NCAA Revenue Sharing Update

[Drew]

I interpreted the article differently although I could be mistaken. I believe the big football schools want to inhouse NIL with a cap at $20mil. Otherwise how would their retroactive payout be calculated?

I read the article as Fishy did, that NIL basically comes in house.

That said, using the limited amount of info out there that's been cobbled together, we're like 51st in terms of what the collectives have raised, over $3 mill. Which is more than 5 other P4s, and pretty much every G5. While we're a long way away from Texas, tOSU and LSU (all over $20 mill), there are a ton of schools in the $5-$6 mill range with competitive football that will also be hurt by this, even some from the SEC and B1G (i.e., we get more NIL than Maryland). I would think, using SJ's comment above, that schools would start to look at whether Title IX could be overturned, given the current makeup of SCOTUS, as there are likely enough teams that would be financially hobbled to the point of considering such a drastic outcome. And if it looks like SCOTUS would be willing to hear such case, well, everyone probably goes back to the negotiating table.

I also don't know what kind of rationale would be used to suggest a ton of former UConn athletes missed out on tens of thousands of NIL dollars. There aren't many pulling down NIL now. I don't think anyone on the swim team is making anything. Why would they be entitled to retroactive pay?

In short, it'll hurt. But I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that it's a death sentence at this point.

Per the article, there are two lawsuits happening at the same time that this “settlement” would hope to address:

One from previous collegiate athletes who are suing the NCAA for lost wages due to being unable to monetize their Name, Image, Likeness while in school

One suing the NCAA stating that schools should be able to pay their athletes directly for performance in the form of revenue sharing for revenues earned by the schools from the athlete’s games and performances.


In order to settle the first lawsuit for lost wages, member institutions of the NCAA will be on the hook for payouts to former athletes totaling over $4B. In order to settle the second lawsuit, they are looking to institute this $20M annual “cap” allowing schools to directly pay their players in the form of sharing incoming revenues (ticket sales, TV money, etc) with them.

Nowhere in the article does it state that all NIL related payments would come in house and/or that because the schools will provide revenue sharing with their athletes, that they cannot earn outside NIL monies.

Ultimately where I think this will wind up is two fold, schools who contribute to the $4B settlement with former athletes will wind up forming a “new” division within division one. These schools will likely be your large football schools + other P5’s willing and able to contribute. Then, that division (and potentially others outside of it) will share revenues generated through activities such as ticket sales and TV money with their athletes at $20M annually. Those athletes will then also earn in addition to the $20M revenue share whatever “outside” NIL money they are able to earn from collectives, autographs, appearances, etc.

TLDR: Some schools will have to pay lots of money to former athletes to settle lawsuit 1. Schools that contribute to that settlement will form new NCAA Division. New NCAA Division will share revenue with athletes In addition to collective and appearance based NIL. In order to afford all of that, school must be very rich. UConn not rich. Therefore bad for us.

 

[Drew]

We will pay and so will the rest of the Big East.

I really think you have zero concept of how money works. It is astonishing how awful your takes are on this stuff constantly. It’s like you don’t actually read about anything that is happening and just plug your ears and say this stuff as fact with no regard to reality

 

[shizzle787]

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

Title IX says hello.

 

[How Sway?!]

Best case scenario for us here is if part of the settlement includes bringing NIL in house and it's included in the revenue share. Still a lot up in the air looks like, including how the revenue sharing number is calculated per school

 

[Drew]

Best case scenario for us here is if part of the settlement includes bringing NIL in house and it's included in the revenue share. Still a lot up in the air looks like, including how the revenue sharing number is calculated per school

The main problem we face is that we have little to no revenue available to share once this comes to pass. Certainly not $20M annually.

 

[shizzle787]

I really think you have zero concept of how money works. It is astonishing how awful your takes are on this stuff constantly. It’s like you don’t actually read about anything that is happening and just plug your ears and say this stuff as fact with no regard to reality

Anyone who knows me in person knows I am ruthless with money. I’m better with money than 99% on the board.

You are like the boy who cries wolf. Every change in college athletics you hide under the covers thinking UConn is done. Yet we just won two more basketball titles, made a bowl game in 2022, and outbid Kentucky for a couple huge recruits. Broke schools don’t outbid SEC schools.

I’m well aware of our on paper deficit.

This revenue sharing thing isn’t going to happen. Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years.

 

[Drew]

Anyone who knows me in person knows I am ruthless with money. I’m better with money than 99% on the board.

You are like the boy who cries wolf. Every change in college athletics you hide under the covers thinking UConn is done. Yet we just won two more basketball titles, made a bowl game in 2022, and outbid Kentucky for a couple huge recruits. Broke schools don’t outbid SEC schools.

I’m well aware of our on paper deficit.

This revenue sharing thing isn’t going to happen. Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years.

UConn going to one bowl game in 8 years and winning the NCAA Tournament The last two years has zero bearing on what is coming in the future of college athletics. You are conflating results of on field competition with legal litigation and future financial requirements. They are two completely separate things- Everyone has been talking for multiple years now about the new financial realities that will be required in order to compete at the highest level. That is now coming to light.

You claim that the Big East teams will all pay this money. $20M added costs annually is going to be an increase of anywhere from 40-60% of these schools’ existing budgets. You can’t just pull that out of a hat and good luck essentially taxing students through added fees who are taking out loans to pay for college so that the schools can eventually try to pay that money directly to their classmates. Surely that would go over great.

“Revenue sharing isn’t going to happen” - absolutely no idea how you can read anything in the article linked and come to that conclusion. The entire article is about how that is expected to happen.

”Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years”. So…….. sharing the revenue they generate with the players then. And how do you think it will go when schools bringing in $100M+ annually are paying athletes directly on top of collective compensation and other NIL opportunities?

This is a massive problem for the university. They have no money. Zero. Pretending like adding more liabilities to UConn’s balance sheet without increasing revenues somehow isn’t an issue for us is laughable. And if you somehow think the state legislature is going to randomly vote to allot $20M annually to UConn’s athletic department to do this while we have been asked to cut our overall budget over the last 3 years, then you’re even dumber than I thought.

 

[rman726]

The main problem we face is that we have little to no revenue available to share once this comes to pass. Certainly not $20M annually.

I don’t think that we make enough profits to have any to share with the our 600+ athletes. We aren’t required to spend $20M. That’s just the cap.

The big schools have upwards of 1000+ athletes. They won’t be able to get away with paying only football and basketball. They will get on by the women in the courts if they try. A cap of $20 million will result in peanuts for 1000 athletes. I don’t see how them paying $33k on top of NIL is going to kill us based on the fact that we are clearly competing with the big boys on NIL.

Change happens. In the end, we’ll probably survive just like we always do.

 

[metsfan2323]

The 20 million number is probably a salary cap for the power schools. I doubt schools who do not have football and have no football revenue are going to be forced to give 20 million to their athletes. At the end of the day "revenue sharing" should be based on a percentage of sports revenue per school not an artificial mandatory number.

 

[Tenspro2002]

You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Or someone uses this to challenge Title IX, and good luck with that.

It will soon come to a head whether athletic programs exist to augment the educational experience of university students, or whether they exist to make money.

Good luck with that.

 

[upstater]

We will pay and so will the rest of the Big East.

No, if you can't tell the UConn president is already at the end of her rope when she slams the legislature and governor, I don't know what to tell you. 15% cutbacks when you're expanding athletics by 30% isn't going to cut it. 15% cutbacks damage the educational mission.

 

[upstater]

The 20 million number is probably a salary cap for the power schools. I doubt schools who do not have football and have no football revenue are going to be forced to give 20 million to their athletes. At the end of the day "revenue sharing" should be based on a percentage of sports revenue per school not an artificial mandatory number.

Yes, this is how it works. You don't HAVE to pay $20m. It's a cap.

But that's $20m those schools will be able to use relative to UConn

 

[metsfan2323]

Yes, this is how it works. You don't HAVE to pay $20m. It's a cap.

But that's $20m those schools will be able to use relative to UConn

And most of that money will go to the P5 football teams. Maybe this somehow kills off UConn football, but I don't see it killing UConn basketball or the Big East conference.

 

[How Sway?!]

I think we're about to see a very big correction on coaches salaries and support staff, especially at the top SEC and B1G schools.

 

[aburks41]

Yes, this is how it works. You don't HAVE to pay $20m. It's a cap.

But that's $20m those schools will be able to use relative to UConn

Then we need to hope that Title IX makes them spread it equally amongst all athletes so we aren’t looking at a $5M+ hole in basketball spending before NIL even kicks in

 

[upstater]

Per the article, there are two lawsuits happening at the same time that this “settlement” would hope to address:

One from previous collegiate athletes who are suing the NCAA for lost wages due to being unable to monetize their Name, Image, Likeness while in school

One suing the NCAA stating that schools should be able to pay their athletes directly for performance in the form of revenue sharing for revenues earned by the schools from the athlete’s games and performances.


In order to settle the first lawsuit for lost wages, member institutions of the NCAA will be on the hook for payouts to former athletes totaling over $4B. In order to settle the second lawsuit, they are looking to institute this $20M annual “cap” allowing schools to directly pay their players in the form of sharing incoming revenues (ticket sales, TV money, etc) with them.

Nowhere in the article does it state that all NIL related payments would come in house and/or that because the schools will provide revenue sharing with their athletes, that they cannot earn outside NIL monies.

Ultimately where I think this will wind up is two fold, schools who contribute to the $4B settlement with former athletes will wind up forming a “new” division within division one. These schools will likely be your large football schools + other P5’s willing and able to contribute. Then, that division (and potentially others outside of it) will share revenues generated through activities such as ticket sales and TV money with their athletes at $20M annually. Those athletes will then also earn in addition to the $20M revenue share whatever “outside” NIL money they are able to earn from collectives, autographs, appearances, etc.

TLDR: Some schools will have to pay lots of money to former athletes to settle lawsuit 1. Schools that contribute to that settlement will form new NCAA Division. New NCAA Division will share revenue with athletes In addition to collective and appearance based NIL. In order to afford all of that, school must be very rich. UConn not rich. Therefore bad for us.

It really is time for antitrust lawsuits.

No school dared do it before because they were being dripfed by the current structures, but now we are at the point where a total break is about to occur.

 

[Drew]

And most of that money will go to the P5 football teams. Maybe this somehow kills off UConn football, but I don't see it killing UConn basketball or the Big East conference.

It’s important to remember whatever this revenue sharing model shakes out to in the beginning is not what it will be forever

Revenue sharing for athletes long term is a disaster for us at our current revenue levels. The percentages and dollar amounts in the long term will only get larger

 

[Drew]

Then we need to hope that Title IX makes them spread it equally amongst all athletes so we aren’t looking at a $5M+ hole in basketball spending before NIL even kicks in

And they’re already pushing for it to be the “number” of athletes not the dollar amounts per the below from Ross Dellenger:



Basically, schools want to say “yeah we paid 100 mens athletes and 100 womens athletes so we’re in compliance of Title IX” even though the dollar amounts will be $19.5M for men and $0.5M for women or whatever.

 

[upstater]

Then we need to hope that Title IX makes them spread it equally amongst all athletes so we aren’t looking at a $5M+ hole in basketball spending before NIL even kicks in

It's all madness really.

If it's spread among Title IX we're looking at regular students incurring $1k charges in support of fellow students in sports making good money. $4k over the span of their college careers. At a time when universities are shedding faculty, not hiring, shutting down majors. The whole situation is untenable.

Go pro, that's my advice. Take your revenue and pay your employees. Cleave it from university finances.

 

[upstater]

And they’re already pushing for it to be the “number” of athletes not the dollar amounts per the below from Ross Dellenger:



Basically, schools want to say “yeah we paid 100 mens athletes and 100 womens athletes so we’re in compliance of Title IX” even though the dollar amounts will be $19.5M for men and $0.5M for women or whatever.

Poor legal arguments there.

 

[Drew]

Poor legal arguments there.

The argument will likely stem from the fact that the existing enforcement of the rule is measured by number of scholarships awarded to athletes on campuses not the dollar value of those scholarships (no clue if that will work or not)

 

[superjohn]

Title IX says hello.

The Supreme Court is already going to weigh in on Title IX and it has nothing to do with this.

 

[How Sway?!]

The argument will likely stem from the fact that the existing enforcement of the rule is measured by number of scholarships awarded to athletes on campuses not the dollar value of those scholarships (no clue if that will work or not)

It only works that way because the scholarship has the same value regardless of gender. What you're suggesting wouldn't pass a court challenge

 

[Drew]

It only works that way because the scholarship has the same value regardless of gender. What you're suggesting wouldn't pass a court challenge

Not all scholarships are full rides though, plenty (almost all) of our non-revenue athletes pay some amount of tuition to go to school at UConn

 

[rman726]

And they’re already pushing for it to be the “number” of athletes not the dollar amounts per the below from Ross Dellenger:



Basically, schools want to say “yeah we paid 100 mens athletes and 100 womens athletes so we’re in compliance of Title IX” even though the dollar amounts will be $19.5M for men and $0.5M for women or whatever.

Good luck to whoever has to argue that they are in compliance in front of a judge who doesn’t give two $#%& about sports.