tradition and shoe company money, want change. I believe Saban when he says he doesn't like this. In the new era, Arkansas quickly has as good of offer as Bama.
It is a win for the upper middleclass.
We don't need to agree on the CBA for players, but I'll try to make my case.
The top players are so fleeting, there is not enough time to sit out or do things on priniciple. Plus, many of the top dollar guys are only considered top AFTER they had to make the choice to join the P2 union. The older you are, the more valuable. High school recruits had a synthetically high value because of the amateurism rules that restricted movement (for no compensation to players). We're already starting to see the shift to transfer recruiting be where big money is now that the portal is open. And if the P2 is foolishly trying to go cheap with players, which NIL says they won't, the union is needed. At steady state, the P2 won't be able to go cheap, and they'll be by far the best offers on average, which further means players will want in the union.
In the future, with a CBA, schools will have to pay to prevent that transfer. And it will be cheaper to do so the earlier you offer. Basic risk exchange. Schools have incentive to buy some of the high school player's downside risk in order to avoid their upside hitting the market as free agents. Guaranteed money for players. In exchange, the P2 keeps it from being an uncontrolled arms race with annual free agents, which not only keeps costs down, but also preserves the product (revenue) that makes college athletics popular. I assume contracts will vary between 1-4 years- players will have choices to bet on themselves
In this setup, there is no reason why Iowa St couldn't pay more, but it is unlikely. I wonder if the P2 will leverage the desperation of the best of the rest (plus basketball only)- an auto invite to these postseasons and inclusion, in exchange for the handicapped no CBA conferences in the pay to play world. And it would be true anti-trust. Just like you have some top high school guys going overseas or G League, in basketball it would be possible to see a select few choose what is a media backwater in Baylor, over UNC. Which means the P2, in exchange for order, will need to have market rates. The P2's is a P2 because of football, so they'll enjoy some market power there, could exert leverage in a CBA, but likely not enough to get anti-trust challenges
Paying players is not what jeopardizes college athletics imo. Very few watching the games right now do so because these schools spend on these players in illiquid form. I mean, $150 million budgets for kids playing games.
It is the association with the schools and student body we need to preserve. Free agency and transferring challenges that. So does only being on-campus for the season, then online classes in a different state for your brief stay in Ames (admittedly becoming increasingly common for all students). Better compensation and contracts via athletes being employees is the only way to help mitigate that. Even if college athletics goes to the licensed model, the business licensing the school's NIL to tap into the school's captive market, is best served mandating employment based on enrollment at the school
Last edited:
