NIL Thread (Name, Image, Likeness Rule)

[grue2]

This money is a drop in the bucket compared to the money made off of these athletes over the last three decades.

There are reports that the B1G could command up to $1 Billion annually for it's next tv contract after the current one (6 years/2.64 B) expires in 2023.
That's one billion per year for one major conferences' media rights. Just try and imagine where those amounts of money go.

The kids deserve Every. Single. Penny.

People assume that the athletic departments and universities are making significant money off of these kids. I wonder how much of that is perception (revenue) vs. reality (net). I'm not opposed to the players getting some spending money. The question is what is reasonable. Is suspect that every NIL dollar is roughly one less that gets donated to the school. The following is trying to rough out some numbers for myself. I figure I might as well share what I find.

A bit of digging shows that *ignoring infrastructure costs*, UIUC numbers for the last 3-4 pre-covid years were roughly:
- Football makes ~$30M/year
- Basketball makes ~$10M/year
- Every other sport loses $900k-1.8M/year. So many sports lose ~900k/year that I wonder if it is the budgeted loss.

Now lets look at the major FB/BB infrastructure costs:
- The Assembly hall renovation was estimated at ~$170M. (About $80M of which came directly from State Farm and donors.)
- The Memorial Stadium has had ~$160M in renovations since 1985 (Most of which in the one big renovation.)
- The $30M Ubben upgrade is supposedly all coming from private donors. Count it as you see fit.

This puts an absolute upper limit on the value of the entire basketball team at $10M/year. After infrastructure costs this number is likely closer to 2-3M/year. When someone builds a brand, provides the venue, advertises, sells the tickets, etc, they usually get a non-trivial chunk of the profits. What percentage is fair? Choose your number and reduce the 2-3M by that much. If you think a 50/50 split is reasonable (choosing something), then that says that the entire "fair" NIL for all of the players combined is $1-1.5M, or roughly 100k each. Their scholarships, food etc are worth ~60k/year. (And already accounted for in the department profit/loss, so adjust as you will. By the 50/50 rule, 30k should count against the players fair share.) That makes the average fair pay ~70k/player. Some players are clearly worth more than others.

Closing thoughts:
- UIUC as part of the Big10 has a signficantly larger profit than most schools, so any numbers we generate here are going to be toward the upper end for colleges in general.
- The athletics department, that is swimming in money is $~325M in debt, and banks won't touch them. They have to get loans from the UIUC foundation.

 

[dbeaverfg]

In the new NIL NCAA, you can enter free agency immediately via the portal. I don't think that's a sustainable system. Time will tell.

I think people are forgetting that after the first free transfer, the next time players will have to sit out a year. We're going through a wave of first time transfers right now for all four classes. Most of the 1500 in the portal will not be likely to transfer again if they have to sit out.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I think the original post you were responding to is referring to more than just basketball and football. I agree with that post and others that non-revenue sports will be negatively impacted. I would expect DIA donations to decrease as big-money boosters don't want to get "double-dipped" contributing to both NIL and the DIA, and if the DIA has less money I don't see how that doesn't result in cuts for the non-revenue sports. Did Title IX simply expand college sports for women without resulting in fewer men's sports?

Even if you don't agree with that logic or care about non-revenue sports, is anyone happy to see college players openly demanding more money backed by a threat to transfer? Every single transfer into a top program is going to come with a NIL money guarantee, and that will then have a ripple effect on the rest of the roster. In the NBA and NFL, you can be salty about what the new free agent received to sign with your team, but you either have to suck it up until your own contract is over or hold out. In the new NIL NCAA, you can enter free agency immediately via the portal. I don't think that's a sustainable system. Time will tell.

I think your argument that NIL will take away from DIA donations argument is interesting but misses a few points.

1. It's pretty much accepted that players were getting paid under the table. How much of these NIL donations are the same under the table payments, except in legitimate form, rather than a redirecting of DIA donations?

2. I know a lot of NIL is boosters funnelling money to programs. But at least some portion has to legitimately be business looking for partnership with players to increase their brand. When that is happening it's money coming to the program that wouldn't otherwise. And the DIA gets a cut.

3. The concern about whether we'll have enough money for non-revenue sports in a world where coaching salaries have been skyrocketing is a bit of a disconnect here. Either the revenue sports generate enough to justify paying coaches $4+ million a year, or they don't. If they do, then certainly players can earn a piece without upending the system.

4. A lot of those DIA donations already get earmarked for specific purposes (like a lot of large donations to the university generally), usually to help revenue sports. For example a donor can say, I want to donate a million dollars for you to improve the analytics software used by the football program. Why is that less concerning than offering NIL deals to athletes who play revenue sports?

The transfer piece is a whole different thing and I think has more to do with transfer rules than NIL. If you had free transfers before NIL, I think you'd have a similar number of guys in the portal, the NIL just wouldn't be a factor. The women's badketball transfer portal has been just as crowded, and I don't think nearly the same amount of money is at play there. I wouldn't be surprised to see companies aligned with a given team start inking players to multi-year NIL deals contingent on playing with the same team to try and curb some of the transferring.

 

[SeattleSlim]

Don’t know how many donors would be concerned, but there’s a potential tax deductibility downside to consider when shifting payment to a hobby (NIL) from a non-profit (DIA).

 

[IllinoisssssssVarsity]

I think your argument that NIL will take away from DIA donations argument is interesting but misses a few points.

1. It's pretty much accepted that players were getting paid under the table. How much of these NIL donations are the same under the table payments, except in legitimate form, rather than a redirecting of DIA donations?

2. I know a lot of NIL is boosters funnelling money to programs. But at least some portion has to legitimately be business looking for partnership with players to increase their brand. When that is happening it's money coming to the program that wouldn't otherwise. And the DIA gets a cut.

3. The concern about whether we'll have enough money for non-revenue sports in a world where coaching salaries have been skyrocketing is a bit of a disconnect here. Either the revenue sports generate enough to justify paying coaches $4+ million a year, or they don't. If they do, then certainly players can earn a piece without upending the system.

4. A lot of those DIA donations already get earmarked for specific purposes (like a lot of large donations to the university generally), usually to help revenue sports. For example a donor can say, I want to donate a million dollars for you to improve the analytics software used by the football program. Why is that less concerning than offering NIL deals to athletes who play revenue sports?

The transfer piece is a whole different thing and I think has more to do with transfer rules than NIL. If you had free transfers before NIL, I think you'd have a similar number of guys in the portal, the NIL just wouldn't be a factor. The women's badketball transfer portal has been just as crowded, and I don't think nearly the same amount of money is at play there. I wouldn't be surprised to see companies aligned with a given team start inking players to multi-year NIL deals contingent on playing with the same team to try and curb some of the transferring.

Point 2 is what I was gonna say. The point of an endorsement is to bring more attention to your business. If you’re doing your NIL right, the player you’re asking to endorse your product is going to make you more money than you’re spending on his endorsement.

 

[skyIdub]

People assume that the athletic departments and universities are making significant money off of these kids. I wonder how much of that is perception (revenue) vs. reality (net).

I'm not sure what all of your university department math has to do with my quote. My comment was not aimed at any of that. The money made off of these kids is in television deals, ad revenue, and marketing outside of the universities' realm.

I have no idea how much of this NIL money would normally be donations to the university or athletic departments.

 

[SnakePlissken]

I think your argument that NIL will take away from DIA donations argument is interesting but misses a few points.

Appreciate the points. I'll do my best here but then work will be busy so further replies will be slow.

1. It's pretty much accepted that players were getting paid under the table. How much of these NIL donations are the same under the table payments, except in legitimate form, rather than a redirecting of DIA donations?

Most of the bag money stories I read in the past involved shoe companies. I'm sure you're right there is some conversion of booster money from illegitimate to legit, but I'd think that's a relatively small percentage. I'd like to think the majority of boosters weren't interested in the dirty money game.

2. I know a lot of NIL is boosters funnelling money to programs. But at least some portion has to legitimately be business looking for partnership with players to increase their brand. When that is happening it's money coming to the program that wouldn't otherwise. And the DIA gets a cut.

Here again, I think it will be more the former than the latter. I expect the players getting paid to mostly do effectively nothing (other than their sport, of course) rather than truly increasing brand awareness. A big business booster can give directly to the players via NIL or to the school through naming rights and advertising. If they care about increasing their brand and actually getting true ROI, it's probably the latter, but if they care more about the results on the court or field then direct payments via NIL is where I'd put my money without worrying about ROI for the business.

3. The concern about whether we'll have enough money for non-revenue sports in a world where coaching salaries have been skyrocketing is a bit of a disconnect here. Either the revenue sports generate enough to justify paying coaches $4+ million a year, or they don't. If they do, then certainly players can earn a piece without upending the system.

I agree. I'm not a fan of generational wealth for college coaches, but that's where it's gone and the horse is out of the barn. I don't expect a rollback of coaching salaries, so the new money for the players has to come from somewhere. I get that some people think that will come from traditional advertising dollars that would have been spent otherwise, but I think that's a much smaller piece of the pie.

4. A lot of those DIA donations already get earmarked for specific purposes (like a lot of large donations to the university generally), usually to help revenue sports. For example a donor can say, I want to donate a million dollars for you to improve the analytics software used by the football program. Why is that less concerning than offering NIL deals to athletes who play revenue sports?

I don't think I said earmarked donations are a concern, or at least I wasn't trying to. I'm sure some donors have specific things they care greatly about and make requests for their dollars to be spent in a certain way, but I would think the majority are giving to projects the DIA has put forward as priorities. I'm sure the DIA is selling those projects as ways to either remain competitive or gain a competitive advantage. If I'm a donor and have the opportunity to either put money towards a fancy new weight room or put money towards getting more talented players into the existing weight room, I'm going to go with the talent. I'm just not going to do both.

The transfer piece is a whole different thing and I think has more to do with transfer rules than NIL. If you had free transfers before NIL, I think you'd have a similar number of guys in the portal, the NIL just wouldn't be a factor. The women's badketball transfer portal has been just as crowded, and I don't think nearly the same amount of money is at play there.

I gave up trying to understand women a long time ago.

I wouldn't be surprised to see companies aligned with a given team start inking players to multi-year NIL deals contingent on playing with the same team to try and curb some of the transferring.

The idea of NIL being a multi-year contract is interesting. Like maybe some of the payments are deferred and contingent on staying at the school? I rather like that, which probably means lots of people will think it impinges on players' rights.

I know the "death of college sports as we know it" sounds like hyperbole to many. The spirit of that statement for me is negative impact to non-revenue sports. I tend to look at the unintended consequences and expect that to happen but I'd be happy to be wrong. For the revenue sports, I'm just not interested in reading about money and contract demands. I've never liked that side of pro sports and I'm not thrilled about it bleeding into college sports. At the end of the day, I think we all agree things are going to be different going forward. None of us know exactly how it will turn out. YMMV.

 

[Battle89]

Don’t know how many donors would be concerned, but there’s a potential tax deductibility downside to consider when shifting payment to a hobby (NIL) from a non-profit (DIA).

Straight cash person-to-person, yes. But if the deal is structured as an endorsement / marketing expense from a big donor's business, it is totally deductible. Sure that situation probably does not apply to the $1,000-a-year donors, but those donors are not the source for deals like are happening in Miami.

 

[HensonHall71]

The idea of NIL being a multi-year contract is interesting. Like maybe some of the payments are deferred and contingent on staying at the school? I rather like that, which probably means lots of people will think it impinges on players' rights.

I see this becoming a lot more transactional - look at the deal Pack just signed for 2 years/$400K per year at Miami. I see it working both ways, teams locking in multi-year NIL deals with players to get some stability, but I also can foresee some players underperforming their NIL contract and coaches running them off to use that NIL money on someone else.

There is no doubt with the transfer portal this has essentially turned into a "free agency period" where players are signing where the best deal/most money resides - this will only benefit the big time schools that have big money supporting the program for this NIL deals - I would think that would hurt the Gonzaga's or smaller schools in smaller communities that have great basketball programs, but maybe not the alumni base or large businesses supporting them. Time will tell, but the power shift from small schools even with great basketball programs to the wealthier schools with NIL money to throw around will be interesting to see.

I would also think it will also hurt some of the schools that have historically attracted multiple 5 star recruits in the same class like a Memphis - I would think there wouldn't be enough NIL money to go around for everyone, so I would think it would spread out the 5 star recruits that want the biggest $$ possible to sign with a school now

 

[STL Illini]

Serious question for those that think NIL is going to kill college sports: how? Please describe the chain reaction whereby players getting compensated for their contributions to a multi-billion dollar industry kills the golden goose. I honestly don't understand. The same prognostications were made about free agency in pro sports, and those leagues are more profitable than ever.

If it's about some notion of the sanctity of amateurism and academia, then college conferences should turn down tv deals and televise on public access, and schools can stop paying millions to full-time coaching staffs. They can be coached by volunteer college professors instead. Why do these arguments about money only extend to the players?

I certainly appreciate and respect the varying opinions regarding NIL, boosters, salaries of coaches, the balance between academia and athletics, etc… It’s quite a complex equation, and likely we all come to differing conclusions based on our weighting of factors that are important to our individual perspectives.
I also will say that personally, I appreciate and often agree with Juiceman and his takes. Here’s a long winded perspective…

Regarding NIL, having a free market may be well and good for players, but they are still student athletes. With NIL, now they are professional athletes. (I guess now we should call the college players student professional athletes.)
Historically, having student athletes represent a school now transitions really to a professional student athlete that may often have a limited connection to the University, and instead - a connection to the NIL donor. We are seeing it first hand…many of these college athletes are chasing the $$$, not the balance between a sought after degree, the reputation of a school, etc….Many, not all, are going where the money is…aka NIL.
Yes, there has always been money funneled under the table, but I do think we can all agree that what we are currently seeing is the “wild, wild west ” as it pertains to college basketball? Look at what’s going on with Miami. Seriously? Yes, it’s legal to do this, and God bless Miami for having a guy that created Life Wallet and is now worth billions that is willing to buy his own franchise (for lack of a better way to put it). Imagine if Mark Cuban decided that he was willing to funnel 50 million a year into Indiana basketball NIL agreements. God bless Cuban and IU for it, but that would be a game changer for the BIG and college basketball. Yes, that’s a hypothetical, but NIL just started a handful of months ago and look how it has evolved in a very short time frame. The trajectory is not encouraging to those of us that prefer for athletes to be compensated, but actually are still (a majority at least) student athletes attempting to earn a degree.
So has NIL “killed” college sports??? I would say no, not yet. But I am fearful where this all goes. In reality, it could be that many NCAA basketball programs operate with NIL opportunities, while other programs identify donors to provide massive NIL compensation to create “mini-professional teams”. These programs could in essence be created, funded, and turned over annually based on the “owner” being a massive NIL donor, while his/her team is “managed” by a University. Perhaps moving forward, huge NIL donors will be involved in hiring/firing decisions? Sounds crazy…perhaps not so crazy. “You want my NIL players…I want a new coach, preferably “x, y, z”, or I take my guys to “pick a school”.
It could well be the death of NCAA basketball as we have known it to be.
I don’t have the solutions regarding the “wild, wild, west” … but I am fearful of the imbalance of NCAA hoops. I believe there would be a majority of high level student athletes that still value the education, and would be happy with a $75k per year NIL limit (just creating a number) while at that university. Or perhaps schools require professional student athletes to pay tuition like the rest of us…..dependent upon income?
I, for one, hope that the opportunities for a true student athlete, who dreams of the big dance and Cinderella, etc, does not get steamrolled by a league of professional student athletes at a handful of schools and its NIL owners/puppet masters vision of a pro league disguised as college athletics.

 

[dbeaverfg]

I think your argument that NIL will take away from DIA donations argument is interesting but misses a few points.

1. It's pretty much accepted that players were getting paid under the table. How much of these NIL donations are the same under the table payments, except in legitimate form, rather than a redirecting of DIA donations?

2. I know a lot of NIL is boosters funnelling money to programs. But at least some portion has to legitimately be business looking for partnership with players to increase their brand. When that is happening it's money coming to the program that wouldn't otherwise. And the DIA gets a cut.

3. The concern about whether we'll have enough money for non-revenue sports in a world where coaching salaries have been skyrocketing is a bit of a disconnect here. Either the revenue sports generate enough to justify paying coaches $4+ million a year, or they don't. If they do, then certainly players can earn a piece without upending the system.

4. A lot of those DIA donations already get earmarked for specific purposes (like a lot of large donations to the university generally), usually to help revenue sports. For example a donor can say, I want to donate a million dollars for you to improve the analytics software used by the football program. Why is that less concerning than offering NIL deals to athletes who play revenue sports?

The transfer piece is a whole different thing and I think has more to do with transfer rules than NIL. If you had free transfers before NIL, I think you'd have a similar number of guys in the portal, the NIL just wouldn't be a factor. The women's badketball transfer portal has been just as crowded, and I don't think nearly the same amount of money is at play there. I wouldn't be surprised to see companies aligned with a given team start inking players to multi-year NIL deals contingent on playing with the same team to try and curb some of the transferring.

Josh has said that Illinois' position on NIL cannibalizing from DIA contributions is that NIL will lead to better teams, better teams will lead to more $$ to DIA. Hopefully the positive effects of the latter will outweigh any negatives of the former.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Josh has said that Illinois' position on NIL cannibalizing from DIA contributions is that NIL will lead to better teams, better teams will lead to more $$ to DIA. Hopefully the positive effects of the latter will outweigh any negatives of the former.

I'm bullish on this as well. There's a reason Kentucky can afford to pay Cal $8 million a year. I think the rate of increase in coach's pay may plateau a bit, as boosters become less willing to pay through the nose for coaches when they can play for players instead, but I don't think that's really a big negative.

 

[dbeaverfg]

A question I've been thinking about lately is where the greatest economic benefit of NIL money is to us. Basketball already does well with tickets and $ distribution from the B1G (ncaa parcels out $ for making the tournament and wins in the first two weeks of the tournament, B1G distributes evenly across the conference). Football benefits from B1G teams making bowl games and the CFP through the same even distribution to conference teams. The main difference I can see is increase in ticket sales and the ancillary economic benefits for football would be best for our bottom line. Easier for us to move up to elite in basketball than football so you have to factor that into the equation also.

Interesting dilemma on deciding where NIL money does the most good to the university athletics overall.

 

[Point-Illinois]

I think most of us can agree that the previous “agreement” (or lack there of) was unfair.

Players were putting a product on the floor and being compensated very little (still something…but very little compared to what was brought in) for their hard work.

The NCAA needed to provide some avenue to get a % of these enormous profits to the players that was still harmonious with the idea of being a student athlete.

Monthly stipends, yearly payouts that increased substantially with each year you stayed in school …a version of NIL with some sort of market cap…a combination of these among many other possible good ideas are just a few off the top of my head.

Instead, nothing happened and this is the knee-jerk reaction. It truly is the Wild West.

A school could literally have 13 donors show up with various levels of NIL contracts to fill 13 scholarships. Contract language could keep players from leaving or create massive (legal?) controversy between coaches and companies as each feels they have say (or a contractual right) in running the team. What if players underperform their NIL value, how well are they being protected in these contracts? (Hopefully a lot)

While some businesses will truly use NIL for marketing, let’s not be naïve, there are plenty of rich people in this country that will throw huge dollars at 18-24 year olds simply for their team to have success. And when the team fails, will they have too much leverage to force change?

Much of this is already an issue, so I get that side of the argument. It’s just now above board, so let’s find some above board guide rails to keep it from going off the track.

I look forward to seeing regulation of some sort. Because while compensation may be fair (considering the market and profits), I also love college sports BECAUSE of the fact that it’s more about the school, the coaches, the rivalries, the dance, and player development and less about buying the best team.

The NCAA missed their chance to see this on the horizon and steadily make positive change while being able to regulate a fair system and have it evolve in a more controlled manner.

I guess we will see what happens going forward, but this is definitely spiraling to places I never felt college sports would go.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I think most of us can agree that the previous “agreement” (or lack there of) was unfair.

Players were putting a product on the floor and being compensated very little (still something…but very little compared to what was brought in) for their hard work.

The NCAA needed to provide some avenue to get a % of these enormous profits to the players that was still harmonious with the idea of being a student athlete.

Monthly stipends, yearly payouts that increased substantially with each year you stayed in school …a version of NIL with some sort of market cap…a combination of these among many other possible good ideas are just a few off the top of my head.

Instead, nothing happened and this is the knee-jerk reaction. It truly is the Wild West.

A school could literally have 13 donors show up with various levels of NIL contracts to fill 13 scholarships. Contract language could keep players from leaving or create massive (legal?) controversy between coaches and companies as each feels they have say (or a contractual right) in running the team. What if players underperform their NIL value, how well are they being protected in these contracts? (Hopefully a lot)

While some businesses will truly use NIL for marketing, let’s not be naïve, there are plenty of rich people in this country that will throw huge dollars at 18-24 year olds in order for their team to have success. And when the team fails, will they have too much leverage to force change?

Much of this is already an issue, so I get that side of the argument. It’s just now above board, so let’s find some guide rails to keep it from going off the track.

I look forward to seeing regulation of some sort. Because while compensation may be fair (considering the market and profits), I also love college sports BECAUSE of the fact that it’s more about the school, the coaches, the rivalries, the dance, and player development and less about buying the best team.

The NCAA missed their chance to see this on the horizon and steadily make positive change while being able to regulate a fair system and have it evolve in a more controlled manner.

I guess we will see what happens going forward, but this is definitely spiraling to places I never felt college sports would go.

100% agree, the turmoil you have now is the result of the NCAA steadfastly refusing to lead on this and forcing change to come through the courts. There were so many other ways this could have gone that would have been less chaotic.

 

[Chuck Nuggets]

I think most of us can agree that the previous “agreement” (or lack there of) was unfair.

If this is true, why did thousands of families -- maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of families -- on an annual basis do their best to secure a contract for one of these unfair agreements? Literally millions over decades signed up for it. Why did people do this?

Why did the government need to get in the middle of an agreement that was mutually beneficial to all parties; a contractual arrangement hundreds of thousands -- millions? -- have happily agreed to?

 

[the juiceman cometh]

If this is true, why did thousands of families -- maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of families -- on an annual basis do their best to secure a contract for one of these unfair agreements? Literally millions over decades signed up for it. Why did people do this?

Why did the government need to get in the middle of an agreement that was mutually beneficial to all parties; a contractual arrangement hundreds of thousands -- millions? -- have happily agreed to?

1. The NBA instituted a rule that prevents players from going to the NBA straight out of high school, essentially forcing NBA prospects to college. Recently the G-league finally became an option and many players chose that route over college.

2. Just because a situation is better than existing alternatives does not mean it is fair. Child labor at factories in the late 1800s and early 1900s was voluntary. Families sent their children to work in a consensual arrangement. It was still exploitative and wrong. Thank goodness the government stepped in to regulate "an agreement that was mutually beneficial to all parties; a contractual arrangement hundreds of thousands -- millions"

 

[grue2]

I'm not sure what all of your university department math has to do with my quote. My comment was not aimed at any of that. The money made off of these kids is in television deals, ad revenue, and marketing outside of the universities' realm.

I have no idea how much of this NIL money would normally be donations to the university or athletic departments.

I'm not following the distinction. I thought the argument was that the schools were making money on the kids via the TV contracts, and were using the kids images to advertise to increase ticket sales and TV value. If so, the net amount made should have shown in my prior rough calculations. If there is a separate stream of money, or beneficiaries, can you please give some concrete examples so that I can see the difference?

 

[Chuck Nuggets]

1. The NBA instituted a rule that prevents players from going to the NBA straight out of high school, essentially forcing NBA prospects to college. Recently the G-league finally became an option and many players chose that route over college.

2. Just because a situation is better than existing alternatives does not mean it is fair. Child labor at factories in the late 1800s and early 1900s was voluntary. Families sent their children to work in a consensual arrangement. It was still exploitative and wrong. Thank goodness the government stepped in to regulate "an agreement that was mutually beneficial to all parties; a contractual arrangement hundreds of thousands -- millions"

1. Why does the government need to care about this? If the government does care about it, why not attack the NBA instead? G-League? Sounds like the market would have solved the supposed problem.

2. Why did families do this? Families didn't care about their children? But let's stay on topic. If we're equating child labor in the Industrial Revolution to athletic scholarships then we may as well debate PBJ vs. peanut butter and honey. Fair? According to who? The government? If it wasn't "fair," why have millions of people tried their hardest to make it happen? Why would millions more have signed up for it if the government had stayed out of it? Why isn't the government stepping in and forcing Starbucks to pay their employees more?

Kids and families were setting up huge announcement parties. They were celebrations. Big events. Just to be taken advantage of in an "unfair" arrangement? How dumb are millions of families?

 

[the juiceman cometh]

1. Why does the government need to care about this? If the government does care about it, why not attack the NBA instead? G-League? Sounds like the market would have solved the supposed problem.

2. Why did families do this? Families didn't care about their children? But let's stay on topic. If we're equating child labor in the Industrial Revolution to athletic scholarships then we may as well debate PBJ vs. peanut butter and honey. Fair? According to who? The government? If it wasn't "fair," why have millions of people tried their hardest to make it happen? Why would millions more have signed up for it if the government had stayed out of it? Why isn't the government stepping in and forcing Starbucks to pay their employees more?

Kids and families were setting up huge announcement parties. They were celebrations. Big events. Just to be taken advantage of in an "unfair" arrangement? How dumb are millions of families?

So without delving into the idea that government shouldn't regulate conditions for workers or the welfare of children, this issue was decided by the courts and the idea is everyone has a right to profit from their "name, image and likeness." The problem with the prior system was that college athletes couldn't do things other students could do. For example, there was a football player who was also a talented musician and couldn't take a paid gig in town or perform under his real name. The government didn't step in and create new rules. The court was asked to step in by individuals who felt they had been wronged, and found that some of the rules the NCAA had put in place were illegal.

 

[Chuck Nuggets]

So without delving into the idea that government shouldn't regulate conditions for workers or the welfare of children, this issue was decided by the courts and the idea is everyone has a right to profit from their "name, image and likeness." The problem with the prior system was that college athletes couldn't do things other students could do. For example, there was a football player who was also a talented musician and couldn't take a paid gig in town or perform under his real name. The government didn't step in and create new rules. The court was asked to step in by individuals who felt they had been wronged, and found that some of the rules the NCAA had put in place were illegal.

Why did this football player sign up? Afterward, once it was clear he couldn't perform and play football, did he give up his scholarship? If not, why not? He agreed to a contract, wherein nothing was hidden from him. It is well-known and has been for a long time that this was the arrangement.

Again, why have millions of people/families agreed to this arrangement to which you have described as being "unfair," and planned large, celebratory events around it? And do you believe millions more would have followed if government had stayed out of it? I'm going to assume your answers are 1) because it is such a great deal -- a monumental, life-altering achievement -- for them and 2) yes, of course they would have, because of 1).

I'm glad we agree the G-League was a good out for anyone who didn't like the contract the NCAA was offering. It's too bad it couldn't be left to sort itself out and millions more families could have kept happily signing up without government interference. Again, if government did need to step in, it should have been at the NBA level.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

Why did this football player sign up? Afterward, once it was clear he couldn't perform and play football, did he give up his scholarship? If not, why not? He agreed to a contract, wherein nothing was hidden from him. It is well-known and has been for a long time that this was the arrangement.

Again, why have millions of people/families agreed to this arrangement to which you have described as being "unfair," and planned large, celebratory events around it? And do you believe millions more would have followed if government had stayed out of it? I'm going to assume your answers are 1) because it is such a great deal -- a monumental, life-altering achievement -- for them and 2) yes, of course they would have, because of 1).

I'm glad we agree the G-League was a good out for anyone who didn't like the contract the NCAA was offering. It's too bad it couldn't be left to sort itself out and millions more families could have kept happily signing up without government interference. Again, if government did need to step in, it should have been at the NBA level.

I'm not sure what you mean by government stepping in. There was a lawsuit. That's not the government stepping in.

Someone already answer your question about the why the signed unfair deals, but I can do it again. It was the best deal they could get and they took it.

I can flip your point right now. Why should you or any institution complain about the current system. The courts have ruled. You know what the rules are.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your complaint is. The same number of scholarship will be handed out and thousands of young athletes will get a free education. If you don't like the lack of stability and the lack of amateurism, I understand that and actually agree with you that it's disappointing. But it's inarguable that this is a better deal for athletes.

 

[ptgrd23]

Personal NIL experience

I reached out to Andre in May 2021 via Vimeo asking if he was interested in being spokesman for our company (we are in construction based in CA but build nationally). He said thank you but passed saying he was good. I was surprised because we never talked dollars. Maybe the players were under instruction to only do thru athletic department. However nobody ever reached out to me.

 

[Chuck Nuggets]

I'm not sure what you mean by government stepping in. There was a lawsuit. That's not the government stepping in.

Someone already answer your question about the why the signed unfair deals, but I can do it again. It was the best deal they could get and they took it.

I can flip your point right now. Why should you or any institution complain about the current system. The courts have ruled. You know what the rules are.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your complaint is. The same number of scholarship will be handed out and thousands of young athletes will get a free education. If you don't like the lack of stability and the lack of amateurism, I understand that and actually agree with you that it's disappointing. But it's inarguable that this is a better deal for athletes.

I've never cared for semantics games. You can have all my turns.

Do you usually celebrate when you take an "unfair" deal? Notify TV stations? Yes, it was absolutely the best deal they could get. A wonderful deal. Parents crying because it was so amazing. If that's unfair, I'm not sure what could ever be fair.

Flip my point. I'm not sure what this means. I prefer government stay out of contracts like this. Don't like the proposal? Don't take the deal. All problems solved. At minimum I'd be happy with people pretending the arrangement was "unfair." There was absolutely nothing broken about the arrangement.

Again, it's not about individual players.

Yes. It's very good for Kofi. I'm happy for him. That's why I said I'm not convinced it's good for college basketball, not Kofi Cockburn.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

I've never cared for semantics games. You can have all my turns.

Do you usually celebrate when you take an "unfair" deal? Notify TV stations? Yes, it was absolutely the best deal they could get. A wonderful deal. Parents crying because it was so amazing. If that's unfair, I'm not sure what could ever be fair.

Flip my point. I'm not sure what this means. I prefer government stay out of contracts like this. Don't like the proposal? Don't take the deal. All problems solved. At minimum I'd be happy with people pretending the arrangement was "unfair." There was absolutely nothing broken about the arrangement.

Again, it's not about individual players.

The government is not in involved