So if athletes start receiving pay, does this mean that like most students they'll now start paying for their meals, workout clothing, books, supply's, etc; out of their own pockets ?
So if athletes start receiving pay, does this mean that like most students they'll now start paying for their meals, workout clothing, books, supply's, etc; out of their own pockets ?
Making them employees opens up a whole can of worms on the Title IX front, as schools will have to spend roughly proportionate amount of funds on paying men's and women's athletes, have roughly similar number of "employees," etc.
The NIL status quo is messy, but it's honestly the less convoluted solution to helping student athletes receive even a modicum of income for their labor.
Yeah I agree completely. It was really stupid that an athlete could get hit with an NCAA violation and have to miss games or even be kicked off a team because someone paid them to sign autographs, they sold their own jersey online, or probably a more likely scenario for women than men…got a modeling contract (see Livvy Dunne at LSU who’s raking it in and couldn’t have done so until NIL was allowed).
Though on the other hand, I also think it’s extremely ridiculous that Joe 5 star can get several million dollars in NIL deals for nothing other than signing with a school and without any proof that he can actually play at the college level. Also don’t think any athletes should be entitled to NIL money they received as a result of signing with a school if they transfer but I suppose that’s between the donor/sponsor and the athletes. I think the NIL stuff has been a great step in the right direction but it truly is the Wild West right now. We’d all be foolish to believe athletes at major schools and in major sports haven’t been getting paid by boosters for years (I know for a fact OU had several football players that were while I was there…other than the ones that got caught at big red sports and imports) but now that it’s out in the open, competition has made the sums of money go wild. That said, while I feel some better regulatory framework should be put in place to protect both the athletes and sponsors/donors, I think the free market will work itself out on this one eventually. If enough mega donors throw out massive bags to guys that fail to perform and in some cases never set foot on the field/court…I think you’ll see some of this stuff aimed at recruits dailed back in lieu of smaller deals up front with bonuses for performance (ie. Less money freshman year, more money down the road as part of that deal or maybe a new deal every year or something to that effect)
Also think it’s ridiculous that they can have similar consequences from the NCAA for being caught using marijuana in states where it’s legal or if they have a license in states where medical is legal (now the schools themselves can make and impose whatever rules they want…just don’t think the NCAA should have a hand in regulating legal activity at the state level). But that’s another story lol.
They already have to pay taxes. And, the uni pays insurance because they are involved in an activity that creates above average instances of injury, etc., for the benefit of the university. But, NIL is not pay for play, legally, and they are 1099 vendors for the NIL’s paying them. This is the same as if you were to be paid to be a spokesperson for a business. They wouldn’t hire you as an employee, but as a 1099 supplier of services.
NFL, etc. pay kids based on their performance at the college level. College pays based upon performance at the high school level. Education, housing and food are the minimum wage college currently pays. NIL lets colleges pay more for better talent. Colleges and Universities pay all kinds of employees all kinds of money for different jobs. This isn't really different
Probably doesn't. I believe that the basis is on number of opportunities by gender, so, if men's non rev sports become club sports not supported by the uni, then they wouldn't have to have an equal number of women's. And, if football becomes professional with just licensing of Uni names, then maybe all women's scholarship sports go the way of club sports.
but would it? what if NCAA athletes formed a single union? looking at the 2020/2021 numbers, there were 101,090 scholarship athletes when you don't include football and mens basketball. football was 27,304 and 9510 mens basketball. i think you would find on most major program campuses, there are more non-football scholarship athletes than football. so if unions were formed that included them, i don't think it would destroy those sports, but it may make a large chunk of football tv revenue go to non-football players.
double post.
but if we are talking about athletes forming a union because they are employees of the school. i think they would have to do it across all sports. it would have to be a union of all scholarship athletes. because if basis for formation of the union was being an NCAA scholarship athlete, from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a football scholarship and a softball scholarship. then with that union, i don't think football players would have the majority choice and as such, it wouldn't matter if they wouldn't want to, they would be outvoted by their own union.
i'm pretty certain that would fall under an Academic Labor Union since they are required to be a student at the school to be a member, and thus are subject to Title IX.... so i don't think they could make it just football only, legally.
or if done nationally, their union would have to be under the NCAA in order to collectively Bargain, and the NCAA by charter must meet all Title IX requirements, and so i don't think again, could be football only.
now if there is a lawyer on here who actually knows more, please let me know where i'm wrong. but pretty sure that would be correct in these situations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks