NCAA in "Deep Discussion" to Implement Revenue Sharing with Athletes

Lorewarn said:
It is a truly absurd wild west out here, and I can't speak to the intentions behind any of the people running NIL collectives, but I don't look at it as you and me are expected to donate, but they have to ask to make sure their net grabs all of the absolute obsessive idiots that want to donate.

Actually, at the end of the day it feels simiilar to alumni associations asking for money in the decades after you leave college. Fine for the people that want to give back, but I personally just laugh and feel good that I have given you more than enough money in my life.
Click to expand...
Very fair point.  I'm just getting old and bitter.  I need clouds to scream at!  :D

 
This was from a poster on RSS, but from everything I have seen and read.  This is how things should start looking come July 1st.  So a lot of the hand wringing should slow down a bit.  I forgot about the clearinghouse approval for all NIL deals, but I have seen that before.  Specifics on it?  I have no idea.  But that should start to bring things more in line.  Another note is a lot of portal activity right now is front loaded signing bonuses, because that money really won't be there starting this summer.   

Again, good read on the situation. Which I think is 90% accurate.

I'm not sure why there continues to be confusion on this. Administrators and conferences know generally what the rules will be because the House Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the federal judge. Can there be tweaks and changes, sure. Dannen has said that NU has contingency plans if things change. However, as of now, schools are operating on a prospective basis under the rules set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Once July 1, 2025 hits, the revenue sharing model effectively works as a salary cap. True NIL deals through endorsement, licensing and appearance agreements with "real" companies, e.g., Caitlin Clark's deal with State Farm, will still be allowed. However, NIL deals between athletes and collectives or other booster-type associated entities will be subject to approval by a clearinghouse to determine if the contract payments are for fair market value. I do not think a $500K collective deal with your offensive tackle to appear at 3 chamber of commerce functions is going to be deemed FMV after July 1.

Collectives like at Texas Tech are currently frontloading their NIL contracts with portal transfers while they can - guaranteeing them above market rates and bonuses for the next six months. The collectives ability to pay large sums after the House Settlement approval will be severely limited, so most of the money after July 1 will be coming directly from the school via revenue sharing. Tough to turn down an offer with more money up front and then the revenue share piece on the back end. It looks too good to pass up if other schools aren't playing this game during this unique window.

Will collectives still have a place? Sure. Matt Davison and Dannen have recently said as much. Matt said, however, that all may not survive. And Sipple quoted Dannen in Tunnel Talk talking about the same thing I've been saying: Because of the revenue sharing that kicks in (in July), some of the NIL third-party stuff – the collective stuff – starts to really get constricted after the anti-trust settlement is done. Bottom line, “I think there’s a mad rush to take advantage of an environment that exists today but will not exist after July 1.

After July 1, I think most collectives essentially become marketing firms - still raising money to pay athletes for appearance fees (subject to clearinghouse approval) and then operating to get athletes endorsement deals with legitimate companies, where the athlete is paid by the company, not the collective.
Click to expand...

 
I’m interested in how this will affect the ancillary stuff like stadiums, workout facilities, etc…. 
 

Players are now getting compensated and everyone says to go to an NFL style system with contracts.   But what also happens in the NFL is owners get the majority of funding for capital improvement projects i.e stadiums, locker rooms, training camp homes from taxpayers.   This is true for most teams outside the Jerry Jones of the world.  
 

Since donors have been asked to kick in to pay the players, will they now say no thanks, we are already paying the players so no to paying for stadium improvements and then that falls to the taxpayers in the form of sales tax increases.   And will the taxpayers say thanks but ok thanks the stadiums and workout facilities are good enough.  

 
GgntKvfWcAAf9vZ


 
Mavric said:
Click to expand...
I wonder how this will shake out in court? It seems illegal to limit how much an individual can make in NIL, at least without a CBA.

Does the House settlement act like a CBA of sorts, is all of this legally binding or are they just hoping that athletes don't unionize and continue to battle the NCAA in court? 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
I wonder how this will shake out in court? It seems illegal to limit how much an individual can make in NIL, at least without a CBA.

Does the House settlement act like a CBA of sorts, is all of this legally binding or are they just hoping that athletes don't unionize and continue to battle the NCAA in court? 
Click to expand...
This is why tons of lawyers have been saying for years that there will be a players union and a CBA. The universities have done this to themselves by continuing to fight against the idea that the players are employees and getting paid for playing.

 
RedDenver said:
This is why tons of lawyers have been saying for years that there will be a players union and a CBA. The universities have done this to themselves by continuing to fight against the idea that the players are employees and getting paid for playing.
Click to expand...
I agree, it seems like we're just kicking the can a little further down the road where athletes are still going to pursue legal action, courts are going to correctly conclude that you cannot limit athlete compensation unless contractually obligated, and we'll revisit this later this decade.

I do wonder, if the players had any representation in the House settlement? If they did in someway negotiate this, it could be binding. I'm far from an expert, but I would be surprised if even that had legal muster. Unless representatives for players were sent as part of a union, I'm not sure a they'd even have the legal standing to negotiate on behalf of all collegiate athletes. 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
I do wonder, if the players had any representation in the House settlement? If they did in someway negotiate this, it could be binding. I'm far from an expert, but I would be surprised if even that had legal muster. Unless representatives for players were sent as part of a union, I'm not sure a they'd even have the legal standing to negotiate on behalf of all collegiate athletes. 
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure the answer is "no" to your question.

And regarding NIL, there is no way that limiting it stands in court.  But I have a feeling that the NCAA is going to rubber stamp any NIL agreement because a) they know that and b) they just don't have the time/people/resources to comb through thousands of deals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
This is why tons of lawyers have been saying for years that there will be a players union and a CBA. The universities have done this to themselves by continuing to fight against the idea that the players are employees and getting paid for playing.
Click to expand...




Why would the players unionize when the most powerful among them are making multiple millions of dollars a year and can do pretty much whatever they want to with little to zero oversight and authority? 

 
Lorewarn said:
Why would the players unionize when the most powerful among them are making multiple millions of dollars a year and can do pretty much whatever they want to with little to zero oversight and authority? 
Click to expand...
I think the answer to that question is because the majority are not making the millions. It’s not an issue of what the most powerful want but rather what benefits more/lesser players. If you’ll recall, all it took was Sam Keller (hardly one of the best players) and a few others to screw up the EA Sports deal.  The guys not making as much, not the best already well compensated players, will keep filing lawsuits to get their share of the pie.

 
Lorewarn said:
Why would the players unionize when the most powerful among them are making multiple millions of dollars a year and can do pretty much whatever they want to with little to zero oversight and authority? 
Click to expand...
Unionizing wouldn't really about the top earners but more about everyone else. Most players don't have the big NIL deals and players in the non-revenue sports don't see much money at all. Plus, the NCAA and many of the universities are scheming as we speak to figure out ways to shift more power back onto their plates. The union would (in theory) act as a representative for the collective in any of those discussions.

 
Back
Top