UNLV QB is leaving the program immediately due to the school not withholding NIL commitments
- Thread starter CYaeger
- Start date
While I agree with the underlying principle of what you're saying, it still has to be quantifiable due to that sheer number of parties involved in the $$$. And, then it has to be legally argued. So much that needs to be corrected in this whole NIL/transfer mess.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,751
- 113
That's because the players in that league have chosen to form a union, and collectively bargain those parameters. That's the legal process to bypass antitrust laws. But in the absence of a union, those rules that the owners and players of the MLB/NBA/NFL have agreed upon, don't apply. An industry can't just decide to limit things like employee mobility between businesses. What the pro leagues are allowed to do is completely immaterial to the conversation, without the existence of a players union.
Correct. And, as has been obvious for years now, without a CFB Players Union there's zero chance any of this gets corralled.
The problem is, I'd wager the power brokers of the sport really really don't want a union and can sell the idea that it's bad to their recruits because it would limit their maximum earning potential.
Maybe this will happen conference by conference, but that's probably optimistic and wouldn't necessarily prevent a B1G team from poaching a MWC QB, so this whole situation would still be possible.
Are you familiar with the concept of a holdout/trade demands? Even when you have written contracts in play people are constantly holding out for more money or refusing to play until they are traded.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,751
- 113
Agreed on the bolded. Travis Hunter doesn't need a union to get the compensation he's after. To him, I'm sure a union seems to be a potential hindrance, rather than a benefit. And with the limited years of eligibility, and the prospect of leaving early for the NFL, it's even less beneficial.
Sluka was brought in with another QB, who is more of a passer to compete for the starting job. Sluka won the job, but it was by a narrow margin. The problem with going to the other QB is that they will need to adjust their offense to be more pass-oriented.
From what I have heard, the "agreement" between the assistant coach and Sluka was not in writing because the NIL money was contingent on him winning the starting job (which is not legal).
From what I have heard, the "agreement" between the assistant coach and Sluka was not in writing because the NIL money was contingent on him winning the starting job (which is not legal).
I'd say there is a basic driver in each case that makes sense or does not for athletes to be employees:
1. High School - The ADs at high schools aren't exactly profitable enterprises, so it's kind of a non-starter. Mostly minors are involved, so another complication.
2. College Athletics - Big money-making business due to FB and men's BB. Mostly adults working. It could make sense.
3. AAU - The players are the paying customer and source of almost all the revenue. They'd be employing their customers, which wouldn't make sense. Now, maybe it would make sense for AAU teams to employee a few "big fish" players to show they are the premier program and allows them to charge a lot for their other customers. Again you have mostly minors involved.
But I don't think there really are limits to true NIL in HS and AAU other than typical age-related laws and limitations.
But the NFL is comprised of wholly-owned entities too right. And an employee cannot leave the Cowboys to go to the Jaguars whenever they want.
Notre Dame is not the product. The games themselves are the product. Without football games, Notre Dame football has no value
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,751
- 113
The NFL's ability to restrict player mobility the way they do, has nothing to do with teams being separate entities, and everything to do with the existence of the NFLPA. Full stop.
Ok? So, shouldn’t that be the way NCAA FB works (understanding it doesn’t right now)? The NFL is most definitely a capitalist enterprise but still has guardrails
This has always been the deal with college athletes organizing and collectively bargaining. If you do it as college athletes as a whole, very few have NIL value of significance, whether we're talking actual NIL or pay to play. Most are a net cost to the university. But yes, the few big names in FB and MBB would stand to potentially lose a ton and would be against it.
Realistically there are some football players that have legit NIL and pay to play value. There are some men's BBall with both. In the SEC there are some baseball players with pay to play value. There are a handful of athletes in other sports that have some pay to play value. There are some female athletes that have a lot of NIL value on social media.
But for a majority of student-athletes sacrificing or limiting NIL in exchange for a decent stipend or salary represents a huge improvement over even the current wild west NIL market.
So a football program and mens bball program might be split on a collective bargaining agreement that does that. But it still might be a benefit. A minority of those are probably getting significant NIL/pay to play money. Student-athletes as a whole across all sports would probably sign up for that swap in a heartbeat.
But at this point trying to make that swap of employment for some limitations or better definitions of NIL is probably not happening.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,751
- 113
That's up to the players. They can't be forced to form a union. Until one exists, employment laws and the Sherman Antitrust act applies.
Are you telling me Travis was talking out of his ass like he knew what he was talking about, but in reality he had no clue? Shocked I tell you! I'm shocked!
Unfortunately I don't think pro sports is a great example because of the bargaining that takes place between the Union and the Owners plus the negotiations between agents and teams. Until teams actually pay players, they're making promises with entities who may have relationships with the university but are not the university.
IMO, if the player was supposed to get paid anything but didn't receive any payment, they're totally in the right to walk away.
But again, in pro sports all the remedies and penalties for a player deciding not to show up are well established. So while we look at it as not honoring a contract, really both parties even in a pro sports holdout or trade demand are still operating within the terms of a contract.
I'm just waiting for the potential damages to accumulate enough for the massive class-action lawsuit to be worthwhile by female athletes against all these athletic departments and coaches that are interacting directly with donors.
Seems like an inevitability:
- Coaches and ADs talk to donors about NIL
- Diversion of potential donations to the school athletic department to players or collectives can be demonstrated.
- An easy link is made that Coaches and ADs that work for a university are promoting diversion of donations away from the entity that employs them to a third-party collective.
- Demonstration that this diversion of donations from the AD to collectives reduces the services, investment, infrastructure, etc. for women's programs, or at least creates a clear and significant disparate treatment between mens and womens college athletics that if all were through AD dollars would be considered discriminatory per Title IX.
- Essentially accuse the ADs of diverting money from their university athletic department and to collectives to avoid spreading it out in a way Title IX requires of money funneled through the university/AD.
No idea if it would go anywhere, but I get the sense there are some big-time lawyers sitting in the weeds waiting for this to play out in this way.
Seems like an inevitability:
- Coaches and ADs talk to donors about NIL
- Diversion of potential donations to the school athletic department to players or collectives can be demonstrated.
- An easy link is made that Coaches and ADs that work for a university are promoting diversion of donations away from the entity that employs them to a third-party collective.
- Demonstration that this diversion of donations from the AD to collectives reduces the services, investment, infrastructure, etc. for women's programs, or at least creates a clear and significant disparate treatment between mens and womens college athletics that if all were through AD dollars would be considered discriminatory per Title IX.
- Essentially accuse the ADs of diverting money from their university athletic department and to collectives to avoid spreading it out in a way Title IX requires of money funneled through the university/AD.
No idea if it would go anywhere, but I get the sense there are some big-time lawyers sitting in the weeds waiting for this to play out in this way.
I would wager there are a lot of power brokers out there who don't like this at all. No one is immune to what happened to UNLV and ultimately they want control of the situation. Eventually there will be guardrails of some kind. What that looks I don't know, but players and agents have all the power right now and you know that's not going to last. If nothing else Congress will eventually act when the alma mater of big money constituents get burned and they start complaining to their representatives. It will take a while because Congress is a **** show at the moment, but if college athletics can't/won't take care of it government will eventually.
