NCAA set to allow direct payments to athletes

[FinalFourCy]

When the revenue sharing cap goes up past $30 million because of the P2 revenue increases, this is mostly moot imo

Only a few non-P2 schools will be able to hit the cap even with inducement NIL, although we could see the P2 have the Clearinghouse crackdown on those few in order to leverage their revenue advantages

 

[isufbcurt]

At what value does the IRS start to question the amount as a legit expense? Or, from a business perspective, what value would make the business concerned about triggering an audit?

The IRS doesn't look at expenses for their FV they look at the amount actually paid. If Nike pays Lebron $100,000,000 then that is the value of the advertising expense they deduct. If my CPA business pays my racing business $50k then that is the value of the advertising expense i deduct. If a car dealership pays $5000 for a tv ad then that is the value of the expense they deduct.

If you paid someone to advertise and have documentation of the payment then I have no worry about an audit.

 

[isufbcurt]

Why would we assume that a law will be passed? That is far from a given, despite what some folks would have you believe.

And if it was passed would it hold up to court challenges?

 

[isufbcurt]

There's a lot of talk in this thread and (IMO) a lot of bad logic being used, but ultimately this is what's going to be the real issue.

If Jim-Bob's Car Dealership in Columbus, Ohio wants to give the OSU quarterback $100M for appearing in a local commercial while any other local celebrity could get $10k, that's going to be stopped. This idea that there cannot possibly be any regulation of what fair market value is by anyone in any context if there's a willing buyer and seller is ridiculous. If that were the case, think about how easy it would be to launder money or commit any kind of fraud. There is a ton of precedent for this kind of thing.

Now - what will not be possible to stop is as you say the Nike's and the Adidas' of the world. They can pick a small handful of college athletes to advertise for them and the NIL from those deals would legitimately be worth big money. Who are they going to pick? Sure, every once in a while you may have a player like Caitlin Clark who is not from a blueblood that captures the nation's attention. Hate to use her but she's the best recent example. But most of the time, they'll just hand the money to whoever the leading scorer is at KU or Duke or Ohio State. And the rich will get richer, and there's nothing this clearinghouse would do to stop it because the NIL would be legitimate. The only good thing is, there can only be so many of those deals in a year so you probably can't cover all the bluebloods and definitely not the "Tier 2" powerhouses.

Car dealerships are already a great way to launder money.

 

[cykadelic2]

It doesn’t really matter what construct- enforcement and abidement is only as good as the membership wants it to be. In this case, the P4 (really, the P2)

Just like the NCAA, the P2 isnt going to have the Clearinghouse limit their competitive advantages. NIL will be inconsistently enforced, picking on lower value schools that won’t fight back, and honest minor infractions- the easy wins giving a guise of enforcement

The Clearinghouse isn’t going after the Ohio State’s or the big TV brands. They may go after the Texas Tech and BYU types, further building a gap between the P2 and others

What are the non-P2 going to do about it? Complain to the Clearinghouse? Lol. We’re just hoping the P2 doesn’t lower our CFP and NCAA Tournament shares. Congress? Unlikely there’s much political capital gained from taking on the biggest brands.

As JP has suggested, there is going to be point where the ACC and/or the B12 have a case of collusion vs ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 on a couple of counts: 1) Billions of dollars being left on the table due to ESPN & Fox manipulation of TV contracts and realignment; 2) Additional manipulated realignment by ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 that has already destroyed Oregon St and Washington St with more schools likely to follow if ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 have their way; and 3) Clearinghouse manipulation as you theorize if it actually comes true.

And this doesn't include continued absurdities like the B10 and ESPN/SEC suggesting CFP qualification be based on TV ratings.

So your continued P2 Boy conspiracy theories will likely be rendered invalid.

 

[Cyclonsin]

As JP has suggested, there is going to be point where the ACC and/or the B12 have a case of collusion vs ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 on a couple of counts: 1) Billions of dollars being left on the table due to ESPN & Fox manipulation of TV contracts and realignment; 2) Additional manipulated realignment by ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 that has already destroyed Oregon St and Washington St with more schools likely to follow if ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 have their way; and 3) Clearinghouse manipulation as you theorize if it actually comes true.

And this doesn't include continued absurdities like the B10 and ESPN/SEC suggesting CFP qualification be based on TV ratings.

So your continued P2 Boy conspiracy theories will likely be rendered invalid.

Man, I wish I had your eternal optimism. I just don't think ESPN/FOX/SEC/B1G will ever face any consequences for their actions.

 

[FinalFourCy]

As JP has suggested, there is going to be point where the ACC and/or the B12 have a case of collusion vs ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 on a couple of counts: 1) Billions of dollars being left on the table due to ESPN & Fox manipulation of TV contracts and realignment; 2) Additional manipulated realignment by ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 that has already destroyed Oregon St and Washington St with more schools likely to follow if ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 have their way; and 3) Clearinghouse manipulation as you theorize if it actually comes true.

And this doesn't include continued absurdities like the B10 and ESPN/SEC suggesting CFP qualification be based on TV ratings.

So your continued P2 Boy conspiracy theories will likely be rendered invalid.

Your senility is getting the best of you.

As you point out, they aren’t conspiracy theories. It’s what has, and is, occurring. Hence JP’s allusion to threatening to take action against collusion.

The only question is whether it can be stopped. Unlikely. Rarely does the little guy win in these situations.

The P2 will be careful to informally separate, implementing things like revenue sharing caps only the P2 can meet. And use expansion to leave the ACC and Big 12 marginalized. There aren’t enough premium TV windows or fans for 3 conferences to get paid like the P2. No court is going to force networks to over-bid for the low brand value of the Big 12 or rump ACC. No court is going to help schools like Oregon St get money they never had. A deal ended.

 

[cykadelic2]

Man, I wish I had your eternal optimism. I just don't think ESPN/FOX/SEC/B1G will ever face any consequences for their actions.

Hell, they even know they are colluding due to the presence of anti-trust lawyers at their joint meetings. It has become obvious and intentional as to their actions and if 7 to 8 more schools get relegated and destroyed and that billions of TV dollars being left on the table becomes more evident as 2030 approaches, their control will be broken.

 

[WooBadger18]

Man, I wish I had your eternal optimism. I just don't think ESPN/FOX/SEC/B1G will ever face any consequences for their actions.

Yeah, I think the likeliest “consequences” is that the bubble will eventually burst and ESPN will be stuck paying more money to the conferences than they’re making showing the games. But that would be it, and I’m not even sure that is likely.

 

[Cyclonsin]

Hell, they even know they are colluding due to the presence of anti-trust lawyers at their joint meetings. It has become obvious and intentional as to their actions and if 7 to 8 more schools get relegated and destroyed and that billions of TV dollars being left on the table becomes more evident as 2030 approaches, their control will be broken.

Them having anti-trust lawyers at their meetings is one of the reasons why I think they WON'T face the music. They're staying just on the right side of the legal line.

 

[cykadelic2]

Your senility is getting the best of you.

As you point out, they aren’t conspiracy theories. It’s what has, and is, occurring. Hence JP’s allusion to threatening to take action against collusion.

The only question is whether it can be stopped. Unlikely. Rarely does the little guy win in these situations.

The P2 will be careful to informally separate, implementing things like revenue sharing caps only the P2 can meet. And use expansion to leave the ACC and Big 12 marginalized. There aren’t enough premium TV windows or fans for 3 conferences to get paid like the P2. No court is going to force networks to over-bid for the low brand value of the Big 12 or rump ACC. No court is going to help schools like Oregon St get money they never had. A deal ended.

OK, P2 Boy.

Your last paragraph here reeks of intentional collusion so that ESPN and Fox can maintain control of the sport at their desired payout points. It is obvious what their intentions are and readily identifiable so that a valid case can be made against them with Oregon St and Wazzu as existing evidence of intended damage. And the likes of Ohio St will realize that they can make even more money with aggregation of TV rights for all 70 existing P4 schools and a rational unequal revenue sharing model as Dodd's CBS column suggests.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Them having anti-trust lawyers at their meetings is one of the reasons why I think they WON'T face the music. They're staying just on the right side of the legal line.

Exactly this.

They're lobbying for an anti-trust exemption while staying clear at the same time. It's a very good strategy that, of course, is going to have high level lawyers involved.

 

[cykadelic2]

Them having anti-trust lawyers at their meetings is one of the reasons why I think they WON'T face the music. They're staying just on the right side of the legal line.

Plenty of existing evidence to suggest they are already on the wrong side of the line and that evidence will continue to grow.

 

[cykadelic2]

Exactly this.

They're lobbying for an anti-trust exemption while staying clear at the same time. It's a very good strategy that, of course, is going to have high level lawyers involved.

The anti-trust exemption is related to enforcement of House and eligibility rules.

It won't exempt ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 from control and manipulation of TV contracts that is costing AD programs and now athletes billions of dollars in TV revenues and resulting reductions in athlete RevShare/scholarship opportunities.

 

[agrabes]

Why would we assume that a law will be passed? That is far from a given, despite what some folks would have you believe.

Because if we don't, then we're not talking about the topic of this thread. I don't know if it's likely or not if a bill gets passed and I'm skeptical too, though a bit less than you. But if there is no law passed, it's obvious the clearinghouse will not work and nothing will change as it will all fall apart in the courts. So at that point, there's nothing to discuss.

Who is the victim? Those other examples have obvious victims.

I think the victim here is also pretty obvious.

Schools A & B agree to limit spending on paying athletes to play at their school in order to preserve competitive balance. They also agree that athletes should be allowed to seek payment for use of their name, image, and likeness separate from their direct compensation. School B violates that agreement by fraudulently overpaying its players for their name, image, and likeness. School A's ability to attract and retain players is harmed due to School B's unfair pay practices.

 

[clone52]

The collectives and school payments are absolutely enforceable with the right structure and governance. Unfortunately, NIL will remain, even if it can’t be from collectives or schools directly. There is no more stopping Bob Brown from endorsing Quarterback Bob Brown from xyz, nor is there capping it. Not saying I like it, but it is the reality unfortunately.

I think there is a way to prevent that.

Bob Brown - Big booster and business owner
Gary Green - big time QB

Lets say all the stuff in the house passes. 22M from school, anti-trust and the clearinghouse that decides if NIL deals are legit.

Bob Brown and Gary Green sign an advertising contract for $10M
Clearinghouse investigates its;

• Does the contract have pay for play language (like while attending Iowa State, or living within X miles of campus or something)? If so, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• Is the contract within normal standards for advertising or NIL? If not, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• If either of these situations happens, Gary Green can regain eligibility by signing a reasonable contract with Bob Brown.

The NCAA has no say on whether Bob Brown can pay Gary Green, but they would have power to rule players ineligible. Whether Bob Brown pays Gary Green after Gary Green is no longer eligible (or transfers across the country for that matter) is between Bob Brown and Gary Green.

Would Gary Green sign a contract that could rule him ineligible? Probably not. He's not going to want to risk it.
If Gary Green does sign a contract that makes him ineligible and Bob Brown refuses to honor their contract, then Gary Green could sue Bob Brown.
Would Bob Brown want to enter into a contract that could get him sued.

What you could see in the Bob Brown and Gary Green contract is language that says "This contract is null and void if the Clearinghouse does not approve of this contract."

 

[cykadelic2]

I think there is a way to prevent that.

Bob Brown - Big booster and business owner
Gary Green - big time QB

Lets say all the stuff in the house passes. 22M from school, anti-trust and the clearinghouse that decides if NIL deals are legit.

Bob Brown and Gary Green sign an advertising contract for $10M
Clearinghouse investigates its;

• Does the contract have pay for play language (like while attending Iowa State, or living within X miles of campus or something)? If so, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• Is the contract within normal standards for advertising or NIL? If not, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• If either of these situations happens, Gary Green can regain eligibility by signing a reasonable contract with Bob Brown.

The NCAA has no say on whether Bob Brown can pay Gary Green, but they would have power to rule players ineligible. Whether Bob Brown pays Gary Green after Gary Green is no longer eligible (or transfers across the country for that matter) is between Bob Brown and Gary Green.

Would Gary Green sign a contract that could rule him ineligible? Probably not. He's not going to want to risk it.
If Gary Green does sign a contract that makes him ineligible and Bob Brown refuses to honor their contract, then Gary Green could sue Bob Brown.
Would Bob Brown want to enter into a contract that could get him sued.

What you could see in the Bob Brown and Gary Green contract is language that says "This contract is null and void if the Clearinghouse does not approve of this contract."

Add one more question #4:

Bob Brown and Gary Green sign an advertising contract for $10M
Clearinghouse investigates its;

• Does the contract have pay for play language (like while attending Iowa State, or living within X miles of campus or something)? If so, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• Is the contract within normal standards for advertising or NIL? If not, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• If either of these situations happens, Gary Green can regain eligibility by signing a reasonable contract with Bob Brown.
• ADD: What are the actual endorsement services, in detail, being provided by Gary Green for Bob Brown's business (endorsement services cannot be provided to an individual, LLC or other entity that is not conducting a legit business operation)

 

[clone52]

Add one more question #4:

Bob Brown and Gary Green sign an advertising contract for $10M
Clearinghouse investigates its;

• Does the contract have pay for play language (like while attending Iowa State, or living within X miles of campus or something)? If so, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• Is the contract within normal standards for advertising or NIL? If not, Gary Green is ineligible to play NCAA football.
• If either of these situations happens, Gary Green can regain eligibility by signing a reasonable contract with Bob Brown.
• ADD: What are the actual endorsement services, in detail, being provided by Gary Green for Bob Brown's business (endorsement services cannot be provided to an individual, LLC or other entity that is not conducting a legit business operation)

Maybe that becomes required language in contracts that the Clearinghouse would reject.

"Gary Green will make appearances at Bob Brown's business, give permission for Bob Brown to use his image in advertisements, etc."

The only way you can police that is after the fact, though. You can't retroactively make Gary Green ineligible after the fact. But you can punish Bob Brown. If Bob Brown doesn't utilizes Gary Green at all, maybe the Clearinghouse adds language like this.

"NIL contracts with Bob Brown or any business associated with Bob Brown are null and void. Any NCAA athlete working with Bob Brown or any business associated with Bob Brown is ineligible for all NCAA participation."

Basically prevent that entity from entering any shady deals in the future. That would likely prevent Bob Brown from doing somethin shady to begin with.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Maybe that becomes required language in contracts that the Clearinghouse would reject.

"Gary Green will make appearances at Bob Brown's business, give permission for Bob Brown to use his image in advertisements, etc."

The only way you can police that is after the fact, though. You can't retroactively make Gary Green ineligible after the fact. But you can punish Bob Brown. If Bob Brown doesn't utilizes Gary Green at all, maybe the Clearinghouse adds language like this.

"NIL contracts with Bob Brown or any business associated with Bob Brown are null and void. Any NCAA athlete working with Bob Brown or any business associated with Bob Brown is ineligible for all NCAA participation."

Basically prevent that entity from entering any shady deals in the future. That would likely prevent Bob Brown from doing somethin shady to begin with.

Then Bob Brown just goes back to paying kids under the table and we're right back where we started.

 

[cykadelic2]

Then Bob Brown just goes back to paying kids under the table and we're right back where we started.

Well yeah if Bob Brown wants to risk breaking Fed code and be subject to Fed subpoena of Bob's financials unlike the past. There is nothing that can completely prevent under the table BS.