Nil, Revenue Sharing and Title IX

[S.C. OrangeMan]

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.

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.

The schools are on the hook for revenue sharing, regardless of if they use it or not.
It would be stupid to not use it, both in financial terms and in being able to field competitive teams.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

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.

Again, Congress can't give the NCAA and ATE that can stop any two nother parties from conducting a private business deal.

Anyone that claims they can is the dumb one.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I don't know. I think he just really really really really really loves the Supreme Court. Did you think the S.C. in his name stood for South Carolina?

I laughed.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

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.

None of it seems sustainable but I'm old enough to recall the stink of Johnny Majors making 100k, I think it was, and "not earning his pay" and "there's no way UT can afford to keep paying that kind of money." They did because coaching salaries went completely crazy in the SEC and haven't stopped. Sustainability fooled me back then.

At the elite level, it's over. Ohio State, Oregon, Texas, etc are going to tamper and going to buy players and going to win a lot with those players. Then again, elite schools have BEEN buying players and winning for a long time. It's more expensive now but what isn't? Their money may not be bottomless but I wouldn't want to drop my phone in their bucket.

Every time I think NIL is unsustainable, some school whips out a bigger offer. We either play the game or we get left behind.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Again, Congress can't give the NCAA and ATE that can stop any two nother parties from conducting a private business deal.

Anyone that claims they can is the dumb one.

Congress won't be regulating the private deal, Congress would however be giving the NCAA or whatever other governing body they set up, the power to say, if you want to participate in college athletics, these are the rules, and those rules could include restrictions on NIL. If they are exempted from anti-trust those rules will be legal.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

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.

I can feel the fury of wikipedia in this response.

 

[Voltopia]

I laughed.

Ha. I'm with you though. After a period of uncertainty, I'm thinking it's just someone who is very very committed to the bit.

Very, very committed.

 

[LWSVOL]

The schools are on the hook for revenue sharing, regardless of if they use it or not.
It would be stupid to not use it, both in financial terms and in being able to field competitive teams.

What does on the hook mean? If they are losing money, as most do, how can they come up with the additional revenue? I know eliminating staff and programs can do it but I've not seen anything yet where schools are doing that.. I'm thinking Conf USC, Mountain West, MAC, etc... and many P4 schools will have issues..

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I can feel the fury of wikipedia in this response.

No, you can't. You feel the fury of the federal courts. Starting with the injunction in the Tennessee vs NCAA case.

Again, check out the inability of MLB, the NBA, the NFL, or the NBA to regulate or interfere with their athletes' NIL despite their ATEs.

That NIL doesn't count against their salary caps, either. Because, legally, it can't. Hide and watch.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

What does on the hook mean? If they are losing money, as most do, how can they come up with the additional revenue? I know eliminating staff and programs can do it but I've not seen anything yet where schools are doing that.. I'm thinking Conf USC, Mountain West, MAC, etc... and many P4 schools will have issues..

You've got to be kidding.

"On the hook" means responsible for, financially or some other obligation.

Definition of ON THE HOOK FOR

owing money for (something) : responsible for (something)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Voltopia]

None of it seems sustainable but I'm old enough to recall the stink of Johnny Majors making 100k, I think it was, and "not earning his pay" and "there's no way UT can afford to keep paying that kind of money." They did because coaching salaries went completely crazy in the SEC and haven't stopped. Sustainability fooled me back then.

At the elite level, it's over. Ohio State, Oregon, Texas, etc are going to tamper and going to buy players and going to win a lot with those players. Then again, elite schools have BEEN buying players and winning for a long time. It's more expensive now but what isn't? Their money may not be bottomless but I wouldn't want to drop my phone in their bucket.

Every time I think NIL is unsustainable, some school whips out a bigger offer. We either play the game or we get left behind.

Hmm. I do think there's a risk in the idea of "people always warn x will happen, but it never happens," not specifically on your estimation of the current climate but more an examination of institutional velocity and blah blah fancy language blah. Part of me wants to embark on an examination of the entropy of organized systems ... but this is VolNation and it's Friday at 3PM. So I think I wrote all that to say "maybe." LOL. Well. It is Friday after all.

But I understand your perspective and agree that if Tennessee doesn't play by the current lack of rules then it will definitely lose to the ones who do. Just not sold in the long term that it's sustainable, less from the cost alone and perhaps more from the total number of variables that are now introducing incredible instability into what very much needs to be a stable system. And then the cost multiplying the effects of those other failure points tenfold. Eh. Regardless, no denying that we are going to find out.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

What does on the hook mean? If they are losing money, as most do, how can they come up with the additional revenue? I know eliminating staff and programs can do it but I've not seen anything yet where schools are doing that.. I'm thinking Conf USC, Mountain West, MAC, etc... and many P4 schools will have issues..

Easy. Just like any other businesses. Cut the part of the business that's losing money.

The issue for most isn't the football program loading money. It's that they don't make enough money to fund all of the non revenue sports. Sports that add lots of unreimbursed costs - scholarships, nutrition, health care, and far more travel than football has. Nit to mention ticket sales and merch greatly favor the football dude if the equation.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Again, Congress can't give the NCAA and ATE that can stop any two nother parties from conducting a private business deal.

Anyone that claims they can is the dumb one.

Actually per the Gorsuch opinion in Alston, Congress can and should deal with this and SCOTUS told the NCAA to take their arguments to Congress:

The “orderly way” to temper that Act’s policy of competition is “by legislation and not by court decision.” Flood, 407 U. S., at 279. The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U. S., at 689. Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future. See, e.g., 7 U. S. C. §§291–292 (agricultural cooperatives); 15 U. S. C. §§1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U. S. C. §§1801–1804 (newspaper joint operating agreements). But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone—“competition is the best method of allocating resources” in the Nation’s economy. National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U. S., at 695.

 

[LWSVOL]

Easy. Just like any other businesses. Cut the part of the business that's losing money.

The issue for most isn't the football program loading money. It's that they don't make enough money to fund all of the non revenue sports. Sports that add lots of unreimbursed costs - scholarships, nutrition, health care, and far more travel than football has. Nit to mention ticket sales and merch greatly favor the football dude if the equation.

You seem knowledgeable on these subjects, have schools started to shutdown programs so as to be able to revenue share? Its due to start July 1 so it seems now is the time to start trimming expenses. I've just not seen anyone doing anything on that yet.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

No, you can't. You feel the fury of the federal courts. Starting with the injunction in the Tennessee vs NCAA case.

Again, check out the inability of MLB, the NBA, the NFL, or the NBA to regulate or interfere with their athletes' NIL despite their ATEs.

That NIL doesn't count against their salary caps, either. Because, legally, it can't. Hide and watch.

I think they called the 1880's and 1890's the "Gilded Age" too. You might want to try to work that in to some of your responses, and William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Actually per the Gorsuch opinion in Alston, Congress can and should deal with this and SCOTUS told the NCAA to take their arguments to Congress:

The “orderly way” to temper that Act’s policy of competition is “by legislation and not by court decision.” Flood, 407 U. S., at 279. The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U. S., at 689. Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future. See, e.g., 7 U. S. C. §§291–292 (agricultural cooperatives); 15 U. S. C. §§1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U. S. C. §§1801–1804 (newspaper joint operating agreements). But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone—“competition is the best method of allocating resources” in the Nation’s economy. National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U. S., at 695.

Thank you. I have pulled that for him before. He is willfully ignorant on this subject.

 

[The Original Fade]

I bet the VN law professor who frequents these threads is a lot of fun at parties

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Thank you. I have pulled that for him before. He is willfully ignorant.

I pulled it for me but it's really clear, probably even more clear if you're used to reading that type of thing.

SCOTUS seems to be saying: Make your case in Congress and see what they'll allow. It's pretty obvious after reading some that the MLB exemption isn't just like the NFL exemption nor the NBA exemption. I've not looked at the other industries mentioned but I'm certain they are nuanced.

Obviously, as you originally said weeks ago and promoted me to read further, Congress gives specific Antitrust Exemptions tailored to each situation and industry. I appreciate that education. Please don't invoice me.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Thank you. I have pulled that for him before. He is willfully ignorant on this subject.

That still doesn't affect NIL at all.

 

[UTFanForLife]

@LWSVOL Are we still paying some former coaches? Buyouts or such?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I think they called the 1880's and 1890's the "Gilded Age" too. You might want to try to work that in to some of your responses, and William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech.

That's ignorant. Those are the laws of the land, regardless of when they were passed.
Maybe you'd like to ridicule the Bill if Rights, too, since it was ratified around a century before the two laws under discussion?

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

I bet the VN law professor who frequents these threads is a lot of fun at parties

We have tried to maximize the current lay of the land. Did n’t think we like the lay of the land. Did not want to deal with half broke at that point in the Nico timeline. That would have favored the already richest as a he NCAA tried to play it.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

That still doesn't affect NIL at all.

Actually, it can and that's exactly what Gorsuch was telling the NCAA.

BEFORE Alston, the NCAA prevented NIL and while Alston was actually about limiting educational benefits, the NCAA could see non-educational benefits was next and allowed NIL.

But what was the grounds the SCOTUS used to argue they couldn't limit benefits? The Sherman Act. The NCAA argued they should be exempt from the Sherman Act already but the SCOTUS said they aren't.

Gorsuch EXACTLY tells them to go ask Congress for the exemption, for the right to restrict educational (and by extrapolation non-educational) benefits. He is telling them: you're not able to restrict this but Congress may let you restrict this. Gorsuch knew and the other Justices knew Alston was really about NIL. He actually says: go ask Congress.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

That's ignorant. Those are the laws of the land, regardless of when they were passed.
Maybe you'd like to ridicule the Bill if Rights, too, since it was ratified around a century before the two laws under discussion?

Hey, you should link Schoolhouse Rock too!

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Actually, it can and that's exactly what Gorsuch was telling the NCAA.

BEFORE Alston, the NCAA prevented NIL and while Alston was actually about limiting educational benefits, the NCAA could see non-educational benefits was next and allowed NIL.

But what was the grounds the SCOTUS used to argue they couldn't limit benefits? The Sherman Act. The NCAA argued they should be exempt from the Sherman Act already but the SCOTUS said they aren't.

Gorsuch EXACTLY tells them to go ask Congress for the exemption, for the right to restrict educational (and by extrapolation non-educational) benefits. He is telling them: you're not able to restrict this but Congress may let you restrict this. Gorsuch knew and the other Justices knew Alston was really about NIL. He actually says: go ask Congress.

No ATE for the NCAA exists. Congress can't agree in what time of day it is. The NCAA isn't on the new Republican majority's trader screen right now. They have too many bigger fish to fry. It would be epically stupid of then to start with a very divisive issue that doesn't affect the vast majority of Americans.

And..again, an ATE won't give the NCAA the right to interfere with other people's or entities' private business deals. No antitrust exemption can confer that as alright or ability.

Supreme Court decisions are about specifics not speculative extrapolation.