|
Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 2186
|
Letterman [189]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
4
Sep 13, 2024, 12:40 PM
|
|
Three days ago, I saw an article about the University of Michigan players suing the NCAA and Big Ten Network because they were left out of the recent settlement due to the statute of limitations. I began thinking about the situation related to this newest lawsuit and the most recent lawsuit being settled now.
I understand the Supreme Court has ruled that providing a free education, room & board, medical costs, books, mentoring, free top notch professional training for the athlete's chosen sport, etc. for 3-5 years does not equal a fair wage, and the athletes are entitled to a fair wage by law. I push back against the notion that an amateur receiving the benefits provided to major college athletes are not being compensated adequately, but who am i? (I'm definitely NOT a supreme court justice!) With that said, college athletes are not professionals, and are therefore not entitled to a professional wage while in training. They are amateur athletes and college students by definition. They are being trained and being given the opportunity to pursue a professional career in athletics but also the opportunity to enter the professional working world after college is over.
Were the University of Michigan athletes wronged if their school and the conference in which they played profited while they, as amateurs (not yet professionals - that is the NFL) and college students, received (estimating) a $25,000-$40,000 per year value in all expenses paid professional training? What is actually driving the revenue of major college athletics? Is it really these kids we love/hate? While thinking about this yesterday, I came to conclude that it may actually be the fanbases that drive the profits of major college athletics and not the athletes that stick around 3-5 years and move on. I've been a Clemson Tiger for 44 years (I'm 44 by the way.) Like many of you, I've gone to games my whole life and watch them on TV for almost all Clemson sports as often as I'm able.
Finally, only a very small percentage of student athletes will become competent professional athletes worthy of large paychecks. Many of our favorite college athletes do very little in the pro sports arena. Some of the greatest student athletes of all time are busts on the professional stage. Maybe they deserve more than all the free perks provided to them by the universities they attend. If so, then they should be paid directly by the universities only, just like any university employee. They should sign contracts like college coaches and professors as employees of the university, which would benefit them in the long run, as part of their compensation and commitment to their professional development, etc.
I, like many, am tired of the changes that have occurred recently seemingly forever changing the landscape of college athletics. Anyway... if you made it this far, thanks for listening.
|
|
|
|
 |
Top TigerNet [32234]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16773
Joined: 2008
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
3
Sep 13, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
College FB players as Amateurs or professional or somewhere in between, is not the issue. The amount of revenue they produce is the issue. That is why the Power 5 FB teams are being sued, and not the volley ball teams. The FB athletes in POWER 5 conferences produce billions of dollars in revenue each year. Everyone involved in the sport are sharing in that revenue far more than the players. That is the issue and is why the lawsuits are titled revenue sharing. The athletes are a bigger producer of the revenue than anyone else involved in the sport and everyone else is getting the lion's share.
It's really just that simple and I totally support their lawsuits and their getting a bigger share of the revenue. And the courts support that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [189]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
Sep 13, 2024, 1:52 PM
|
|
I agree at this point they should receive some compensation, as pointed out in my post. However, it must be as employees of the University. They are University employees, essentially. This has obviously recently been addressed. The University is being enriched by the TV and stadium revenues. The employees, coaches and players, must be paid directly by the University and be under contract to protect the integrity of the game and the student-athlete experience. Very few college football athletes will enter the NFL on a percentage basis. Almost all student-athletes will have to work and have a career outside of sport when they finish their time at school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10254]
TigerPulse: 95%
45
Posts: 11798
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
5
5
Sep 13, 2024, 1:39 PM
|
|
My concern is not that the athletes get paid, but how will it be controlled so there is a somewhat level playing field. Professional sports have the reverse draft, salary caps and balanced schedules but college has none of those leveling processes. The sport will die if we continue to let the schools with the deepest pockets dominate with unlimited NIL funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2642]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
To make it "fair" will kill it.
1
Sep 13, 2024, 4:42 PM
|
|
We aren't there because the athletes are great, we're there because its our school.
It's like HS football but much bigger.
The money is made on the backs of the fans, the players want to take advantage of the stage that was built well before any of them were born, and they had no part in building it.
Pretty soon, players won't have to be students anymore, they'll just be employees and it'll be pro football.
And I'll quit caring completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9933]
TigerPulse: 56%
44
Posts: 13038
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
1
Sep 13, 2024, 2:04 PM
|
|
The issue that you and everyone else totally miss is NIL is not about football, but is about being an athlete. Men's soccer players, women's soccer players, men's golfers, women's golfers, well you get the idea, all are eligible for NIL and have rights. NIL is a very simple concept but at the same time a very complicated one. We, as non student athletes and non administrators are just better off accepting NIL and appreciate the fact that after so many decades of no chance for any payment, the athletes of today might actually earn some bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4122]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
2
Sep 13, 2024, 2:13 PM
|
|
NIL is based on Name, Image & Likeness profits. What players are being paid has nothing to do with NIL. When do you see players endorsing products for money.
The payment system now is used to tamper with kids at a college they committed to for X number of dollars to be bought for another college at a higher price.
It’s not about players getting paid it’s all the slime that goes with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
There is no such thing as tampering.
Sep 13, 2024, 3:16 PM
|
|
The NCAA rule against it is a federal law violation.
The Ohio vs NCAA case put that issue to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
Sep 13, 2024, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long) ] |
|
|
|
If the Manning kid is getting a couple of minion per year to sell some jerseys, then he's getting what the market wants.
That exactly equals fair market value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [189]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
Sep 13, 2024, 2:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long) ] |
|
WaterboyII is right and your position is wrong. They must be actually paid for their NIL for NIL to mean anything. I occasionally see an ad with a college player in it, but very rarely do I see such an ad. Obviously they should be compensated for jersey and t-shirt sales using their NIL or other marketing type campaigns, but I see very little of this pay for play resulting in hundreds or thousands of little ad campaigns for companies and businesses using college players to endorse their products.
The simplest fix is for universities to pay the athletes directly, which is being put into affect to maybe solve some of the bigger issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
You realize that paying college athletes isn't going to affect NIL.
Sep 13, 2024, 3:18 PM
|
|
Two different sources of $$ for two different things.
Just like Mahomes' State Farm commercials have zero effect on his salary or the Chiefs' salary cap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
Your reasoning is bogus. Here's why.
1
Sep 13, 2024, 3:14 PM
|
|
"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
Under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."
"The NCAA is not above the law."
SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring opinion
NCAA vs Alston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
It is a violation of federal laws and court decisions
1
Sep 13, 2024, 3:30 PM
|
|
fir any 3rd party to interfere in NIL or to attempt to regulate it.
The Interstate Commerce Act
The Sherman Antitrust Act
The NCAA vs Alston case
The House vs NCAA case
The Tennessee and Virginia case
All if these reinforce various aspects of that. What you advocate is never going to happen without a Congressional antitrust exemption, fully unionized athletes, union contracts, worker's comp, and the right to conduct job actions including strikes, picket lines, and protests.
Do you REALLY think that's better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [189]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: It is a violation of federal laws and court decisions
Sep 13, 2024, 4:01 PM
|
|
Bluffton OrangeMan, thank you for the additional thoughts/insight, etc. I have a lot more to think about regarding this topic now. TU for you! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
Any time.
2
Sep 13, 2024, 4:09 PM
|
|
Its somewhat frustrating to see the number of TNet members that advocate for going back to the NCAA's old model that was a blatant violation of federal law.
Some of us that actually research the legal background get blasted for not being sunshine pumpers, in Dabo's cult of personality, and it for calling out those whose comfort zone is a model based on exploitation and lawbreaking. (JK, for one)
Thanks for not being one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27670]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
I don't think you can, or should, regulate this...
1
Sep 13, 2024, 4:18 PM
[ in reply to It is a violation of federal laws and court decisions ] |
|
.... by limiting how much a player can earn in NIL deals (anymore than the NFL can limit how much Aaron Rogers or Patrick Mahomes make from State Farm and other agencies).
Tie scholarships to graduation rates has been my mantra for 40+ years. I have jet to hear a rational argument against that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
Easy to refute
Sep 13, 2024, 5:15 PM
|
|
There is no practical or legal way to do that.
There is no inherent obligation to graduate.
Athletes already graduate at far higher rates than do non athletes.
Athletes that turn pro get counted against graduation rates.
Athletes that transfer get counted against graduation rates.
Even if somehow magically legal, that rule would be garbage in, garbage out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27670]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
You and I are dinosaurs.
Sep 13, 2024, 4:16 PM
|
|
I think the only way to even come close to correct this is to make one very simple rule:
When you signa a player to a scholarship he counts against your number (105 next year) for either 5 years or until he gets a diploma from your school. Zero exceptions.
If this rule were in effect, how many scholarships would UGA have this year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
That wouldn't last 5 minutes.
Sep 13, 2024, 4:47 PM
|
|
That's all it sounds take to get it thrown out in federal court.
It would also put the NCAA on the hook for billions more $$ that they already owe for damages in the House case. They aren't through paying through the nose for the Ohio, Tennessee, and Bush cases.
That's a perfect way to pound another nail in the NCAA's coffin, though.
So, why do you believe in indentured servitude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2642]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
THe law is completely illogical and irrational in their judgements
Sep 13, 2024, 4:51 PM
|
|
there is no inherent right to play college sports. If you want to compete, you have to abide by the rules.
Normal students can transfer, work for the university, etc all they want without external restriction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
No one has to a ride by rules that violate the law******
1
Sep 13, 2024, 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27670]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
I'm confused.
Sep 13, 2024, 5:02 PM
[ in reply to That wouldn't last 5 minutes. ] |
|
NCAA sets the limits and regulations on scholarships.
Players are not employees, as of today, of the university. With my proposal the player loses no freedom at all. He can walk away at any time, just like any other student can. He can transfer to another school just like any other student can. He can earn as much money from outside employment as he is able, just like any other student.
How would my proposal come even close to being indentured servitude? How would my proposal be thrown out by any court? On what basis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
Rules that would force them into unfair practices are servitude.
Sep 13, 2024, 5:21 PM
|
|
It would be a firm of extortion.
However, let's try that for FSU.
That's how you end the Seminoles' football program in 5 years or less vis transfers out.
Realistically, it would never survive the 5 minutes of legal scrutiny above. Applying an "athlete only" rule is discriminatory. Your rule wouldn't apply to non athletes.
Imagine if it were applied to academic scholarships. Apples and oranges don't make it to the dinner plate on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2642]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
The fallacy of NIL is that the only reason anyone knows or cares who the players
Sep 13, 2024, 4:48 PM
[ in reply to You and I are dinosaurs. ] |
|
are is because they are on a college fb team.
You can say it's "all athletes", but aint nobody paying the cross country runners jack squat.
Also, the stupidity of the justice's argument that colleges get to not pay their employees, is that all of these "employees" will willingly show up without even the promise of getting paid. How many of the cafeteria workers or professors would do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
That's not the argument the justices make.
Sep 13, 2024, 5:33 PM
|
|
It's the polar opposite of their opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
That would also be an illegal restraint of trade
Sep 13, 2024, 5:30 PM
[ in reply to You and I are dinosaurs. ] |
|
You can't legally punish an organization for so e if their people leaving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [98396]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 97775
Joined: 2009
|
I quit reading at the comment 'College athletes are not entitled to pro pay...'
Sep 13, 2024, 5:05 PM
|
|
I paraphrased it because it's not in the scope of the problem. The problem is tampering which falls far beyond the rules. The negotiations for the big bucks come while the player is bound by an agreement with a university.
What they make is between them and the other crook in the negotiations.
I do not think paying players is wrong. In fact I've known since my days at Clemson back in the '80s that players need extra money for clothes, automobiles and such as dates with girls, or boys if your door swings that way.
Fact is, football players support other sports and all female sports. Their labor brings in much to help academics too.
This system should have been set up long ago and pay should be relative to value of the team they are on. It's broken now beyond repair but the solution is simple.
Rid the planet of the NCAA or withdraw all football from the NCAA and form a league which schools empower to execute harsh penalties suitable to fit the violations. Try them in courts not courts of public opinion and levy fines and suspensions for the violating programs, the individuals involved. Two offenses and football is suspended for one year, those involved are no longer welcome to participate in the league. Be harsh with equity for all involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
The NCAA rules against tampering are illegal.
Sep 13, 2024, 5:09 PM
|
|
They are blatant federal law violations.
That's why they don't try to e force them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [99910]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 29727
Joined: 2005
|
When I saw the title of this thread, I figured Bluffton OrangeMan would be
Sep 13, 2024, 5:36 PM
|
|
all over it.
And he didn't disappoint. He's already posted fourteen times in this thread.
Edit: now fifteen times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
It's easy to trigger snowflakes.
Sep 13, 2024, 5:43 PM
|
|
All it takes is a few factual posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [78]
TigerPulse: 95%
8
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
Sep 13, 2024, 5:38 PM
|
|
What used to happen years ago when players got paid but out in the open today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11846]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Re: Perhaps a different thought on NIL..? (Warning: Long)
Sep 13, 2024, 6:09 PM
|
|
That was a good take on it all, but I think you are missing the point, at least from what the Supreme Court ruled. My take on what the court basically said is that these young men and women are entitled to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness just as any other citizen would be if someone was willing to pay them for using it. If an average student at Clemson, or anywhere else happened to be so physically attractive that magazines, car dealerships, widget manufacturers, etc. were willing to pay them loads of money to use their image on their sales packaging why should a football player or track star be excluded if they too have a marketable NIL?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2904]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
Athletes from other sports aren't excluded
Sep 13, 2024, 6:18 PM
|
|
There aren't as many that command high NIL because their sorts aren't as marketable.
There are exceptions. LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne averages around 3.9 million annually, for one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 2186
|
|
|
|
50
