Paying college athletes

[rcjunkie]

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 ?

[Rover]

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 ?

When the regular students start filling 100,000 seat stadiums and commanding a large national audience who will all pay to see them study, then I guess it will be even.

[chssooner]

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 ?

The bigger question will be: are they employees? Meaning they can be fired, have to pay taxes, pay for their own Healthcare, etc. I feel like is revenue-sharing happens, they will be professionals, meaning all of that applies.

[PoliSciGuy]

The bigger question will be: are they employees? Meaning they can be fired, have to pay taxes, pay for their own Healthcare, etc. I feel like is revenue-sharing happens, they will be professionals, meaning all of that applies.

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.

[PhiAlpha]

it was silly before. and it was always dumb that they couldn't market themselves because of some arbitrary rules, especially when it wasn't related to the sport at all. i went to school on an academic scholarship, and there was no one complaining that i while a student used my skills to earn money while in college. the example i always love to bring up was when Katelyn Ohashi (a UCLA Gymnast) wasn't allowed to publish a book of poetry while she was still in college under scholarship. if you are just saying the only thing a student athlete can earn while under scholarship is their scholarship, then you are saying they are able to sign away the entirety of their identity to a university. i'm sorry that but is completely ridiculous. now is the age of NIL as it currently is completely on the opposite side of the spectrum, yes, it is and will be for awhile, but it will correct itself to a healthier medium in the near future. but the old way was way worse than what we have now.

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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.

yep making them employees (football and let say maybe mens basketball ) kills almost all the funding for womens sports and mens not rev sports ..

[Rover]

The bigger question will be: are they employees? Meaning they can be fired, have to pay taxes, pay for their own Healthcare, etc. I feel like is revenue-sharing happens, they will be professionals, meaning all of that applies.

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.

[Rover]

yep making them employees (football and let say maybe mens basketball ) kills almost all the funding for womens sports and mens not rev sports ..

That’s totally dependent on how much you pay them.

[BoulderSooner]

That’s totally dependent on how much you pay them.

if they are employees they would very quickly form a union ...

they would be paid based largely on a % of revenue .. we know what the tv deal are for football ..

[jedicurt]

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 ?

i mean my academic scholarship also included a meal plan and had a decent amount of money for books and supplies. and i was still able to earn money outside of it. so again, why should we treat athletes any different?

[Dob Hooligan]

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

[Rover]

if they are employees they would very quickly form a union ...

they would be paid based largely on a % of revenue .. we know what the tv deal are for football ..

So?

[Rover]

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

Colleges don't pay. NIL is not the college. People need to understand the difference as it stands legally today. Colleges can coordinate certain aspects, but there is currently a technical wall between them.

[BoulderSooner]

So?

that would not bother me in any way ..

but it is completely undeniable that it would destroy women's college sports and non rev men's college sports ..

[Rover]

that would not bother me in any way ..

but it is completely undeniable that it would destroy women's college sports and non rev men's college sports ..

And those are club sports in almost every other country in the world. They don't have to be official NCAA sports.

[April in the Plaza]

And those are club sports in almost every other country in the world. They don't have to be official NCAA sports.

How would that square with title 9 though?

[Rover]

How would that square with title 9 though?

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.

[jedicurt]

that would not bother me in any way ..

but it is completely undeniable that it would destroy women's college sports and non rev men's college 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.

[jedicurt]

double post.

[BoulderSooner]

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.

why in the world would football players want to share the revenue they generate with non rev athletes??

I will answer that for you .. they wouldn't

[Dob Hooligan]

Colleges don't pay. NIL is not the college. People need to understand the difference as it stands legally today. Colleges can coordinate certain aspects, but there is currently a technical wall between them.

Word it however you want. They are getting paid because they engage in their activity at a specific school.

[jedicurt]

why in the world would football players want to share the revenue they generate with non rev athletes??

I will answer that for you .. they wouldn't

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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.

nope they wouldn't it would only be football players ... and once they are employees they wouldn't' be on scholarship anymore either way ..

[jedicurt]

nope they wouldn't it would only be football players ... and once they are employees they wouldn't' be on scholarship anymore either way ..

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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.

This is not how it would go at all.