Not sure how many people are following this, but I am absolutely enthralled by what's going with NIL, Employment Law as it relates to college athletes, and the resulting impact on college athletics.
The experts seem to think that amateurism in college sports will cease to exist in less than 5 years - Basically there's three legal activities involving the NCAA and Employment law that are going on right now:
- Johnson v NCAA - A Villanova athlete is suing the NCAA saying he was an employee, which should exhaust the appellate process in 2024
- NLRB (national labor relations board) investigating NCAA - will likely wrap up before the next presidential election ends
- The NCAA lobbying congress for an antitrust exemptions - at the whims of congress/NCAA Lobby
How do these things impact the NCAA?
- For amateurism to remain a thing, the NCAA has to win all 3 of these things - HIGHLY unlikely
- If the NCAA loses all three, then the NCAA will have to treat athletes as employees
- If the NCAA can successfully get an anti-trust exemption, it opens the option for a middle ground that could include:
- A standardized federal law around NIL (right now, every state has a different law)
- An NIL clearing house operated by the NCAA
- A (presumably better defined) quasi-employment status for student athletes
If you're interested in learning more about this (or question the crude summary I threw together), here's a list of things I'm following/reading (mostly a variety of work from Matt Brown, who I consider the foremost expert on NIL):
- Here's a twitter thread (with Matt Brown) that talks about NIL/TV Contracts. The gist is basically:
- Athletic Department fundraising is a completely different process that attracts different types of money people than NIL, so it's unlikely that NIL will ever detract from Athletic Department donations.
- Could this change with time? No, because NIL won't be a thing in 5 years (see summary above)
- Here's an episode of The Solid Verbal where they brought on Matt Brown to discuss this stuff
- Here's a piece by Matt Brown focused on the NCAA Lobbying Congress. Also, here's a catalogue of Matt Brown's work - his newsletter is called Extra Points, it's a part of the D1 ticker network, and is used in D1 Classroom, which is a teaching tool used in sports business degree programs.
- Here's my favorite piece on the Johnson Case, from the Athletic.
- This piece from the Athletic does a wonderful job of explaining the Jadan Rashada issue, which shows a lot of the problems with NIL. For discussion specific to Rashada, see this thread.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So how quickly do we skip past all this and just institute a salary cap type system to reintroduce a shred of parity in the sport?
For a salary cap, you need at minimum (a) congress to grant an anti-trust exemption, and (b) member institutions to agree to that. The latter is why IMO a salary cap will never happen.
Don't think of the relationship between schools and the NCAA as being akin to the relationship between states and the federal government. NCAA doesn't 'rule over' member institutions; it's more of a loose relationship (similar to the Articles of Confederation). None of this stuff will change that.
One way to think of it is that the NCAA is the Roger Goodell of college sports. Yes, it's an organization charged with the regulation of student athletics, but its board of governors is made up almost exclusively of university presidents. In other words, the member institutions are the NCAA, in the same way that Goodell serves at the pleasure of NFL owners. Neither is a truly independent regulating authority.
The difference is that NFL owners own the franchise. No one 'owns' a university - the president, board, AD, and big donors all have sway. Just to further complicate the situation.
I figured as much, it's kinda depressing
I don't think it's depressing. There's never been parity in the sport and I still love it. That's what makes the upsets so amazing.
I think if I could separate my emotional connection to VT, I could enjoy the sport more. I love CFB but the most important thing to me is VT excelling which is looking less and less likely.
I mean, what do you define as 'excelling?' VT can and should be what Kansas State has been over the last 10 years (floor of 6 wins, ceiling of 12 wins & a 12-team-playoff bid, 8-9 wins in most seasons).
If your mentality is 'I want to be the best team out of 133 FBS teams', then you should cheer for one of 8ish schools. College Football is about embracing the weirdness.
I would be so happy if this was our football team.
I see no reason why we can't be that good over a decade. There's enough nearby talent, enough fan/donor support, and strong enough brand name.
Excelling is random 7 win season and trending more towards 9-10 in most years, but let's be honest besides 2016, we've been perpetually .500 and that's not cutting it.
Not sure what 'most years' means - 5/10 years? 8/10 years?
The new ACC means our schedule will be harder on average. Clemson and FSU seem to both have their shit together (for now). Miami is financially investing in their program for the first time in two decades - I have my doubts about Mario, but he will recruit, and he will field lots of good (not great) teams. Pitt is going to be a tough out every single year that Nardouche is there, and UNC will continue to be thorn in our recruiting.
I think 9+ wins (regular season + post season) 5 of every 10 years, with double digit wins 2 of those 10 years, and a conference championship and/or playoff berth once every 10 years is very possible and a reasonable expectation.
I don't think we'll every have eight straight 10-win seasons again. I don't think we'll ever have eight 10-win seasons in a decade.
If there's 120 games in a 10 year period, 75+ wins should be the standard. Past ten? 69 wins
60 in 5 years? Win 35. We have 28 this past 5
Be a winning program even if that means not a CFP contender every year. It's the ACC, outside of Clemson and FSU who have Death Star potential, we should be able to find footing around 8-9 wins or at least we're spending like it now.
Yep, I think that's very reasonable
I would prefer at a minimum that the conference TV deals be more equitable.
Personally, I would prefer for there to be one TV deal that included all FBS teams, just because that would make a billion times easier to stream games. But unless the 1984 ruling against the NCAA is overturned, this will never happen.
Get ready for only the top few richest schools to be the only ones in the playoff. Oh wait, that is what we already have. I guess this could potentially make it even worse if we really go to a salary system.
And what we've had for the majority of college football history...
I'm not convinced of this... A (transparent) salary system would result in a much more efficient market. Players will actually know the difference in compensation between being a backup at Bama vs a starter at VT. Schools could sign players to multi-year contracts and keep them longer (this would help schools that are better at scouting). Schools would have to make decisions between hiring 10 extra analyst and a couple great players.
Salaries would just change the game so much - would boosters still give to programs? How do state tax laws come into play (with regard to player decision making)? Do multi year contracts come into play? - I'm just not ready to throw my hands up and assume that this would ruin the sport; there's too many unknowns.
Personally I am not donating to a professional sports team. I will attend games and purchase gear just like I would for my favorite NFL team.
Would you buy an ownership stake like the Green Bay Packers allow? What if players were paid by the conference/TV Revenue, but all other funding comes from donations?
There's so many way this could go
I would rather drop into a lower league and maintain amateurism than give my money to a professional sports team.
You would be hard pressed to present a situation where I want to donate my money to college football going forward.
I am not some huge donor. I give roughly 1000 bucks a year but I don't see a world where I continue to do so.
Having a hard time figuring out what's going on in this gif. Is the person...
- pushing a button?
- depositing a piece of gum?
- putting a quarter in a slot?
And what does it mean?
Really confuddled about this gif and what you meant by it, but then again, I haven't taken my afternoon ADD meds yet, so my head is cloudy ATM.
Looks like they're putting a quarter in, but not sure what was meant by it.
I am so relieved to have someone else say this. I have no clue the message that gif is trying to convey.
It was just an attempt to convey that "little" donations (not that $1000 is little because that's more than probably most of us donate) still matter
The gif is "putting a quarter into the arcade", the quarter is insignificant, but can help you get to the end game. (e.g. The Simpsons or TMNT, easy to play but long enough to need quarters)
Also, maybe you could take it as that some games require lots of quarters and you feel like you're just wasting your time and money contributing little after little with no real progress? (e.g. - Ghosts n' Goblins comes to mind.... impossible)
Unrelated arcade gif which makes me think of and miss the "Stick It In" chant:
I get it. I give at a similar level, and won't give if it's a full blown professional sport. But I think it would be cool to buy an ownership stake. I'd also consider continuing to donate if it stays in a quasi-professional/quasi-amateur situation. But I also want us to continue to compete at the top tier of the sport, whatever that means.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how things go.
I dont get it, what's the difference between 5 years ago where players made nothing and in maybe 5 years where players have a standard salary? That's really the difference a salary for 85 people. Why give now? So coaches can make $1000 more a year? So the players can get a smoothie in their lounge? You are currently paying lots of money into professional coaches and staff and getting buildings built. How much goes to jet fuel and hotel rooms for recruiting. How much of the donations are paying to feed coaches? If you are giving to the scholarship fund then sure you're most likely helping sone other sport that doesn't make money, that still is basically amateurs playing those sports.
I just don't see the difference in a football/basketball playing getting a salary and supporting the 350+ person athletics department
Great comment - tbh I didn't put much/enough thought into my previous post.
I think there's a lot of room in between the current 'amateurism' modal and the nfl. It's not clear what the new format for cfb will be. If college football becomes a for-profit enterprise, I think I'd want something in exchange for my giving (other than happiness and stickers), and at that point it's not a 'gift', it's a transaction (which is fine). But my guess is that CFB doesn't go this route for a long time, if ever.
Also a great point. I suppose I would keep giving.
Not targeted at you zblaetz, but that phrase always bothered me.
[rant mode=ON]
The current NIL situation may be a total clusterfuck, but at least it's exposing the blatant hypocrisy of "amateurism", which is a lie perpetuated by people who've been making shitloads of money off the efforts of student athletes for decades. Indentured servitude is a more accurate description of the current system, where athletes are required to give up any claim to the revenue that they create in return for a place to live and (maybe) a degree.
Youth sports coaches are amateurs. So are the referees & umpires who help manage their games, along with the army of parents and other volunteers who provide transportation, fundraising, and all manner of logistical support for free.
Coaches, ADs, conference commissioners, and bowl presidents who make 6- or 7-figure annual salaries are NOT amateurs, and neither are the many thousands of professional employees of the media, apparel, and other companies who profit from college sports.
You want real amateurism? How about we require all coaches to teach at least one class per semester and limit their salaries to no more than that of a tenured professor. Eliminate scholarships. Get rid of media rights and sports apparel licensing deals, and eliminate corporate sponsorships of facilities and events. Limit revenue to only what's needed for actual cost recovery (uniforms & equipment, facilities maintenance, etc) and require any additional monies to be contributed back into the university's general fund. THAT'S amateurism.
Of course, doing that would destroy a multi-billion dollar industry and eliminate thousands of jobs, never mind the impact to local economies (hotels, restaurants, bars, etc). There is exactly zero chance that this happens.
[rant mode=OFF]
The money in the system is here to stay, the only question is how the distribution changes.
Could not agree more. The best phrase I've every heard (about NIL, and fans' discomfort with it) is "They replaced the the walls to sausage factory with glass, and no one wants to eat hamburgers."
I don't have an issue with college sports being completely amateur, nor do I have an issue with professionalizing the league. I have an issue with the hypocrisy of it all. Don't say these players are students first, when their coaches, administration, and fans are signaling that they need to be athletes first.
I would prefer this to what we have today.
Would you purchase a PSL in order to buy tickets? That's essentially the equivalent of a college football donation for a pro team.
That's a good question! If it operates like an NFL PSL then it is an asset. When the team is good it is worth much more than when the team is bad. That means I am getting something for my money and am not opposed to it. I would rather "invest" in the team than donate to the team at that point.
I was curious about this, so I checked out NCAA national champions going back to 1951. I think the numbers bear out that there was a lot more parity in previous eras--both with a higher number of different teams winning titles, and a smaller number of repeat champions.
Breaking 1951 through 2022 into quarter century eras, here's the breakdown:
1951-1975
18 different champions
10 teams that won a single title; 8 won multiple titles
1976-2000
18 different champions
11 teams that won a single title; 7 won multiple titles
2001-2022
11 different champions
4 won a single title; 7 won multiple titles
It's been even worse the last few years, as only 6 different programs (Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Clemson, Ohio State, Florida State) have won titles in the last 12 seasons. And while there's still 3 more seasons left in this quarter century, I'd be shocked if anyone outside of those 6 teams won a title the next 3 years.
In other words:
Yes, it's worse.
No, it's not your imagination.
Some additional context might make the difference even more stark. For instance, were there 130 fbs teams in 1951? I doubt it. I think if you went by percentage rather than raw numbers it would be an even bigger gap
With the way Bama has dominated under Saban we have only seen this once before and that was the dominance of Miami and FSU in the 80s. If there was a 4 team playoff we would have seen less champions too. The year that ND refs completely robbed Miamibof that game, Miami ended the season with 1 loss, they most likely would have destroyed eneryone on a neutral field on their way to another championship. In 2000 Miami lost to #4 and beat #2. They beat #2 by more than #1 did in the champ game, it's entirely possible Miami would have won the playoff. There are a ton of teams like that where one loss ruined their chances and now it doesnt matter. What was 2013 Okst? They lost the game a few days after a plane crash carrying another Okst athletics team. Lots of what if with the playoffs that might have made those numbers way different.
HOLD UP - Number of National Champions is NOT a good measure of parity. A super brief history lesson of what it meant to be a college football national champion over the last 75 years:
There's a lot of history I'm leaving out, but I think these 4 bullets give you the idea: Until 1998, a true consensus national champion was far from given. Additionally, there were a bunch of different ways to name a national champion (AP poll, coaches poll, BCS rankings, CFP rankings, etc). Finally, I just don't think make sense to compare national champions from a post season era to national champions from an era that barely had a post season.
I'm working on pulling full data from cfbstats.com so I can do a deep dive (I'm not good with postman, so if someone more technical can help me hit the cfbstats endpoint, then please do) but I pulled info from wikipedia:
It's interesting that you basically see no difference in the amount of teams finished top 2 in the regular season, but do see an enormous difference in the amount of teams that finish top 4 in the regular season.
I need to look at more data, but my gut tells me:
Regardless - we do know for a fact that top 100 players are going to fewer and fewer schools. I've said this ad nauseam, but I do think this will change as more money gets into the game.
If the NCAA rules athletes as employees, it's not going to be the football and men's basketball programs that will feel the big impact in my opinion, it's going to be all the other sports that are no longer feasible or responsible of the university to keep such as Swimming, Golf, Softball, etc
I have the feeling they will get the same employment status as unpaid interns
For those following Johnson, NCAA took a big blow today. This thread is really interesting:
I think College sports will effectively come to an end if the NCAA loses and wants all athletes treated as employees.
If we go the employee route let's just hire back former VT players and make an all-star team. I'd pay to watch that. To heck with 18-22 year olds and eligibility.
I agree because if they are deemed employees then the schools would be subject to workman comp litigation for injuries. The amounts that might cost is enormous since many of the injuries (especially brain related) would be considered permanently debilitating. You could be looking at billions in payouts especially if it opens the door retroactively to all former players.
I feel like everyone is viewing this as an all or nothing change in college athletics. I think there is a possibility we see a new classification of college sports.
I agree it's not an all-or-nothing approach. The implications of ruling revenue sports as 'professional' are going to be insane. Are all athletes/sports entitled to wages beyond a scholly? If not all, how do you decide which ones? Does it vary by conference? What are the Title IX impact(s) of football going professional?
There's so much uncertainty right now.
Scholarship should be taken out of salary.
If you're not there to "play school", you shouldn't be getting a scholarship
The issue is the system, not the individuals. Schools recruit players, many of whom couldn't get into the school without athletics. Then, students are 'highly encouraged' (aka forced) to take easy majors that have low paying wages after school. So they wind up prioritizing football.
When it comes to football, universities prioritize football over 'playing school'. I'm more than okay with putting the hypocrisy to an end.
Have to admit that this conversation sparked a thought last night during the girl's game....should those students/cadets that are shown in the VT television commercials be receiving NIL money since the school is financially benefitting from their Images?
I'm a brand ambassador in the everyday world as well, I would enjoy some kick backs.
My good friends' younger sister is in the Cassell Guard and is shown on TV multiple times a game going into/out of break. It's an interesting question
Have they signed a waiver for their image to be used on TV?
They may have language in the ticket language that you consent to use of your image as part of attending but most of those commercial clips are outside the sporting events so that's a bit more open I imagine. I doubt they went to the cadets retiring the colors at the pylons and had them sign releases.
Or when I'm walking around sporting my VT gear, its benefiting the school's image.
How did I never realize that VT is using me? A ruggedly handsome male model promoting the VT image, and doing it for free?
Even worse, the sportswear deal is so bad you have to buy your own uniform.
Not from the school, but if Nike wants to cast them in a commercial/advertisement, then yes they should.
Isn't the school "casting" them in a commercial/advertisement for the school?
If anyone cares, Matt Brown published his summary/review/status of NIL after 18 months. Interesting quotes below.
On if NIL is good/bad/whatever:
On the 'NIL Marketplace':
On Title IX implications on collectives:
In summary:
As always, I recommend clicking the link and reading the piece to get full context. This one is a ~3 min read tops.
My stance on NIL....
For the players, its the best development the sport has had in a century. Full stop.
For the sport itself, its implementation of the NCAA throwing its hands in the air and not bothering to put any meaningful guardrails around it has been so bungled and has run so rampant from the start in regards to favoring the rich that the gap between the haves and have nots has been irreparably widened. And if you're not in the SEC or Big Ten, you're already dead.
That Title IX thing is an interesting point. Title IX has enabled a lot of good things and squandered a lot of good and bad things and at times has had some pretty broad interpretations.
Title IX only forces the could to offer equal opportunity. I don't see how it works be relevant as the NIL market is open and technically all athletes have as much opportunity as capitalism allows.
The new A&M foundation+ is going to stretch what will and will not be allowed. Donations to the foundation are being called deductible and will count for ticket rankings.
To quote in the article linked above (emphasis mine):
Title IX would only impact collectives. IF one could 'prove' that collectives award money based on on-field talent, NOT marketability, then they would be subject to Title IX (or so Matt Brown's argument - based on the experts he's interviewed - goes).
And that would be near impossible considering that an athlete's marketability is higher if they're having success on the field and gaining notoriety. Starters are more marketable than bench players. All-conference players are more marketable than role players. Champions are more marketable than non-champions. And MVPs are typically the most marketable (who is going to Disneyland?).
But what about players who haven't played a down yet? What if a collective pays a lineman on a 3-8 football team with 1000 instagram followers, but doesn't support a Women's Soccer player with 50k instagram followers on a team that goes to the final four?
If nothing else, there is risk and exposure here, and - to Brown's point - this is why "there are schools that are hesitant to really get in bed with collectives that are not attempting to provide services for all athletes."
isnt the whole thing kinda moot as long as the collective remains legally unaffiliated with the university?
"Legally unaffiliated" might become a blurry line if schools are not careful.
That is a question I'm not educated enough to answer... But I'll speculate anyways because it's the internet
my guess is that being 'legally' separated and 'practically' separated are different things (for what it's worth, 'practically separated' is a term I just made up). I bet that there is some legal risk if (a) an athletic department is directing boosters to give to a collective that only funds men sports or (b) coaches/the athletic department employees are 'working with' a collective to determine how money is distributed.
There is an analogous legal precedent that, even if legally separated, a legal authority can "pierce the veil" to reach the entity that is directing the illegal action (or owes money). This is most commonly applied to shell companies. For instance, an individual can't set up an LLC and then get a loan for the LLC, use the funds to buy himself a yatch in his name and then have the LLC claim bankruptcy to avoid paying back the loan because the LLC has no funds. In this instance, the bank can "pierce the veil" that is the LLC to legally hold that individual responsible foe the loan. Same is true for illegal actions. One also can't use an LLC to perform illegal actions on its behalf and thus avoid the consequences because they are legally separated. The person hiding behind the LLC can be reached by "piercing the veil."
So, by analogy, if a university or coach is directing NIL collectives to fund players or recruits, and doing so in a way that would violate the NCAA or Title IX, by the same theory, the NCAA (or Title IX enforcer) can "pierce the veil" that is the NIL collective to reach the University or coach.
I had to look up who enforces Title IX. Apparently, it's under the Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
Marketability is so expansive and vague and isn't definable as a single metric like Instagram followers. Just because Scarlet Johanson doesn't have any social media, and Christy Teigen is social media star, doean't mean Teigen is a more marketable individual. That said, Teigen's marketability is much higher for her due to her social media following (or in other words, Teigen would be less marketable if it wasn't for her social media).
For sure. I don't mean to imply that all collectives are committing T9 violations. Just saying there is risk there.
Did he have a stance on Miami being punished for the Cavinder Twins violation?
One tweet referencing an athletic article:
If interest Nicole Auerbach and Chris Vannini had some good discussion on it: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/power-auer-pac-12-streaming-deal-a...
As implemented, NIL doesn't do as much as could have been done for the average player.
The top players were going to get paid under any NIL arrangement.
The lower level players will get something, but the current implementation leaves it up to the market to decide, which is in this case a bad idea. Just means highly-fan/market-supported teams will buy off the players they want.
So, the rich get richer. Even more incentive to play for a high NIL team, even if you're playing second string. How is that a great solution? It's just more of the same.
New NIL article in SI about Texas A&M's new plan.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/01/texas-am-letter-ncaa-warns-nil-collectives-money-school
Well, that's a surprise.
/s
Saban probably has had an assistant calling the NCAA offices every day for 9 months now