No they won't. They will have the exact same payroll as us. Everything above that will have to be legit NIL. Yes, I agree larger markets will have larger legit NIL. However, someone like an Ole Miss will not be able to get away with a million dollar car dealership appearance. That would never pass the FMV test from the clearing house
Texas Tech AD tweets out their breakdown of revenue sharing.
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
Sure sure. Georgia , Ohio State and Miss State will all have the exact same pay roll. Ok bud
It is literally the point of the settlement. If you opt in (all power conference teams have to opt in) then you are agreeing to the new structure where you pay the set amount on athletics with the new regulated NIL structure. So what ever the final amount is, let's say 25 million for now, that is what you can and will spend. Everything else will be legit NIL that goes through the clearinghouse.
Now, the reason to allow schools to opt out is that the USM's of the world would be dead if they had to opt in. The payments at the settlement amount would be more than the athletic budget for most of those schools so this is really just a power conference thing.
Clearinghouse or no Clearinghouse, I'll believe the bigger schools don't find a way to abuse the "fair market value" NIL deals when I see it.
Terrible logic.
That’s no different than saying that the janitor who works for Google and scrubs the shít off the toilets the main office floor should be paid more than an Engineering VP at AskJeeves, just because of how much more profitable Google is.
Just because one organization brings in more money than another doesn’t in any way mean that all (or any) members of that enterprise are responsible for that added profitability, or that the value they INDIVIDUALLY deliver is more than what someone at a less profitable enterprise generates. In the case above, the money comes in because of the prolate spheroid shaped object, and the logo on the helmet. Nobody really cares about anything else.
The player’s value is based on cost of their replacement to the university. Long snappers for horrible football teams are even more replaceable than janitors. And in the grand scheme of things, who honestly did more to raise the brand awareness of MSU as a whole? If I asked you who was more likely to make 50 people aware of MSU as an institution or to watch an MSU sporting event that would not have otherwise done so, who would you choose? The soccer goalkeeper, or the long snapper? Be honest.
You miss the point. The football player is part of a team that funds every other sport other than men's basketball and every now and then baseball. So his share of revenue is much larger than someone on a team (like soccer) that produces drastically negative revenue. To borrow your scenario, it would be like you saying Google should be paying the Engineering VP at Ask Jeeves.
No doubt the larger schools and those who are historically cheaters will find ways to circumvent things to an extent. It will be much more difficult than it is now though where there are no rules and everything is legal. Nobody is saying this solution will be perfect but it will be far better than what we have now.
Do those "per player" amounts include the cost of tuition, food, board, health care - things they've always gotten? Out of state tuition can be pretty high, or is such a thing just considered a sunk cost that's never even charged?
Nope, all of their traditional benefits are on top of this. People tend to forget that a college athlete is already getting well over 100k/year in benefit when you count scholarship, meals, travel, etc..
The example wasn't to argue that football and women's soccer should be treated the same in total. The point was to illustrate that you can have very replaceable/inconsequential pieces of a large pie that have no business splitting even money with a good QB/WR/DE. And that math could easily have that inconsequential piece making much more than a very important piece of a lower rev sport.
The team (by that, I mean the players) doesn’t fund those sports though. The brand does. The interchangeable pieces don’t matter….therefore…the only compensation deserved for each individual player is the bare minimum of what any competent replacement would accept. If no one will long snap for less than $10,000, and an existing roster member at another position can’t long snap, then their value is $10,000. If a walk-on who only wants a college education and a spot on the team exists somewhere on earth, then their value is a jersey and a helmet and nothing more. Period. And if someone else on the team can also long snap, they may not even be worth the jersey and the helmet. Point being, you’re not going to ever watch or not watch an MSU football game based on who the long snapper is. The value they add is almost nonexistent.
If they all quit tomorrow, and 85 posters on this messageboard were all brought on to play next year’s schedule, guess what? MSU still gets a $60 million TV check from the league, and there’d be tens of thousands of idiots who would still buy tickets to see it (even if to just keep their seating priority, but still).
The value of the more visible players is much more marginal, open to interpretation, and less “sticky” to the overall revenue numbers. If the current starting QB is the difference between 8 wins and 6 wins, who appraises that to be the case? How much are those added 2 wins worth? What’s that post-game interview on the field worth to MSU’s exposure / brand, or that player’s specific brand? There’s far more questions than answers, so you’re largely going to have a very difficult time proving what the FMV is without just sticking with the already opened Pandora’s box. A QB that gets $3 million this year for straight up pay-for-play disguised as NIL, well, it’s pretty tough to argue he doesn’t deserve at least $2.9 million next year (that $3 mill minus $100-$150k from the revenue share). It’s going to be the easiest thing in the world to get these bogus NIL deals cleared, because the precedent has already been set, and even politicians are in lock step with the players.
Last edited:
Ahhh, then to clarify: football players will not make equal money acrossthe board. In fact, the long snapper may not make anything at all. That will be managed under the budget much like an NFL roster with a salary cap.
What I really want I know is what cuts are made after redirecting 15-20 percent of the revenue to the athletes. There's going to be 20+ million in added bills shortly. I doubt the fans are going to make up the difference with added donations/increased ticket prices.
I agree with you, but it's a question of degree.
Take the collectives out of the equation, and now you have to funnel money to individual players and make it look like legit NIL payments. Not too hard, probably, but it's all going to be out in the open since all NIL deals have to be disclosed.
When the players first got NIL rights, I figured right away that boosters would overpay for sham endorsement deals and I didn't see any way to stop it. Now they at least will make an effort by requiring disclosure and review of deals...but we'll see how that goes.
While the NIL deals will be disclosed to the schools and NCAA, I'm not sure if they will be publicly available. Probably not. But they will become public knowledge if they get challenged. People might think twice about signing a contract where they agree to absurdly over pay an athlete for an endorsement deal...but, then, I thought it would take several years before NIL morphed into straight pay for play.
I think we will get more money from the new ABC deal and the expanded playoff to handle part of it.
And then there is the question of the alleged $5 mill the school is taking each year.
Hence, the immediate pleas to support the Excellence Fund or its equivalent at other schools.
Which is completely silly….because the entire premise of the revenue sharing settlement is to “bring NIL in house” and let that be the structure that pays players for their “NIL value”. It’s absurd because by the letter of the law, there is no reason why a member of the women’s bowling team would have a name, image, and/or likeness that is any more or less valuable than that school’s QB1. See Livvy Dunne, for instance. Yet stunningly, schools seem to have decided that a football player’s “NIL” is, on average, expected to be worth 5 to 10 times more than any other sport.
What a reach that seems to be, right? Your name is your name. Your image is a literal picture, video, or other representation of your actual physical appearance, put forward into the public by you or someone else. Your likeness is a recreated version of yourself, like a painting, or digital recreation, but not actually you. That’s it. None of those 3 things has a damn thing to do with what sport you play, or how good you are at said sport. Yet somehow, football player names, images, and likenesses are just coincidentally worth 90% of the allocation for 16-20 sports?
So, let’s just call this what it is. Not only has NIL been made legal, and not only has completely legalized quid pro quo pay-for-play under the bogus guise of NIL been made legal, but now both are about to be made completely official on the accounting books of public universities. The whole thing is disgusting, and the fact that you (correctly) compared it to an NFL salary cap shows how far gone we are from the original intent of NIL, and how broken college sports have become.
I hear what you are saying but this is not brining NIL in house at all. This is revenue sharing, with making NIL be legit NIL. The problem this solves is the whole "colleges are making all this money off of sports and the athletes get nothing"
Seems you are getting a little shooting of the messenger on this. All I've heard/read for 3 years is WE NEED GUARD RAILS!. When asked so what exactly would those look like, all I've read/heard is I DON'T KNOW! (but "somebody"
needs to figure it out). Well, here you go.Will it be challenged? No doubt. Will there be cheaters? No doubt. But I'll at least give "them" credit for what seems to me is a pretty reasonable starting point and addresses to 2 main points of the argument
- what I'll call the "ridiculous TV money" (that we are all so giddy about) that went to everyone and everything but the players. Time to share more of it.
- if you are "famous", creative, "good looking", or smart enough you can monetize your name, image and/or likeness (Hubbard doing Columbus ortho spots, BSC doing her IG thing, etc.) but we're going to at least try to keep an eye on it.
Last edited:
But maybe, you are missing the point. There will be attempts probably successful, to group the entire athletics department as "one unit" to guarantee Title IX isn't swept away. If I'm an attorney, I'm already trying to get a female athlete client at every power 4 university.
The hurdle Title IX cases will have is this is not scholarship. Title IX requires equal scholarships but does not require equal expenditure of non-scholarship funds on Male and Female athletes. Plus this money is deemed as a revenue share and the Female athletes getting anything at all is above and beyond their share.
100% agree Title IX cases will be brought, but I don't know that they have much to stand on.
My point is the lawyers will try to say it is 1 entity : "The athletics department" that earns the income. Not the football team (all male) or Men's basketball( all male). When the Athletics Department reports its income, it does so as an entity, 1 unit. Now it does drill down in its reports for what each specific sport brings to the accounting. But You don't have a Football program that only answers to one leader. It answers to the "Athletics Director" who all the other programs also answer to.
If I and representing a female athlete or multiple female athletes, that will be my presentation. You cannot run them as completely separate entities. I'm going to fight for the Female athletes to get a fair % because they represent the same body as the men's teams. In fact, I might even approach it as each sport's expenses are shared equally as well. There is no football expense or baseball expense or soccer expense or softball expense. Just "The Athletics Department's" expense. If I can find a favorable judge who will file an injunction to prevent the department from Setting a % of revenue sharing for each "team" separately....... well..... you never know in this litigious environment we live in.
If I and representing a female athlete or multiple female athletes, that will be my presentation. You cannot run them as completely separate entities. I'm going to fight for the Female athletes to get a fair % because they represent the same body as the men's teams. In fact, I might even approach it as each sport's expenses are shared equally as well. There is no football expense or baseball expense or soccer expense or softball expense. Just "The Athletics Department's" expense. If I can find a favorable judge who will file an injunction to prevent the department from Setting a % of revenue sharing for each "team" separately....... well..... you never know in this litigious environment we live in.
Nah, this gives AD’s the ability to still utilize the collectives as additional money to the athletes. Its not part of the “revenue share” per se, but it is certainly a part of the settlement. The collectives are absolutely not going away. They are actually going to be far stronger and even more organized than they were before.
And you can bet your asś that when given the choice between obeying state laws or obeying the NCAA’s bylaws, which options all universities are going to choose….especially the public state universities (which is almost all of them).
The whole FMV clearinghouse thing is a joke that will quickly get jettisoned at the very first rejection of any deal, if it even makes it that far. This is just the NCAA coming up with a bogus rubber stamp which they will never not give, just so they can keep their hand in the cookie jar. With it being NIL and not officially tied to sport or ability, it will be next to impossible to determine FMV the way that they do in the NFL, where everyone plays the same competition and its all very obvious and clear that endorsements are based on their ability to play football and the market they are in….and nothing else.
Best way to think of this is every P4 school is now its own LLC with a bunch of bogus tax write-offs every year that will be impossible to prove as bogus. Anyone here who owns and runs an LLC knows what I’m talking about. The NCAA / Deloitte have the delightful task of being the IRS that has to somehow prove which of these is truly bogus (knowing full well that most all of them are), and provide some fact-based backing to their decisions that are air-tight. They will not be able to do so.
Last edited:
While I am skeptical of the whole "NIL clearinghouse" idea, you have to keep in mind this is a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit. Every current NCAA athlete is a member of one of the plaintiff classes, and they have to vote on whether to approve the settlement (I have no idea if athletes can opt out of the class and what happens if they do).
If the settlement is approved by the athletes, then they won't really be in position to challenge the terms of the settlement. Likewise, a University that actively seeks to cheat the system would be in contempt of court ( technically, the conferences are the named defendants, so the conference would be in contempt for failing to police the school).
By voting to accept the settlement, the athletes are agreeing to have a third party arbiter judge the validity of their NIL deals. Once someone agrees to arbitration, they typically can only challenge the arbiter 's decision by showing clear bias, misconduct, corruption, or the like.
There will undoubtedly be challenges, and this is all unique so it's unclear how well it will hold up, but the settlement agreement really does have teeth.
That said, I'm not sure what happens next year, when Freshmen who were not members of a class in the lawsuit are subject to it's rules. Maybe they have to sign an agreement like in the before times when they used to sign all their rights over to the University. That could be the weak link in the structure.
Didn’t the US women’s soccer team sue for payment discrimination only to lose due to the huge disparity in revenue between the men’s and women’s tournaments. Perhaps I dreamed it, but logic has to play a part in which turn a profit and those that don’t.
No doubt. I'm not arguing that the women's total pie should be as large as the men's. I'm just saying there will be some distorted paychecks if we base it even within each sport. Players that don't participate or contribute (ie they are irrelevant and easily replaced) in a big rev sport will make many times more than a bad *** in a low rev sport.
Yes, that's life. Happens everywhere. I don't have to like it though.
The settlement agreement (which hasn’t been passed) does not have nearly the teeth of the various state laws that have already been passed. All of which were deliberately and intentionally passed ahead of this settlement to create precedent and cause a conflict of interest from the 3rd party arbiter for NIL deals.
It does not require the 3rd party arbiter to rule fairly. Its also unclear what happens with denials. Are those deals going to be illegal? Or is it only a valid justification for preventing an athlete from having NCAA eligibility? What is the appeals process, and what is the turnaround time for both initial rulings and appeals?
The whole thing just seems like a laughing stock. Deloitte is going to get literally tens of thousands of cases dropped in their lap every fall and spring, with quick rulings expected on all of them. I see no way that there’s a viable path towards fairness, accuracy, and accountability to these audits. In either case, leagues will just be able to break off from the NCAA at the first sign of trouble, if nothing else. There’s just no way to go back to any semblance of sanity….ever.
Last edited:
You don't think a Federal Court Order has the teeth of a State Law? I imagine the US Marshall service disagrees with you.
Anyway, the settlement agreement does not conflict with most state laws. To the extent there is conflict, the parties intend to seek federal legislation that would pre-empt state laws.
I certainly am not up to speed on every single state, but the Mississippi law specifically states athletes may earn compensation for NIL, but may NOT earn compensation for participating in collegiate sports (seems inconsistent with the revenue sharing plan, but I doubt the State is going to tell the athletes they cannot accept revenue sharing)
If the clearinghouse comes back and says a proposed NIL deal is excessive, and is in fact a pay for play deal, then how is that inconsistent with the State law? Athletes are not allowed to receive compensation for playing sports, so the Mississippi Law would actually support voiding the deal.
Other states have laws stating a University may not "unreasonably restrict" NIL deals....if a school follows the standards set in the settlement agreement, then no one can say it is being "unreasonable."
I agree the clearinghouse is going to be a cluster, I'm just saying that once approved, it is legally enforceable and the NCAA and conferences will not be in position to just ignore it.
The details of the clearinghouse are not known yet, and are part of the ongoing negotiations. The current setup requires athletes to disclose all NIL deals for over $600, but the only ones that go to the clearinghouse are the ones involving entities associated with the university (primarily collectives, and people who donated to collectives). The athletes will be able to have representation in the arbitration process, but they are begging for lawsuits.
And the penalty for signing an improper NIL deal is unknown. The agreement empowers the NCAA and conferences to pass rules to enforce the agreement. I would hope athletes just have to return money or void their deal, but eligibility might be on the table.