The future of collectives...
- Thread starter Duke Humphrey
- Start date
In other words, pay-for-play doesn't magically become NIL when you call it NIL.
The whole memo is very informative. A ton of NIL deals have been approved, some in the 7 figures, but it looks like the CSC is about to roll up it's sleeves and tackle the shady ones.
">July 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
">July 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
Oh so you mean asking the backup LT to sit at the autograph table during halftime of the ladies basketball game isn't achieving a valid business purpose in context of "NIL"?
I definitely think they need to do something to earn their money although I'm not sure exactly what. Conduct youth sports camps maybe, do an add for bats or footballs, athletic footwear maybe ?
However, I also see no commercial value whatsoever in watching an 18-22 year old athlete recommending that I drive an F150 from Cannon Ford in Starkville or that I buy my wardrobe at Reeds, or whatever. So its kind of a mute point for me however they do it.
However, I also see no commercial value whatsoever in watching an 18-22 year old athlete recommending that I drive an F150 from Cannon Ford in Starkville or that I buy my wardrobe at Reeds, or whatever. So its kind of a mute point for me however they do it.
They can earn money from the rev share. They can earn money from legitimate NIL deals from a business that is using their NIL to help generate profit. Collectives are churched up slush funds with no business purpose. I'm glad they are getting called out for what they are. Now what changes? Time will tell.
The Enforcement of all this from a legal perspective is interesting to me. The schools, conferences, and athletes are all parties to a Federal Court Settlement agreement (maybe not the athletes who opted out). Failure to comply with the agreement is, essentially, contempt of court. Im not sure who would be more likely to bring things to the Court's attention, but the schools and players already being accused of breaking the rules could be potentially find themselves in front of a Judge.
Then there's the new legislation just introduced...
Then there's the new legislation just introduced...
Has any “celebrity” endorsement ever influenced you to buy a particular product? Just because it might not doesn’t mean it might not influence someone else so there’s value in it that way. I love tequila but I’ve never bought Cabo Wabo just because Sammy said it was his **** and it’s the best but I guarantee you people have.
Hell yeah, all those old former athletes that did Miller Lite commercials for decades definitely did, those were great commercials.
I'm still not going to buy a $40,000+ truck from the recommendation of a kid that's been driving for only a couple years and doesn't know how to pop the hood latch for sure though.
Nu-genix, because Frank Thomas told me she'd like it too***
Celebrity endorsements are subjective. I dont buy anything just become some celebrity was paid to say it's great. But, if you have an affinity for a certain celebrity, then merely having their identity attached to something can subconsciously give you a better feeling about that product or service.
UGA QB Carson Beck did radio ads for Georgia associated Credit Unions. I dont care what he has to say about banks, even if he has been to school for 7 years. But those ads ran during UGA games, and probably had an impact.
All the advertisers can do is collect data. Since signing this celebrity, have sales increased, and in what demographics? Are those increases enough to keep paying this celebrity?
To be fair, that is a pretty valid business purpose. If you have a willing seller of their NIL & a willing buyer of that NIL in a free market economy, how is that not a valid business purpose?
I’ve given up trying to understand all this. I’m just going to go to/watch the games in blissful ignorance, like I’ve lived my life for the previous 60 years. I long ago made peace with mediocrity, so the shortcomings of our football team don’t stress my out as much as most fans.
Do the collectives exist for the purpose of turning a profit by using the players' likeness to generate the sales? Answer. No. It's a service for fans to pay athletes to play a sport under the guise of them using their likeness. There is no legitimate marketing here. It's a pay for play scheme. Fans don't know where their dollars are going when they donate other than it hopefully accumulating a roster of football players they wouldn't ever recognize without their helmets off on a billboard or tv commercials. Fans are paying for on the field production here - not jerseys and autographs.
Now...feel free to argue that the collectives should exist as a pay for play mechanism in organizing and distributing contributions to make the fans happy with a roster. I can buy into that just don't tell me that there's real marketing approach here or a business operating with the intent of turning a profit. Would you want to buy the collective? And at what price? You wouldn't bc there are no assets and all you would do is be a pass through and trim an admin fee off the top for your time.
I'd also prefer that be capped along with the rev share so this new lower talent pro league has some salary cap restrictions like NFL/NBA. Collectives/rev share. Just cap it and then let the talent be able to sign real marketing deals like the pros do.
An athlete is not actually allowed to fully benefit on the value of their Name, Image, and Likeness if there are parameters put in place to limit what is a 'legitimate' agreement.
Limiting an athlete's value is exactly why we are here. Opening up the opportunities but still limiting them doesnt actually solve the issue.
And seeing people defend limiting NIL while supporting the ability for players to earn income from NIL is a wildly entertaining. The contorting required is almost painful to even watch.
Whatever, I guess. Congress focusing on this means Congress is spending less time focusing on whatever random social outrage issue is on the docket that day.
Limiting an athlete's value is exactly why we are here. Opening up the opportunities but still limiting them doesnt actually solve the issue.
And seeing people defend limiting NIL while supporting the ability for players to earn income from NIL is a wildly entertaining. The contorting required is almost painful to even watch.
Whatever, I guess. Congress focusing on this means Congress is spending less time focusing on whatever random social outrage issue is on the docket that day.
If they are connecting the player to a legit NIL deal, where the athlete's NIL is being used to promote goods or services that are offered to the general public then that IS a valid business purpose. Even if the collective pays for it, it's fine, so long as the source of the money is disclosed.
Giving money to players is not a sale of goods or services to the general public, and thus is not a Valid Business Purpose as defined in the settlement agreement.
The slight gray area here, is they said using a players NIL to sell merchandise for the Collective is not a Valid Business Purpose because the money is going back to the player.
NIL is a person profiting off their image. This can be done through advertising, social media, jersey sales, and on. Pros aren't limited here and neither should college students. Go get a bag from Nike.
Then there is the money you make for playing a sport. You will try to argue that they are the same but they are two different ways of making money. One is you as an individual making deals with legitimate businesses and should have no limitation. The other is for the value you contribute to a sports team and should have agreed upon limitations if you want a stable and competitive league (my opinion). If everyone wants a no cap league (I don't get the impression this is a popular idea), then this is all a moot discussion.
What are collectives? A way to pool funds to compensate athletes to play on a sports team. Why? If I contribute today, I don't get anything of value in return aside from hopes and wishes the collective attracts athletes through their compensation packages. I don't get a jersey. I don't get an autograph. I don't get anything likeness related. I get a promise the collective will pay unknown athletes to play sports. If they do a good job, I'll continue to contribute. It's pay for play in substance and should be subject to caps. How much? Hell if I know but there's a number out there that needs to be enforced.
I dont think it takes much contorting to try to separate NIL from pay for play. I also think the players are in for a surprise when they learn how few legit NIL deals are out there.
The system they came up with is hardly perfect, but it's an improvement. Even if we went with straight pay for play with CBA salary caps, these damn collectives would still be using faux NIL deals to circumvent the cap.
IMO, the current system might limit the value of some legit NIL deals a little, but the values will keep going up.
And another thing....
Yeah, Im piling on, but pro leagues already do something very similar. In every league with a salary cap, it is a violation to use third party deals to try to circumvent the cap. The NFL closely monitors all endorsement deals, and any deal from the team, the owner, or a team affiliate that is higher than a reasonable fair market value for the contracted services can result in severe penalties.
And the NFL is not trying to limit the money players can make off the field. They are protecting the salary cap.
Yes, the pro leagues have CBAs. College has an anti trust settlement agreement.
If I am a billionaire and want to spend money on paying a person to play a sport at a university I like, that is the player profiting off their name.
Their name has value and they are capitalizing on it. They own the value of their name and should be compensated in whatever way they can.
You left out one important thing. Pro leagues also have a draft, and fixed length contracts of 4 or 5 years for all drafted players.
Put those 2 things in the college game, and all the problems go away…..without any needed intervention from the NCAA, the CSC, Congress, or SCOTUS.
That's paying them to play sportsball. You are paying for the service of them throwing TDs, getting rebounds, whatever. Has nothing to do with their name in that context. Not bc they have 250k IG followers.
Now if you licensed their name/face to slap on shirts, jerseys, billboards, ads, video games, you've entered the world of buying someone's NIL. These are two different worlds.
I think this entire thing has been a disaster and the new way is also a disaster.
Its trying to have your cake and eat it to.
Either student athletes are allowed to profit off their Name, Image, and Likeness or they aren't.
Limiting their ability to profit off their NIL because something 'is not legitimate NIL' is inconsistent and arbitrary.
Value is determined by those who enter into a contract. If both sides view the contract as worth the cost, then it is legitimate.
If we are going to go this route, then it should be consistent. I hate the route, but I also hate it being inconsistent.
NCAA doesn't have a draft or CBA and is not the same as a pro league.
Do you not understand that there is a difference between pay-for-play and NIL (Name, Image, Likeness)?
It’s as if the last few years of paying players to play and calling it NIL has tricked your brain into not distinguishing the two.
I understand there should be, yes.
But saying someone can profit off their name, then limiting in what ways they can profit off their name, is the exact thing that got us where we are. It's just a lesser degree of 'bad'.
Everything needs to go back to being fully amateur because that is the only level at which everything is consistent.
Schools dont profit off player likeness. NCAA doesn't profit off player likeness. Companies don't profit off player likeness.
Every NLI signed by a student athlete states their image may be used in advertising to promote NCAA initiatives for the benefit of all student athletes across every level of competition.
Players don't sign the NLI, then they don't play in the NCAA.
I know this may come as a shock due to mine and Golfer sometimes contentious message board relationship, I AGREE WITH THIS 100%!
The National Football League is One Business with 32 offices, and like Wendy's or McDonalds, not all offices are equal in success because they have difference levels in management skills and often different demographics creating different levels of revenue support. Unlike the fast food stores with varying levels of revenue, small market teams like Kansas City and Green Bay have found success due to strong leadership and financial management.
The 135 colleges in Division 1 of NCAA Football are separate entities and at the same time part of conferences who's management team negotiates deals for the whole, but separate from setting rules that level play in the private sector support. The Schools with the largest alumni are not always the most successful, but the ones who get the upper level private financial support usually are. So it is disingenuous to pay a coach $10m per year and want to limit what any athlete can earn based on his or her name being referenced, used, acknowledged or promoted. Cap the Coaching salaries to that of a tenured research professor with a Doctorate and re-establish College Athletics as Amateur only and solve all the hate and discontent. or assigned and designate regional colleges to each NFL team and let them pay the Football players and Coaches.
The Saints get LSU, Tulane, State, Ole Miss, Arkansas.
The Titans get Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama, UAB and Middle.
Cincinnati gets Kentucky, Louisville, Cincinnati, Western Ky and Bowling Green
Falcons get UGA, GTech, Auburn, App St, Clemson
Jaguars get South Carolina, Florida, FSU, Troy, Ga. Southern
Dolphins get The U, Central, USF, FIU, FAU
If Nike, for example, wanted to hire Michael Jordan as their brand ambassador, so that they could use his image at their discretion, they could pay him a significant sum and that would be a business decision. It may, or may not, involve him doing any additional work for them beyond hading them those rights for some time period. It’ll be interesting to see how the college NIL makes a business distinction for deal structure.
I dont think the lack of drafts and contracts are that relevant to the issue. It does exacerbate things, since it creates a constant need to give college players incentives to sign with your team, but it doesn't change the logic of monitoring endorsement deals
YAHOO sports
The House Attorneys (meaning the attorneys who brought the class action suit) would like to have a word with the CSC.
They say collectives ARE a valid business purpose, and are threatening to seek guidance from the magistrate judge in charge of governing the settlement agreement.
I think they clearly should go to the judge, and put this matter to rest. No reason to make threats, although they are probably required to try to resolve it among themselves first. I also think it's clear the CSC is right in its interpretation, but I dont have the benefit of being involved in the settlement negotiations.
The House Attorneys (meaning the attorneys who brought the class action suit) would like to have a word with the CSC.
They say collectives ARE a valid business purpose, and are threatening to seek guidance from the magistrate judge in charge of governing the settlement agreement.
I think they clearly should go to the judge, and put this matter to rest. No reason to make threats, although they are probably required to try to resolve it among themselves first. I also think it's clear the CSC is right in its interpretation, but I dont have the benefit of being involved in the settlement negotiations.
I’m in favor of paying the players. I actually like the House settlement in theory: schools pay you to play but as NCAA member institutions they agree to a cap. In addition to what the school pays you to play, you can profit off of your NIL (unlimited). But the NCAA has an interest to verify that the NIL isn’t really just a way to work around the cap (pay for play disguised as NIL).
The problem with this is that the athletes didn’t negotiate the cap. If they could form a union and collectively bargain with the NCAA, athletes could opt in to both the union and CBA, which would justify the cap on rev share and NIL clearinghouse.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how possible it is to form a union and CBA. Are they employees at that point? Does that introduce even more problems? I don’t know but someone has to figure it out.
This is the part that has blown my mind since day 1. Universities are recruiting kids to come to their school to perform a service, and now they are sharing revenues with them for said services, and yet this is somehow not employment.
I’d love for one of our resident legal experts to spell this explanation out for me
As already referenced in this thread, people have become confused by the use of the term NIL. It does not literally mean any possible use of your name, image, or Likeness
NIL is a short form abbreviation for the use of a person's Name, Image, ot Likeness for a commercial purpose, i.e., promotional or endorsement activities. It is also called the "right of publicity".
NIL is an intellectual property right that is defined by almost a century of statutory definitions and common law. It hasn't been changed for college athletes just because some people may have inartfully used the the term NIL.
When your employer hires you, they are not paying for your NIL. They are paying for you, an actual person, to perform a job. If the company has a directory of personnel, and puts your picture on it, it is using your name, image, and likeness, but for informational purposes, not commercial. They dont have to pay you, although for privacy reasons they should allow you to opt out if you want
If you participate in promotional activities for the company, then that may be utilization of your right of publicity. If your employment contract does not address promotional activities, then your employer would be wise to get you to sign a license or waiver.
If a college athlete receives money, and their only obligation in return for that money is to play their sport for their school, then that is NOT an NIL deal. They aren't selling their intellectual property; they are selling their personal services.
While there can be some gray area, its really not that hard to distinguish legit NIL deals from pay for play.
Now, my biggest beef with the House settlement is the description of the direct pay from the schools. They refuse to call that a salary or performance payment, and insist on calling it payment for NIL. The schools are barely using the athletes' NIL. Sure, they use some images in promotional materials and social media and the like....but 6 figures worth?
So, the schools are effectively paying faux NIL deals, while trying to police the offers of faux NIL deals. They could fix that by just admitting the truth, that it's pay for play
Hopefully, they will at least resume selling jerseys with the numbers of popular players on them.
Well, the students sort of negotiated the cap, but not with the same input as with a union.
The House litigation was a class action lawsuit in which one class was all current D1 athletes. There were attorneys representing the class, and multiple amicus briefs filed by other attorneys supporting the class.
In addition, all D1 athletes were given a chance to provide comments or objections to the Court before the settlement was finalized. Quite a few took advantage of that opportunity, although percentage wise it was a pretty low number. The judge took great interest in some of the comments from students, and the agreement was modified accordingly.
A swimmer from Auburn complained the reduction in roster limits would cost him his scholarship. As a result, a whole new class of athlete was created: the designated athlete. These athletes are grandfathered in and do not count against a school's roster limits, even if they transfer schools!
But as for the salary cap, it is still a bit of a mystery how the actual numbers were calculated. They are loosely based on payments for media rights, but those payments are quite different when you compare the Big 12 to the Big Ten. There is at least one appeal that has been filed questioning the $20.5 MM figure.
Who is to say that a rich alumnus can’t gift a kid some money to come to his school? I’ve always wondered why that was viewed as so taboo. Tax it as appropriate.
I’ll be honest my biggest beef with NIL is because it puts MSU at a disadvantage. I have no true moral conviction about it.
It will eventually come to this. The rev share is nothing but a stop gap measure to tamp it down and attempt to at least funnel the true source of the money (TV revenue) to players so alumni don’t have to foot all of it.
You can't stop that nor should you tell them what they should or shouldn't do with their dollars. If they get their kicks off paying a 17 year old to go to their school of choice, they should be able to do it. However, to me that's compensation to play a sport and in my league would count towards a salary cap and has to be cut off at some level. It's just weird in college sports bc they're are so many people that love to get their dollars in the game in ways that professional sports supporters don't. It's a weird dynamic that I hope lessens after some years of athletes getting a bigger piece of the pie and make some decent money.