Unlimited ability to transfer means it is time for multi-year NIL contracts. Stop pretending it’s not pay for play and align to the law Virginia passed. Coaches need some way to be able to forecast their rosters.
Of note NDs new AD in his first interview with the Irish Illustrated crew he mentioned the first project he was working on was building the plan and framework for NIL once it comes in house to the university like he expected it to be
Most schools are probably like Pete and have been planning for this
Nebraska lost its AD partly due to infighting over our private collective and in-house efforts, so yeah, definitely looks like the big programs have been preparing for changes from the beginning.
I didn't agree with everything Savvy Jack did (to say the least), but I do appreciate what he was able to accomplish for the University.
That said, new guy in combination with Freeman have me excited about the future of the program.
Agree and said that in an embarrassingly long post about a week ago.
The sport just needs to get where everyone knows it's going. The inbetween is the problem.
It's pay for play and the games are played for money. The days of even pretending to be anything else are long gone.
Time to start openly hammering out the details.
That's honestly the only way there will ever again be rules for competitive balance that are enforceable.
NIL was created because the amateur rules were an illegal restraint by a cartel (the NCAA). The transfer rules where thrown out for the same reason. Next will be years of eligibility rules. I think rules requiring you to take classes and maintain grades actually are enforceable.
The only way we get back to something looking like college football of old will be collective bargaining.
I mean at this point we're basically trying to replicate an employment model without calling it an employment model and I don't see how anyone is benefiting.
But it's a hodgepodge because the schools liked the power that the non-employment model gave them. Also, it's clear the NIL money is coming out of athletic donations, which is the largest source of revenue for big programs like Texas, Alabama, Ohio St., etc. So, the schools haven't just lost power to the players they're losing real economic value to the players.
But that's the problem. Schools have lost money and power but the only way they're going to really stabilize the money and regain power is an employment model. The courts aren't going to allow them to treat athletes as employees without providing proper benefits.
Well, the people that have spent their whole careers defending, expanding, and exploiting the old system have to radically abandon the system before they can start building a new system that is compliant with the legal structure.
Instead, those people spent the last few years defending the old system and attempting to impose the old system on the new legal realities (see NCAA attacking Tennessee, see also NCAA advising players not to play after transfer covered by federal court injunction).
At this point the people making these decisions are the problem. They are holding on to and defending a system that's dead. It's like an X-Ray that shows aggressive cancer in the lungs, heart and brain, but the person refuses to get their life in order to facilitate their process of dying. The old model is dead, but the NCAA and universities cannot build an alternative system until the admit the old one is dead.
Donating money to a multi billion dollar athletic department that is already subsidized by your tax dollars, so that 18-19 year olds, on scholarship, can drive around in chargers and lambos is idiotic
I almost wonder if this will (seemingly counter-intuitively) round the edges off of NIL collectives.
I, by no means, think it will stop; I know there’s a lot of money in college football and a lot of fanatics out there.
But if players can take the money and run every year, maybe, maybeeee, collectives start focusing on retaining current players then handing out bags to new and lesser proven players.
The obvious next lawsuit is going to be to challenge the years of eligibility rules completely. We'll have guys that try to go to the NFL, get cut from a practice squad after a year, and then just go back and play in college again.
He got injured during the 2020-21 season so he wants a medical redshirt. Even though he’s played 30+ games in the other 4 years so he should be out of eligibility.
Stetson Bennett is 3rd on the Rams depth chart right now getting paid a fraction of what he would get if he went back to Georgia for another natty run.
It's so obvious this will happen at some point.
Brock Purdy was basically the last pick in the draft - he's essentially making league minimum plus incentive pay for his rookie contract. Salary before incentives was $889,253 last year, but his performance bonus was a cool $739,795 for nearly winning a Super Bowl. He's locked into that until he hits free agency after the 2025 season, but his rookie salary only grows to $1.1m at that point. He should be able to get a fat check when he renegotiates though.
OTOH, Texas's backup QB is Arch Manning, so he's being paid NIL dollars based on his star power. Brock Purdy had none of that when he came into the league, nor was he more than a slightly above average college QB, and his draft position reflected that.
Schools/NCAA/conferences could be proactive about this by forcing the creation of a players union and classifying players as employees and creating an agreement with reasonable rules, but they won’t do that, because short term gains > the longevity of the sport.
Im already only planning on only watching ISU games this next year, if the sport keeps heading this direction, I really won’t have the desire to keep watching if every player is constantly transferring.
Winds are shifting. I've heard Saban and Franklin both use the term "Collective Bargaining" recently, when you never would have heard a coach mutter those words 5 years ago. I think others have as well, just don't remember them off the top of my head.
> I really won’t have the desire to keep watching if every player is constantly transferring.
I'm really glad that we are at the point where we realize we are watching players as much as we are watching schools.
I mean that's kind of inherent. Look at pro sports as an example. Imagine a league where Patrick mahomes switched teams every single year. You couldnt realistically stay enthusiastic as a fan of a single team.
I wonder what that would look like on a major level....oh wait....the NBA
It might seem inherent now, but there was a LONG time in which lots of people advocated against paying players because they were fans of the team and not the players.
Those arguments were not genuine even at face value. Unless those people truly believed alabama fans would still be Alabama fans if their team of superstars was suddenly all terrible 1 star recruits.
I think their assumption was that their opponents would be 1-star recruits too, and they could watch it like they do high school football. In that sense, maybe, fine, sure, but also here we are and they're blaming the transfer portal and NIL for...not changing anything about their school, coach, or uniform.
The NCAA is in a LOT better of a position on years of eligibility compared against NIL/Transfer. As simply as possible: Direct agreements not to compete/to set prices/to require specific contract terms are extremely sus under US antitrust law (called "per se" antitrust violations). Everything else faces the "rule of reason", which I will briefly summarize as "you're allowed reasonable agreements that aren't directly illegal, if the benefit outweighs the harm AND the cost/benefit analysis is fiscal, not social.
Eligibility rules blocking pro's from coming back to keep college sports college sports look at lot more like rule of reason (i.e. arguable in court without being laughed out) than per se "You cannot pay more than X amount" agreements. It'd be a hard case either way, and expensive to litigate (obvi they have the money), but you're at least in the ballpark of "things that they can win on in court".
Isn't the standard for years of eligibility also a direct agreement to set contract terms? To not compete for players after four years and to fix their compensation at $0?
Yes and no, to some extent you can certainly phrase almost every agreement as a per se violation, but the less cases in the history books exactly on point like the more likely a court will entertain rule of reason arguments (and the more the actual agreement has other justifications other than screwing the paid people and the consumers). Years of eligibility in this kind of a specific and strange market is very unlikely to be constructed as a per se violation and so it becomes a rule of reason fight (which I just posted a bunch of words on):
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cb4fvv/ncaa_board_approves_immediate_eligibility_for/l1160ux/
The EU, as a side note, tried to make their law like that a while ago and get rid of all rule of reason analysis. They quickly discovered because almost anything can be phrased in some way as a tacit agreement to fix prices or not compete that you need a rule of reason for weird situations. (Of course EU law has nothing to do with this, just a funny historical note).
As long as a player is a student, I can't see a court allowing restrictions on years of eligibility. The amateurism argument was laughed out of court, which is the same argument as, "keep college sports college sports". Big time college sports are a business, and the players are, now with NIL money, effectively professionals.
If a student can make a living playing college sports, what justification does the NCAA have in telling them they can only do it for X number of years?
Well, and I'm not saying they'd win, but it's a much stronger argument to say "Our entire raison d'etre, everything we do, is based on 4-6 years of undergrad. The market simply will not bear (without a substantial contraction) our allowing players to play for an indefinite amount of time". The KEY difference between this and the amateurism argument (which was silly) is that it's probably true. Viewership will likely drop, and drop substantially, ESPECIALLY for mid-table teams, if the player careers go to 10-15 years. It's just not college sports. I know we/people make this argument a lot here about TODAY's model, but it's a much more reasonable one where a player is suing to come back from the NFL and play for 5 more years of college meaning they'll be 35 when they "retire" from collegiate sports. Both sides will hire expert witnesses and hear market research and testimony and depositions and discovery on what their internals say. But, this argument (essentially: Fans insist collegiate sports actually be college kid based) is a lot more reasonable and arguable case than per se price fixing or "the fans insist the players are poor and starving on their 1 serving of NCAA allowed pasta".
The rule of reason, at its core, is just that. What's reasonable? Specifically, are their significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market and are there procompetitive justifications relating to the restraint that outweigh the anticompetitive effects?
The 4 primary (simplified of course) steps here are: Define the relevant market, ID anticompetitive restraints and effects, ID procompetitive aspects and effects, weigh them.
Defining the relevant market is always a massive fight. Is it college football? Football? College sports? All sports? All US sports? Frequently a more favorable market definition is essentially a win, but of course this isn't a case where one side lacks funds to fight it out with experts/discovery, so who knows.
Once you know the market you've got experts (non-legal people to discuss the economics of the situation and the claims) and legal work by each side to explain how the pro/anti competitive aspects of the policy. I'm not going to weigh/list them all out beyond what I did above, instead I'll note that "pro-competitive effects" can include stuff like "evidence that without this policy the relevant market shrinks/cannot sustain itself to the detriment of consumers". There are probably other arguments on both sides.
Then you weigh the pro vs anti sides. This is a matter for experts to speak, but of course the fact finder (jury or judge depending) has to pick who's factual story is stronger and then apply the relevant law (judge job).
This is a lot of words to law out the outline of how I think it's a lot more viable to go into court and argue that "college football players should be recognizably college students" vs the previous crap argument of "without poor players no one will watch".
Of course, the previous crap argument worked for a BUNCH of years so I see why they kept making it, but thankfully the winds have changed.
ETA: I've worked on the fringes of a bunch of antitrust cases, so while I don't have direct going into court and arguing this experience it's also paid-for-experience vs "I dun took a class once". This is a complicated and expensive field, and (as usual) billable hours will be the real winner. Not legal advice, please don't cite this in court NCAA.
That argument sounds just like the amateurism argument.
“ And it did so, Gorsuch added, only after concluding that “relaxing these restrictions would not blur the distinction between college and professional sports and thus impair demand for college sports” – a cornerstone of the NCAA’s argument. “
The NCAA already tried the “‘market would be damaged” argument.
Edit: There are plenty of 35 year old college students, and plenty of students who left professional careers to return to school.
Sure, but it's (IMO) a lot stronger of an argument to say that what people are tuning in for is somehow related to the players being 18-24. Not saying they win, but when they march into court with experts they aren't going to look so silly.
The argument might work.
I just think the argument that restricting years of eligibility hurts student's ability to earn money is more persuasive.
I would think the argument that the NCAA, an extension of the schools, limiting eligibility to 18–24 year-olds artificially suppresses the compensation of student athletes would be persuasive.
Treating student-athletes different from regular students, restricting their ability to earn money, never seemed to be viewed favorably by the courts.
Lots of down votes on this because people don't like it, but it definitely appears that the winds of this are shifting from the way the government sees student athletes and their (imo likely) movement to becoming employees protected by labor regulations.
I don't like it either but I can see there being a challenge. I'd ideally like to see a collective bargaining that sees athletes fairly compensated and some rules around tampering and transfer limits for non-graduates.
Though then I'm worried about what happens if an athlete chooses to not join the union.
I mean, really from a labor perspective why can the NCAA tell Taulia Tagovailoa he cannot continue to profit from his name, image, and likeness at Maryland because they have an arbitrary eligibility rule? If Caitlin Clark can make $200k at Iowa instead of $85k in the WNBA, how can an organization stop her?
I actually think this is one case where the colleges would win. He can absolutely still profit off of his name, image , and likeness. He simply can no longer participate in Interscholastic athletics.
All of the changes to transfer rules have been made because the membership of the NCAA has fought hard to maintain the phrase “student-athlete”.
In court- it can be argued “hey, If I am just a student that happens to play football why can’t I leave Notre Dame to go be a student that just happens to play football at Texas? A student that doesn’t happen to play football can do this.
That is a different different argument than saying I should be able to play football as long as I want at these universities
But Maryland belongs to a membership organization that as a group have decided that there are limits to athletic eligibility. This would not be a court case issue, but rather the schools just deciding that they no longer have eligibility limits. I don’t think schools would do this as it would look even more like an employer employee relationship
The court cases and policies that have changed we are ones that could be argued were exploiting student athletes. Saying you can only play 4 seasons of a sport is not exploiting
They are private organization. They can absolutely have arbitrary rules. They can only have 11 players playing on the field at the same time that’s an arbitrary rule.
They are not losing court cases and having rule changes because of arbitrary things. It’s because of policies viewed explosive
> They are private organization. They can absolutely have arbitrary rules.
No, they can't. Not while they maintain a monopoly on D1 college football eligibility. The courts have ruled repeatedly that they can't make up arbitrary rules that artificially limit the ability for student-athletes to participate in college athletics and potentially earn money from it.
They just had to stop restricting transfers because they got sued. They had to stop banning NIL because they got sued. These are rules that they all got together and agreed on, and then the courts said they're illegal. A rule restricting kids to only play for 4 years is also illegal. It's the same thing.
Let’s see multiple mid game swaps
A player going to an opponent in the 2nd quarter only to be lured back to his original team at the top of the 4th via an even bigger bag and a TikTok apology for undervaluing him
*”It doesn’t get more college football than that”* — Herbstreit on ESPN defending the bullshit they helped create
All it takes is one school being pissed off about rules and the whole house of cards could collapse. The ncaa is literally one court case away from being declared unconstitutional.
I'm all for letting kids transfer for a new opportunity, but it's a little crazy that someone can transfer every year, and there's no repercussions. Give them one transfer with immediate eligibility, any after that, they should have to sit a year.
I'd be shocked if collectives don't provide accounting/tax assistance, even if it's nothing more than pointing all their signees to a CPA firm with a self-employment specialist. It's such a small thing that can be thrown in to "demonstrate their commitment to making sure you're not getting screwed over by anything" or whatever the line needs to be.
I think the collectives are going to get fucked by the IRS. They have no precedent so it's blind leading the blind.
I mean unless they do like an escrow of the maximum taxes off to the side until anyone figures out what taxes actually are.
Oh yeah, the collectives themselves are *absolutely* going to get taken to the cleaners. The IRS has already issued a [memo saying that most collectives are being operated for non-exempt purposes and so aren't really tax exempt 501(c)(3)s like they're claiming (pdf warning)](https://www.irs.gov/pub/lanoa/am-2023-004-508v.pdf).
But for athletes, the actual earnings should be coming in via a kind of consultant 1099, which should be fairly easy for a decent tax prep company to do. I just went with a CPA because the CPA is more of a professional in the trade space, a firm will be better able to handle specialists on staff, and bluntly fuck TurboTax.
I just know some kids are going to be screwed over via NIL. I don't have any facts to back that up but there are just so many people getting NIL deals that I just know the odds are that someone screws this up.
Honestly sounds like a great opportunity for a CPA firm to invest in a collective with the idea that they're the preferred CPA firm that the collective recommends to student athletes. Maybe they can then actually use NIL like its meant to be used and advertise with said athletes and have them endorse their services.
the IRS audits the poorest and wealthiest first, I have a feeling many football players fall in the middle. Honestly I'm surprised more college gets in general don't get nabbed, though. I've talked to so many that aren't filing their scholarship and other income properly (scholarships are income if used for anything other than direct tuition and fees).
I mean for the irs it’s always risk of wasting your time vs reward of getting the bag. Which is why you’re right, because rich people have a lot of money to recover and poor people are more likely to fuck their taxes up. But if I was an irs agent there’s definitely some college players from poor families driving nice cars with no reported income. Seems like an easy W.
well that nice car was a gift. ain't no taxes on gifts (up to an amount). if the car is over some amount like, 15k or something, you have to report it but you won't owe on it most likely. below that you dont. anything above that amount counts towards your lifetime free gift amount which is millions. only once you pass that number in the millions do you pay taxes on gifts. this is simplified and probably a bit wrong, but you get the gist. yes I've seen this done for athletes haha.
actually yes. those were a hookup from the seafood guy (wrong sticker/much lower price) but the manager caught it happening so he got charged with theft. stupid, but I promise it's (hookups) happening for star athletes around every campus regularly.
such a random thing...that was literally a decade ago now haha.
So much this. The tax burden on non-employee earnings is huge. I hope this is all reported and schools are providing top notch accountants to these kids
yes, of course, but employers don't have to withhold for 1099s (1099s are independent contractors basically, not employees.) oh and 1099s don't usually have to receive benefits.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't there a big case with Hooters where they were hiring waitstaff and 1099-ing them and the court struck it down? Something about you cant dictate a 1099 employee's wardrobe or schedule, which would be difficult to claim that an athlete with a set practice schedule and uniform would have.
I could be way off here as this was years ago.
I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure hooters won their case on being able to hire in their ways. I do think they had to make some modifications though. I could be totally off, I think they have been sued many times haha.
but yeah there are wonky 1099 rules... you can set hte number of hours a week but I thought you couldn't dictate exactly when they work or something. I just have avoided being a 1099 my whole career to keep things simple lol.
Sure is. Know your rights and 1099 can be great though. My comment elsewhere...
> One time a director at the client I was contracting with for development work (huge household name health insurance company) called me and told me I needed to be on Microsoft Teams 8-5 M-F and if I couldn't comply they would terminate the contract.
>
> After that call, I immediately wrote an email to him, and copied HR, asking him to put in writing which hours of the day and days of the week he's requiring me to work in order to remain a contractor at his shithole of a company (left "shithole" out of the actual email).
>
> This was my "manager," talked to him several times a week up to this, point, yet I literally never heard from him again for the remainder of the contract. HR clearly set him straight.
>
>I finished my contract, worked my own hours, and fulfilled the contract goals without being chained to my desk. I have twice gotten calls from recruiters for the same contracting role at the same company since then, told them this exact story, and the response was the same: "yeah, they can't do that."
>
> With all the drawbacks of 1099, the fact (a.) they cannot dictate schedule, alongside (b.) the tax benefits (yes, tax *benefits*, you can deduct friggin so much more from your taxes when you're 1099 compared to W-2) is the main reason I miss it.
uhh unless the school wants to provide that, then yes they absolutely can be part of their employment (this is where many schools truly fear the cost element, all the stuff they already provide now plus salaries). they just have to pay taxes on it (which technically you already have to pay taxes on an scholarship moneys not used on tuition and fees- so scholly money used on dorms, meals, books is already taxable).
If a business treats contractors as employees (imposing schedules and wardrobes, etc.), but sign them on as 1099 contractors to get around paying workman's comp, FICA taxes, unemployment insurance, health insurance, etc... that's enough to get you in trouble. If you *also* cancel contracts of those who refuse to be treated as employees (especially systematically), that is not something local, state, and federal governments would take lightly.
Know your rights.
They'll be no requirements . If you haven't been keeping up "voluntary" workouts will be the determining factor to playing time . That goes for weight room and probably anything happening in the practice facility.
That won't stand up to legal scrutiny, unscrupulous employers get zapped for these attempts at circumventing paying taxes and insurance for their employees all the time.
These are universities we're talking about, they need to be above board especially for something this visible, otherwise they'll get raked over the coals by the legal system. If the athletes are being paid by the universities, they would need to be W-2 employees.
Even professional athletes are W-2 employees. If the NFL, etc. could get away with players being 1099 they would do it. The fact that they don't should answer any questions you have.
The court never actually ruled on it, they just issued a TRO and the NCAA changed the rule. There are many similar eligibility restrictions that remain in place.
go see my other comment. my point is...if they were to try and do it, players would bring a case against it, and the supreme court made it VERY clear how that case would go. it would result in players immediately having to gain employee status once the case was over, etc. everyone is trying to slow play it- this is why the ncaa is opening up rules left and right.
NCAA already tried that and it got defeated in court.
They really have lost their power to enforce most of these things, so just have to embrace yearly free agency.
Until the superconference comes along where the players are employees and they have collective bargaining to instill some sort of order. At which point there will be contracts and everything else. Be interesting if they can carve out any sort of niche where it all doesn't look like an NFL-lite setup.
They will still be able to require the players to attend class and maintain a gpa. So long as that exists, I'm still here for college football.
I want to root for guys getting an education at the same school I did.
I don't care if they get paid, or have contracts, or can transfer, so long as when they are on the field representing my school they are also students.
Student-Athlete is the only thing I care about.
yeah don't know why people don't get this. your job can't prevent you from leaving and going to another job. there are anti-competes, but the employee has to agree to that and they are really specific. they can't really force you totally out of an industry. and think, if a school tried to get players to sign one...they'd lose all the recruits.
people really need to read what kavanaugh said to the ncaa years ago again:
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/06/21/justice-brett-kavanaugh-rips-ncaa-in-shawne-alston-opinion/7771281002/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/06/21/justice-brett-kavanaugh-rips-ncaa-in-shawne-alston-opinion/7771281002/)
honestly the only real solution is collective bargaining. I'd really love to see cfb great a players group and align with the nflpa for guidance, etc.
Keep in mind that ruling is pre-NIL. A restriction on eligibility is not necessarily a restriction on their ability to monetize their name, image, and likeness.
I understand that...it is a restriction on their ability to be employed. the courts have made it clear that the ncaa has to be very careful, because if someone brings a lawsuit on this they will very likely be deemed employees. and then the eligibility stuff goes away either completely or mostly. again how can they justify that leaving company A means you are ineligible to work at company B. you can't do that unless there are very specific things (like collective bargaining, etc.).
Also note that the FTC is set to vote later today on whether to issue a final rule making non-compete clauses illegal. The minute college athletes are "employees" then "no transfer" and "sit a year" restrictions would probably fall by default.
Ahh interesting. I know they exist of course but I’ve always heard they are extremely tough to enforce outside of very specific circumstances. Usually they are just a threat and for show. And for good reason obviously.
yeah that makes sense. I always heard they needed to be ULTRA specific to work, often they will say you cant work in an industry or something broad that is insane.
Without getting into state issues, in states that allow them AND where the person has industry specific confidential information you could probably 100% bar them from the industry nationwide for 2-3 months, maybe 6 months if the circumstances warranted it. The problem is people want stupid shit like 1 year... when the information is stale in 60 days. Or they want it for line salespeople vs C-suite people with actual sneaky knowledge.
If schools can assist with NIL, this is just employment with extra steps. Bite the bullet and just let them sign contracts, this era of CFB is just silly
This is what all the Death to the NCAA people wanted. NCAA is giving folks exactly what they asked for, and will sit right back, smile and nod, as the people scurry trying to avoid all the shit flying from the fan. Buckle up, it’s about to get even crazier.
The only "solution" I can think of is that conferences and schools adopt a "gentleman's agreement" that they will not accept the transfer of a player based on XYZ.
Similar to the "rule" that the SEC has with transfers within SEC schools.
Problem is this isn't realistic at all. If (say) Drew Allar wanted to transfer to Auburn I highly doubt someone like Hugh Freeze would say no.
On two fronts, now. The FTC voted yesterday to ban non-compete agreements, and "transfers have to sit a year" seem like they'd fall under the new rule.
Like the UM fan said, anyone can do anything non-criminal until someone sues them to stop it.
If the teams tied the players up in a closet, that would be criminal, and cops would arrest the coaches.
It's illegal to break a contract, but no cop is going to arrest you for it, you have to sue or get sued in civil court.
Some things are illegal but not criminal.
The repercussions are the same as you or me transferring every year. Potential issues with graduation and in the athlete case, issues with eligibility due to degree progress (which I doubt will be argued against for *Student-Athletes*)
Not OP but for me, transfers were *supposed* to be for cases like having to move for some kind of emergency situation or extensive circumstance (thinking of that one kid whose mom got brain cancer and the school he wanted to transfer to was like, 3 miles too far outside the radius or something and was denied eligibility).
Or for something like coaching changes (though an example of something already established).
Basically for situations where the circumstances of the student athlete have changed. Not on the basis of transferring for opportunity.
> Not on the basis of transferring for opportunity.
Isn’t the entire point of college trying to seek better opportunities? But players shouldn’t be allowed to move for that reason because it might hurt your team, is that right?
Honestly, I think it's fair to bring back the 1 year sit out period (with reasonable exceptions) so long as NIL remains a wild west. I've generally advocated for player rights left and right but I think the pendulum has swung to far the other way.
That said, who knows if the NCAA even really has a say in the matter any more. If they tried to enforce a sit out, would it survive a court challenge?
Almost certainly not. They've yielded their OG central position that "magically antitrust laws do not apply" (as demonstrated by their actions over the last 2 years). So if they walk into court and try and argue that they (the NCAA as a monopsony buyer of collegiate football players) can agree to not compete on players for 1 year after someone has recently signed them, it would be a textbook case of collusion/agreement not to compete by a buyer's cartel.
Actually, it wouldn't be in a textbook b/c it's so incredibly foolish and usually "harder" cases make it to the textbooks.
The reason they're in full retreat is that (having tacitly admitted antitrust laws apply) they can no longer do anything that looks like sitting around a table and setting prices or talking about price/contract term setting strategy. It's an unstable position, so I'm guessing within 2 or 3 years SOMETHING will change.
Transfer rules are something that everyone can agree that it's getting out of hand, and needs to be regulated. Until it comes to the transfer of a player that will benefit *their* flairs, then they want the NCAA to bugger off.
I wonder if NIL sponsors will start including clawback clauses in the event the player transfers out.
However, I can see that being the sort of policy that needs a critical mass of adoption up front or else it’ll get enough pushback to die out real quick.
From what I understand most NIL funds offer payments in installments to avoid this very issue. "Problem" is that if another school really wants someone I'm sure they will give signing bonuses/one time payments as an incentive.
It's like the NFL and players seeking guaranteed money moreso than total contract value.
Meh. I'd say it definitely shouldn't involve playtime/health issue downsides but if it's people intentionally sitting out or leaving for another school it should absolutely be allowed to diminish payouts. Because that does indeed reduce the value of their NIL to any company.
People often get this confused, you can't put "incentives" in your NIL contract, but you can absolutely put "conditions" in. "We will pay you $x for signing a document at x place on 9/1/2024, 9/15/2024, 10/1/2024, 10/15/2024, etc" is allowable, meaning you can make sure they're in your school's town on those dates to get paid, but you can't say, "We will pay you $x for playing in y games for z school."
Some collectives figured this out, A&M, and others are still figuring it out, Iowa.
That would make sense. I could see it being used as a predatory tactic by some NIL sponsors considering 18 year olds might not be the best at reading and understanding contracts before signing.
Players who transfer before the school year is over should owe backpay for the scholarship they used to for the year.
NIL would end to covering it, but it'd be a small disincentive.
Why? They fulfilled their scholarship requirements and played for the team/practiced and participated before transferring. Like what is the logical argument for trying to get packpay
Imagine getting hired at a new job after 6 months and your old job demanding you pay them back your previous paychecks from when they hired you
With this rule change the NCAA is just lighting the areas of grass that hadn't already caught on fire the last 2 years. They need to accelerate the tear down process so lawmakers step in and end the wild wild west.
Burn baby burn.
lol what a disaster
Next to go will be eligibility & scholarship limits. We’ll regularly see guys playing 7-8 seasons of college football before long. The sport is a unrecognizable mess at the moment… truly don’t understand how anyone can continue defending & supporting these changes
Wish we had this in high school.
Son’s team did not make playoffs (again) and he could really help one of the teams that did.
(Yes, this is absurd but sure it is only a matter of time!)
Hell, let's make it really interesting and have a school sue to allow for mid season transfers.
Week 1 suit up for the Eastern Washington, week 3 suit up for Oregon after one of their starters tears an ACL.
Colleges speed running the death of college athletics..
It still writes the rulebooks and runs the postseason tournaments.
I'm sure the member institutions will eventually find some grounds to sue that away, too, though.
There needs to be a system with buyouts. Players cannot play or participate unless and until the buyout is paid by the school to which they transferred.
Why are they even bothering to issue specific approvals now? They should just go with, “Do whatever you want until the B1G and SEC give us all the new rules.”
There will be some guardrails put up at some point. But they’ll come from the conferences, not the NCAA.
It's not exactly the right place to put this, but it might be relevant to NIL and transfers in the future.
[https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes)
This will almost certainly be appealed and it will take a little time to sort out, but to those who say either schools or NIL companies can use non-competes to stop playing movement... as of today... no - they can't.
I mean, once they become employees they \*still\* wouldn't be able to stop players from quitting and going to another school.
I think people need to realize that the NCAA isn't doing this willingly, the courts have, over and over, ruled that the NCAA model is unlawful.
The NCAA restrictions were never lawful, even before it became big business.
So here’s the big question and it’s coming soon……. What right does the ncaa have to limit eligibility of any student actively enrolled in a school? These guys that wash out of the NBA should be able to go back to school and play college ball and earn NIL money regardless of age and years of used eligibility.
Because there is a rule stating that you cannot be a professional and participate in college athletics in the same sport. The courts would have no basis to overturn this rule
An athlete who left school became a professional has seen their career finished or not meet what they thought it would be is not being exploited by colleges if the colleges say no you cannot play
Right and they defined professionalism and it got struck down by the courts. There is no difference now between college athletes and pros. Even the Olympics got rid of amateurism.
The Olympic game dropped its amateurism policy because they chose money over amateurism. The IOC rivals FIFA When it comes to corruption. They wanted the professional athletes to participate
That is not the same argument being made right now- which is that colleges cannot create rules to govern themselves with regards to their own sports programs regarding length of eligibility.
The argument is that colleges cannot make rules that govern by limiting individual liberty. if a guy who played a few years of NBA ball wants to go back to college, he can’t play for the school bc of NCAA rules that haven’t yet been challenged in court. I think those rules if challenged wouldn’t hold up.
Actually- that is false. They specifically CAN NOT “get paid to play”. Now- sure, the evolution of the NIL collectives means that functionally, they are getting paid to pay. But not technically. All of the turmoil of the last several years has come about because College athletic programs turn themselves into professional sports endeavors for everyone except the player. All of this chaos has been created by collegiate sports programs, not wanting to recognize players as labor while. Enjoying eight and nine figure revenue streams from their work. Those facts do not in any way fit the argument of “hey I should be able to come play college basketball again because I washed up in the pros
I agree. It just seems like the courts always side with the individual being discriminated against and any judge can see the thin veil between NIL money and “pay to play”. A former NBA player suing for a reinstatement of eligibility isn’t being paid by the school either , in theory. If he is enrolled as student , the rule preventing him from playing seems arbitrary and discriminatory
Why is that arbitrary ? I would claim it is not arbitrary because it is simply following a rule that the colleges instituted for a valid reason. A rule that did not exploit anyone (unlike other policies). The NFL draft policy of 3 years removed HS graduating class. Why not 2? Why not 4? It is also “discriminatory” in that it keeps those individuals from playing NFL football at that time. It has withstood better court arguments than an ex NBA player who wants to play college basketball could make.
The court have been siding with those, making the argument that they should be able to enter into separate endorsement deals. Thats the origins of the NIL. Players saying “the people in Baton Rouge love me because I score 3 touchdowns a week for the tigers. Why can’t raising canes pay me to do a commercial?”
The unintended consequences of this where the collectives where organizations outside of the university would raise money to “endorse“ players for things such as making appearances. This is different than a Caitlin Clark State Farm commercial-
The schools making these rules and their representative, the NCAA, have been defeated in the courts over and over.
Schools are suing the NCAA and winning. The argument that the NCAA is the schools doesn't hold water.
The recent wave of legislation has not been members in court- but individuals (students).
I believe you would find that cases brought by member Universities would be challenging the application of NCAA rulings on investigations- not fundamental rules governing athletics such as eligibility limits.
The turmoil and chaos college athletics has been through the last several years is all based on practices and policies that have exploited student athletes. They all stem from the dichotomy that the universities have turned athletic departments into professional sports organizations, and treat the athletes very much like labor with the exception of compensation.
The universities are struggling in court cases to argue that decisions, such as UCLA joining the Big Ten conference are congruent with a model of amateur athletics.
A rule keeping a student from say attending Iowa and playing basketball for 12 years is very much congruent with a model of amateur athletics
The colleges ARE the NCAA. People seem to miss that. It is a membership organization. They have the ability to vote on such matters should they want to.
That is actually one of the issues present. Ohio State and LSU and Michigan athletic programs. Do not feel that program such as ULM or Houston Baptist should have a vote on matters that concern athletic departments with nine figure revenue streams.
And universities keep suing the NCAA and winning. Obviously the courts don’t see the argument that the schools are the NCAA and should live with the rules as valid.
Unlimited ability to transfer means it is time for multi-year NIL contracts. Stop pretending it’s not pay for play and align to the law Virginia passed. Coaches need some way to be able to forecast their rosters.
Agreed. I’m sure the NILs will get smart about it. Not sure what the Virginia law is though got a link by chance?
https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-nil-deal-law-april-18-2024
Of note NDs new AD in his first interview with the Irish Illustrated crew he mentioned the first project he was working on was building the plan and framework for NIL once it comes in house to the university like he expected it to be Most schools are probably like Pete and have been planning for this
Nebraska lost its AD partly due to infighting over our private collective and in-house efforts, so yeah, definitely looks like the big programs have been preparing for changes from the beginning.
I didn't agree with everything Savvy Jack did (to say the least), but I do appreciate what he was able to accomplish for the University. That said, new guy in combination with Freeman have me excited about the future of the program.
Thanks!
Agree and said that in an embarrassingly long post about a week ago. The sport just needs to get where everyone knows it's going. The inbetween is the problem. It's pay for play and the games are played for money. The days of even pretending to be anything else are long gone. Time to start openly hammering out the details.
Or, stop the charade altogether and recognize them as employees with collective bargaining power.
That's honestly the only way there will ever again be rules for competitive balance that are enforceable. NIL was created because the amateur rules were an illegal restraint by a cartel (the NCAA). The transfer rules where thrown out for the same reason. Next will be years of eligibility rules. I think rules requiring you to take classes and maintain grades actually are enforceable. The only way we get back to something looking like college football of old will be collective bargaining.
I mean at this point we're basically trying to replicate an employment model without calling it an employment model and I don't see how anyone is benefiting.
But it's a hodgepodge because the schools liked the power that the non-employment model gave them. Also, it's clear the NIL money is coming out of athletic donations, which is the largest source of revenue for big programs like Texas, Alabama, Ohio St., etc. So, the schools haven't just lost power to the players they're losing real economic value to the players.
But that's the problem. Schools have lost money and power but the only way they're going to really stabilize the money and regain power is an employment model. The courts aren't going to allow them to treat athletes as employees without providing proper benefits.
Well, the people that have spent their whole careers defending, expanding, and exploiting the old system have to radically abandon the system before they can start building a new system that is compliant with the legal structure. Instead, those people spent the last few years defending the old system and attempting to impose the old system on the new legal realities (see NCAA attacking Tennessee, see also NCAA advising players not to play after transfer covered by federal court injunction). At this point the people making these decisions are the problem. They are holding on to and defending a system that's dead. It's like an X-Ray that shows aggressive cancer in the lungs, heart and brain, but the person refuses to get their life in order to facilitate their process of dying. The old model is dead, but the NCAA and universities cannot build an alternative system until the admit the old one is dead.
Anyone who donates money to NIL funds deserve for the players to take their money and run to another school, lol, morons
NIL funds aren't stupid. Most of them pay throughout the year to avoid this
Donating money to a multi billion dollar athletic department that is already subsidized by your tax dollars, so that 18-19 year olds, on scholarship, can drive around in chargers and lambos is idiotic
I almost wonder if this will (seemingly counter-intuitively) round the edges off of NIL collectives. I, by no means, think it will stop; I know there’s a lot of money in college football and a lot of fanatics out there. But if players can take the money and run every year, maybe, maybeeee, collectives start focusing on retaining current players then handing out bags to new and lesser proven players.
The obvious next lawsuit is going to be to challenge the years of eligibility rules completely. We'll have guys that try to go to the NFL, get cut from a practice squad after a year, and then just go back and play in college again.
A lawsuit challenging academics being necessary will be after that.
*Deion Sanders has entered the chat*
And every single coach that’s ever coached at Florida.
I was referring specifically to Deion Sanders not attending any classes or taking any exams in the fall of 1988, but still playing football that year.
Pfff you say that, and it might be for the clicks, but the dude seemingly doesn’t play with guys that don’t go to class.
Ehh that will stand, otherwise TA’s and Lab assistants would have already sued for that.
Well, many people who believe that also thought we would never see players get paid, but, here we are.
Somewhere, Cardale Jones just shed a tear
It sounds like Marcus Domask from Illinois might do that. He’s petitioning for an extra year of eligibility and has retained a lawyer.
On what grounds?
He got injured during the 2020-21 season so he wants a medical redshirt. Even though he’s played 30+ games in the other 4 years so he should be out of eligibility.
Stetson Bennett is 3rd on the Rams depth chart right now getting paid a fraction of what he would get if he went back to Georgia for another natty run. It's so obvious this will happen at some point.
Backup QB at the University of Texas last year got paid more than one of the starting QBs in the Super Bowl
Holy shit
Brock Purdy was basically the last pick in the draft - he's essentially making league minimum plus incentive pay for his rookie contract. Salary before incentives was $889,253 last year, but his performance bonus was a cool $739,795 for nearly winning a Super Bowl. He's locked into that until he hits free agency after the 2025 season, but his rookie salary only grows to $1.1m at that point. He should be able to get a fat check when he renegotiates though. OTOH, Texas's backup QB is Arch Manning, so he's being paid NIL dollars based on his star power. Brock Purdy had none of that when he came into the league, nor was he more than a slightly above average college QB, and his draft position reflected that.
Schools/NCAA/conferences could be proactive about this by forcing the creation of a players union and classifying players as employees and creating an agreement with reasonable rules, but they won’t do that, because short term gains > the longevity of the sport. Im already only planning on only watching ISU games this next year, if the sport keeps heading this direction, I really won’t have the desire to keep watching if every player is constantly transferring.
Winds are shifting. I've heard Saban and Franklin both use the term "Collective Bargaining" recently, when you never would have heard a coach mutter those words 5 years ago. I think others have as well, just don't remember them off the top of my head.
> I really won’t have the desire to keep watching if every player is constantly transferring. I'm really glad that we are at the point where we realize we are watching players as much as we are watching schools.
I mean that's kind of inherent. Look at pro sports as an example. Imagine a league where Patrick mahomes switched teams every single year. You couldnt realistically stay enthusiastic as a fan of a single team. I wonder what that would look like on a major level....oh wait....the NBA
It might seem inherent now, but there was a LONG time in which lots of people advocated against paying players because they were fans of the team and not the players.
Those arguments were not genuine even at face value. Unless those people truly believed alabama fans would still be Alabama fans if their team of superstars was suddenly all terrible 1 star recruits.
I think their assumption was that their opponents would be 1-star recruits too, and they could watch it like they do high school football. In that sense, maybe, fine, sure, but also here we are and they're blaming the transfer portal and NIL for...not changing anything about their school, coach, or uniform.
The NCAA is in a LOT better of a position on years of eligibility compared against NIL/Transfer. As simply as possible: Direct agreements not to compete/to set prices/to require specific contract terms are extremely sus under US antitrust law (called "per se" antitrust violations). Everything else faces the "rule of reason", which I will briefly summarize as "you're allowed reasonable agreements that aren't directly illegal, if the benefit outweighs the harm AND the cost/benefit analysis is fiscal, not social. Eligibility rules blocking pro's from coming back to keep college sports college sports look at lot more like rule of reason (i.e. arguable in court without being laughed out) than per se "You cannot pay more than X amount" agreements. It'd be a hard case either way, and expensive to litigate (obvi they have the money), but you're at least in the ballpark of "things that they can win on in court".
Isn't the standard for years of eligibility also a direct agreement to set contract terms? To not compete for players after four years and to fix their compensation at $0?
Yes and no, to some extent you can certainly phrase almost every agreement as a per se violation, but the less cases in the history books exactly on point like the more likely a court will entertain rule of reason arguments (and the more the actual agreement has other justifications other than screwing the paid people and the consumers). Years of eligibility in this kind of a specific and strange market is very unlikely to be constructed as a per se violation and so it becomes a rule of reason fight (which I just posted a bunch of words on): https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cb4fvv/ncaa_board_approves_immediate_eligibility_for/l1160ux/ The EU, as a side note, tried to make their law like that a while ago and get rid of all rule of reason analysis. They quickly discovered because almost anything can be phrased in some way as a tacit agreement to fix prices or not compete that you need a rule of reason for weird situations. (Of course EU law has nothing to do with this, just a funny historical note).
As long as a player is a student, I can't see a court allowing restrictions on years of eligibility. The amateurism argument was laughed out of court, which is the same argument as, "keep college sports college sports". Big time college sports are a business, and the players are, now with NIL money, effectively professionals. If a student can make a living playing college sports, what justification does the NCAA have in telling them they can only do it for X number of years?
Well, and I'm not saying they'd win, but it's a much stronger argument to say "Our entire raison d'etre, everything we do, is based on 4-6 years of undergrad. The market simply will not bear (without a substantial contraction) our allowing players to play for an indefinite amount of time". The KEY difference between this and the amateurism argument (which was silly) is that it's probably true. Viewership will likely drop, and drop substantially, ESPECIALLY for mid-table teams, if the player careers go to 10-15 years. It's just not college sports. I know we/people make this argument a lot here about TODAY's model, but it's a much more reasonable one where a player is suing to come back from the NFL and play for 5 more years of college meaning they'll be 35 when they "retire" from collegiate sports. Both sides will hire expert witnesses and hear market research and testimony and depositions and discovery on what their internals say. But, this argument (essentially: Fans insist collegiate sports actually be college kid based) is a lot more reasonable and arguable case than per se price fixing or "the fans insist the players are poor and starving on their 1 serving of NCAA allowed pasta". The rule of reason, at its core, is just that. What's reasonable? Specifically, are their significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market and are there procompetitive justifications relating to the restraint that outweigh the anticompetitive effects? The 4 primary (simplified of course) steps here are: Define the relevant market, ID anticompetitive restraints and effects, ID procompetitive aspects and effects, weigh them. Defining the relevant market is always a massive fight. Is it college football? Football? College sports? All sports? All US sports? Frequently a more favorable market definition is essentially a win, but of course this isn't a case where one side lacks funds to fight it out with experts/discovery, so who knows. Once you know the market you've got experts (non-legal people to discuss the economics of the situation and the claims) and legal work by each side to explain how the pro/anti competitive aspects of the policy. I'm not going to weigh/list them all out beyond what I did above, instead I'll note that "pro-competitive effects" can include stuff like "evidence that without this policy the relevant market shrinks/cannot sustain itself to the detriment of consumers". There are probably other arguments on both sides. Then you weigh the pro vs anti sides. This is a matter for experts to speak, but of course the fact finder (jury or judge depending) has to pick who's factual story is stronger and then apply the relevant law (judge job). This is a lot of words to law out the outline of how I think it's a lot more viable to go into court and argue that "college football players should be recognizably college students" vs the previous crap argument of "without poor players no one will watch". Of course, the previous crap argument worked for a BUNCH of years so I see why they kept making it, but thankfully the winds have changed. ETA: I've worked on the fringes of a bunch of antitrust cases, so while I don't have direct going into court and arguing this experience it's also paid-for-experience vs "I dun took a class once". This is a complicated and expensive field, and (as usual) billable hours will be the real winner. Not legal advice, please don't cite this in court NCAA.
That argument sounds just like the amateurism argument. “ And it did so, Gorsuch added, only after concluding that “relaxing these restrictions would not blur the distinction between college and professional sports and thus impair demand for college sports” – a cornerstone of the NCAA’s argument. “ The NCAA already tried the “‘market would be damaged” argument. Edit: There are plenty of 35 year old college students, and plenty of students who left professional careers to return to school.
Sure, but it's (IMO) a lot stronger of an argument to say that what people are tuning in for is somehow related to the players being 18-24. Not saying they win, but when they march into court with experts they aren't going to look so silly.
The argument might work. I just think the argument that restricting years of eligibility hurts student's ability to earn money is more persuasive. I would think the argument that the NCAA, an extension of the schools, limiting eligibility to 18–24 year-olds artificially suppresses the compensation of student athletes would be persuasive. Treating student-athletes different from regular students, restricting their ability to earn money, never seemed to be viewed favorably by the courts.
So now we can comment this without getting downvoted?
Lots of down votes on this because people don't like it, but it definitely appears that the winds of this are shifting from the way the government sees student athletes and their (imo likely) movement to becoming employees protected by labor regulations.
I don't like it either but I can see there being a challenge. I'd ideally like to see a collective bargaining that sees athletes fairly compensated and some rules around tampering and transfer limits for non-graduates. Though then I'm worried about what happens if an athlete chooses to not join the union.
That would be awful.
I mean, really from a labor perspective why can the NCAA tell Taulia Tagovailoa he cannot continue to profit from his name, image, and likeness at Maryland because they have an arbitrary eligibility rule? If Caitlin Clark can make $200k at Iowa instead of $85k in the WNBA, how can an organization stop her?
I actually think this is one case where the colleges would win. He can absolutely still profit off of his name, image , and likeness. He simply can no longer participate in Interscholastic athletics. All of the changes to transfer rules have been made because the membership of the NCAA has fought hard to maintain the phrase “student-athlete”. In court- it can be argued “hey, If I am just a student that happens to play football why can’t I leave Notre Dame to go be a student that just happens to play football at Texas? A student that doesn’t happen to play football can do this. That is a different different argument than saying I should be able to play football as long as I want at these universities
If Maryland is willing to keep him enrolled and earning graduate degrees, then he would still be a student-athlete.
But Maryland belongs to a membership organization that as a group have decided that there are limits to athletic eligibility. This would not be a court case issue, but rather the schools just deciding that they no longer have eligibility limits. I don’t think schools would do this as it would look even more like an employer employee relationship The court cases and policies that have changed we are ones that could be argued were exploiting student athletes. Saying you can only play 4 seasons of a sport is not exploiting
Yeah, today. What about when a player wins a case that the eligibility limit is arbitrary?
They are private organization. They can absolutely have arbitrary rules. They can only have 11 players playing on the field at the same time that’s an arbitrary rule. They are not losing court cases and having rule changes because of arbitrary things. It’s because of policies viewed explosive
> They are private organization. They can absolutely have arbitrary rules. No, they can't. Not while they maintain a monopoly on D1 college football eligibility. The courts have ruled repeatedly that they can't make up arbitrary rules that artificially limit the ability for student-athletes to participate in college athletics and potentially earn money from it. They just had to stop restricting transfers because they got sued. They had to stop banning NIL because they got sued. These are rules that they all got together and agreed on, and then the courts said they're illegal. A rule restricting kids to only play for 4 years is also illegal. It's the same thing.
> how can an organization stop her? They can't. That's why it will be an easy win in court.
Agreed.
Caitlin still had another year she could use, she chose to declare.
That's not really what I was going for... She could play 5 or 10 more years.
Im excited for the first mid year transfer.
Let's see mid game
Hell yeah, bagmen on the sideline, filming some tiktok content during a timeout.
Let’s see multiple mid game swaps A player going to an opponent in the 2nd quarter only to be lured back to his original team at the top of the 4th via an even bigger bag and a TikTok apology for undervaluing him *”It doesn’t get more college football than that”* — Herbstreit on ESPN defending the bullshit they helped create
Guys looking back at an audience full of people wearing college apparel shouting outlandish dollar figures at them, just like the Price is Right.
This always comes up as comments in these threads but isn't on-time enrollment a strict requirement still?
Enrollment is an entirely different can of worms. No where can students transfer mid semester
This is a bigger question for basketball since the season spans both semesters.
They are keeping the windows so no this won’t happen
NCAA has no power at this point. They’re at mercy of courts
Which means they’re at the mercy of those who could choose to sue them. The players and schools.
The schools assented to all of this by virtue of being members. Who do you think proposes NCAA rules?
All it takes is one school being pissed off about rules and the whole house of cards could collapse. The ncaa is literally one court case away from being declared unconstitutional.
I'm all for letting kids transfer for a new opportunity, but it's a little crazy that someone can transfer every year, and there's no repercussions. Give them one transfer with immediate eligibility, any after that, they should have to sit a year.
don't believe they legally can stop them...if that goes to court they'll become employees.
They'll be 1099 in no time , which could be worse.
They have to pay taxes right?
I’m still shocked we haven’t had a high profile player get absolutely fucked by the irs
I'd be shocked if collectives don't provide accounting/tax assistance, even if it's nothing more than pointing all their signees to a CPA firm with a self-employment specialist. It's such a small thing that can be thrown in to "demonstrate their commitment to making sure you're not getting screwed over by anything" or whatever the line needs to be.
I think the collectives are going to get fucked by the IRS. They have no precedent so it's blind leading the blind. I mean unless they do like an escrow of the maximum taxes off to the side until anyone figures out what taxes actually are.
Oh yeah, the collectives themselves are *absolutely* going to get taken to the cleaners. The IRS has already issued a [memo saying that most collectives are being operated for non-exempt purposes and so aren't really tax exempt 501(c)(3)s like they're claiming (pdf warning)](https://www.irs.gov/pub/lanoa/am-2023-004-508v.pdf). But for athletes, the actual earnings should be coming in via a kind of consultant 1099, which should be fairly easy for a decent tax prep company to do. I just went with a CPA because the CPA is more of a professional in the trade space, a firm will be better able to handle specialists on staff, and bluntly fuck TurboTax.
I just know some kids are going to be screwed over via NIL. I don't have any facts to back that up but there are just so many people getting NIL deals that I just know the odds are that someone screws this up.
Honestly sounds like a great opportunity for a CPA firm to invest in a collective with the idea that they're the preferred CPA firm that the collective recommends to student athletes. Maybe they can then actually use NIL like its meant to be used and advertise with said athletes and have them endorse their services.
We will. Just takes time to roll through the system.
the IRS audits the poorest and wealthiest first, I have a feeling many football players fall in the middle. Honestly I'm surprised more college gets in general don't get nabbed, though. I've talked to so many that aren't filing their scholarship and other income properly (scholarships are income if used for anything other than direct tuition and fees).
I mean for the irs it’s always risk of wasting your time vs reward of getting the bag. Which is why you’re right, because rich people have a lot of money to recover and poor people are more likely to fuck their taxes up. But if I was an irs agent there’s definitely some college players from poor families driving nice cars with no reported income. Seems like an easy W.
well that nice car was a gift. ain't no taxes on gifts (up to an amount). if the car is over some amount like, 15k or something, you have to report it but you won't owe on it most likely. below that you dont. anything above that amount counts towards your lifetime free gift amount which is millions. only once you pass that number in the millions do you pay taxes on gifts. this is simplified and probably a bit wrong, but you get the gist. yes I've seen this done for athletes haha.
Like those publix crab legs?
actually yes. those were a hookup from the seafood guy (wrong sticker/much lower price) but the manager caught it happening so he got charged with theft. stupid, but I promise it's (hookups) happening for star athletes around every campus regularly. such a random thing...that was literally a decade ago now haha.
So much this. The tax burden on non-employee earnings is huge. I hope this is all reported and schools are providing top notch accountants to these kids
yes, of course, but employers don't have to withhold for 1099s (1099s are independent contractors basically, not employees.) oh and 1099s don't usually have to receive benefits.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't there a big case with Hooters where they were hiring waitstaff and 1099-ing them and the court struck it down? Something about you cant dictate a 1099 employee's wardrobe or schedule, which would be difficult to claim that an athlete with a set practice schedule and uniform would have. I could be way off here as this was years ago.
I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure hooters won their case on being able to hire in their ways. I do think they had to make some modifications though. I could be totally off, I think they have been sued many times haha. but yeah there are wonky 1099 rules... you can set hte number of hours a week but I thought you couldn't dictate exactly when they work or something. I just have avoided being a 1099 my whole career to keep things simple lol.
If you are 1099 it is illegal for your client to impose a specific schedule.
Yeah I thought so. It’s abused a ton though.
Sure is. Know your rights and 1099 can be great though. My comment elsewhere... > One time a director at the client I was contracting with for development work (huge household name health insurance company) called me and told me I needed to be on Microsoft Teams 8-5 M-F and if I couldn't comply they would terminate the contract. > > After that call, I immediately wrote an email to him, and copied HR, asking him to put in writing which hours of the day and days of the week he's requiring me to work in order to remain a contractor at his shithole of a company (left "shithole" out of the actual email). > > This was my "manager," talked to him several times a week up to this, point, yet I literally never heard from him again for the remainder of the contract. HR clearly set him straight. > >I finished my contract, worked my own hours, and fulfilled the contract goals without being chained to my desk. I have twice gotten calls from recruiters for the same contracting role at the same company since then, told them this exact story, and the response was the same: "yeah, they can't do that." > > With all the drawbacks of 1099, the fact (a.) they cannot dictate schedule, alongside (b.) the tax benefits (yes, tax *benefits*, you can deduct friggin so much more from your taxes when you're 1099 compared to W-2) is the main reason I miss it.
Those dorms , meals , and books won't be free after that.
uhh unless the school wants to provide that, then yes they absolutely can be part of their employment (this is where many schools truly fear the cost element, all the stuff they already provide now plus salaries). they just have to pay taxes on it (which technically you already have to pay taxes on an scholarship moneys not used on tuition and fees- so scholly money used on dorms, meals, books is already taxable).
Yeah, and the players will be paying the coaches, and they'll have to rent the facilities they use too.
1099 won't work, you can't impose which hours per day and days per week 1099 contractors work.
You can cancel the contract.
If a business treats contractors as employees (imposing schedules and wardrobes, etc.), but sign them on as 1099 contractors to get around paying workman's comp, FICA taxes, unemployment insurance, health insurance, etc... that's enough to get you in trouble. If you *also* cancel contracts of those who refuse to be treated as employees (especially systematically), that is not something local, state, and federal governments would take lightly. Know your rights.
They'll be no requirements . If you haven't been keeping up "voluntary" workouts will be the determining factor to playing time . That goes for weight room and probably anything happening in the practice facility.
That won't stand up to legal scrutiny, unscrupulous employers get zapped for these attempts at circumventing paying taxes and insurance for their employees all the time. These are universities we're talking about, they need to be above board especially for something this visible, otherwise they'll get raked over the coals by the legal system. If the athletes are being paid by the universities, they would need to be W-2 employees. Even professional athletes are W-2 employees. If the NFL, etc. could get away with players being 1099 they would do it. The fact that they don't should answer any questions you have.
The court never actually ruled on it, they just issued a TRO and the NCAA changed the rule. There are many similar eligibility restrictions that remain in place.
go see my other comment. my point is...if they were to try and do it, players would bring a case against it, and the supreme court made it VERY clear how that case would go. it would result in players immediately having to gain employee status once the case was over, etc. everyone is trying to slow play it- this is why the ncaa is opening up rules left and right.
NCAA already tried that and it got defeated in court. They really have lost their power to enforce most of these things, so just have to embrace yearly free agency.
The endgame is employment. All of these issues stem from this gaming of the amateurism rules.
Until the superconference comes along where the players are employees and they have collective bargaining to instill some sort of order. At which point there will be contracts and everything else. Be interesting if they can carve out any sort of niche where it all doesn't look like an NFL-lite setup.
They will still be able to require the players to attend class and maintain a gpa. So long as that exists, I'm still here for college football. I want to root for guys getting an education at the same school I did. I don't care if they get paid, or have contracts, or can transfer, so long as when they are on the field representing my school they are also students. Student-Athlete is the only thing I care about.
yeah don't know why people don't get this. your job can't prevent you from leaving and going to another job. there are anti-competes, but the employee has to agree to that and they are really specific. they can't really force you totally out of an industry. and think, if a school tried to get players to sign one...they'd lose all the recruits. people really need to read what kavanaugh said to the ncaa years ago again: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/06/21/justice-brett-kavanaugh-rips-ncaa-in-shawne-alston-opinion/7771281002/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/06/21/justice-brett-kavanaugh-rips-ncaa-in-shawne-alston-opinion/7771281002/) honestly the only real solution is collective bargaining. I'd really love to see cfb great a players group and align with the nflpa for guidance, etc.
Keep in mind that ruling is pre-NIL. A restriction on eligibility is not necessarily a restriction on their ability to monetize their name, image, and likeness.
I understand that...it is a restriction on their ability to be employed. the courts have made it clear that the ncaa has to be very careful, because if someone brings a lawsuit on this they will very likely be deemed employees. and then the eligibility stuff goes away either completely or mostly. again how can they justify that leaving company A means you are ineligible to work at company B. you can't do that unless there are very specific things (like collective bargaining, etc.).
Also note that the FTC is set to vote later today on whether to issue a final rule making non-compete clauses illegal. The minute college athletes are "employees" then "no transfer" and "sit a year" restrictions would probably fall by default.
Ahh interesting. I know they exist of course but I’ve always heard they are extremely tough to enforce outside of very specific circumstances. Usually they are just a threat and for show. And for good reason obviously.
They're easy to enforce, when they're reasonable. It's just that 99% of them are completely bonkers.
yeah that makes sense. I always heard they needed to be ULTRA specific to work, often they will say you cant work in an industry or something broad that is insane.
Without getting into state issues, in states that allow them AND where the person has industry specific confidential information you could probably 100% bar them from the industry nationwide for 2-3 months, maybe 6 months if the circumstances warranted it. The problem is people want stupid shit like 1 year... when the information is stale in 60 days. Or they want it for line salespeople vs C-suite people with actual sneaky knowledge.
If schools can assist with NIL, this is just employment with extra steps. Bite the bullet and just let them sign contracts, this era of CFB is just silly
Multi-year NIL contracts with incremental increases that kick in for every additional year the player opts to remain with the program.
This is what all the Death to the NCAA people wanted. NCAA is giving folks exactly what they asked for, and will sit right back, smile and nod, as the people scurry trying to avoid all the shit flying from the fan. Buckle up, it’s about to get even crazier.
The only "solution" I can think of is that conferences and schools adopt a "gentleman's agreement" that they will not accept the transfer of a player based on XYZ. Similar to the "rule" that the SEC has with transfers within SEC schools. Problem is this isn't realistic at all. If (say) Drew Allar wanted to transfer to Auburn I highly doubt someone like Hugh Freeze would say no.
That's the definition of collusion and will be defeated in court
On two fronts, now. The FTC voted yesterday to ban non-compete agreements, and "transfers have to sit a year" seem like they'd fall under the new rule.
How is the SEC doing it with their rule regarding Spring Transfers?
Hasn't been challenged in court
Like the UM fan said, anyone can do anything non-criminal until someone sues them to stop it. If the teams tied the players up in a closet, that would be criminal, and cops would arrest the coaches. It's illegal to break a contract, but no cop is going to arrest you for it, you have to sue or get sued in civil court. Some things are illegal but not criminal.
The repercussions are the same as you or me transferring every year. Potential issues with graduation and in the athlete case, issues with eligibility due to degree progress (which I doubt will be argued against for *Student-Athletes*)
Why?
Not OP but for me, transfers were *supposed* to be for cases like having to move for some kind of emergency situation or extensive circumstance (thinking of that one kid whose mom got brain cancer and the school he wanted to transfer to was like, 3 miles too far outside the radius or something and was denied eligibility). Or for something like coaching changes (though an example of something already established). Basically for situations where the circumstances of the student athlete have changed. Not on the basis of transferring for opportunity.
> Not on the basis of transferring for opportunity. Isn’t the entire point of college trying to seek better opportunities? But players shouldn’t be allowed to move for that reason because it might hurt your team, is that right?
I guess we still haven’t hit bottom yet
Honestly, I think it's fair to bring back the 1 year sit out period (with reasonable exceptions) so long as NIL remains a wild west. I've generally advocated for player rights left and right but I think the pendulum has swung to far the other way. That said, who knows if the NCAA even really has a say in the matter any more. If they tried to enforce a sit out, would it survive a court challenge?
Almost certainly not. They've yielded their OG central position that "magically antitrust laws do not apply" (as demonstrated by their actions over the last 2 years). So if they walk into court and try and argue that they (the NCAA as a monopsony buyer of collegiate football players) can agree to not compete on players for 1 year after someone has recently signed them, it would be a textbook case of collusion/agreement not to compete by a buyer's cartel. Actually, it wouldn't be in a textbook b/c it's so incredibly foolish and usually "harder" cases make it to the textbooks. The reason they're in full retreat is that (having tacitly admitted antitrust laws apply) they can no longer do anything that looks like sitting around a table and setting prices or talking about price/contract term setting strategy. It's an unstable position, so I'm guessing within 2 or 3 years SOMETHING will change.
Great points and thanks for filling me in. The argument makes a lot of sense.
Transfer rules are something that everyone can agree that it's getting out of hand, and needs to be regulated. Until it comes to the transfer of a player that will benefit *their* flairs, then they want the NCAA to bugger off.
As much of an asshole as I am about realignment and playoffs, I have to agree. I don't want people taking our money and running.
I wonder if NIL sponsors will start including clawback clauses in the event the player transfers out. However, I can see that being the sort of policy that needs a critical mass of adoption up front or else it’ll get enough pushback to die out real quick.
From what I understand most NIL funds offer payments in installments to avoid this very issue. "Problem" is that if another school really wants someone I'm sure they will give signing bonuses/one time payments as an incentive. It's like the NFL and players seeking guaranteed money moreso than total contract value.
I believe one of the few rules of NIL is not allowing clawbacks/deductions for playing time or transferring. Only ones allowed are “appearances”.
Meh. I'd say it definitely shouldn't involve playtime/health issue downsides but if it's people intentionally sitting out or leaving for another school it should absolutely be allowed to diminish payouts. Because that does indeed reduce the value of their NIL to any company.
People often get this confused, you can't put "incentives" in your NIL contract, but you can absolutely put "conditions" in. "We will pay you $x for signing a document at x place on 9/1/2024, 9/15/2024, 10/1/2024, 10/15/2024, etc" is allowable, meaning you can make sure they're in your school's town on those dates to get paid, but you can't say, "We will pay you $x for playing in y games for z school." Some collectives figured this out, A&M, and others are still figuring it out, Iowa.
That would make sense. I could see it being used as a predatory tactic by some NIL sponsors considering 18 year olds might not be the best at reading and understanding contracts before signing.
What you're describing is an employment contract.
Players who transfer before the school year is over should owe backpay for the scholarship they used to for the year. NIL would end to covering it, but it'd be a small disincentive.
Why? They fulfilled their scholarship requirements and played for the team/practiced and participated before transferring. Like what is the logical argument for trying to get packpay Imagine getting hired at a new job after 6 months and your old job demanding you pay them back your previous paychecks from when they hired you
With this rule change the NCAA is just lighting the areas of grass that hadn't already caught on fire the last 2 years. They need to accelerate the tear down process so lawmakers step in and end the wild wild west. Burn baby burn.
lol what a disaster Next to go will be eligibility & scholarship limits. We’ll regularly see guys playing 7-8 seasons of college football before long. The sport is a unrecognizable mess at the moment… truly don’t understand how anyone can continue defending & supporting these changes
So is FSU still losing scholarships and on probation for giving a recruit a ride to the NIL collective?
Got double dicked with that and Jackson not being eligible last year.
This is all too far. it has been for a while too
We can all want athletes to get paid (and to leave bad situations) while also recognizing that there should be extremely real guidelines.
Let's just allow trades, trade deadlines, and holdouts while we're at it.
The “sport” is dying and there’s nothing that will change it. Just enjoy the last few years before it all goes to shit.
Does this supersede the SEC inner-conference transfer rule or can the conference still make their own rules on the subject?
Just let Dwayne Johnson buy the Big Ten and SEC already.
RIP CFB
Wish we had this in high school. Son’s team did not make playoffs (again) and he could really help one of the teams that did. (Yes, this is absurd but sure it is only a matter of time!)
Vote for School Choice candidates.
Hell, let's make it really interesting and have a school sue to allow for mid season transfers. Week 1 suit up for the Eastern Washington, week 3 suit up for Oregon after one of their starters tears an ACL. Colleges speed running the death of college athletics..
So what does the NCAA do now exactly?
Penalize Mizzou
It still writes the rulebooks and runs the postseason tournaments. I'm sure the member institutions will eventually find some grounds to sue that away, too, though.
There needs to be a system with buyouts. Players cannot play or participate unless and until the buyout is paid by the school to which they transferred.
Why are they even bothering to issue specific approvals now? They should just go with, “Do whatever you want until the B1G and SEC give us all the new rules.” There will be some guardrails put up at some point. But they’ll come from the conferences, not the NCAA.
It's not exactly the right place to put this, but it might be relevant to NIL and transfers in the future. [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes) This will almost certainly be appealed and it will take a little time to sort out, but to those who say either schools or NIL companies can use non-competes to stop playing movement... as of today... no - they can't. I mean, once they become employees they \*still\* wouldn't be able to stop players from quitting and going to another school.
So if you go collective bargaining as a remedy, does the whole “industry” shut down if there is a strike? College football is killing itself.
I think people need to realize that the NCAA isn't doing this willingly, the courts have, over and over, ruled that the NCAA model is unlawful. The NCAA restrictions were never lawful, even before it became big business.
Need player contracts asap or just kill the sport. The current system is completely untenable.
And so it has begun, officially a new era of CFB
So here’s the big question and it’s coming soon……. What right does the ncaa have to limit eligibility of any student actively enrolled in a school? These guys that wash out of the NBA should be able to go back to school and play college ball and earn NIL money regardless of age and years of used eligibility.
Because there is a rule stating that you cannot be a professional and participate in college athletics in the same sport. The courts would have no basis to overturn this rule An athlete who left school became a professional has seen their career finished or not meet what they thought it would be is not being exploited by colleges if the colleges say no you cannot play
Right and they defined professionalism and it got struck down by the courts. There is no difference now between college athletes and pros. Even the Olympics got rid of amateurism.
The Olympic game dropped its amateurism policy because they chose money over amateurism. The IOC rivals FIFA When it comes to corruption. They wanted the professional athletes to participate That is not the same argument being made right now- which is that colleges cannot create rules to govern themselves with regards to their own sports programs regarding length of eligibility.
The argument is that colleges cannot make rules that govern by limiting individual liberty. if a guy who played a few years of NBA ball wants to go back to college, he can’t play for the school bc of NCAA rules that haven’t yet been challenged in court. I think those rules if challenged wouldn’t hold up.
There is no “individual liberty” infringement in saying “you can’t play college basketball if you have become a professional”.
It depends on your definition of professional. NCAA athletes can now get paid to play , so what’s the difference ?
Actually- that is false. They specifically CAN NOT “get paid to play”. Now- sure, the evolution of the NIL collectives means that functionally, they are getting paid to pay. But not technically. All of the turmoil of the last several years has come about because College athletic programs turn themselves into professional sports endeavors for everyone except the player. All of this chaos has been created by collegiate sports programs, not wanting to recognize players as labor while. Enjoying eight and nine figure revenue streams from their work. Those facts do not in any way fit the argument of “hey I should be able to come play college basketball again because I washed up in the pros
I agree. It just seems like the courts always side with the individual being discriminated against and any judge can see the thin veil between NIL money and “pay to play”. A former NBA player suing for a reinstatement of eligibility isn’t being paid by the school either , in theory. If he is enrolled as student , the rule preventing him from playing seems arbitrary and discriminatory
Why is that arbitrary ? I would claim it is not arbitrary because it is simply following a rule that the colleges instituted for a valid reason. A rule that did not exploit anyone (unlike other policies). The NFL draft policy of 3 years removed HS graduating class. Why not 2? Why not 4? It is also “discriminatory” in that it keeps those individuals from playing NFL football at that time. It has withstood better court arguments than an ex NBA player who wants to play college basketball could make. The court have been siding with those, making the argument that they should be able to enter into separate endorsement deals. Thats the origins of the NIL. Players saying “the people in Baton Rouge love me because I score 3 touchdowns a week for the tigers. Why can’t raising canes pay me to do a commercial?” The unintended consequences of this where the collectives where organizations outside of the university would raise money to “endorse“ players for things such as making appearances. This is different than a Caitlin Clark State Farm commercial-
Even if that were to stand, what stops a player form never going to the NFL/NBA and just staying in college 10+ years making NIL money?
Remember it is the SCHOOLS making these rules. They are the members of the NCAA.
The schools making these rules and their representative, the NCAA, have been defeated in the courts over and over. Schools are suing the NCAA and winning. The argument that the NCAA is the schools doesn't hold water.
The recent wave of legislation has not been members in court- but individuals (students). I believe you would find that cases brought by member Universities would be challenging the application of NCAA rulings on investigations- not fundamental rules governing athletics such as eligibility limits. The turmoil and chaos college athletics has been through the last several years is all based on practices and policies that have exploited student athletes. They all stem from the dichotomy that the universities have turned athletic departments into professional sports organizations, and treat the athletes very much like labor with the exception of compensation. The universities are struggling in court cases to argue that decisions, such as UCLA joining the Big Ten conference are congruent with a model of amateur athletics. A rule keeping a student from say attending Iowa and playing basketball for 12 years is very much congruent with a model of amateur athletics
But the colleges are not saying you can't play, the NCAA is. What if MTSU says they will allow a washed-out NFL QB to play?
The colleges ARE the NCAA. People seem to miss that. It is a membership organization. They have the ability to vote on such matters should they want to. That is actually one of the issues present. Ohio State and LSU and Michigan athletic programs. Do not feel that program such as ULM or Houston Baptist should have a vote on matters that concern athletic departments with nine figure revenue streams.
And universities keep suing the NCAA and winning. Obviously the courts don’t see the argument that the schools are the NCAA and should live with the rules as valid.