NIL Thread (Name, Image, Likeness Rule)

[FrankNitty30]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

With that as the background, I will attempt to answer some questions.

1. The University can have EXACTLY ZERO involvement in facilitating a deal between an organization, business, individual, etc,

1A. A school can have an NIL compliance person who can help the student to understand tax implications, does a deal meet quid pro quo, does it stay away from illegal activities, etc.

2. Technically, a school is not even to know what the deals are worth. Now, we all know, and the NCAA knows that the schools know exactly what every kid gets. They are choosing to turn a blind eye. But, the only way a school should know anything about the financial arrangement is if the student tells them about it.

2A. These deals are the negotiated agreement between an entity and the perceived value of the individuals NIL influencing power. If an entity chooses to tie that to a school specific thing, AKA Coleman Hawkins pitching something because “ALL ILLINI drink/eat/play/whatever here, that is up to the business. Probably a good decision in that regard. But, it in no way has to be nor is it required for payment that it be Illinois specific.

3. Quid pro quo. Here is where it can get sticky especially if a kid leaves and the collective did not set up the deal very well. An athlete must DO SOMETHING. It cannot be something that they will do in the future, and then they are paid up front.

3A. So let’s use Skyy as an example. If he was paid $100,000 for 4 events he was going to be at, cool. But, if he was paid up front, that was very stupid on the collectives part, as well as technically illegal because no quid pro quo happened.

3B. Here is where it gets a little trickier. The Quid pro quo stuff is an NCAA rule that punishes the school. In the above scenario, Skyy does not HAVE TO do anything to keep that money.

3C. The contracts themselves need to be airtight to protect the collective, which in turn keeps the school out of trouble. But this is not always the case.

4. FaIr market value. This is is the bugaboo of all of this. What is fair Market value? What is appropriate. A majority of time FMV is looked at as insuring that a person gets ENOUGH of what they deserve. But this is flipped upside down with NIL. Now the question is “what did the do (QPQ) to get THAT (FMV)? So far this is the Wild Wild West. I sat in on a collective call (anonymously) with the KU collective and the Williams fund donors. These are the big guns of KU athletics. Bill Self, Lance Leipold and Coach Schneider were talking about all kinds of stuff. Leipold and Schneider were kind of rolling with the punches trying to figure some things out. Self was way ahead of the game. He starts calling out specific donors and saying stuff like “If you Donor X want to pay Gradey Dick $500,000 to come to your grandsons birthday party, you can do that.”

Now is that FMV? I think most prudent people would say, well, that is a little excessive. However, if a piece of art comes up for sale and someone is “willing to pay” $1 million…. then that is the value it holds for THAT person. Thus, in that market, at that time, with that buyer….. it is acceptable.

Once again, as with quid pro quo, FMV is an NCAA construct, but only applicable on the institution side. No penalties for the athlete as they are not capped on their earning potential of their NIL.

The real crappy thing with this is that the schools are most definitely guilty until able to prove innocence. If allegations are brought against the school they MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

With that as the background, I will attempt to answer some questions.

1. The University can have EXACTLY ZERO involvement in facilitating a deal between an organization, business, individual, etc,

1A. A school can have an NIL compliance person who can help the student to understand tax implications, does a deal meet quid pro quo, does it stay away from illegal activities, etc.

2. Technically, a school is not even to know what the deals are worth. Now, we all know, and the NCAA knows that the schools know exactly what every kid gets. They are choosing to turn a blind eye. But, the only way a school should know anything about the financial arrangement is if the student tells them about it.

2A. These deals are the negotiated agreement between an entity and the perceived value of the individuals NIL influencing power. If an entity chooses to tie that to a school specific thing, AKA Coleman Hawkins pitching something because “ALL ILLINI drink/eat/play/whatever here, that is up to the business. Probably a good decision in that regard. But, it in no way has to be nor is it required for payment that it be Illinois specific.

3. Quid pro quo. Here is where it can get sticky especially if a kid leaves and the collective did not set up the deal very well. An athlete must DO SOMETHING. It cannot be something that they will do in the future, and then they are paid up front.

3A. So let’s use Skyy as an example. If he was paid $100,000 for 4 events he was going to be at, cool. But, if he was paid up front, that was very stupid on the collectives part, as well as technically illegal because no quid pro quo happened.

3B. Here is where it gets a little trickier. The Quid pro quo stuff is an NCAA rule that punishes the school. In the above scenario, Skyy does not HAVE TO do anything to keep that money.

3C. The contracts themselves need to be airtight to protect the collective, which in turn keeps the school out of trouble. But this is not always the case.

4. FaIr market value. This is is the bugaboo of all of this. What is fair Market value? What is appropriate. A majority of time FMV is looked at as insuring that a person gets ENOUGH of what they deserve. But this is flipped upside down with NIL. Now the question is “what did the do (QPQ) to get THAT (FMV)? So far this is the Wild Wild West. I sat in on a collective call (anonymously) with the KU collective and the Williams fund donors. These are the big guns of KU athletics. Bill Self, Lance Leipold and Coach Schneider were talking about all kinds of stuff. Leipold and Schneider were kind of rolling with the punches trying to figure some things out. Self was way ahead of the game. He starts calling out specific donors and saying stuff like “If you Donor X want to pay Gradey Dick $500,000 to come to your grandsons birthday party, you can do that.”

Now is that FMV? I think most prudent people would say, well, that is a little excessive. However, if a piece of art comes up for sale and someone is “willing to pay” $1 million…. then that is the value it holds for THAT person. Thus, in that market, at that time, with that buyer….. it is acceptable.

Once again, as with quid pro quo, FMV is an NCAA construct, but only applicable on the institution side. No penalties for the athlete as they are not capped on their earning potential of their NIL.

The real crappy thing with this is that the schools are most definitely guilty until able to prove innocence. If allegations are brought against the school they MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE.

This is very informative… thank you. I’m guessing it’s close to what many of us suspected but it’s great to get confirmation from someone on the inside of a collective.

Fair Market Value is indeed an open construct. Gradey Dick, in your example, my not bring $500k worth of value to Donor X’s business interests, but he may be worth it for his or her personal interests. Because college athletics is such a passion fueled industry, it may take significantly more time for the market to regulate itself than a typical industry where the bottom line ultimately rules.

Which is why I say this will only become more out of control until the athletes are paid directly by the universities. My employer, with fair and equitable quid pro quo compensation, can restrict my activities and endorsements outside of my general realm of my employ. For example, if I’m an executive at Coca Cola, I could be prohibited from acting in a commercial for Pepsi. If the players were paid by the schools with an organized league structure (NCAA or a brand new entity), the need for the whole NIL construct would disappear. I don’t see that happening soon, but I believe it’s inevitable.

 

[1m4tr]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

With that as the background, I will attempt to answer some questions.

1. The University can have EXACTLY ZERO involvement in facilitating a deal between an organization, business, individual, etc,

1A. A school can have an NIL compliance person who can help the student to understand tax implications, does a deal meet quid pro quo, does it stay away from illegal activities, etc.

2. Technically, a school is not even to know what the deals are worth. Now, we all know, and the NCAA knows that the schools know exactly what every kid gets. They are choosing to turn a blind eye. But, the only way a school should know anything about the financial arrangement is if the student tells them about it.

2A. These deals are the negotiated agreement between an entity and the perceived value of the individuals NIL influencing power. If an entity chooses to tie that to a school specific thing, AKA Coleman Hawkins pitching something because “ALL ILLINI drink/eat/play/whatever here, that is up to the business. Probably a good decision in that regard. But, it in no way has to be nor is it required for payment that it be Illinois specific.

3. Quid pro quo. Here is where it can get sticky especially if a kid leaves and the collective did not set up the deal very well. An athlete must DO SOMETHING. It cannot be something that they will do in the future, and then they are paid up front.

3A. So let’s use Skyy as an example. If he was paid $100,000 for 4 events he was going to be at, cool. But, if he was paid up front, that was very stupid on the collectives part, as well as technically illegal because no quid pro quo happened.

3B. Here is where it gets a little trickier. The Quid pro quo stuff is an NCAA rule that punishes the school. In the above scenario, Skyy does not HAVE TO do anything to keep that money.

3C. The contracts themselves need to be airtight to protect the collective, which in turn keeps the school out of trouble. But this is not always the case.

4. FaIr market value. This is is the bugaboo of all of this. What is fair Market value? What is appropriate. A majority of time FMV is looked at as insuring that a person gets ENOUGH of what they deserve. But this is flipped upside down with NIL. Now the question is “what did the do (QPQ) to get THAT (FMV)? So far this is the Wild Wild West. I sat in on a collective call (anonymously) with the KU collective and the Williams fund donors. These are the big guns of KU athletics. Bill Self, Lance Leipold and Coach Schneider were talking about all kinds of stuff. Leipold and Schneider were kind of rolling with the punches trying to figure some things out. Self was way ahead of the game. He starts calling out specific donors and saying stuff like “If you Donor X want to pay Gradey Dick $500,000 to come to your grandsons birthday party, you can do that.”

Now is that FMV? I think most prudent people would say, well, that is a little excessive. However, if a piece of art comes up for sale and someone is “willing to pay” $1 million…. then that is the value it holds for THAT person. Thus, in that market, at that time, with that buyer….. it is acceptable.

Once again, as with quid pro quo, FMV is an NCAA construct, but only applicable on the institution side. No penalties for the athlete as they are not capped on their earning potential of their NIL.

The real crappy thing with this is that the schools are most definitely guilty until able to prove innocence. If allegations are brought against the school they MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE.

Great stuff man. Thanks for the inside scoop. Any comments on the new NCAA memo on NIL that they put out about a day ago:

The NCAA appears set to crack down on NIL violations for schools across the country after NCAA executive vice president of regulatory affairs Stan Wilcox sent a memo to schools on Tuesday stating that any school that violates NCAA rules, despite what its state laws allow, could be punished.
This memo comes after various states in the SEC footprint have or are planning to establish laws that allow student-athletes to receive NIL money through schools’ fundraising arms.

For example, a bill in Texas is set to take effect on July 1 that allows school fundraising groups to spend money on NIL endorsements, and fans who donate to the groups could earn special benefits, such as Texas A&M giving fans priority for game tickets. Wilcox already sent a letter back in March reminding schools not to follow this practice. Other states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, have established similar practices. The laws also include language prohibiting the NCAA from penalizing schools for following them.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Great stuff man. Thanks for the inside scoop. Any comments on the new NCAA memo on NIL that they put out about a day ago:

The NCAA appears set to crack down on NIL violations for schools across the country after NCAA executive vice president of regulatory affairs Stan Wilcox sent a memo to schools on Tuesday stating that any school that violates NCAA rules, despite what its state laws allow, could be punished.
This memo comes after various states in the SEC footprint have or are planning to establish laws that allow student-athletes to receive NIL money through schools’ fundraising arms.

For example, a bill in Texas is set to take effect on July 1 that allows school fundraising groups to spend money on NIL endorsements, and fans who donate to the groups could earn special benefits, such as Texas A&M giving fans priority for game tickets. Wilcox already sent a letter back in March reminding schools not to follow this practice. Other states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, have established similar practices. The laws also include language prohibiting the NCAA from penalizing schools for following them.

That is certainly something that could be challenged in court and the collectives/schools would most likely win.

 

[TheGMan]

That is certainly something that could be challenged in court and the collectives/schools would most likely win.

I'm not so sure. Many state laws allow sports gambling, but the NCAA can still punish players/coaches.

 

[TheGMan]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

With that as the background, I will attempt to answer some questions.

1. The University can have EXACTLY ZERO involvement in facilitating a deal between an organization, business, individual, etc,

1A. A school can have an NIL compliance person who can help the student to understand tax implications, does a deal meet quid pro quo, does it stay away from illegal activities, etc.

2. Technically, a school is not even to know what the deals are worth. Now, we all know, and the NCAA knows that the schools know exactly what every kid gets. They are choosing to turn a blind eye. But, the only way a school should know anything about the financial arrangement is if the student tells them about it.

2A. These deals are the negotiated agreement between an entity and the perceived value of the individuals NIL influencing power. If an entity chooses to tie that to a school specific thing, AKA Coleman Hawkins pitching something because “ALL ILLINI drink/eat/play/whatever here, that is up to the business. Probably a good decision in that regard. But, it in no way has to be nor is it required for payment that it be Illinois specific.

3. Quid pro quo. Here is where it can get sticky especially if a kid leaves and the collective did not set up the deal very well. An athlete must DO SOMETHING. It cannot be something that they will do in the future, and then they are paid up front.

3A. So let’s use Skyy as an example. If he was paid $100,000 for 4 events he was going to be at, cool. But, if he was paid up front, that was very stupid on the collectives part, as well as technically illegal because no quid pro quo happened.

3B. Here is where it gets a little trickier. The Quid pro quo stuff is an NCAA rule that punishes the school. In the above scenario, Skyy does not HAVE TO do anything to keep that money.

3C. The contracts themselves need to be airtight to protect the collective, which in turn keeps the school out of trouble. But this is not always the case.

4. FaIr market value. This is is the bugaboo of all of this. What is fair Market value? What is appropriate. A majority of time FMV is looked at as insuring that a person gets ENOUGH of what they deserve. But this is flipped upside down with NIL. Now the question is “what did the do (QPQ) to get THAT (FMV)? So far this is the Wild Wild West. I sat in on a collective call (anonymously) with the KU collective and the Williams fund donors. These are the big guns of KU athletics. Bill Self, Lance Leipold and Coach Schneider were talking about all kinds of stuff. Leipold and Schneider were kind of rolling with the punches trying to figure some things out. Self was way ahead of the game. He starts calling out specific donors and saying stuff like “If you Donor X want to pay Gradey Dick $500,000 to come to your grandsons birthday party, you can do that.”

Now is that FMV? I think most prudent people would say, well, that is a little excessive. However, if a piece of art comes up for sale and someone is “willing to pay” $1 million…. then that is the value it holds for THAT person. Thus, in that market, at that time, with that buyer….. it is acceptable.

Once again, as with quid pro quo, FMV is an NCAA construct, but only applicable on the institution side. No penalties for the athlete as they are not capped on their earning potential of their NIL.

The real crappy thing with this is that the schools are most definitely guilty until able to prove innocence. If allegations are brought against the school they MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE.

Is there a difference is tax write offs for donating directly to the school, versus paying a player $500,000 to attend a bday party? I could be wrong, but I always thought that boosters donated to the school because they could write it off as a charitable donation or something. Not sure you'd be able to swing that on the latter.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

I'm not so sure. Many state laws allow sports gambling, but the NCAA can still punish players/coaches.

That’s also something that could probably be challenged. Though unseemly, if a basketball player has placed a bet on a Major League Baseball game and done nothing otherwise illegal, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a court to return a decision that the NCAA’s rule violated the player’s right to participate in an activity the state deems legal.

The Iowa/Iowa State case is due to the fact that sports gambling is illegal in Iowa. Those players allegedly broke the law, which just happens to be the same as or similar to the NCAA rule.

It’s a whole new world these days and we’re just now starting to grasp the possibilities and repercussions.

 

[FrankNitty30]

Is there a difference is tax write offs for donating directly to the school, versus paying a player $500,000 to attend a bday party? I could be wrong, but I always thought that boosters donated to the school because they could write it off as a charitable donation or something. Not sure you'd be able to swing that on the latter.

There is no tax write off for that sort of giving. Just like a business does not have a tax write off when they hire someone to show up somewhere or to shoot a commercial or post on social media.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

With that as the background, I will attempt to answer some questions.

1. The University can have EXACTLY ZERO involvement in facilitating a deal between an organization, business, individual, etc,

1A. A school can have an NIL compliance person who can help the student to understand tax implications, does a deal meet quid pro quo, does it stay away from illegal activities, etc.

2. Technically, a school is not even to know what the deals are worth. Now, we all know, and the NCAA knows that the schools know exactly what every kid gets. They are choosing to turn a blind eye. But, the only way a school should know anything about the financial arrangement is if the student tells them about it.

2A. These deals are the negotiated agreement between an entity and the perceived value of the individuals NIL influencing power. If an entity chooses to tie that to a school specific thing, AKA Coleman Hawkins pitching something because “ALL ILLINI drink/eat/play/whatever here, that is up to the business. Probably a good decision in that regard. But, it in no way has to be nor is it required for payment that it be Illinois specific.

3. Quid pro quo. Here is where it can get sticky especially if a kid leaves and the collective did not set up the deal very well. An athlete must DO SOMETHING. It cannot be something that they will do in the future, and then they are paid up front.

3A. So let’s use Skyy as an example. If he was paid $100,000 for 4 events he was going to be at, cool. But, if he was paid up front, that was very stupid on the collectives part, as well as technically illegal because no quid pro quo happened.

3B. Here is where it gets a little trickier. The Quid pro quo stuff is an NCAA rule that punishes the school. In the above scenario, Skyy does not HAVE TO do anything to keep that money.

3C. The contracts themselves need to be airtight to protect the collective, which in turn keeps the school out of trouble. But this is not always the case.

4. FaIr market value. This is is the bugaboo of all of this. What is fair Market value? What is appropriate. A majority of time FMV is looked at as insuring that a person gets ENOUGH of what they deserve. But this is flipped upside down with NIL. Now the question is “what did the do (QPQ) to get THAT (FMV)? So far this is the Wild Wild West. I sat in on a collective call (anonymously) with the KU collective and the Williams fund donors. These are the big guns of KU athletics. Bill Self, Lance Leipold and Coach Schneider were talking about all kinds of stuff. Leipold and Schneider were kind of rolling with the punches trying to figure some things out. Self was way ahead of the game. He starts calling out specific donors and saying stuff like “If you Donor X want to pay Gradey Dick $500,000 to come to your grandsons birthday party, you can do that.”

Now is that FMV? I think most prudent people would say, well, that is a little excessive. However, if a piece of art comes up for sale and someone is “willing to pay” $1 million…. then that is the value it holds for THAT person. Thus, in that market, at that time, with that buyer….. it is acceptable.

Once again, as with quid pro quo, FMV is an NCAA construct, but only applicable on the institution side. No penalties for the athlete as they are not capped on their earning potential of their NIL.

The real crappy thing with this is that the schools are most definitely guilty until able to prove innocence. If allegations are brought against the school they MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE.

I do have a few questions. I can only assume the coach is instrumental in providing a list of desired players and has the final say on whether a certain player is offered. But how is that communicated to the collective and/or individual donors?

For example, Bill Self obviously wanted Hunter Dickinson. When he found out what Dickinson wanted, did he tell the collective this was priority #1 and we’re gonna need at least $2 million and that still may not be enough? Did he then provide a list of options 2-5? And how did the collective and/or the individual donors decide who would take on or share the financial responsibility for Dickinson?

Note: I’m using Self/Dickinson as a hypothetical situation in this scenario.

 

[FrankNitty30]

Great stuff man. Thanks for the inside scoop. Any comments on the new NCAA memo on NIL that they put out about a day ago:

The NCAA appears set to crack down on NIL violations for schools across the country after NCAA executive vice president of regulatory affairs Stan Wilcox sent a memo to schools on Tuesday stating that any school that violates NCAA rules, despite what its state laws allow, could be punished.
This memo comes after various states in the SEC footprint have or are planning to establish laws that allow student-athletes to receive NIL money through schools’ fundraising arms.

For example, a bill in Texas is set to take effect on July 1 that allows school fundraising groups to spend money on NIL endorsements, and fans who donate to the groups could earn special benefits, such as Texas A&M giving fans priority for game tickets. Wilcox already sent a letter back in March reminding schools not to follow this practice. Other states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, have established similar practices. The laws also include language prohibiting the NCAA from penalizing schools for following them.

My initial thought is that the states will ultimately win. The Supreme Court made it VERY clear, in a rare 9-0 ruling, that Alston v NCAA establishes ZERO restrictions to an athlete profiting of their NIL. The NCAA added Quid Pro Quo, Fair Market Value, No promoting alcohol, tobacco, drugs, ex, etc. However, one could argue that ALL of those restrictions place impediments in the way of maximizing NIL. In fact the Supreme Court basically said “don’t F around and find out” just exactly what we mean by ZERO RESTRICTIONS.

Just look at the Cavender Twins debacle the NCAA tried to hammer the University of Miami. Basically said that the Cavender Twins went to a dinner with a booster of Miami at his house and were given. “X” amount should they go to Miami. The NCAA tried to flex its muscles and the booster slapped lawyers on them so fast that they backed down, immediately.

The NCAA, in and of itself has ZERO enforceable rules if said rules prohibit an athlete in any way from profiting off their NIL.

This is why the new NCAA president is in bed with congress. He wants the federal government, the one entity entirely more inefficient and ineffective than the NCAA, to pass legislation to regulate how NIL will work.

But, once again, the Supreme Court has already ruled 9-0.

Sorry, this is so long. Bear with me on one new wrinkle that somewhat goes with the legislations of NCAA vs state law.

The government is trying to crack down on charitable giving through non-profit collectives. They say it is because they want to close down loopholes or “exploiting the spirit of the intent”. But, once again, if Terrence Shannon wants to work with a collective that has a non-profit arm that matches something he cares about (autism, domestic abuse, education, etc) and the NCAA or the government tries to say “No, you can’t do that.” Well, let me refer you back to the Supreme Courts 9-0 ruling saying Zero restrictions on NIL earnings.

My thought is that the athletes hold ALL the cards and if they really wanted to push it and unionize, universities would be in trouble, the NCAA would no longer exist and the athletes will be paid employees of the university.

 

[FrankNitty30]

I do have a few questions. I can only assume the coach is instrumental in providing a list of desired players and has the final say on whether a certain player is offered. But how is that communicated to the collective and/or individual donors?

For example, Bill Self obviously wanted Hunter Dickinson. When he found out what Dickinson wanted, did he tell the collective this was priority #1 and we’re gonna need at least $2 million and that still may not be enough? Did he then provide a list of options 2-5? And how did the collective and/or the individual donors decide who would take on or share the financial responsibility for Dickinson?

Note: I’m using Self/Dickinson as a hypothetical situation in this scenario.

Sure, this is where I said “Technically” the school should not be privy to it. However, YES, Bill Self works with Dan Beckler at Mass St Strategies, with a list of athletes he wants and/or is targeting. They work on those deals. Now for the most part, that is how it works with transfers. Incoming freshmen is a little bit different as they expect to be able to work out “something” once they get on campus in order to build their brand. Transfers already have a brand and expect to be paid for that.

The other things that collectives can do is have a list of things that every member of the basketball team gets. For example, KU men’s basketball players have lease with Long McArthur Ford. They may have memberships to different entities.

How does that work with NIL? They post on Social Media about the car they got or the membership they use and let people know how great it is and how the followers of KU should do the same thing.

 

[TheGMan]

My initial thought is that the states will ultimately win. The Supreme Court made it VERY clear, in a rare 9-0 ruling, that Alston v NCAA establishes ZERO restrictions to an athlete profiting of their NIL. The NCAA added Quid Pro Quo, Fair Market Value, No promoting alcohol, tobacco, drugs, ex, etc. However, one could argue that ALL of those restrictions place impediments in the way of maximizing NIL. In fact the Supreme Court basically said “don’t F around and find out” just exactly what we mean by ZERO RESTRICTIONS.

Just look at the Cavender Twins debacle the NCAA tried to hammer the University of Miami. Basically said that the Cavender Twins went to a dinner with a booster of Miami at his house and were given. “X” amount should they go to Miami. The NCAA tried to flex its muscles and the booster slapped lawyers on them so fast that they backed down, immediately.

The NCAA, in and of itself has ZERO enforceable rules if said rules prohibit an athlete in any way from profiting off their NIL.

This is why the new NCAA president is in bed with congress. He wants the federal government, the one entity entirely more inefficient and ineffective than the NCAA, to pass legislation to regulate how NIL will work.

But, once again, the Supreme Court has already ruled 9-0.

Sorry, this is so long. Bear with me on one new wrinkle that somewhat goes with the legislations of NCAA vs state law.

The government is trying to crack down on charitable giving through non-profit collectives. They say it is because they want to close down loopholes or “exploiting the spirit of the intent”. But, once again, if Terrence Shannon wants to work with a collective that has a non-profit arm that matches something he cares about (autism, domestic abuse, education, etc) and the NCAA or the government tries to say “No, you can’t do that.” Well, let me refer you back to the Supreme Courts 9-0 ruling saying Zero restrictions on NIL earnings.

My thought is that the athletes hold ALL the cards and if they really wanted to push it and unionize, universities would be in trouble, the NCAA would no longer exist and the athletes will be paid employees of the university.

Well looks like I need to read the opinion. Not saying you are wrong, since I haven't read the opinion, but that does not seem like the type of ruling that the Supreme Court usually makes. It doesn't generally operate in the extremes of 0 or 100.

 

[FrankNitty30]

Well looks like I need to read the opinion. Not saying you are wrong, since I haven't read the opinion, but that does not seem like the type of ruling that the Supreme Court usually makes. It doesn't generally operate in the extremes of 0 or 100.

And, I should probably clarify, this was in regards to the NCAA placing barriers. They are 100% eligible to make money off their NIL. Now they still cannot do something illegal or promote illegal activity.

 

[FrankNitty30]

Sure, this is where I said “Technically” the school should not be privy to it. However, YES, Bill Self works with Dan Beckler at Mass St Strategies, with a list of athletes he wants and/or is targeting. They work on those deals. Now for the most part, that is how it works with transfers. Incoming freshmen is a little bit different as they expect to be able to work out “something” once they get on campus in order to build their brand. Transfers already have a brand and expect to be paid for that.

The other things that collectives can do is have a list of things that every member of the basketball team gets. For example, KU men’s basketball players have lease with Long McArthur Ford. They may have memberships to different entities.

How does that work with NIL? They post on Social Media about the car they got or the membership they use and let people know how great it is and how the followers of KU should do the same thing.

Also, not to reply to my own post, but hey…. if an athlete could prove that the school hindered them from making money, they would have a pretty good case that would hold up in NCAA court. Say Hunter Dickinson could prove that he was capped by Bill Self, or future deals were pulled because of, lets say an upcoming Creaning, KU would be in very poor standing from a legal standpoint with the NCAA.

The funny thing is that the Supreme Court would rather the school be involved, facilitate the deals, pay the athletes and move on.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Well looks like I need to read the opinion. Not saying you are wrong, since I haven't read the opinion, but that does not seem like the type of ruling that the Supreme Court usually makes. It doesn't generally operate in the extremes of 0 or 100.

The Supreme Court doesn’t usually vote 9-0, either. This appeared to be a no-brainer for the court, regardless of political leanings.

 

[Phi-llini08]

The Supreme Court doesn’t usually vote 9-0, either. This appeared to be a no-brainer for the court, regardless of political leanings.

It doesn't?

Goodbye to almost 5 years of never making a post.... Really wish it had been about Illini Hoops Recruiting instead of SCOTUS but at least it wasn't my worst mistake of the day.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Also, not to reply to my own post, but hey…. if an athlete could prove that the school hindered them from making money, they would have a pretty good case that would hold up in NCAA court. Say Hunter Dickinson could prove that he was capped by Bill Self, or future deals were pulled because of, lets say an upcoming Creaning, KU would be in very poor standing from a legal standpoint with the NCAA.

The funny thing is that the Supreme Court would rather the school be involved, facilitate the deals, pay the athletes and move on.

I understand what you’re saying and I agree with you, but for clarity, there is no “legal standpoint” per se between the school and the NCAA. There’s only rules and compliance. The legal aspect would be handled in civil court, in which the player would file suit against the school and (most likely) the NCAA. Historically speaking, the NCAA has passed itself off as judge, jury and executioner when, in reality, it’s merely been a legal paper tiger.

 

[Stevegarbs]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

Thanks for this information. Are you able to provide your experience with the range of NIL individual players are receiving? Are you seeing players get millions or is it more in the 5 to 6 figure range?

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

It doesn't?
View attachment 26914
Goodbye to almost 5 years of never making a post.... Really wish it had been about Illini Hoops Recruiting instead of SCOTUS but at least it wasn't my worst mistake of the day.

Very interesting and informative. Still, one would think a decision is less complex when all of the justices are in agreement.

 

[Illini 993]

I think the NCAA will either be gone, or greatly changed, in the next 10 years. But, it will probably be because the largest conferences will eventually break off and form their own association, with NIL being an element that forces the move. The NCAA is fully aware of this after the SCOTUS ruling, and they realize that they could lose their kingdom overnight.

 

[DeonThomas]

I am a co-founder of a Collective. I wish it was University of Illinois, but alas, I live nowhere near Champaign. I will say that the Illini Guardians as well as the ICON collective are seen EXTREMELY favorably in the world of collectives.

With that as the background, I will attempt to answer some questions.

1. The University can have EXACTLY ZERO involvement in facilitating a deal between an organization, business, individual, etc,

1A. A school can have an NIL compliance person who can help the student to understand tax implications, does a deal meet quid pro quo, does it stay away from illegal activities, etc.

2. Technically, a school is not even to know what the deals are worth. Now, we all know, and the NCAA knows that the schools know exactly what every kid gets. They are choosing to turn a blind eye. But, the only way a school should know anything about the financial arrangement is if the student tells them about it.

2A. These deals are the negotiated agreement between an entity and the perceived value of the individuals NIL influencing power. If an entity chooses to tie that to a school specific thing, AKA Coleman Hawkins pitching something because “ALL ILLINI drink/eat/play/whatever here, that is up to the business. Probably a good decision in that regard. But, it in no way has to be nor is it required for payment that it be Illinois specific.

3. Quid pro quo. Here is where it can get sticky especially if a kid leaves and the collective did not set up the deal very well. An athlete must DO SOMETHING. It cannot be something that they will do in the future, and then they are paid up front.

3A. So let’s use Skyy as an example. If he was paid $100,000 for 4 events he was going to be at, cool. But, if he was paid up front, that was very stupid on the collectives part, as well as technically illegal because no quid pro quo happened.

3B. Here is where it gets a little trickier. The Quid pro quo stuff is an NCAA rule that punishes the school. In the above scenario, Skyy does not HAVE TO do anything to keep that money.

3C. The contracts themselves need to be airtight to protect the collective, which in turn keeps the school out of trouble. But this is not always the case.

4. FaIr market value. This is is the bugaboo of all of this. What is fair Market value? What is appropriate. A majority of time FMV is looked at as insuring that a person gets ENOUGH of what they deserve. But this is flipped upside down with NIL. Now the question is “what did the do (QPQ) to get THAT (FMV)? So far this is the Wild Wild West. I sat in on a collective call (anonymously) with the KU collective and the Williams fund donors. These are the big guns of KU athletics. Bill Self, Lance Leipold and Coach Schneider were talking about all kinds of stuff. Leipold and Schneider were kind of rolling with the punches trying to figure some things out. Self was way ahead of the game. He starts calling out specific donors and saying stuff like “If you Mr. Donor X want to pay Gradey Dick $500,000 to come to your grandsons birthday party, you can do that.”

Now is that FMV? I think most prudent people would say, well, that is a little excessive. However, if a piece of art comes up for sale and someone is “willing to pay” $1 million…. then that is the value it holds for THAT person. Thus, in that market, at that time, with that buyer….. it is acceptable.

Once again, as with quid pro quo, FMV is an NCAA construct, but only applicable on the institution side. No penalties for the athlete as they are not capped on their earning potential of their NIL.

The real crappy thing with this is that the schools are most definitely guilty until able to prove innocence. If allegations are brought against the school they MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE.

Very educational post --- thank you Frank! Also glad to hear that Illinois seems to be doing things right.

And the now-bolded text sounds exactly like something Self would say.

 

[BashCtIllini]

Also, not to reply to my own post, but hey…. if an athlete could prove that the school hindered them from making money, they would have a pretty good case that would hold up in NCAA court. Say Hunter Dickinson could prove that he was capped by Bill Self, or future deals were pulled because of, lets say an upcoming Creaning, KU would be in very poor standing from a legal standpoint with the NCAA.

The funny thing is that the Supreme Court would rather the school be involved, facilitate the deals, pay the athletes and move on.

Ah but here's the rub.

So right now the players have all the power, but without the schools, the players have nothing. Go to a minor league baseball game, you'll have plenty of open seats to choose from. Turn on a USFL game, the seats are almost entirely empty. The Overtime Elite struggles to fill a 3,000 seat arena. Facts are, there is very minimal interest in minor league sports. They are viewed to most as something to do every once in a while with the family, but season ticket holders are FAR less prevalent than any college program. Colleges on the other hand routinely fill 100,000 seat football stadiums and consistently fill basketball arenas of various sizes.

So if athletes want to push people around, the universities could always say, ok that's it. We're not going to be held hostage by 18-22 year olds. Hey coach, go see if you can make $4 M a year in some minor league basketball association. Hey players, see if you can make 6 digits playing in that league. And guess what guys, there are over 360 division 1 basketball programs, if you want to screw this all up, well you'll be lucky to have 32 teams to play on. So thousands of you will lose your opportunity and free education.

How many athletic departments actually make a profit? If the schools were forced to pay the players, many DIAs would go bust. Or they'd just make donors ultimately pay for it, so the school would just be the middle man. So in the grand scheme of things, the schools, if they act in unison have the power. Will they exert this power and threaten to shut it down? I doubt it, but to me that is the path to sanity. Some structured rules are put in place that pays the players but keeps a relatively level playing field. Some rules to limit player movement where you can't contact someone on another roster through back channels and offer them more money to leave their team. These would be helpful, because the way things are moving college teams are becoming pro teams that aren't as good.

 

[TCTORNADO]

It doesn't?
View attachment 26914
Goodbye to almost 5 years of never making a post.... Really wish it had been about Illini Hoops Recruiting instead of SCOTUS but at least it wasn't my worst mistake of the day.

Wow, 5 years of not posting, you must not like cottage cheese or pizza.

 

[BRucks]

Ah but here's the rub.


How many athletic departments actually make a profit? If the schools were forced to pay the players, many DIAs would go bust. Or they'd just make donors ultimately pay for it, so the school would just be the middle man. So in the grand scheme of things, the schools, if they act in unison have the power. Will they exert this power and threaten to shut it down? I doubt it, but to me that is the path to sanity. Some structured rules are put in place that pays the players but keeps a relatively level playing field. Some rules to limit player movement where you can't contact someone on another roster through back channels and offer them more money to leave their team. These would be helpful, because the way things are moving college teams are becoming pro teams that aren't as good.

Not many:

Do Colleges Make Money From Athletics? | BestColleges

Although college sports play a big role in bringing in money for universities, they rarely generate a positive net revenue.

www.bestcolleges.com

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Ah but here's the rub.

So right now the players have all the power, but without the schools, the players have nothing. Go to a minor league baseball game, you'll have plenty of open seats to choose from. Turn on a USFL game, the seats are almost entirely empty. The Overtime Elite struggles to fill a 3,000 seat arena. Facts are, there is very minimal interest in minor league sports. They are viewed to most as something to do every once in a while with the family, but season ticket holders are FAR less prevalent than any college program. Colleges on the other hand routinely fill 100,000 seat football stadiums and consistently fill basketball arenas of various sizes.

So if athletes want to push people around, the universities could always say, ok that's it. We're not going to be held hostage by 18-22 year olds. Hey coach, go see if you can make $4 M a year in some minor league basketball association. Hey players, see if you can make 6 digits playing in that league. And guess what guys, there are over 360 division 1 basketball programs, if you want to screw this all up, well you'll be lucky to have 32 teams to play on. So thousands of you will lose your opportunity and free education.

How many athletic departments actually make a profit? If the schools were forced to pay the players, many DIAs would go bust. Or they'd just make donors ultimately pay for it, so the school would just be the middle man. So in the grand scheme of things, the schools, if they act in unison have the power. Will they exert this power and threaten to shut it down? I doubt it, but to me that is the path to sanity. Some structured rules are put in place that pays the players but keeps a relatively level playing field. Some rules to limit player movement where you can't contact someone on another roster through back channels and offer them more money to leave their team. These would be helpful, because the way things are moving college teams are becoming pro teams that aren't as good.

The problem with this scenario is that it’s mutually assured destruction… the people who would stand to lose the most aren’t the players or the coaches. It would be the extraordinarily well-compensated executives at the NCAA and the administrators at the schools who would not want to risk their lifestyle, even if they have to share a larger portion of the pie, just to make a point.