OT: Is This The Beginning Of The End For The NCAA?

[Grad1990]

I'm still not sure why this is being so misunderstood. Neither the California legislation or the NCAA change or direction yesterday says that schools are now required to "pay" the players. The change of direction was this simple: A player can now make money off their names, image and likeness. Example: If Megan walker wants to put her picture on a T-shirt and sell it she will be able to likely starting in January 2021.

In substance, how would that be different than Nike paying Megan Walker a fee for putting her name on Nike t-shirts?

 

[Grad1990]

Senator Burr would have to change the tax exempt status of the NCAA.

You lost me on this argument. The NCAA may have tax exempt status....but their tax-exempt umbrella does not cover students, only the NCAA as an organization.

 

[CocoHusky]

In substance, how would that be different than Nike paying Megan Walker a fee for putting her name on a Nike t-shirts?

In substance no different just two minor clarifications.
1) Under the new proposed rules though Megan would have a claim to some of the money derived from the sales of the T-shirt. That money would be taxable for Megan. DT was on a clip recently posted here and mentioned that when you go to the UCONN bookstore you see the bookstore selling the same jerseys: hers, Sue, Maya. DT supports the California legislation and those former players might be entitled to some of those sales.
2) Nike has an existing contract with UCONN athletic department and rules would have to be clarified/modified about how this would work.

 

[CocoHusky]

You lost me on this argument. The NCAA may have tax exempt status....but their tax-exempt umbrella does not cover students, only the NCAA as an organization.

Athletic scholarship funds roughly ($200Million/Annually) are provided to schools through the NCAA which allows scholarship funds to be tax exempt. A student athlete does not have to list his/her scholarship as "income" at tax time.

Where Does the Money Go?

Where Does the Money Go?

www.ncaa.org

 

[huskeynut]

Ooops - my bad - its Senator Burr.

Still does not change my point. Unintended consequences will surface. Burr's is only the first.

 

[CocoHusky]

Ooops - my bad - its Senator Burr. Still does not change my point. Unintended consequences will surface. Burr's is only the first.

I don't know if it so much unintended consequences as it things are going to have to be defined and reconciled between the different pieces of legislation being proposed. For example the California law provides for "unlimited" compensation form players names ,images, & likeness. Having already changed the policy I would expect the NCAA to try and limit/cap the compensation that players can receive or reduce the value of awarded scholarships. It is totally plausible for the school to say you know what, you made boo coup dollars from your image and likeness how about you pay your tuition this year-aka, a need based model.

 

[Grad1990]

Athletic scholarship funds roughly ($200Million/Annually) are provided to schools through the NCAA which allows scholarship funds to be tax exempt. A student athlete does not have to list his/her scholarship as "income" at tax time.

Where Does the Money Go?

Where Does the Money Go?

www.ncaa.org

Thanks for the response, but it doesn't address my main point..so I'll make it more explicitly and affirmatively.

Both Congress and State Assemblies are lawfully recognized as separate and distinct taxing authorities meaning that each of them have the power to tax. Both have the power to pass a law to tax scholarship money as income should they choose to do so. The NCAA has no legal standing in the matter other than as an interested 3rd party.

 

[Grad1990]

In substance no different just two minor clarifications.
1) Under the new proposed rules though Megan would have a claim to some of the money derived from the sales of the T-shirt. That money would be taxable for Megan. DT was on a clip recently posted here and mentioned that when you go to the UCONN bookstore you see the bookstore selling the same jerseys: hers, Sue, Maya. DT supports the California legislation and those former players might be entitled to some of those sales.
2) Nike has an existing contract with UCONN athletic department and rules would have to be clarified/modified about how this would work.

My experience tells me that big institutions have already hired high powered professionals and will spend hundreds of millions on attorneys and lobbyists just on learning how to lawfully exploit the new likeness rule. You show me a major institution who fails to develop and exploit this new avenue to advantage their brand and Ill show you an institution which will eventually have major changes in leadership as well as fall behind in the competition for the best talent.

You have admitted (I bolded what I thought was key in your response) that players might benefit. There would be no purpose to the law if this wasn't the case!!!!

Left to their own devices and methods, markets are incredibly efficient at exploiting newly found freedoms in ways that at the moment you and I can't imagine.

No one could possibly believe that the States home to the SEC will stand by while California passes legislation that advantages their Universities. Not gonna happen!!!

I stand by my original comment that Pandora's box has been opened.

Now the more philosophical; historically societies and institutions all succeed or fail based on their ability to provide the most freedom possible to the most affected members that are captured under their umbrellas. In this case that would be the students.

Although the NCAA would claim otherwise, in my humble opinion its purpose is to protect institutions, not the kids. That's why I was intrigued by the highly prescient caption of your forum; "Is this the beginning of the end...?".

With respect to compensating top student athletes, In my opinion it is.

 

[JavaMan]

Jay Bilas calls the NCAA's proposal to pay athletes a bluff: It's 'frankly embarrassing'

"What the NCAA has done in the last 40 days is nothing based on principle," Bilas told USA TODAY Sports. "When the California ("Fair Pay to Play") law came out, they responded by calling it an 'existential threat' to college sports, that it's going to ruin everything if athletes are paid,' and suggesting California could be annexed from the NCAA. Now, like they always do, they're reacting. They're reacting to different state and federal governments forcing action. They're trying to stall and say, 'Look at what we're doing.' Their abandonment of any form of principle is frankly embarrassing."

Full article HERE

 

[Grad1990]

"When the California ("Fair Pay to Play") law came out, they responded by calling it an 'existential threat' to college sports, that it's going to ruin everything if athletes are paid,' and suggesting California could be annexed from the NCAA."

Thanks for posting this. My observation?

The NCAA immediately recognized the serious threat the California law poses to the NCAA protecting the billions earned by schools at the expense of student athletes in Big time sports.

The NCAA will lose this battle in a big way as the courts, and ultimately the remaining states, will never allow California schools to be disenfranchised by NCAA policies, especially considering that they have no legislative authority and have public opinion (freedom/fairness) ) against them.

Can anyone imagine top athletes attending only California schools if, in fact, California is annexed from the NCAA? This serious flaw in rationality makes the NCAA's position an adventure in silly land.

Most top student athletes will chase the money because it is the rational thing to do. In the process the NCAA would be further exposed for what they really are...a lobbying body representing educational institutions which, surely, will damage its credibility.

My guess is that NCAA leadership is too smart to defend what is ultimately indefensible. Therefor, I think they will eventually get out of the way and do what they can to control, as best they can, the outcomes.

The NCAA will still have a major role...but disenfranchising top student athletes will no longer be one of them.