With NIL era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. How will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?

[GUNTERSVOL]

They won't be able to limit or otherwise control NIL given the commentary from the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS has to rule within the laws. Change them properly with Clarity and and reason and that problem goes away. The protection of individuals rights to choose D3 instead of pay for play for example. Just like age and weight limit restrictions exist in kids sports. The issue is obviously on lots of people’s minds. The methodology to do that may be established in the get men out of women’s sports initiative that is already on the near horizon. Pay for play does not have to exist at every member school, it has to exist within the organization. Can you imagine having to pay taxes on your scholly at all D2 schools? If the rest of a schools employees have to pay for health insurance, will the players? Will the rest sue if not? Housing allowance taxable? State law variability will kick in more suits. We are just approaching the slippery slope! Putting them on the payroll in the school environment may be easy to say, BUT….,

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

 

[JohnWardForever]

The NIL is not ending. It won't ever end. Athletes have a right to make money off their name, image, and likellness. And no one can limit how much they can make off an NIL deal(s).

Now maybe they can police the partnerships that schools have with these NIL collectives. I don't know how that would even happen. But I suppose it's possible.

The way this thing was supposed to work was the ncaa couldn't interfere with a "Student Athlete's" ability to profit from his N I L. They really went wild with all the revenue sharing. It is a mess, and I really don't care to read or hear about it anymore. Just about done with it all. Just pay every player the same amount, and let the stars and their agents do their OWN thing. I think it will eventually come to that, as the Legislation has stated.

 

[Carp]

The way this thing was supposed to work was the ncaa couldn't interfere with a "Student Athlete's" ability to profit from his N I L. They really went wild with all the revenue sharing. It is a mess, and I really don't care to read or hear about it anymore. Just about done with it all. Just pay every player the same amount, and let the stars and their agents do their OWN thing. I think it will eventually come to that, as the Legislation has stated.

The problem is that it won't change anything. There is way to much money involved with NIL for it to ever go away. And I find it doubtful that the top HS recruits would ever sign some sort of contract that limited their ability to transfer out. And the NCAA won't ever be able to force schools and players to make contracts mandatory.

 

[JohnWardForever]

The problem is that it won't change anything. There is way to much money involved with NIL for it to ever go away. And I find it doubtful that the top HS recruits would ever sign some sort of contract that limited their ability to transfer out. And the NCAA won't ever be able to force schools and players to make contracts mandatory.

The way this thing was supposed to work was the ncaa couldn't interfere with a "Student Athlete's" ability to profit from his N I L. They really went wild with all the revenue sharing. It is a mess, and I really don't care to read or hear about it anymore. Just about done with it all. Just pay every player the same amount, and let the stars and their agents do their OWN thing. I think it will eventually come to that, as the Legislation has stated. I don't get your response. I said let the players and agents handle their NIL. Isn't that what I said?

 

[Carp]

The way this thing was supposed to work was the ncaa couldn't interfere with a "Student Athlete's" ability to profit from his N I L. They really went wild with all the revenue sharing. It is a mess, and I really don't care to read or hear about it anymore. Just about done with it all. Just pay every player the same amount, and let the stars and their agents do their OWN thing. I think it will eventually come to that, as the Legislation has stated. I don't get your response. I said let the players and agents handle their NIL. Isn't that what I said?

Maybe I didn't word my response correctly. But what I mean is, the NIL collectives aren't going away. Which means their relationships with schools isn't going away. The best NIL collectives will still be paying top dollar to the best recruits/transfers in order to get them to come to their school. And the coaches will still have to be involved in that process, just like they are now.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The SCOTUS has to rule within the laws. Change them properly with Clarity and and reason and that problem goes away. The protection of individuals rights to choose D3 instead of pay for play for example. Just like age and weight limit restrictions exist in kids sports. The issue is obviously on lots of people’s minds. The methodology to do that may be established in the get men out of women’s sports initiative that is already on the near horizon. Pay for play does not have to exist at every member school, it has to exist within the organization. Can you imagine having to pay taxes on your scholly at all D2 schools? If the rest of a schools employees have to pay for health insurance, will the players? Will the rest sue if not? Housing allowance taxable? State law variability will kick in more suits. We are just approaching the slippery slope! Putting them on the payroll in the school environment may be easy to say, BUT….,

The law already exists. Two of them, in fact.

The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.
The 1887 Interstate Commerce Act.

You're jumping at least 3 different topics together, and their are flaws in your reasoning in at least 2 of them.

 

[Gandalf]

With NIL era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. How will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?

College football’s more professionalized era arrives in July, and historic powerhouses like Ohio State and Texas could lose both their inherent recruiting advantage and their financial edge.

sports.yahoo.com

Sounds like they're trying to restrict a player's ability to profit from their NIL. My guess is they lose the first time they get sued if they try this.

Deloitte clearinghouse is basically to rate the deal for what it is commercially worth. You may think that is impossible to do but even first year associates in big 4 consulting can do that.

The idea is to get rid of fake contracts where they are being paid but not actually providing value. Like a no show job.

So if they determine that this guys NIL is probably worth $50k to do 6 appearances a year and you are paying him $500k, there is going to be a problem - because it means you are paying for something other than the players name, image and likeness AKA pay to play.

Since they are actually paying them to play, NIL will be a significant transparency issue. Again, why I think some of it will again go underground.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The judge has already stated that Tennessee and Virginia are likely to win based on the merits if the case.

The NCAA is fighting the case out of desperation.

 

[Delmar]

The judge has already stated that Tennessee and Virginia are likely to win based on the merits if the case.

The NCAA is fighting the case out of desperation.

They’ve got nothing to lose—-except another case.

 

[ntxVOL]

Maybe I didn't word my response correctly. But what I mean is, the NIL collectives aren't going away. Which means their relationships with schools isn't going away. The best NIL collectives will still be paying top dollar to the best recruits/transfers in order to get them to come to their school. And the coaches will still have to be involved in that process, just like they are now.

That is one of the things the NCAA hopes to accomplish with this settlement and the resulting rule changes. The collectives have been pay for play up to this point. NIL contracts will no longer be allowed to be dependent on the person playing at any specific school. Contracts likely won't clear the clearing house if they are. That pretty much kills the collectives right there.

Boosters won't be able to sign a person to any ridiculous NIL deal, the clearing house will decide if the deal looks legit or not. Again, that pretty much kills the collectives as they are right now.

As others have stated, I think boosters go back to their old bag men ways to affect recruiting.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Unless you are self employed, your boss limits what you can make. No one is against free market capitalism but the current system of free agency every year is chaotic and will eventually lead to fan apathy. It’s already starting.

The current system of just paying players outright is also in direct conflict with what the courts ruled on NIL

Bogus. CFB has more viewership, more Gabe's, more fan interest, and made more money than ever before in the 2024 season.
That's the opposite of fan apathy.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Unless you are self employed, your boss limits what you can make. No one is against free market capitalism but the current system of free agency every year is chaotic and will eventually lead to fan apathy. It’s already starting.

The current system of just paying players outright is also in direct conflict with what the courts ruled on NIL

No, it isn't. It's exactly in line with the Alston vs NCAA SCOTUS decision and Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in that 9-0 vote.

It's also in line with the Tennessee/Virginia vs NCAA injunction regarding Nico's NIL.

The people that are adapting are doing fine.
It's an adapt or fail world. The ones that aren't adapting will simply make themselves obsolete.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

That is one of the things the NCAA hopes to accomplish with this settlement and the resulting rule changes. The collectives have been pay for play up to this point. NIL contracts will no longer be allowed to be dependent on the person playing at any specific school. Contracts likely won't clear the clearing house if they are. That pretty much kills the collectives right there.

Boosters won't be able to sign a person to any ridiculous NIL deal, the clearing house will decide if the deal looks legit or not. Again, that pretty much kills the collectives as they are right now.

As others have stated, I think boosters go back to their old bag men ways to affect recruiting.

Again, that NIL clause isn't going to hold up.
No third party has the right to decide what fair market value is for two other parties. That violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.

That clause in the proposed House vs NCAA settlement also conflicts with the injunction in the Tennessee and Virginia vs NCAA case.

Apparently Deloitte already has internal concerns about getting dragged into many "born loser" lawsuits if they try to decide what fair market value is for an athlete, a collective, or a booster.

 

[The Original Fade]

Bogus. CFB has more viewership, more Gabe's, more fan interest, and made more money than ever before in the 2024 season.
That's the opposite of fan apathy.

Which is why I used the word eventually

 

[The Original Fade]

No, it isn't. It's exactly in line with the Alston vs NCAA SCOTUS decision and Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in that 9-0 vote.

It's also in line with the Tennessee/Virginia vs NCAA injunction regarding Nico's NIL.

The people that are adapting are doing fine.
It's an adapt or fail world. The ones that aren't adapting will simply make themselves obsolete.

If you think the current system will last more than 5 years you are insane

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s limiting what anyone one can make. However, if you as a business or brand want to be associated with the school you have to play by rules. Kids can get their own NIL separately if they choose, but anything officially tied to the school must flow through the cleaning house. Makes perfect sense to me. I read another article where the IRS will be heavily involved in enforcement as well. I look forward to it, hope it creates stability for both players and teams.

What do you think the athletes are doing now?
They get their own NIL. They can't use any school branding as part of it.

 

[hog88]

Deloitte clearinghouse is basically to rate the deal for what it is commercially worth. You may think that is impossible to do but even first year associates in big 4 consulting can do that.

The idea is to get rid of fake contracts where they are being paid but not actually providing value. Like a no show job.

So if they determine that this guys NIL is probably worth $50k to do 6 appearances a year and you are paying him $500k, there is going to be a problem - because it means you are paying for something other than the players name, image and likeness AKA pay to play.

Since they are actually paying them to play, NIL will be a significant transparency issue. Again, why I think some of it will again go underground.

It's an easy fix which means the NCAA and probably congress and courts will screw it up. The NCAA just needs to change the rule to allow pay for play contracts with the collectives.

 

[DowsaTV]

If a school can give 20 million to it's athletes, then the big schools will just gobble up the smaller schools. So Tennessee will buy ETSU and net another 20 million. Tennessee buys MTSU, now we are up to 60 million "for the athletes". And just pay the lower schools a kickback and treat them as farms.

Farm Schools.

That is if it even gets that far.

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

The SCOTUS has to rule within the laws. Change them properly with Clarity and and reason and that problem goes away. The protection of individuals rights to choose D3 instead of pay for play for example. Just like age and weight limit restrictions exist in kids sports. The issue is obviously on lots of people’s minds. The methodology to do that may be established in the get men out of women’s sports initiative that is already on the near horizon. Pay for play does not have to exist at every member school, it has to exist within the organization. Can you imagine having to pay taxes on your scholly at all D2 schools? If the rest of a schools employees have to pay for health insurance, will the players? Will the rest sue if not? Housing allowance taxable? State law variability will kick in more suits. We are just approaching the slippery slope! Putting them on the payroll in the school environment may be easy to say, BUT….,

The SCOTUS has to uphold the Constitution which means they evaluate the laws passed by Congress and determine if they are Constitutional and, if not, they strike them down and/or make rulings which determine the interpretation of the laws. NIL are State laws so good luck changing them "properly".

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

The judge has already stated that Tennessee and Virginia are likely to win based on the merits if the case.

The NCAA is fighting the case out of desperation.

They stand to lose billions so not too surprising if they fight it for as long as they can

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

The law already exists. Two of them, in fact.

The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.
The 1887 Interstate Commerce Act.

You're jumping at least 3 different topics together, and their are flaws in your reasoning in at least 2 of them.

Which is why I am saying the 2025 Fairness in Sports Act is the only way to get around creative use of commerce acts for reasons not intended by our courts.

Congress can tie federal funds to compliance with a duly enacted law with no ambiguity in it. There must be a practical way for pro worthy to get their money within the NCAA structure, but not force intermixing them within all divisions. Some divisions can require or allow it’s athletes to be employees, some get scholarships and NIL, some scholarships only, and some no scholarships. A school can elect to play against teams in other divisions, but can’t be required to.

You get employee status, your scholly and healthcare and housing all become deductibles and taxable income. Wanna be a pro, be a pro. Pick that division. Bet the IRS can use other existing laws to make that happen if you leave “amateur “ competition.

TV and other income producers will be tied to divisions. Big boy league basketball will get their deal in playoffs, but watch March Madness from their living rooms.

This total separation would allow pro leagues to align with schools and also fund that new division, maybe even turn them into farm teams. Academics optional??? Don’t know.

Properly written schools could have some sports in the pro division, and others in amateur divisions. NIL for amateurs as conceptualized might even work at that level.

Bet the percentage of proworthy athletes across all sports and divisions is less than 1%. Accommodate them and let the rest go back to business as usual, maybe with an NIL twist.

 

[Gandalf]

Which is why I am saying the 2025 Fairness in Sports Act is the only way to get around creative use of commerce acts for reasons not intended by our courts.

Congress can tie federal funds to compliance with a duly enacted law with no ambiguity in it. There must be a practical way for pro worthy to get their money within the NCAA structure, but not force intermixing them within all divisions. Some divisions can require or allow it’s athletes to be employees, some get scholarships and NIL, some scholarships only, and some no scholarships. A school can elect to play against teams in other divisions, but can’t be required to.

You get employee status, your scholly and healthcare and housing all become deductibles and taxable income. Wanna be a pro, be a pro. Pick that division. Bet the IRS can use other existing laws to make that happen if you leave “amateur “ competition.

TV and other income producers will be tied to divisions. Big boy league basketball will get their deal in playoffs, but watch March Madness from their living rooms.

This total separation would allow pro leagues to align with schools and also fund that new division, maybe even turn them into farm teams. Academics optional??? Don’t know.

Properly written schools could have some sports in the pro division, and others in amateur divisions. NIL for amateurs as conceptualized might even work at that level.

Bet the percentage of proworthy athletes across all sports and divisions is less than 1%. Accommodate them and let the rest go back to business as usual, maybe with an NIL twist.

This misses the whole reason that there is money enough to go around - TV eyeballs. And the only reason anyone watches these games is NOT for the football. They are watching their TEAM, often their alma mater or one where their kid went, etc. The further you make it Pro farm teams, the more viewers you lose.

And whereas people used to be very invested in players, I think the future will see even more love for the front of the jersey, not the back.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

This misses the whole reason that there is money enough to go around - TV eyeballs. And the only reason anyone watches these games is NOT for the football. They are watching their TEAM, often their alma mater or one where their kid went, etc. The further you make it Pro farm teams, the more viewers you lose.

And whereas people used to be very invested in players, I think the future will see even more love for the front of the jersey, not the back.

CFB has always been the farm team league for the NFL.

 

[Carp]

That is one of the things the NCAA hopes to accomplish with this settlement and the resulting rule changes. The collectives have been pay for play up to this point. NIL contracts will no longer be allowed to be dependent on the person playing at any specific school. Contracts likely won't clear the clearing house if they are. That pretty much kills the collectives right there.

Boosters won't be able to sign a person to any ridiculous NIL deal, the clearing house will decide if the deal looks legit or not. Again, that pretty much kills the collectives as they are right now.

As others have stated, I think boosters go back to their old bag men ways to affect recruiting.

Legally speaking, they aren't dependent on that now either. While I haven't personally seen someone's NIL contract, it is my understanding that there cannot be any language requiring an athlete to play sports for a specific school. It's all built on an understanding that the player commits and plays for a certain school. There can be nothing to stop collectives from signing any client they want to whatever amount they want to sign them for. And any attempt to prevent that would be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Again, Jimmy Haslam could hire every single UT athlete to a 100k sponsorship deal right now if he wanted to and no one could say anything about it. Because you can't restrict a person's ability to make money off their name, image, or likeness.