Will the NCAA punt once again on NIL?

[oldude]

With the July 1 deadline fast approaching when 6 states will allow college athletes to sign agreements to market their NIL's, the clock is ticking on the NCAA and their member institutions. Connecticut would make it 7 states if Gov Lamont signs the legislation sitting on his desk as expected. It is now unlikely that there will be a decision out of the NCAA Division I Council this week during their meetings today and tomorrow. The earliest date that a decision will be forthcoming now appears to be at the Board of Governors meeting on June 28. Divided NCAA Delays NIL Vote as Pressures Mount

Throughout this process the NCAA and their member institutions have been deeply concerned about facing antitrust lawsuits. To that end, the NCAA has practically begged Congress to get them off the hook. While NIL legislation may be among the very few bipartisan issues that Congress could deal with, it seems clear that it is not a legislative priority for Congress right now. With the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court yesterday, the pressure on the NCAA to do something has only increased.

The attached SI article outlines the significant disagreement that now prevails among NCAA member institutions and conferences. With various states now doing their own thing, the ability of the NCAA to craft a comprehensive policy on NIL that is satisfactory to all parties is highly unlikely. It should be noted that Connecticut's NIL legislation includes a provision to amend the bill to provide compatibility with NCAA legislation. But not every state has similar provisions in their NIL legislation,

Enter the commissioners of 6 conferences with an 11th hour, alternate suggestion. The SEC, Pac-12, ACC, Sun Belt, SWAC & Metro Atlantic sent a letter to the DI Council on Friday suggesting a model that would avoid conflict with state NIL legislation, accepting each state's respective rules. In addition, for states that have not adopted NIL legislation, each school can adopt their own NIL rules.

Obviously, this would not be an ideal solution. But the NCAA member institutions have dragged their feet on NIL for years, certainly since losing the federal lawsuit in the Ed O'Bannon case in 2014. As one NCAA decision maker bluntly stated, "We've done this to ourselves.” With Mark Emmert making it clear that the NCAA has no intention of challenging any state's NIL legislation in court, the question now appears to be will the NCAA accept the alternate suggestion proposed by the 6 conference commissioners effectively punting once again on NIL?

 

[Ozimoto]

Why is this not surprising to me?

 

[CL82]

Never underestimate the ability of this putz to turn things to crap, but, apparently, that is exactly what NCAA president's want.

 

[oldude]

View attachment 68138

Never underestimate the ability of this putz to turn things to crap, but, apparently, that is exactly what NCAA president's want.

As much as we criticize Emmert, and deservedly so, he’s getting paid big bucks to essentially take the heat for college presidents, AD’s and conference commissioners, none of whom want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[JJTB]

Said this before....lawyers, agents, politicians and "outside companies".... Guess I'm naive, but how is this a good thing? The sleaze factor scares me...... Gonna love to see how this is managed and mismanaged! Car dealerships better hope their inventory gets replenished quickly!!! And I can't wait to see Adidas sneakers with Nike uniforms!

 

[UcMiami]

As much as we criticize Emmert, and deservedly so, he’s getting paid big bucks to essentially take the heat for college presidents, AD’s and conference commissioners, none of whom want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Not unlike the commissioners of the pro leagues and particularly the NFL.

As for this stuff - what really worries me with the monetization of college athletes is that at some point the IRS is going to get involved and student athletes will start getting serious tax bills - and not just for their 'NIL' income, but all the other benefits will come into play - the academic tuition is an easy carve out, but room, board, stipends, etc. are 'paid benefits' for 'employees' who are marketing their athletic skills. Great for the stars but what about the poor schleps that are filling all the benches to get an education in both revenue and non-revenue sports. They aren't going to make any money, but all those non-money perks they may get now will like also be taxed.

It is a can of worms on so many levels and may lead to a huge reduction in D1 sports programs - everyone's idea that college sports are a cash cow and the money grab that has been exploding over the past couple of decades while the vast majority of D1 programs bleed money may ultimately kill that cash cow.

 

[huskyd]

With the July 1 deadline fast approaching when 6 states will allow college athletes to sign agreements to market their NIL's, the clock is ticking on the NCAA and their member institutions. Connecticut would make it 7 states if Gov Lamont signs the legislation sitting on his desk as expected. It is now unlikely that there will be a decision out of the NCAA Division I Council this week during their meetings today and tomorrow. The earliest date that a decision will be forthcoming now appears to be at the Board of Governors meeting on June 28. Divided NCAA Delays NIL Vote as Pressures Mount

Throughout this process the NCAA and their member institutions have been deeply concerned about facing antitrust lawsuits. To that end, the NCAA has practically begged Congress to get them off the hook. While NIL legislation may be among the very few bipartisan issues that Congress could deal with, it seems clear that it is not a legislative priority for Congress right now. With the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court yesterday, the pressure on the NCAA to do something has only increased.

The attached SI article outlines the significant disagreement that now prevails among NCAA member institutions and conferences. With various states now doing their own thing, the ability of the NCAA to craft a comprehensive policy on NIL that is satisfactory to all parties is highly unlikely. It should be noted that Connecticut's NIL legislation includes a provision to amend the bill to provide compatibility with NCAA legislation. But not every state has similar provisions in their NIL legislation,

Enter the commissioners of 6 conferences with an 11th hour, alternate suggestion. The SEC, Pac-12, ACC, Sun Belt, SWAC & Metro Atlantic sent a letter to the DI Council on Friday suggesting a model that would avoid conflict with state NIL legislation, accepting each state's respective rules. In addition, for states that have not adopted NIL legislation, each school can adopt their own NIL rules.

Obviously, this would not be an ideal solution. But the NCAA member institutions have dragged their feet on NIL for years, certainly since losing the federal lawsuit in the Ed O'Bannon case in 2014. As one NCAA decision maker bluntly stated, "We've done this to ourselves.” With Mark Emmert making it clear that the NCAA has no intention of challenging any state's NIL legislation in court, the question now appears to be will the NCAA accept the alternate suggestion proposed by the 6 conference commissioners effectively punting once again on NIL?

If the NCAA will NOT challenge any state's NIL legislation, what penalty, if any, will student athletes who sign commercial deals be subject to? I assume that the NCAA doesn't want to get this issue into the courts because the SC has already indicated that the organization is involved in anti-trust behaviors. Once the court(s) rule that the NCAA violates the anti-trust provisions engrained in law, the group might as well just pull the dirt over its prostrate body. Sally Jenkins and Paul Fineman have already performed the last rites in today's news.
I was going to initiate a thread today asking the following: If you were PB's attorney, what advice would you give her about her actions after July 1?

 

[oldude]

If the NCAA will NOT challenge any state's NIL legislation, what penalty, if any, will student athletes who sign commercial deals be subject to? I assume that the NCAA doesn't want to get this issue into the courts because the SC has already indicated that the organization is involved in anti-trust behaviors. Once the court(s) rule that the NCAA violates the anti-trust provisions engrained in law, the group might as well just pull the dirt over its prostrate body. Sally Jenkins and Paul Fineman have already performed the last rites in today's news.
I was going to initiate a thread today asking the following: If you were PB's attorney, what advice would you give her about her actions after July 1?

The Supreme Court decision yesterday was certainly a slap up the side of the head to the NCAA. In addition, the NCAA has known since 2014 that they are skirting antitrust laws, and they don’t want to generate several hundred new Ed O’Bannon type lawsuits.

 

[MSGRET]

Said this before....lawyers, agents, politicians and "outside companies".... Guess I'm naive, but how is this a good thing? The sleaze factor scares me...... Gonna love to see how this is managed and mismanaged! Car dealerships better hope their inventory gets replenished quickly!!! And I can't wait to see Adidas sneakers with Nike uniforms!

I believe that Connecticut's and the other 10 State's NIL law have a clause that forbids money being made while the person is representing the University, another words if you are playing a game you can not wear any apparel that you are being paid for.

 

[Alydar]

Said this before....lawyers, agents, politicians and "outside companies".... Guess I'm naive, but how is this a good thing?

They have all been there all along, just back in the shadows. Nike already pays the schools and gives the players shoes. Bueckers has a closet full. It's not going to be a problem In wcbb. We will be able to count the new female millionaires on one hand and still hold a joint between 2 fingers*. On the mens side they can invest their money instead of keeping it in safety deposit boxes. And the NCAA can take off their blinders.
In fact players, since at least going back to Ewing have been able to insure themselves against injury while borrowing the money against future earnings. If that's not trading your talent for money then I missed out when I was in college. Lots of players have done it and the NCAA has given it their blessing because the alternative was losing stars to the pros. Without the insurance Ewing would have left Georgetown/The NCAA.

* Just 8 days until I can smoke some pot on my deck without looking around first.

 

[JJTB]

They have all been there all along, just back in the shadows. Nike already pays the schools and gives the players shoes. Bueckers has a closet full. It's not going to be a problem In wcbb. We will be able to count the new female millionaires on one hand and still hold a joint between 2 fingers*. On the mens side they can invest their money instead of keeping it in safety deposit boxes. And the NCAA can take off their blinders.
In fact players, since at least going back to Ewing have been able to insure themselves against injury while borrowing the money against future earnings. If that's not trading your talent for money then I missed out when I was in college. Lots of players have done it and the NCAA has given it their blessing because the alternative was losing stars to the pros. Without the insurance Ewing would have left Georgetown/The NCAA.

* Just 8 days until I can smoke some pot on my deck without looking around first.

Snickerdoodle cookies aren't bad either! I think I went to a Rockies game 3 years ago!