Nil, Revenue Sharing and Title IX

#76
#76
#77
#77
LWSVOL said:
The NCAA is not doing that. Schools are making their own decision to drop the private entities and bring NIL in house. Tennessee is thinking about that.
Click to expand...
I think the next step is for them to sue because the $20M the NCAA has "allowed" is preventing athletes from getting their "market value."

So, if the free for all goes internal it just streamlines the process away from Spyre as a middleman. Bagmen will make up the difference as needed if the NCAA gets away with an NIL cap.

Not much changes much by bringing in house, unless I'm missing something.
 
#78
#78
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I'd like to believe that. A LOT is likely to change as the political climate is shifting. There's a move toward the federal government keeping their grubby paws (and I mean grubby and I mean paws) off things they never should have touched (YMMV, there's a political forum where they talk about this a lot and I stay out of it.)

Just talking about the mood of the nation, lots of people are done with DC calling a lot of the shots and in the scheme of things federal control over college football can look a lot like overreach (no matter if they're the only ones who can fix it.)

As the pendulum that is America swings, I'm not sure a majority of people want Congress to fix much of anything and college sports is a little problem relative to the trillions of things, like dollars of debt, I'd like to see them go after.
Click to expand...
This x 1,000.
 
#79
#79
unfrozencvmanvol said:
As I have said repeatedly. ONLY CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS. Granted, that is a terrible situation for college sports to be in, but these are their laws, and they are the only ones with the power to legally address all of the pertinent issues. I have also said repeatedly that saving the women's and non-revenue sports is what would drive a compromise here. There is no "free marketing" this, and have football/basketball remain associated with the University. No Congressional action means, Vols, Inc., minor league football. NFL junior, and without the connection to the university, it will be just as popular as minor league baseball. If the players, and the universities, don't come together and lobby Congress for a mutually acceptable deal, they are all going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and despite the fact that I have loved CFB all my life, the cynical adult attorney in me is going to laugh when that happens.
Click to expand...

This is where I am with all this too though I don’t think even Congressional action will solve for the long term. Ultimately I can see it all swing back to the Supreme Court on the grounds of the constitutionality of whatever is decided.

They’ve been toying with screwing up college athletics for years - especially CFB. Feels like we’ve finally reached the doorstep of its total demise. I hope something positive transpires but like others in this thread I'm skeptical.
 
#82
#82
S.C. OrangeMan said:
And anti trust exemption won't affect NIL.
See the NIL commercials featuring pro football, baseball, basketball, and hickey athletes for the evidence.
Click to expand...
An anti-trust exemption, will allow the NCAA to make enforceable rules about NIL/regulate it's receipt by college athletes, as a condition of the athlete's voluntary participation.
 
#83
#83
unfrozencvmanvol said:
An anti-trust exemption, will allow the NCAA to make enforceable rules about NIL/regulate it's receipt by college athletes, as a condition of the athlete's voluntary participation.
Click to expand...

the house agreement, if approved, requires NIL agreements to be sent into the NCAA for monitoring. Not sure what all that means.

Player NIL agreements currently, at least in the state of Tennessee based on law the legislature passed, require players to turn into UT the details of the agreement.
 
#84
#84
I feel collectives need to go away. Schools should have revenue sharing, up to a cap, like they will have going forward. All student athletes of a school sanctioned sport should be included equally in that revenue sharing. Not sure of accuracy, but UT has around 500 student athletes. I think the cap was some $20.5M. That is $41,000 per athlete.

Past that, it should be up to the players to find their own NIL deals. Whether that be through agents or themselves. Agents have to be registered just like any other agent in sports if they want to work with an athlete. If they are popular/good/whatever, they will have no problem finding deals.
 
#85
#85
unfrozencvmanvol said:
An anti-trust exemption, will allow the NCAA to make enforceable rules about NIL/regulate it's receipt by college athletes, as a condition of the athlete's voluntary participation.
Click to expand...
No offense but I hate talking with attorneys.

Still, wouldn't NIL control be different than the limited Antitrust Exemption the other pro leagues have? I'm not sure they have much NIL control beyond the "moral" clauses.

Or perhaps you're thinking Congress would create a new type of exemption just for amateur athletics which WOULD allow limits to actual NIL? My gut says SCOTUS will take a pretty hard look at why colleges should have that power over athletes or any college student. That's why you make the big bucks, though.
 
#86
#86
UTFanForLife said:
I feel collectives need to go away. Schools should have revenue sharing, up to a cap, like they will have going forward. All student athletes of a school sanctioned sport should be included equally in that revenue sharing. Not sure of accuracy, but UT has around 500 student athletes. I think the cap was some $20.5M. That is $41,000 per athlete.

Past that, it should be up to the players to find their own NIL deals. Whether that be through agents or themselves. Agents have to be registered just like any other agent in sports if they want to work with an athlete. If they are popular/good/whatever, they will have no problem finding deals.
Click to expand...
The problem is that I can't see the NCAA having the power to make collectives go away and they seem to be working for schools like UT.

While they're not good in the long run for college sports, in the short run it's unlikely we're in the CFP without Spyre's help in securing talent.

As for it being popularity, certain athletes are very popular with people who used to be called bagmen and agents know who those bagmen are.
 
#87
#87
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
No offense but I hate talking with attorneys.

Still, wouldn't NIL control be different than the limited Antitrust Exemption the other pro leagues have? I'm not sure they have much NIL control beyond the "moral" clauses.

Or perhaps you're thinking Congress would create a new type of exemption just for amateur athletics which WOULD allow limits to actual NIL? My gut says SCOTUS will take a pretty hard look at why colleges should have that power over athletes or any college student. That's why you make the big bucks, though.
Click to expand...
Any time you join any organization, you can become legally subject to it's rules, even if the general public is not. As long as your participation is voluntary, it's generally legal. If it's voluntary and you do not abide by the rules, you can't participate. That's how it worked before, and that's how it would work (just like it works in numerous other aspects of American life). Right now the NCAA can't enforce on that basis though because it's been ruled they are essentially a monopoly in violation of the Anti-Trust laws. If they get an exemption, that is no longer a barrier, they won't be violating anti-trust and they can enforce rules relating to NIL on participants in college athletics based on their voluntary participation.
 
#88
#88
UTFanForLife said:
I feel collectives need to go away. Schools should have revenue sharing, up to a cap, like they will have going forward. All student athletes of a school sanctioned sport should be included equally in that revenue sharing. Not sure of accuracy, but UT has around 500 student athletes. I think the cap was some $20.5M. That is $41,000 per athlete.

Past that, it should be up to the players to find their own NIL deals. Whether that be through agents or themselves. Agents have to be registered just like any other agent in sports if they want to work with an athlete. If they are popular/good/whatever, they will have no problem finding deals.
Click to expand...

Tennessee has almost 700 (680 was the last count I saw) athletes which will go up when the SEC implements the increases in scholarships.
 
#89
#89
unfrozencvmanvol said:
An anti-trust exemption, will allow the NCAA to make enforceable rules about NIL/regulate it's receipt by college athletes, as a condition of the athlete's voluntary participation.
Click to expand...
No, it won't. The courts have already ruined that the NCAA can't interfere in private NIL.
And ATE does not confer the right for anyone to interfere in a private business agreement between two other parties.
 
#90
#90
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Any time you join any organization, you can become legally subject to it's rules, even if the general public is not. As long as your participation is voluntary, it's generally legal. If it's voluntary and you do not abide by the rules, you can't participate. That's how it worked before, and that's how it would work (just like it works in numerous other aspects of American life). Right now the NCAA can't enforce on that basis though because it's been ruled they are essentially a monopoly in violation of the Anti-Trust laws. If they get an exemption, that is no longer a barrier, they won't be violating anti-trust and they can enforce rules relating to NIL on participants in college athletics based on their voluntary participation.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court of the United States and several federal district courts say otherwise.

No private organization can enforce rules that violate the law. No ATE exists first time NCAA, and they are unlikely to get one.
 
#91
#91
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
The problem is that I can't see the NCAA having the power to make collectives go away and they seem to be working for schools like UT.

While they're not good in the long run for college sports, in the short run it's unlikely we're in the CFP without Spyre's help in securing talent.

As for it being popularity, certain athletes are very popular with people who used to be called bagmen and agents know who those bagmen are.
Click to expand...
I agree Spyre has helped us tremendously. But I feel like the players are using them to hold a school hostage.

I have a feeling bagmen have not went away. They are just reporting estimated NIL deals. People say Nico got $8M, but that number has never been actually disclosed unless I am mistaken. Just what someone said when he signed with TN.
 
#92
#92
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Any time you join any organization, you can become legally subject to it's rules, even if the general public is not. As long as your participation is voluntary, it's generally legal. If it's voluntary and you do not abide by the rules, you can't participate. That's how it worked before, and that's how it would work (just like it works in numerous other aspects of American life). Right now the NCAA can't enforce on that basis though because it's been ruled they are essentially a monopoly in violation of the Anti-Trust laws. If they get an exemption, that is no longer a barrier, they won't be violating anti-trust and they can enforce rules relating to NIL on participants in college athletics based on their voluntary participation.
Click to expand...
Got it. I REALLY think that would push the athletes to organize and collective bargain to avoid losing negotiating power with the NCAA.

That is the pro league model, at least. It gets very challenging socially and politically, I think, if Congress prevents college athletes legally from organizing. As you have said, Congress can write it however they want but ugh..... can they get it passed with the "The Man is keeping us down" faction screaming.

I had hoped, after Alston, to be drooling and senile before all this became so legally chaotic. It turns out I'm only senile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia
#93
#93
LWSVOL said:
Tennessee has almost 700 (680 was the last count I saw) athletes which will go up when the SEC implements the increases in scholarships.
Click to expand...
I was just googling, so I wasn’t sure if it was accurate. Would put it below $30k per with a $20.5M cap. Most big conference schools are could probably fund more than that cap easily. Smaller conferences will not be able to, but in reality those schools are not competing with the big schools anyways.
 
#94
#94
UTFanForLife said:
I agree Spyre has helped us tremendously. But I feel like the players are using them to hold a school hostage.

I have a feeling bagmen have not went away. They are just reporting estimated NIL deals. People say Nico got $8M, but that number has never been actually disclosed unless I am mistaken. Just what someone said when he signed with TN.
Click to expand...
I've seen that figure for Nico as closer to $10M also. I've no idea. Unlike many here, I see his family coming for a raise to just be a reaction to other QBs getting more money.

The Duke kid, the Michigan kid, now Carson Beck at Miami...... the cost of a good QB rose and he did what I would do and asked for a raise.

Asking and leveraging his position are hopefully skills he learned at UT about business because that's how the world works.
 
#95
#95
UTFanForLife said:
I was just googling, so I wasn’t sure if it was accurate. Would put it below $30k per with a $20.5M cap. Most big conference schools are could probably fund more than that cap easily. Smaller conferences will not be able to, but in reality those schools are not competing with the big schools anyways.
Click to expand...

participation is voluntary so many schools will likely not do revenue sharing, they can't afford it. Tennessee is not planning anything beyond the cap. they only made 2.2 million profit in 2023-24.. Of course additional revenue is on the way with new TV contract (an additional 5-10 million) and the talent fee.
 
#96
#96
S.C. OrangeMan said:
The Supreme Court of the United States and several federal district courts say otherwise.

No private organization can enforce rules that violate the law. No ATE exists first time NCAA, and they are unlikely to get one.
Click to expand...
No they didn't, in fact they said the opposite, they said this was Congress's law and Congress could change it. If the antitrust law is changed, it won't be against the law. I refuse to believe you are this dumb. You have to be trolling at this point.
 
#97
#97
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I've seen that figure for Nico as closer to $10M also. I've no idea. Unlike many here, I see his family coming for a raise to just be a reaction to other QBs getting more money.

The Duke kid, the Michigan kid, now Carson Beck at Miami...... the cost of a good QB rose and he did what I would do and asked for a raise.

Asking and leveraging his position are hopefully skills he learned at UT about business because that's how the world works.
Click to expand...

Those sorts of figures simply aren't sustainable. There's no way. Absolutely no way.

It's totally understandable - but completely unsustainable.

A real irony, too, is the thought that "maybe some school that works hard to build a program through traditional recruiting could challenge these hastily assembled mercenary teams" as a way of proving that you don't have to spend outrageous sums to achieve success. I often think of that, only to again accept that as soon as any of them put in the effort to build such a program, the behemoths will simply step in and carve up their carcass with even more money.
 
#99
#99
unfrozencvmanvol said:
No they didn't, in fact they said the opposite, they said this was Congress's law and Congress could change it. If the antitrust law is changed, it won't be against the law. I refuse to believe you are this dumb. You have to be trolling at this point.
Click to expand...
Congress can't use the guide of an antitrust law to regulate two paries' business deals that would clear my fall outside the purview of the party that has an ATE.

See the fact that the big 4 pro sports all have ATE's and they can't interfere with the athletes's NIL at all as the example for how this works.

BTW, the pertinent federal laws have been around since 1887 (Interstate Commerce Act) and 2890 (Sherman Antitrust Act).

They govern pretty much every aspect of American business, especially ones that cross state lines. This makes are not going away. There's no indication that an ATE will even get out of committee in Congress, too.

You have to be utterly ignorant of the actual federal laws involved, what they say, and what's going on with our national government to think that Congress is going to toss those two federal laws.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top