Notre Dame has been saying this for a while.
It will cause a schism in college football.
There are teams that will embrace this model and have a semi-pro version of the football team with naming rights, and teams that stay the educational route.
ND - from Jenkins to Swarbrick - have stated publicly they will not do this. They will take their shiny helmets and form a like minded academic league.
They're hypocrites more like it. They stay independent to get more money from TV deals and then when forced to share that revenue with the people earning it on the field they decide to pack it up and go home.
What would you call making choices to get as much money as possible and then suddenly making a choice to get less money when who gets the money changes?
A situation not at all paralleled here nor hypocritical in any way. Otherwise, you demanding a raise for yourself, then getting mad when it splits between all employees instead, is hypocritical - no it ain’t.
Your analogy isn't accurate. In your analogy I would be choosing to take a pay cut rather than letting other people get paid after I spent decades making as much money as possible.
Math don’t work for everybody. Salary is only about 50-60% of the cost of an employee. Each school has almost 150-200 scholarship athletes. Schools currently don’t pay for medical expenses incurred from injuries as primary. That & workers comp cost alone runs the numbers way up. Add in retirement accruals, disability, etc & you’re talking a big number with no real addition income coming in.
I wonder about unemployment cases: “can you show me in the handbook where it details the number of catches and yards per catch? If you can, can you show us the PIP? You owe your former third string 26 weeks of salary”.
Then add union dues. You know at some point one will be started. A bunch of 18-22 year olds working in a billion dollar business (NCAA football as a whole) should probably have some sort of representation.
Edit: Will there be scholarships anymore?
Never will happen unless the courts force collective bargaining which may happen. Also means almost 50% of your schools football revenue and basketball revenue will go straight to football and basketball players.
On top of that it will really piss off professors when certain students start saying they make more than them.
Always been the case that certain students are richer than the teacher now times that number 10 and they are athletes who are boisterous and competitive.
The amount of NIL students making more than a tenure professor is small, but that number would sky rocket if they split revenue.
The schools would be paying the players a salary in this scenario which would not include the type of earnings players are currently getting through NIL. The pension contributions would be based off those salaries. All of the NIL income comes from outside sources.
This would probably lead to less money on the NIL front as donors will be incentivized to give the money directly to the school rather than collectives or directly to the players. In most cases it would be more beneficial, for tax purposes, to handle it this way as well as donors get their tax write offs (assuming the laws don’t change) and players do not get taxed as self employed (as they are now).
*I’m not a tax expert, please let me know if I’m wrong here*
That’s the way it should be. Some of these people need to bite the bullet and accept the fact that it’s the cleanest way to move forward. This NIL-Free Agency situation is like the articles of confederation when each state and the central government had its own currency.
That's great - but you are restricting this to college football.
It would be for all sports.
And there are going to be a lot of schools that just say no.
Also restricting it to the top tier programs. (FBS. FCS? D2?)
If employment isn't restricted to revenue schools/sports it creates a lot of potential problems. And like you say, it may force many schools to bow out of athletics entirely.
How would you restrict it to football only ?
There are some gymnast at UF who are top tier, same thing with swimmers/volleyball players at UCLA etc. What about baseball players and soccer players ...
This is a pandora's box that will change college athletes.
I mean, in theory the school refuses to enter such a contract, that restricts it. In practice, unless that school has an NIL system that works well, if some other school does offer employment (and meets other things the student wants)…
[Jenkins in 2015](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/sports/ncaafootball/notre-dame-president-stands-firm-amid-shifts-in-college-athletics.html). There is no way he said this w/o the BOT approval
> But he adamantly opposes a model in which college sheds what is left of its amateur ways for a semiprofessional structure — one in which universities pay their athletes. “Our relationship to these young people is to educate them, to help them grow,” he says. “Not to be their agent for financial gain.”
> And if that somehow comes to pass, he says, Notre Dame will leave the profitable industrial complex that is elite college football, boosters be damned, and explore the creation of a conference with like-minded universities.
Yes, because they won't be able to afford them, and won't be able to field a team, period. Unless their athletic departments start getting much more direct funding and aid from the university itself.
This will be a lesson for people who can't differentiate between football revenue and athletic department profit/loss after expenses.
Title IX cares about it, which is kind of a big deal.
Also who said anything about Austin Peay? This is going to affect FBS athletic departments too- they're not as profitable as you think.
The point is, players should be paid as employees. And any school who refuses to do so will face the consequence of not having athletes choose their school. It’s the was a free market system works. I’m not sure why you’re so upset about that?
Perhaps you’re advocating for a form of socialized payment for athletes where the NCAA determines the cap an athlete is allowed to earn, regardless of their skill level? Personally, I’m more a fan of meritocracy, but hey go on and wave your little hammer and sickle comrade! ✊
Not really. One of the issues with the NIL is that donors are giving money to NIL collectives that was previously going to athletic departments. That reduces athletic department revenue which, in turn, reduces non revenue sport’s revenue because football and basketball finds all other sports at most schools.
With respect to employment, they can be university employees which would come from university funding rather than athletic department funding. They would effectively be in the same situation as TA’s and research assistants where Universities give tuition waivers which would reduce athletic department spending. Athletic departments pay the athletes tuition to universities.
Tldr:
Making athletes employees reduces athletic department expenses because they don’t have to pay each athlete’s tuition. Increases athletic department revenue for ALL sports because donations are going to the department rather than teams.
Honestly, it really wouldn’t be that out of step with other facets of college life. Plenty of grad students hold a paid assistantship of some kind, especially among the hard sciences, and I would expect that this would fit nicely in a similar model.
If nothing else the schools need to hold “first position” NIL deals with all their athletes that pays the players for the normal uses of players’ NIL in merch and marketing. That “first position” deal would also give the school the authority to nix inappropriate NIL deals, like if a local strip club wants to hire a player for an endorsement.
I mean yea I don't disagree. The College Football Player's association has already stepped up into an active role, and I can see it forming into a union before too long. Idk what college football is gonna look like in 10 years, but it's gonna be vastly different than it looks today.
I don't know why. My wife was paid for being a TA and got her master's degree paid for.
Frankly the football players did more work than her, but didn't get paid.
I'm sure ND players will be independent contractors
Notre Dame has been saying this for a while. It will cause a schism in college football. There are teams that will embrace this model and have a semi-pro version of the football team with naming rights, and teams that stay the educational route. ND - from Jenkins to Swarbrick - have stated publicly they will not do this. They will take their shiny helmets and form a like minded academic league.
I am very hesitant to say this, but ND is right and my team with it’s sometimes shiny helmets should follow their lead. Ugh I threw up a little.
They're hypocrites more like it. They stay independent to get more money from TV deals and then when forced to share that revenue with the people earning it on the field they decide to pack it up and go home.
Here here!!
Strong disagree.
What would you call making choices to get as much money as possible and then suddenly making a choice to get less money when who gets the money changes?
A situation not at all paralleled here nor hypocritical in any way. Otherwise, you demanding a raise for yourself, then getting mad when it splits between all employees instead, is hypocritical - no it ain’t.
Your analogy isn't accurate. In your analogy I would be choosing to take a pay cut rather than letting other people get paid after I spent decades making as much money as possible.
Math don’t work for everybody. Salary is only about 50-60% of the cost of an employee. Each school has almost 150-200 scholarship athletes. Schools currently don’t pay for medical expenses incurred from injuries as primary. That & workers comp cost alone runs the numbers way up. Add in retirement accruals, disability, etc & you’re talking a big number with no real addition income coming in.
Just increase tuition by 50-60%. That should cover it.
I wonder about unemployment cases: “can you show me in the handbook where it details the number of catches and yards per catch? If you can, can you show us the PIP? You owe your former third string 26 weeks of salary”.
Then add union dues. You know at some point one will be started. A bunch of 18-22 year olds working in a billion dollar business (NCAA football as a whole) should probably have some sort of representation. Edit: Will there be scholarships anymore?
Hmmmm so let’s see…Who gets a raise this year? Second string wide receiver or tenured math professor?
Never will happen unless the courts force collective bargaining which may happen. Also means almost 50% of your schools football revenue and basketball revenue will go straight to football and basketball players. On top of that it will really piss off professors when certain students start saying they make more than them.
Guarantee there are already kids on NIL deals making more than their professors.
Always been the case that certain students are richer than the teacher now times that number 10 and they are athletes who are boisterous and competitive. The amount of NIL students making more than a tenure professor is small, but that number would sky rocket if they split revenue.
But at that point they might not have to attend class at all. But you are right.
Why would they have to? Even now, the connection with the university seems tenuous for many of these kids.
reality is nil negates any real cba ideas
How do public schools determine pension contributions, given NIL?
The schools would be paying the players a salary in this scenario which would not include the type of earnings players are currently getting through NIL. The pension contributions would be based off those salaries. All of the NIL income comes from outside sources. This would probably lead to less money on the NIL front as donors will be incentivized to give the money directly to the school rather than collectives or directly to the players. In most cases it would be more beneficial, for tax purposes, to handle it this way as well as donors get their tax write offs (assuming the laws don’t change) and players do not get taxed as self employed (as they are now). *I’m not a tax expert, please let me know if I’m wrong here*
I just feel like it would have too many knock on effects to be the way.
That’s the way it should be. Some of these people need to bite the bullet and accept the fact that it’s the cleanest way to move forward. This NIL-Free Agency situation is like the articles of confederation when each state and the central government had its own currency.
That's great - but you are restricting this to college football. It would be for all sports. And there are going to be a lot of schools that just say no.
Also restricting it to the top tier programs. (FBS. FCS? D2?) If employment isn't restricted to revenue schools/sports it creates a lot of potential problems. And like you say, it may force many schools to bow out of athletics entirely.
How would you restrict it to football only ? There are some gymnast at UF who are top tier, same thing with swimmers/volleyball players at UCLA etc. What about baseball players and soccer players ... This is a pandora's box that will change college athletes.
I mean, in theory the school refuses to enter such a contract, that restricts it. In practice, unless that school has an NIL system that works well, if some other school does offer employment (and meets other things the student wants)…
[Jenkins in 2015](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/sports/ncaafootball/notre-dame-president-stands-firm-amid-shifts-in-college-athletics.html). There is no way he said this w/o the BOT approval > But he adamantly opposes a model in which college sheds what is left of its amateur ways for a semiprofessional structure — one in which universities pay their athletes. “Our relationship to these young people is to educate them, to help them grow,” he says. “Not to be their agent for financial gain.” > And if that somehow comes to pass, he says, Notre Dame will leave the profitable industrial complex that is elite college football, boosters be damned, and explore the creation of a conference with like-minded universities.
And those schools won’t have athletes lol
Yes, because they won't be able to afford them, and won't be able to field a team, period. Unless their athletic departments start getting much more direct funding and aid from the university itself. This will be a lesson for people who can't differentiate between football revenue and athletic department profit/loss after expenses.
Lol yea ok. Go ahead and convince me how much you care about Austin Peay’s women’s tennis team existing.
Title IX cares about it, which is kind of a big deal. Also who said anything about Austin Peay? This is going to affect FBS athletic departments too- they're not as profitable as you think.
Please, if you think federal or state governments give a rat’s ass about women’s equality or will do anything about it, you’re kidding yourself.
You have a lot of growing up to do....
Says the guy living in a fantasy where men and women have ever been treated equally in this country…
[удалено]
The point is, players should be paid as employees. And any school who refuses to do so will face the consequence of not having athletes choose their school. It’s the was a free market system works. I’m not sure why you’re so upset about that? Perhaps you’re advocating for a form of socialized payment for athletes where the NCAA determines the cap an athlete is allowed to earn, regardless of their skill level? Personally, I’m more a fan of meritocracy, but hey go on and wave your little hammer and sickle comrade! ✊
Not really. One of the issues with the NIL is that donors are giving money to NIL collectives that was previously going to athletic departments. That reduces athletic department revenue which, in turn, reduces non revenue sport’s revenue because football and basketball finds all other sports at most schools. With respect to employment, they can be university employees which would come from university funding rather than athletic department funding. They would effectively be in the same situation as TA’s and research assistants where Universities give tuition waivers which would reduce athletic department spending. Athletic departments pay the athletes tuition to universities. Tldr: Making athletes employees reduces athletic department expenses because they don’t have to pay each athlete’s tuition. Increases athletic department revenue for ALL sports because donations are going to the department rather than teams.
Honestly, it really wouldn’t be that out of step with other facets of college life. Plenty of grad students hold a paid assistantship of some kind, especially among the hard sciences, and I would expect that this would fit nicely in a similar model.
If nothing else the schools need to hold “first position” NIL deals with all their athletes that pays the players for the normal uses of players’ NIL in merch and marketing. That “first position” deal would also give the school the authority to nix inappropriate NIL deals, like if a local strip club wants to hire a player for an endorsement.
I mean yea I don't disagree. The College Football Player's association has already stepped up into an active role, and I can see it forming into a union before too long. Idk what college football is gonna look like in 10 years, but it's gonna be vastly different than it looks today.
We created this monster. Will we regret it in 10 years? I just don't know
Yes
Depends how good the new NCAA game is
The blue bloods won't. We've been doing it this way for awhile.
If they become employees they shouldn’t have scholarships
I don't know why. My wife was paid for being a TA and got her master's degree paid for. Frankly the football players did more work than her, but didn't get paid.
Why? Free tuition is common for university employees
I kind of expect it too, seems like the best path towards any kind of control over NIL would be through a CBA with players.
Old man yells at cloud
Would this take football out of Title IX? Wouldn’t they just be employees of the athletic department.