And you can’t pay your head coach any more than you do a professor. Hell, your head coach has to be a professor teaching classes while he coaches.
If you want to laud your “student athletes” then at least as many of them must graduate as graduate from the university as a whole (as a percent of matriculation). If you don’t meet that standard your team loses any tournament/bowl eligibility until they do.
You would end up back in the halcyon days when only students and alumni really followed their team, and the pure student athlete fought for the pride of the alma mater. For some reason I don’t think that’s exactly what the NCAA has in mind, however…
I thought this was a really good post summing up the Court arguments. The only thing I mildly disagree with is that this is a “complicated issue.” It’s not to me. The schools are engaging in un-American monopolistic economic practices and they must stop.
And it won’t be complicated to stop doing them, either. We don’t have to figure out what the backup tackle is gonna make or how much we have to give women’s sports; just remove the restrictions against earnings and the fucking schools will figure this out on their own just like every other business entity in the country does.
**Title IX complicates things a little but only a little. Just keep providing those opportunities.
I tend to agree with you that the general principles aren’t that complicated. At least, not for me.
But there are some complicated legal issues related to the case as it currently stands, partly because how the “rule of reason” works in anti-trust cases, and partly because of the way that the lower court rulings were worded. A key question here is whether the Supreme Court is going to get into the business of regulating what types of compensation athletes can receive, and how much, or whether they’re going to make a more sweeping ruling. there are legal scholars who argue that courts should not be in the business of acting as de facto regulators, setting specific dollar amounts or specific types of compensation, but that’s sort of what the lower courts tried to do here.
The SC might end up not having a big say in this issue if states keep passing their own NIL legislations. New Mexico passed its bill this week and my own Maryland legislature sent a bill to Larry Hogan today for his signature. He may as well sign it, too, because the Senate easily has the votes to override a veto.
Right, and as more states pass such legislation, it’s likely to snowball, because colleges in those states will have a significant competitive advantage in recruiting players, compared to colleges in states that don’t pass NIL laws.
Meanwhile, the NCAA has made (reportedly - it may not be “officially” announced until 4/15) a move that will benefit top-level athletes: the one year sit-out rule for football and basketball (and baseball, and men’s ice hockey) for undergraduate transfers has been removed, and football players who transfer by July 1 will be able to play next season for their new schools. This was supposed to be voted on at January’s NCAA Convention, but was pulled at the last minute along with the NIL proposals.
This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise, considering the number of football and men’s basketball players that have entered the transfer portal recently.
Alabama passed its NIL legislation this week. Much like the federal government lagging behind the states in marijuana legislation, it’s time for the NCAA to wave the white flag. The walls are crumbling around it.
I assume you mean FBS instead of Division I (which is FBS and FCS combined).
Aren’t you forgetting something - the 225 Division I schools that play men’s basketball but not FBS football? Then again, Alabama, Florida, and Texas combine for 47 Division I schools, which is about 13%.
Add CA as well. I believe they’ve passed NIL legislation even though it doesn’t take effect this year. I would guess they’ll amend it to move it up given the moves by:
Colorado
Florida
Idaho
Michigan
Nebraska
New Jersey
And pending moves by:
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
Oregon
and now Texas.
Assuming all of those states pass NIL legislation, and California changes its version to start this July, that’s states with 141 Division I schools. Only 37 more are needed to get a majority of the 355 schools.
The larger remaining states:
New York (22 NCAA Division I schools)
North Carolina (18)
Pennsylvania (14)
Virginia (14)
Illinois (13)
Ohio (13)
South Carolina (12)
Tennessee (12)
So I played with some numbers. Here’s the Power5 conferences:
Total
Current
Pending
Remain
% w/NIL
Big 12 Conference
10
0
7
3
70%
Southeastern Conference
14
1
8
5
64%
Pac-12 Conference
12
5
2
5
58%
Big Ten Conference
14
4
1
9
36%
Atlantic Coast Conference
15
2
1
12
20%
The % column assumes all pending states will pass the legislation.
So for each conference to get to 100% NIL coverage (Some of these will overlap - i.e. South Carolina): ACC
Indiana
Kentucky
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Virginia
Big 10
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Big 12
Oklahoma
West Virginia
PAC-12
Arizona
Utah
Washington
SEC
Kentucky
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
The ACC probably has the toughest row to hoe, with the Big 10 not far behind.
I would expect Clemson is probably already pushing hard in SC. Ditto Duke, UNC, and NCState in NC (which is the state with the most P5 schools left out in the cold with 4). Be interesting to see if the Ohio Legislature lets UM maintain that kind of advantage over tOSU.
I have the sheet saved and can post more if anybody is interested.
Representatives Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio (a Republican, and a former Ohio State and NFL football player) and Emanuel Cleaver of Colorado (a Democrat) have introduced the “Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act,” which is pretty much the same as all of the state NIL laws.
The quick version of the bill:
A university, and “an athletic association, conference, or other organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics or that administers intercollegiate athletics,” may not prohibit a student athlete from participating in intercollegiate athletics, or prohibit the athlete from receiving a scholarship, because the athlete enters into an endorsement contract or an agency contract, except that the school may prohibit endorsing:
(A) A tobacco company or brand, including any vaping device or e-cigarette or related product
(B) Any alcohol company or brand
(C) Any seller or dispensary of a controlled substance, including marijuana
(D) Any adult entertainment business
(E) Any casino or entities that sponsor or promote gambling activities
Also, the school itself cannot pay for use of the athlete’s name/image/likeness.
I am a little surprised the NCAA released a press release that supports the bill.
Too many unnecessary limitations, most importantly that it prohibits schools from paying directly for NIL activities. That’s a useless complication. We have university boards who can decide whether or not it is beneficial to the school.
Incidentally there was an interesting Twitter debate yesterday where opponents of athletes’ commercial liberties raised the fear of a women’s volleyball team marketing themselves to Hustler magazine. “You just couldn’t have that!”
Whether or not it’s “benificial to the school” is irrelevant. Any money given by the school to an athlete for their name, image, and likeness is pay-for-play in every remote definition of the term.
Which states have NIL laws that do not specifically prohibit the schools from licensing their athletes’ names/images/likenesses? Hint: not Florida: “To preserve the integrity, quality, character, and amateur nature of intercollegiate athletics and to maintain a clear separation between amateur intercollegiate athletics and professional sports, such compensation may not be provided in exchange for athletic performance or attendance at a particular institution and may only be provided by a third party unaffiliated with the intercollegiate athlete’s postsecondary educational institution.”
Hint 2: not Alabama, either: “Compensation for the use of a student athlete’s name, image, or likeness may be provided only by a third party not owned or operating under the authority of the student athlete’s postsecondary educational institution.”
I think that, when the smoke clears, there’s a compromise,. and the NCAA splits Division I into I-A and I-AA for all sports; in I-A, athletes can (but don’t have to) be compensated, and in I-AA (and II and III), they cannot, except for scholarships.
Technically, can’t they do that now, as long as they’re not paid for it and there’s no real reference to the school or the team?
I agree with you that the states’ legislations are also too restrictive but I think once the camel gets its nose under the tent a little more that all of the restrictions will eventually crumble. Schools should be able to act in their competitive and economic best interests, as long as they don’t violate anti-trust standards.