NIL and boosters?
- Thread starter maysvilleky
- Start date
There is nothing legally to stop schools from paying players directly right now, however that will never happen because if they do it can no longer be considered amateur athletics, it will be pro sports which is a business, and the schools lose their tax free status and all the millions they are taking in become taxable revenue.
No, not public HS at least. Private school that provides tuition & room/board on scholarship for playing athletics may very well be subject. Back to public HS, local NIL opportunities will boom.
HS players (with parental/guardian consent) can do everything NIL that the college students do. So, technically, they're self-employed, but not employees of the HS.
I foresee many HS players (4/5-star) becoming local (their respective hometown) stars, and cashing in on NIL $ locally. This may very well impact where the HS player chooses to attend college. If they're hometown is Vegas, they might want to stay in LV if they're endorsed by a local taxi company, and attend UNLV.
If you don't believe they're local stars, just look at the HS football stadiums they build in Texas!
I dont understand what makes public high school players self employed but public college players employees. Explain
Sure.
We're talking about two different things:
1. NIL $ (made off your name, image, or likeness); you're selling you. (HS, or College)
2. Athlete employee of the school: tuition/salary/benefits (College only, but maybe some private HS)
1. NIL $ currently exists. Anybody can make NIL $, and those who do are self-employed. That's it, period. However, minors (under 18) must have parental/guardian consent to earn NIL $ because they are minors.
2. Athlete employees earning salaries from their college doesn't exist, but probably will very soon (6-18 months). This won't apply to HS students and their high schools. Here, we're talking about players being employees of the college. Lastly, the college players will be able to get both 1 & 2, not either 1, or 2.
Ok but you still haven't explained what makes them different. What is the legal theory behind the difference?
It's right here, read up:
You'll be quizzed on it later.
Utterly irrelevant. Kavanaughs analogy of an employee doesn't suggest SCOTUS is prepared to declare players to be employees. Further, there is no mention, in any regard, to high school players. So, I take it you can't support your position.
You are probably right about Bama, but they dont have enough money to be the dominant team, watch out for A&M or one of the other old southwest conference schools.
Alston is "utterly irrelevant." ???
You have failed the quiz, and must now seek special education services.
To the discussion we're having, yes. Please tell us all the part that would differentiate college vs high school players. The problem is, you can't, so you'll resort to juvenile distractions.Alston is "utterly irrelevant." ???
You have failed the quiz, and must now seek special education services.
Alston is the Law of the Land!
Your inability to comprehend Alston is not our problem; it's your problem!
Everyone who's read Alston get's it ~ you don't. Seek the help of professionals so that you can learn to read, and comprehend like others do. You mustn't be embarrassed ~ nobody's mocking you. You just need a little extra help.
Imo Alston doesn't speak on their employment status (although that issue will likely be litigated fairly soon).
However it makes very clear they will strike down any restrictions on their ability to earn money that's based solely on their status as a student athlete.
So all these restrictions UK and others have in place are all toast soon as they're challenged. Right now, the notion is to toss a few crumbs and hope that satisfies them for awhile. That way the ncaa can continue to get as much as they can before it's challenged further.
However it makes very clear they will strike down any restrictions on their ability to earn money that's based solely on their status as a student athlete.
So all these restrictions UK and others have in place are all toast soon as they're challenged. Right now, the notion is to toss a few crumbs and hope that satisfies them for awhile. That way the ncaa can continue to get as much as they can before it's challenged further.
Agree.
And what, in your opinion, would prohibit a 15 year old high school student, with parental/guardian consent, from opening his/her NIL business regardless of whether or not he/she is an athlete?
Here are a few success stories:
www.moms.com
20 Kids Who Became Millionaires Before Graduating High School
No one helped these kids - they did it on their own, with their own brains and their own nerve.
www.moms.com
Depends on the state. California allows high school students athletes to profit from NIL.
That wasn't the question. The genius, aka @bumpstock, thinks players in college are employees and players in high school are not. He also, somehow, thinks Alston affirms that position.
California H.S. students never needed California's permission to profit from NIL, but it's nice that California thinks they needed to give them permission.
Can you give me a state where it's prohibited? If you can't, then it's permitted.
Let’s assume you correct, because who really cares? The claim Alston is a legal foundation for your claim is just wrong.
I think the unstated inference might be that generally education through HS is a service offered to basically all students as a grant by the government (excepting private schools), and not a quid pro quo
whereas there is no granting of service to a college student in most cases. However, the analogy of a college employee basis is not strictly accurate, as it’s an exchange of a college education/scholarship in exchange for athletic participation. It’s more of a contract laborer exchange, than employment.
the NCAA on the other hand is trying to control the rights to the school and athlete’s games with only engaging one party in an athletic department, and then limiting the 2nd party’s rights to NIL….that’s profiting from someone’s output without them having a say in what is argued being a right that was not bargained away…. NCAA was making all the dough and then wanting to squeal if somebody else got a taste…. That’s really the smack down
the NCAA would need a Contract with athletes to exchange rights and responsibilities In exchange for consideration for some compensation, but that would be ungainly in the least
but it certainly would be perfectly law abiding for a school to negotiate with their athletes a stipend based upon their projected NIL, and then manage and market the various athletes NIL rights…. In this case the athlete provides sport participation, surrenders NIL proceeds and agreements outside of the school, and promises academic performance IN CONSIDERATION of scholarship and an NIL stipend - this is how we handle coaches here at UK. They get a compensation package, but all rights to individual ad deals are surrendered to UK (and effectively to IMG)
Hmm. I'll try this paragraph by paragraph.
1. Perhaps but that doesn't really answer the "employee" question for me. I obviously see that difference but I don't see how one equates to employment while the other does not.
2. I agree
3. The NCAA is trying to control the buying of players. It isn't about keeping money for themselves as much as trying to create an even playing field, as much as possible.
4. Neither the NCAA or its member schools want to pay players directly. There is nothing in Alston to imply that they should.
5. That is not currently legal under NCAA rules. Based on Alston, I don't think that plan of attack will hold up. Coaches are employees, players are not and never should be.
"...for a school to negotiate with their athletes a stipend based upon their projected NIL, and then manage and market the various athletes NIL rights…." =
Collective Bargaining?
yeah, not seeing collective bargaining as I see collective fringes. Remember, players still get to choose where they commit and if they want to jump ship afterwards. There probably is going to be some schools who try and get the probable stars to share their NIL earnings across the board, and then perhaps if NIL earnings top a certain level, they get a decent bump in percentage
remember that an ace QB is gonna look
Like garbage if the unsung heroes of the OLine decide the QB is being an ungrateful d!ck after his last hair gel commercial …. Sharing the wealth is good for a team I think
I respect your position, but you know it's Collective Bargaining ~ stop putting lipstick on the pig.
As to the Ace QB who doesn't share, it could easily be a 5-Star DE/DT/LG who doesn't share his $, and is destined for the NFL 1st round.
Painters don't earn what Electricians do, but they're both card carrying members of the union.
It will be VERY interesting with the oil tycoons out West and Oregon with Nike how this plays out.
Ohio is one of many states where the state’s high school athletics association prohibits NIL deals per their amateurism requirements. Any athlete that accepted money in exchange for use of their NIL based on the notoriety they achieved through their athletics achievements would be ineligible to compete in high school competitions.
Amateurism bylaws like OHSAA bylaw 4-10-2b are fairly common.
Last edited:
Remains to be seen.
My suspicion, however, is that you’re probably more likely to see shady boosters get involved with trying to convince players to come back for an additional year rather than trying to offer recruiting inducements. With a returning player, you’re getting a known quantity and a better return.
And I also don’t view borderline kids withdrawing from the draft due to NIL money to be a bad thing. I fully support NIL deals for athletes based on principle, but if that also means maybe getting another year of guys like Benny Snell, then all the better.
Seems some NFL agents suspect NIL deals may do just that for the guys who are projected late rounders.
Ohio will be sued very soon...and, they're going to lose. California can, but Ohio can't?
This isn't a states rights' issue, and the Federal courts (once the first case is settled) will rule in favor of the athlete.
This (Ohio) is an example of what the NCAA (Federal) attempted to pull off ~ writing a check they couldn't cash. They can stall (and, they will), but they can't win.
The Alston justices laughed at the NCAA's guise of maintaining amateurism defense, and were pretty clear in separating NIL $ vs athletic amateurism.
Last edited:
I hope the Booster would deal with the player's NIL Agent regarding such a deal prior to the player declaring for the Draft. That said, I don't find the Booster "shady."
What's the problem with the Booster making the NIL "deal" with the player, and his agent, with a contingency clause that the player return to the school?
Lost income (Tort). Is Ohio going to tell the same kid he can't work at McDonald's off-season, or he'll lose his amateur status in Ohio?
Oh, BTW, if the income were held in escrow until the age of majority/graduation, could they "keep" their amateur status in Ohio?
Last edited:
Agreed If the one-time transfer rule is permanent then it needs to be changed maybe even more strict than before to avoid this situation.
What tort theory? And, in what jurisdiction has Ohio waived sovereign immunity for claims sounding in tort?
Of course, they might to go with Age Discrimination, too.
Civil Rights violation?
Many possibilities; many outcomes.
The road to the end is meaningless ~ they'll get to the end.
Lost wages & Lost earning capacity (once in a lifetime chance to cash in).
This will be settled in Federal Court (just like Alston); they don't care about Ohio's stupid regulations.
Last edited:
Same response you had when Alston was pending two years ago yet, here we are.
You can get in front of it, or you can get run over by it.
Any restaurant that does this for UK will get my business.
Last edited:
Similar threads
