90% of the issues with CFB can be resolved one way

#151
#151
unfrozencvmanvol said:
They don't have to, they would simply "exempt" them from the antitrust laws. The governing body could then make rules that applied to anyone who CHOSE to participate. See right now, players can thwart that by saying that they don't really have a choice because there is no developmental football league and college football has a monopoly, in violation of the ANTITRUST laws, but if they are exempted from the Anti-Trust laws, the governing body can make rules, as a condition of participation. As I said, the only way this has a chance of getting passed is if it is contingent on some sort of revenue sharing model with athletes, but it 1000% does NOT have to be an employment model if Congress passes an exemption.
Click to expand...
And again, an antitrust exemption comes with employment, a pl noayer union, job actions including strikes, a draft instead of recruiting, and involuntary trades.

Apparently you want Nico to play for UMass or New Mexico State instead of Tennessee?
 
#152
#152
volbound1700 said:
Literally, the only change is having an athlete wait until May instead of December to transfer. That isn't a very big deal. Even then, they could still transfer, they would just have to sit out a season at the FBS level (let them play Div II, Div III, FCS, etc. That gets around anti-trust btw).
Click to expand...
It's a huge deal. It violates the judicial decision in the Ohio vs NCAA case. The State of Tennessee joined as a plaintiff in that case, BTW.
 
#153
#153
GVF said:
Not much knowledge to address all the legalities. Do know there is a better way than what is happening. Also know that revenue sharing is coming, so isn't that in the near future anyway?? so, if it's going to happen, control it, do something with the collectives, and reign all this in and keep it as college level as possible. In a roundabout way it was always pay for play. Thing they call scholarships that covered the cost of the educations for playing sports. Only NCAA baseball got the shaft cause they were limited to 11.5 scholly's for 26 man rosters. And other sports as well. It's no more a mess now than it has always been. Always had to be money under the table cause the NCAA was too lazy to improve the system before it went berzerk.

I'm old school. My preferred resolution is to offer all scholarship students the full ride plus suitable monthly stipend enough to keep the table clean. That's it. At some point this will spill over into the non-athletic full rides claiming they are treated as employess. How is a music major on full ride any different. Full scholly for an expected service. Makes them employees too, right? And it's no less important to them. Starting with sports is just the tip of the iceberg. This fiasco will get bigger by the decades.

Very few athletes go pro in any sport. Those that do have a short shelf life on average. Most will never enjoy these payouts too far past their playing days cause of family and friend handouts and lack of understanding of the cost of large contracts in the pros. Over 50% of those contracts are already gone and committed to taxes and such before the athlete ever spends a dime. A $10 mil payout is down to roughly $5.8 mil minus the jock tax they pay for games played in other states with state income tax. Plus, these contracts only pay over the length of the season. They gotta budget their posse life over the next 6-8 motnhs. Regardless of one's take on the subject, the school is offering a way to prepare for life after sports, and always have. And technically, by way of scholly for play, any person whether athletic, arts or whatever, that has been on scholly has always been an employee by definition.
Click to expand...
I don't see why an athlete who play for a team, lives in the state where the team is based, would have to pay taxes to another state, just because they played a game in said state.

If you live in one state, but you work in another state and that state has a state income tax, then yes, you have to pay state income tax in that state. The owners of athletic teams live in the state where the team is based, yes? So that mean the athletes pay is coming from their employer, who lives in the state, the athlete lives in the state where the team is based, why would they have to pay taxes in another state, just for playing a game in that state? Have to admit, I'm confused how that works.
 
#155
#155
hillsborovol said:
True. But the question was what could be done, and a 1 year delay after transfer would solve many of these issues.

The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce. They would have to rescind or modify existing acts and laws you cited rather than leaving its interpretation to the Courts.

Are they going to do it? No.
Click to expand...
They can't do that for athletes without doing it for every student. Otherwise it's built in discrimination. That will likely lead to more lawsuits, since that kind of discrimination violates Title IX and very likely the 13th Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hillsborovol
#156
#156
bigorangepoppa said:
I don't see why an athlete who play for a team, lives in the state where the team is based, would have to pay taxes to another state, just because they played a game in said state.

If you live in one state, but you work in another state and that state has a state income tax, then yes, you have to pay state income tax in that state. The owners of athletic teams live in the state where the team is based, yes? So that mean the athletes pay is coming from their employer, who lives in the state, the athlete lives in the state where the team is based, why would they have to pay taxes in another state, just for playing a game in that state? Have to admit, I'm confused how that works.
Click to expand...
Pro players are a collection of independent contractors so to speak. Not sure if they are classed as 1099 or W-2 or how that employment status is stated. But they are not standard employees. Otherwise all RB's on the team would have to be paid the saem. Linemen, etc. They are contracted employees. Not Organization Employees. Not that it would matter. Their salaries are paid by the game. So when they go play a road game in any other state, they earned that games income in that state. THis should all be common knowledge. It's been this way for a bit. If that game is in Tennessee, Texas or some other state that has no state income tax, no problem. If they play that game in California, they owe California state income tax for that games salary. And after all that, some of that money is paid into their NFL pension. Pretty much why the contracts have become so large. A guy signing on for 10 mil a year only has disposable income of about 4 million give or take. And that's before all the cousins and childhood friends come around with their hands out.

What is bolded...you already answered your own confusion.
 
#157
#157
S.C. OrangeMan said:
And again, an antitrust exemption comes with employment, a pl noayer union, job actions including strikes, a draft instead of recruiting, and involuntary trades.

Apparently you want Nico to play for UMass or New Mexico State instead of Tennessee?
Click to expand...
It only comes with that if Congress says it does. The independent contractor model, among other things, would work just as well as a basis of sharing revenue.

Not sure where you are coming from with the UMass, New Mexico State stuff, but to the extent you are referring to more favorable state laws, federal law preempts state law. Congress can clear the board.
 
#158
#158
unfrozencvmanvol said:
It only comes with that if Congress says it does. The independent contractor model, among other things, would work just as well as a basis of sharing revenue.

Not sure where you are coming from with the UMass, New Mexico State stuff, but to the extent you are referring to more favorable state laws, federal law preempts state law. Congress can clear the board.
Click to expand...
If the NCAA gets an ATE, a draft will replace recruiting, just like it did in the ro sports that have an ATE.

The worst teams get to draft first. 131 of them.
 
#159
#159
unfrozencvmanvol said:
It only comes with that if Congress says it does. The independent contractor model, among other things, would work just as well as a basis of sharing revenue.

Not sure where you are coming from with the UMass, New Mexico State stuff, but to the extent you are referring to more favorable state laws, federal law preempts state law. Congress can clear the board.
Click to expand...
Another factor is that college athletes are already dying for employment status.

The Dartmouth basketball team and the USC football team, for starters.

 
#160
#160
bigorangepoppa said:
I don't see why an athlete who play for a team, lives in the state where the team is based, would have to pay taxes to another state, just because they played a game in said state.

If you live in one state, but you work in another state and that state has a state income tax, then yes, you have to pay state income tax in that state. The owners of athletic teams live in the state where the team is based, yes? So that mean the athletes pay is coming from their employer, who lives in the state, the athlete lives in the state where the team is based, why would they have to pay taxes in another state, just for playing a game in that state? Have to admit, I'm confused how that works.
Click to expand...
Pro athletes are paid per game they suit up for. They are, like a friend's kid who works doing high wire/solar blades/cell towers work, going where the work is and subject to a lot of different taxes.

Just like anyone who works in GA but lives in TN pays GA income tax, if you work in Mercedes Benz stadium and get paid about $30,000 for that work (even though it's just one day,) you owe GA income tax.
 
#163
#163
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Congress can't stop NIL.
Congress can't grant an ATE without mirroring the trade offs that the pro sports give up to get their ATE's.

And...Congress will have much bigger fish to fry than to go after college sports.
Click to expand...
Congress can do whatever it wants with its own law. Alston wasn't decided on any constitutional grounds and the majority opinion even acknowledged Congress could change the law. Most of the proposed bills haven't embraced the employment model, it is what it is.
 
#164
#164
It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is that there should be a "salary cap" on players but absolutely no thought of capping coaching salaries or capping media deals for the SEC.

Why just the athletes? It's the money that's ruining college athletics, so why shouldn't everyone get a cap to keep the money from getting crazy?
 
#165
#165
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Congress can do whatever it wants with its own law. Alston wasn't decided on any constitutional grounds and the majority opinion even acknowledged Congress could change the law. Most of the proposed bills haven't embraced the employment model, it is what it is.
Click to expand...
You're missing the most important point.
Alston - and every other one of the cases the NCAA has lost - are based on long standing federal laws that apply to pretty much every facet of American business. Those include the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act. Those have been around since 1890 and 1887, respectively. Congress isn't going to mess with those over college sports.

There is also the fact that there are Constitutional issues involved that haven't been broached yet. If Congress passes a law that conflicts with either the 13th Amendment or Tre equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Anything that Congress does that violates either is going to be ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts.

Lots of smart lawyers are looking at that angle.

The smart move is for Congress to stay out of it and focus on the global issues that are far more important to the country.
 
#166
#166
S.C. OrangeMan said:
You're missing the most important point.
Alston - and every other one of the cases the NCAA has lost - are based on long standing federal laws that apply to pretty much every facet of American business. Those include the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act. Those have been around since 1890 and 1887, respectively. Congress isn't going to mess with those over college sports.

There is also the fact that there are Constitutional issues involved that haven't been broached yet. If Congress passes a law that conflicts with either the 13th Amendment or Tre equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Anything that Congress does that violates either is going to be ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts.

Lots of smart lawyers are looking at that angle.

The smart move is for Congress to stay out of it and focus on the global issues that are far more important to the country.
Click to expand...
I am a lawyer, maybe you are too, who knows, but Congress absolutely can craft whatever exemption to Antitrust it wants, hell most of what is proposed right now does not follow the employment model you seem to think is mandatory. Money changes hands all the time every day without there being employment. The legal issue that has caused all of this isthat the NCAA is considered to have a monopoly on the playing of football for these age of kids, that violates Anti-Trust, an act of Congress, that's the only reason the fact that participation is voluntary doesn't help the NCAA. If the Antitrust aspect is removed the voluntary nature of participation will cure anything else. Citizens are free to join all sorts of private organizations that may restrict their freedom/flexibility from churches to HOA's, college football will be no different if there is no longer an Antitrust problem.
 
#168
#168
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Pro athletes are paid per game they suit up for. They are, like a friend's kid who works doing high wire/solar blades/cell towers work, going where the work is and subject to a lot of different taxes.

Just like anyone who works in GA but lives in TN pays GA income tax, if you work in Mercedes Benz stadium and get paid about $30,000 for that work (even though it's just one day,) you owe GA income tax.
Click to expand...
Well now, don't that suck!
 
#169
#169
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Pro athletes are paid per game they suit up for. They are, like a friend's kid who works doing high wire/solar blades/cell towers work, going where the work is and subject to a lot of different taxes.

Just like anyone who works in GA but lives in TN pays GA income tax, if you work in Mercedes Benz stadium and get paid about $30,000 for that work (even though it's just one day,) you owe GA income tax.
Click to expand...
Well now, don't that suck
GVF said:
Pro players are a collection of independent contractors so to speak. Not sure if they are classed as 1099 or W-2 or how that employment status is stated. But they are not standard employees. Otherwise all RB's on the team would have to be paid the saem. Linemen, etc. They are contracted employees. Not Organization Employees. Not that it would matter. Their salaries are paid by the game. So when they go play a road game in any other state, they earned that games income in that state. THis should all be common knowledge. It's been this way for a bit. If that game is in Tennessee, Texas or some other state that has no state income tax, no problem. If they play that game in California, they owe California state income tax for that games salary. And after all that, some of that money is paid into their NFL pension. Pretty much why the contracts have become so large. A guy signing on for 10 mil a year only has disposable income of about 4 million give or take. And that's before all the cousins and childhood friends come around with their hands out.

What is bolded...you already answered your own confusion.
Click to expand...
I wasn't confused about that part. I live in Tennessee but worked in Georgia for 13 years, so yeah, I am familiar with that law.
 
#170
#170
bigorangepoppa said:
Well now, don't that suck

I wasn't confused about that part. I live in Tennessee but worked in Georgia for 13 years, so yeah, I am familiar with that law.
Click to expand...
I've had that situation come up also when I worked. It sucked.

I've wondered about the linemen and heavy equipment guys who come in after disasters. I don't know if the states like NC or GA waive the income tax hit after disasters but they should.
 
#172
#172
volbound1700 said:
Treat Post Season as a part of the season.

No transfers until AFTER National Championship

No awards, including Heisman, until AFTER National Championship

No signing day until AFTER National Championship
Click to expand...
All this makes complete sense.
But you have college Grads with PhD’s running things, so it will never be !
 
#173
#173
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is that there should be a "salary cap" on players but absolutely no thought of capping coaching salaries or capping media deals for the SEC.

Why just the athletes? It's the money that's ruining college athletics, so why shouldn't everyone get a cap to keep the money from getting crazy?
Click to expand...
A media cap would hurt everybody involved: schools, players, coaches, conferences. (It might help consumers but nobody cares about us).

The rationale behind a player salary cap is to foster competition by requiring teams to prioritize spending. It costs the players money up front, but the theory is that a more competitive league attracts more money, which eventually helps the players in the form of ever higher salary caps.

I really wonder how a NIL cap would work because these deals are basically endorsements. Such deals are outside the NFL salary cap, as in Kansas City doesn’t have to account for Mahomes making money from State Farm.
 
#174
#174
Visidog said:
A media cap would hurt everybody involved: schools, players, coaches, conferences. (It might help consumers but nobody cares about us).

The rationale behind a player salary cap is to foster competition by requiring teams to prioritize spending. It costs the players money up front, but the theory is that a more competitive league attracts more money, which eventually helps the players in the form of ever higher salary caps.

I really wonder how a NIL cap would work because these deals are basically endorsements. Such deals are outside the NFL salary cap, as in Kansas City doesn’t have to account for Mahomes making money from State Farm.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the pro sports can't and don't cap NIL and the NCAA won't be able to either.

It's a "pipe dream" for the NCAA to try to put a $20M cap on schools for "revenue sharing" and try to shift NIL to inside schools so they can control it. They THINK they're going to "keep the collectives away from attachment to the schools" but they had little success keeping payment out of college sports BEFORE collectives. It's nonsense.

The theory of a salary cap being good "in the long run" for players is flawed because players can't negotiate collectively for more revenue if that salary cap leads to more competition and more media revenue. They are at "benevolent mercy" of the NCAA to raise the cap even if the media money triples due to good competition.

That's the problem. A salary cap without players being able to negotiate that cap is obviously wage fixing and pro leagues get away with that via their Antitrust Exemption.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Visidog
#175
#175
bigorangepoppa said:
Well now, don't that suck

I wasn't confused about that part. I live in Tennessee but worked in Georgia for 13 years, so yeah, I am familiar with that law.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Sucked but blanced out. I'd have to file and pay SC state tax first. Then file GA state tax. But I got hte SC tax refunded back on my GA and break even in the end.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top