Good Thread on "Athlete Benefits & Payments," before the SCOTUS today.

[Just Sayin]

https://twitter.com/WinterSportsLaw/status/1377293612069875714

Another good thread:

https://twitter.com/achristovichh/status/1377294396316643330

[valpotx]

Setup an account that an athlete can't touch until they are outside of school.  However, NCAA athletes think that this is a magical windfall for some of them, when it would only impact the top 0.001% of athletes, who have any sort of marketability.

[nkvu]

I would allow athletic scholarship students to do the same type of things that other scholarship students can do. I would let them be paid to instruct in camps, or be paid for coaching (tutoring) individuals. If the NCAA or a university uses their image for a money making endeavor, they should get a cut of the profit. I would allow them to be paid for the use of their image on a calendar or something like that. If a video game uses a player's image they should be paid. If the NCAA or an individual university uses their image to make money directly on that image, they should get a cut.  On the other hand, if a university used a student's image to generate attendance at a game, or generally to promote a program, I would view that differently. I don't think this has to be an all or nothing issue. I see areas where there could be reasonable compromise. Of course, compromise has become a dirty word now so I suppose there will be a total winner or loser once the Supreme Court does their thing.

[nkvu]

I would allow athletic scholarship students to do the same type of things that other scholarship students can do. I would let them be paid to instruct in camps, or be paid for coaching (tutoring) individuals. If the NCAA or a university uses their image for a money making endeavor, they should get a cut of the profit. I would allow them to be paid for the use of their image on a calendar or something like that. If a video game uses a player's image they should be paid. If the NCAA or an individual university uses their image to make money directly on that image, they should get a cut.  On the other hand, if a university used a student's image to generate attendance at a game, or generally to promote a program, I would view that differently. I don't think this has to be an all or nothing issue. I see areas where there could be reasonable compromise. Of course, compromise has become a dirty word now so I suppose there will be a total winner or loser once the Supreme Court does their thing.

the one thing I really oppose is direct payments from a university to a student beyond what is now allowed. When that happens, then all the fun goes out of collage basketball. Big schools will always be able to pay more for the best players and the gap between the small and the big becomes insurmountable.

[valpotx]

All of the 'fun' may go, but when you have powerhouse athletic programs such as UT, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc, that literally profit off their overall athletics program to build massive stadiums/arenas to accumulate additional revenue, I completely understand the view of those athletes, that they are being used.

[crusader05]

Yeah I think our perceived fun of college basketball should not mean players that are making massive amounts of money for their schools can't make money off their own image.

[M]

I think college athletes should be allowed to market themselves. Have a limited amount that they're allowed to make if you want and let them do ads for local businesses or give private lessons at local gyms. I'd try the Sheldon Edward's Special at the local sub sandwich shop.

[VUFan2021]

In Power 5 conferences, this might be an issue, but I don't see sponsors soliciting Valpo basketball players to endorse local products. The team is not successful on the court as a mid-pack or lower MVC squad. For national powerhouses, the kids should be able to profit as a 100% scholarship pales in comparison to the TV contact money that is passed down to universities. Quite an interesting discussion, as some of the Power 5 basketball and football money supports entire athletic departments at universities. A ruling in favor of the athletes could eliminate 100s of non-revenue college programs.

[IrishDawg]

In Power 5 conferences, this might be an issue, but I don't see sponsors soliciting Valpo basketball players to endorse local products. The team is not successful on the court as a mid-pack or lower MVC squad. For national powerhouses, the kids should be able to profit as a 100% scholarship pales in comparison to the TV contact money that is passed down to universities. Quite an interesting discussion, as some of the Power 5 basketball and football money supports entire athletic departments at universities. A ruling in favor of the athletes could eliminate 100s of non-revenue college programs.

To be fair, the elimination of non-revenue programs has been happening more frequently without paying the athletes anything from the schools.  It may accelerate that happening, but as you stated, this is only going to impact the cream of the crop in football and basketball.  Most programs may offer a few more things "educationally", but it wouldn't be anything exorbitant at most schools.

[mp91]

In Power 5 conferences, this might be an issue, but I don't see sponsors soliciting Valpo basketball players to endorse local products. The team is not successful on the court as a mid-pack or lower MVC squad. For national powerhouses, the kids should be able to profit as a 100% scholarship pales in comparison to the TV contact money that is passed down to universities. Quite an interesting discussion, as some of the Power 5 basketball and football money supports entire athletic departments at universities. A ruling in favor of the athletes could eliminate 100s of non-revenue college programs.

Name, Image, and Likeness will not eliminate non-revenue sports because these payments will come from third parties, not universities. So, the court case and legislation in many states in question would have very little impact on a university (beyond hiring more compliance people to keep track of the sponsorship deals that the NCAA will require them to catalog).

As for Valpo players (and small schools in general), they will have much more income earning potential than you may realize. Sure, there are traditional routes like naming a sandwich after them or doing a used car newspaper ad, but there are a great deal of ways for them to make money. (Coaching at camps or doing private lessons for young kids is a very large potential revenue area that's also worth mentioning). However, being able to earn income on the side is a game changer for all levels of sport because of the Internet.

For example, there is a Division II volleyball player that is raking in the cash because she is famous on TikTok. In NAIA, you are actually allowed to make money from your name, image, and likeness already. Here, they have seen a great deal of athletes make money even though they are from small schools. Social media doesn't care if you're good at sports, if you can be entertaining, it will pay. One of the most popular college athletes on social media (men or women) only averages 11 points per game for the Louisville women's basketball team. The most followed college athlete in the country is a female gymnast. Kayla Simmons had so many followers in college on Instagram that the Marshall volleyball team was worried she might be committing NCAA violations, luckily she kept it going and now after graduating makes a living modeling on Instagram (but she lost 2-3 years of earning potential being in college).

So, this change could have a massive impact for people of all levels and all sports. The belief that this would only benefit Power 5 football and basketball players is a fallacy. There are players across the country that are popular on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok that play at schools you have never even heard of.

Of the Elite Eight this year (men's and women's tournament combined), 8 of the top 10 athletes that would have the most earning potential were actually women. Highly recommend checking out this list and potential revenues they could be making.
https://twitter.com/TheKendallBaker/status/1376503075519758338

[vuny98]

In Power 5 conferences, this might be an issue, but I don't see sponsors soliciting Valpo basketball players to endorse local products. The team is not successful on the court as a mid-pack or lower MVC squad. For national powerhouses, the kids should be able to profit as a 100% scholarship pales in comparison to the TV contact money that is passed down to universities. Quite an interesting discussion, as some of the Power 5 basketball and football money supports entire athletic departments at universities. A ruling in favor of the athletes could eliminate 100s of non-revenue college programs.

Name, Image, and Likeness will not eliminate non-revenue sports because these payments will come from third parties, not universities. So, the court case and legislation in many states in question would have very little impact on a university (beyond hiring more compliance people to keep track of the sponsorship deals that the NCAA will require them to catalog). As for Valpo players (and small schools in general), they will have much more income earning potential than you may realize. Sure, there are traditional routes like naming a sandwich after them or doing a used car newspaper ad, but there are a great deal of ways for them to make money. (Coaching at camps or doing private lessons for young kids is a very large potential revenue area that's also worth mentioning). However, being able to earn income on the side is a game changer for all levels of sport because of the Internet. For example, there is a Division II volleyball player that is raking in the cash because she is famous on TikTok. In NAIA, you are actually allowed to make money from your name, image, and likeness already. Here, they have seen a great deal of athletes make money even though they are from small schools. Social media doesn't care if you're good at sports, if you can be entertaining, it will pay. One of the most popular college athletes on social media (men or women) only averages 11 points per game for the Louisville women's basketball team. The most followed college athlete in the country is a female gymnast. Kayla Simmons had so many followers in college on Instagram that the Marshall volleyball team was worried she might be committing NCAA violations, luckily she kept it going and now after graduating makes a living modeling on Instagram (but she lost 2-3 years of earning potential being in college). So, this change could have a massive impact for people of all levels and all sports. The belief that this would only benefit Power 5 football and basketball players is a fallacy. There are players across the country that are popular on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok that play at schools you have never even heard of. Of the Elite Eight this year (men's and women's tournament combined), 8 of the top 10 athletes that would have the most earning potential were actually women. Highly recommend checking out this list and potential revenues they could be making. https://twitter.com/TheKendallBaker/status/1376503075519758338

It's a complicated subject. I am 100% in favor of any person being able to use their talents and skills in the free market and earn what they can. I am also in favor of amateur sports for college and colleges not paying athletes directly. If a kid is an actor and can make money acting, but also happens to be an amazing basketball player, why can't he act and play basketball. The tricky part is when a power 5 school comes along as says, "So we can get you a part in a TV show that pays you 2 million dollars if you play for our basketball team" or something like that. Or more broadly a Power 5 school saying, Car dealership X has a contract with our team to advertise with our team, so you are guaranteed X dollars a month if you play for us. The rules will be bent and the lines blurred. Its why it was so black and white before.

Same argument goes for transfers. I think a kid should be able to move to a new school if they want to for whatever reason. But with that freedom comes consequences and we won't always like the outcome.

[Chitwood]

For the record, proposals indicate schools and conferences will not be allowed to facilitate endorsements. Sure, some will try to find loopholes, but that's already happening now in different ways.

It can definitely have some drawbacks. But I think the benefits of the players is much greater than the downside. From my perspective, I don't care if a player from Valpo makes five dollars or $5 million from a Gatorade commercial. That's not going to change if I cheer for them or not.

If you're interested inName image and likeness proposals, check out this article from my friend who is a Valpo alum:
https://indianahq.com/ncaa-supports-compensation-for-name-image-and-likeness/

[valpopal]

While I haven't yet decided upon a position about the issue, I can see that this will be damaging to athletics programs outside big conferences or not located in large urban areas, both of which would permit greater opportunities for earnings. If you thought there is a gap between big conferences and mid-major conferences now, you haven't seen anything yet. Even within smaller conferences like the Missouri Valley, the better players with earning potential will gravitate to schools that are in commercial or media centers. Hello, Loyola! Schools or conferences will not have to facilitate endorsements; instead, the universities with higher earning athletes will be well known on social media and elsewhere, and recruited players or transfers will be aware of the potential. In addition, the ways of making money go far beyond endorsements. Athletes could create their own You Tube channels the way some "influencers" earn millions of dollars each year. This will benefit top-level players financially, but it also will help certain athletics programs while harming other athletics programs, including Valpo.

[mp91]

While I haven't yet decided upon a position about the issue, I can see that this will be damaging to athletics programs outside big conferences or not located in large urban areas, both of which would permit greater opportunities for earnings. If you thought there is a gap between big conferences and mid-major conferences now, you haven't seen anything yet. Even within smaller conferences like the Missouri Valley, the better players with earning potential will gravitate to schools that are in commercial or media centers. Hello, Loyola! Schools or conferences will not have to facilitate endorsements; instead, the universities with higher earning athletes will be well known on social media and elsewhere, and recruited players or transfers will be aware of the potential. In addition, the ways of making money go far beyond endorsements. Athletes could create their own You Tube channels the way some "influencers" earn millions of dollars each year. This will benefit top-level players financially, but it also will help certain athletics programs while harming other athletics programs, including Valpo.

Yes, this is largely true. But, most of these disadvantages are already baked into the system. Players are already choosing schools based on location or career opportunities (involving sports) or career opportunities outside of sports or universities w/alumni bases that have a history of supporting former players. So, yes what you say is true, but this is already happening to some extent. That's why smaller schools get three-star players instead of five-star players.

Thus, the current landscape is not going to change because the majority of these disadvantages have always existed. I know several students and athletes that decided to go to Loyola over Valpo because of location and career opportunities. The NILs will certainly be another factor against certain schools, but it's not like it's going to completely change the current system (beyond a couple outliers). Plus, it's important to remember that the majority of these benefits will come from social media (YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, streaming, etc.) where location is not all that important.

[crusader05]

I agree. The disparities and money issues are already there and we're not catching up anytime soon. I also think about how it really hurts on both sides as a lot of high performing student athletes lose out on any shot of the money that they are absolutely bringing in to their school or the NCAA or others and then  there's a lot of students out there who actively have their opportunities unnecessarily restricted just because they choose to be a student athlete, whether it starting a business or monetizing other skills they have.

[valpopal]

While I haven't yet decided upon a position about the issue, I can see that this will be damaging to athletics programs outside big conferences or not located in large urban areas, both of which would permit greater opportunities for earnings. If you thought there is a gap between big conferences and mid-major conferences now, you haven't seen anything yet. Even within smaller conferences like the Missouri Valley, the better players with earning potential will gravitate to schools that are in commercial or media centers. Hello, Loyola! Schools or conferences will not have to facilitate endorsements; instead, the universities with higher earning athletes will be well known on social media and elsewhere, and recruited players or transfers will be aware of the potential. In addition, the ways of making money go far beyond endorsements. Athletes could create their own You Tube channels the way some "influencers" earn millions of dollars each year. This will benefit top-level players financially, but it also will help certain athletics programs while harming other athletics programs, including Valpo.

Yes, this is largely true. But, most of these disadvantages are already baked into the system. Players are already choosing schools based on location or career opportunities (involving sports) or career opportunities outside of sports or universities w/alumni bases that have a history of supporting former players. So, yes what you say is true, but this is already happening to some extent. That's why smaller schools get three-star players instead of five-star players.

Thus, the current landscape is not going to change because the majority of these disadvantages have always existed. I know several students and athletes that decided to go to Loyola over Valpo because of location and career opportunities. The NILs will certainly be another factor against certain schools, but it's not like it's going to completely change the current system (beyond a couple outliers). Plus, it's important to remember that the majority of these benefits will come from social media (YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, streaming, etc.) where location is not all that important.

I think we are mostly in agreement that disparities already exist, but we may quibble about the degree of impact this new proposal would have. I believe the disadvantages for mid-majors will grow significantly, and strong recruits or transfers will be even more difficult for places like Valpo to obtain. More opportunities for financial rewards in commercial or media centers will draw a larger percentage of the premium athletes. Also, to grow an audience and maintain viewership on YouTube (the major social media place for earnings) as a personality, one needs numerous sources for content and varieties of setting for entertainment or culture and other activities, which large cities supply and small communities like Valpo do not; think of Casey Neistat's use of New York City as an example that set the standard. Programs like Valpo do not need another obstacle to obtaining better athletes, whether vying with larger conference universities or within the conference in competition with Loyola.