In reply to barsad
Umm, no. You specifically stated:
I explained exactly why that wasn't a good idea.
Also, you seem to have a completely mistaken understanding of what NIL is. The schools are not employing the student athletes. Rather, the student athletes are signing contracts with third parties (ostensibly licensing agreements for the use of their names, images, and likenesses). The rest of your arguments are also flawed nonsense.
Schools did not prohibit any student from making money off their names, images, or likenesses unless those students were student athletes. Your example of the student with a beaker is therefore beyond utterly ridiculous as that student never would've been barred from participating in future lab work at the school if he executed a NIL deal.
Also, under the NCAA regulations, pay for play is still not permitted, which is the essentially your "pay for services" argument. As such, NIL agreements are supposed to be for things like the use of an athlete's NIL for marketing purposes (e.g., local ads), licensing for media (e.g., console games), or for content produced by the student online (e.g., Youtube or Tik Tok content). Prior to the new changes, student athletes weren't permitted to profit from any of these revenue streams if they wanted to retain their athletic eligibility. In fact, Colorado had a football player whose athletic eligibility was stripped because he had marketing deals based on his skiing prowess (he was an Olympic level skiier and, IIRC, an actual Olympic skiier.)
If groups collude to cap payment for NIL, it can easily run afoul of laws such as antitrust law at the federal level and California's Unfair Competition Law at the state level. (Keep in mind, the capping of payrolls you mentioned was negotiated by unions with team owners in each sports league. As such, the players agreed to these limits; they weren't imposed by team owners unilaterally in an attempt to stymie competition or pay.) But if you think you have a valid argument to get around these laws, feel free to bring them to the NIL groups. But don't be surprised of they laugh you out of their offices.
Also, the source of payment is very important in the law. Whether this should be the case is a separate argument. However, as the law stands, it's the law. Just so you're clear, so long as someone is employed by a third party to do work at Cal, he's a contractor and not an university employee. This means the person is not eligible to participate in CalPers, receive University health insurance, or receive other benefits open to Cal employees. Similarly, a student athlete who signs a NIL contract with a third party is not a Cal employee.
I get it, you're young and think you have all the answers. Unfortunately, your youth also means you're inexperienced and are missing much of the picture. For starters, you think student athletes are somehow paid by the schools under the NIL rules. Next, you completely misunderstood what's permitted by the NCAA under the NIL rules. Additionally, you assume that other students do not have the right to exercise NIL deals.
Finally, if you want to be taken seriously by other posters in this group, drop the attitude. Your accusation that I'm "mansplaining" was asinine. To begin, I didn't know (and frankly, I don't care) what your sex is before I made my i initial post, let alone this current one. Regardless of whether you're a man or a woman, my comments would be the same. While accusing your youthful peers of "mansplaining" may be enough for you to "win an argument," it doesn't work on adults who value facts and rational reasoning and are not interested in playing petty games or "winning an argument."
That said, I do agree with you that the rules of today will likely not be the ones in 2034. As I mentioned in another thread, the NCAA is trying to implement a rule change requiring schools to spend 20% of athletic revenue on student athlete pay. This would mean students would actually become university employees. Not only would this allow student athletes to unionize and negotiate pay, it could also cause all sorts of Title IX problems. (If anything, this change would be more in line with what you misunderstand as the current NIL rules.) But that's an issue for a different day.
barsad said:
Couldn't disagree with you more 01Bear, and it's not just the condescending way you mansplained NIL.
Here's what you might want to consider next time you're drinking the NIL Kool-Aid:
- One Supreme Court case is not the final word on an issue like this. It's never worked that way on any controversial issue I can think of. There will be challenges to it as schools try to control this chaos that has been unleashed, and aa students sue for other problems that arise. The NIL process today is not the one we'll have in 2034.
- There is already precedent in pro sports for governing sports organizations capping payrolls … of course the same would apply, and be perfectly legal, for college.
- Banning colluding restrictions on pay is NOT the same as "you must offer X money for Y service."
- You must have missed or purposely ignored my argument about all-student equity. I wasn't comparing unpaid students to millionaire coaches (or worse, coaches like Fox who ruin programs, then take the money and run). I was comparing student athletes and non-student athletes. Does one student expend more "blood, sweat and tears" for the university because he has a basketball in his hand instead of a lab beaker? Making an equity argument for an 18-year-old to make $2 mil is ridiculous. The students' pay scale comps are not coaches, its their non-athletic peers.
- Non-athletes and athletes who get paid to do "work" on university grounds are not different, or should be valued differently, because you cut the check from a different bank account and called the entity a "collective."
I get it… the whole Forum is made up of NIL donors, and you believe you're doing God's work by making Cal competitive. You are, in the short term, I'm just saying it's worth questioning the status quo.
Umm, no. You specifically stated:
Quote:
I've said it elsewhere, Cal should form a no-NIL or NIL-capped conference of like-minded top academic schools. Call it the Pac Clean Conference, the old PCC.
I explained exactly why that wasn't a good idea.
Also, you seem to have a completely mistaken understanding of what NIL is. The schools are not employing the student athletes. Rather, the student athletes are signing contracts with third parties (ostensibly licensing agreements for the use of their names, images, and likenesses). The rest of your arguments are also flawed nonsense.
Schools did not prohibit any student from making money off their names, images, or likenesses unless those students were student athletes. Your example of the student with a beaker is therefore beyond utterly ridiculous as that student never would've been barred from participating in future lab work at the school if he executed a NIL deal.
Also, under the NCAA regulations, pay for play is still not permitted, which is the essentially your "pay for services" argument. As such, NIL agreements are supposed to be for things like the use of an athlete's NIL for marketing purposes (e.g., local ads), licensing for media (e.g., console games), or for content produced by the student online (e.g., Youtube or Tik Tok content). Prior to the new changes, student athletes weren't permitted to profit from any of these revenue streams if they wanted to retain their athletic eligibility. In fact, Colorado had a football player whose athletic eligibility was stripped because he had marketing deals based on his skiing prowess (he was an Olympic level skiier and, IIRC, an actual Olympic skiier.)
If groups collude to cap payment for NIL, it can easily run afoul of laws such as antitrust law at the federal level and California's Unfair Competition Law at the state level. (Keep in mind, the capping of payrolls you mentioned was negotiated by unions with team owners in each sports league. As such, the players agreed to these limits; they weren't imposed by team owners unilaterally in an attempt to stymie competition or pay.) But if you think you have a valid argument to get around these laws, feel free to bring them to the NIL groups. But don't be surprised of they laugh you out of their offices.
Also, the source of payment is very important in the law. Whether this should be the case is a separate argument. However, as the law stands, it's the law. Just so you're clear, so long as someone is employed by a third party to do work at Cal, he's a contractor and not an university employee. This means the person is not eligible to participate in CalPers, receive University health insurance, or receive other benefits open to Cal employees. Similarly, a student athlete who signs a NIL contract with a third party is not a Cal employee.
I get it, you're young and think you have all the answers. Unfortunately, your youth also means you're inexperienced and are missing much of the picture. For starters, you think student athletes are somehow paid by the schools under the NIL rules. Next, you completely misunderstood what's permitted by the NCAA under the NIL rules. Additionally, you assume that other students do not have the right to exercise NIL deals.
Finally, if you want to be taken seriously by other posters in this group, drop the attitude. Your accusation that I'm "mansplaining" was asinine. To begin, I didn't know (and frankly, I don't care) what your sex is before I made my i initial post, let alone this current one. Regardless of whether you're a man or a woman, my comments would be the same. While accusing your youthful peers of "mansplaining" may be enough for you to "win an argument," it doesn't work on adults who value facts and rational reasoning and are not interested in playing petty games or "winning an argument."
That said, I do agree with you that the rules of today will likely not be the ones in 2034. As I mentioned in another thread, the NCAA is trying to implement a rule change requiring schools to spend 20% of athletic revenue on student athlete pay. This would mean students would actually become university employees. Not only would this allow student athletes to unionize and negotiate pay, it could also cause all sorts of Title IX problems. (If anything, this change would be more in line with what you misunderstand as the current NIL rules.) But that's an issue for a different day.
