OT: NIL Issues At Iowa
- Thread starter YaketySax
- Start date
Not surprising. The entire concept of the NIL is just a terrible idea. Even constitutionally, it’s conflicting. And the Supreme Court has ruled in unconstitutional manner many times before, I believe this one is no different. NIL is conflicting with other laws and should have never been forced into a private institution and college athletics.
The vast majority of the money generated by the NCAA went back to universities to fund all types of things such as research and sectors that needed it. I understand the universities were making bank, and it appeared players were essentially working for free, but they weren’t.
It’s destroying the sport quicker than I thought it would. It’s creating apathy with fans, and smaller programs are going to greatly suffer. In the end, the ends will not justify the means.
Title IX is just another example of conflicting situations with regard to this. None of it makes sense really, especially when you consider no athlete is forced to participate. I will just never even begin to wrap my head around this. I truly believe in the end apathy will take hold and this sport will be, essentially, for gamblers. It will be kept alive because of that but the money generated will drop like flies and more money will be lost than gained, even for the players long term. If nobody cares anymore, no money will be given out. If it gets that bad you might not even be worth your scholarship.
I know that is unlikely or even ridiculous for some, but in 25-50 years? Who’s going to care anymore but a handful of football teams? Apathy is getting real in college sports.
The vast majority of the money generated by the NCAA went back to universities to fund all types of things such as research and sectors that needed it. I understand the universities were making bank, and it appeared players were essentially working for free, but they weren’t.
It’s destroying the sport quicker than I thought it would. It’s creating apathy with fans, and smaller programs are going to greatly suffer. In the end, the ends will not justify the means.
Title IX is just another example of conflicting situations with regard to this. None of it makes sense really, especially when you consider no athlete is forced to participate. I will just never even begin to wrap my head around this. I truly believe in the end apathy will take hold and this sport will be, essentially, for gamblers. It will be kept alive because of that but the money generated will drop like flies and more money will be lost than gained, even for the players long term. If nobody cares anymore, no money will be given out. If it gets that bad you might not even be worth your scholarship.
I know that is unlikely or even ridiculous for some, but in 25-50 years? Who’s going to care anymore but a handful of football teams? Apathy is getting real in college sports.
Can we please make it more like 50 years because I’ll be 82 and probably have dementia by then if I’m still kickin’! Need me some college foozball.
I wonder why is title IX impact?
We aren’t adding more men vs women scholarships. And the NIL isn’t officially from the school. So if men athletes are able to draw endorsements and women are not from third party NIL..where is the issue?
We aren’t adding more men vs women scholarships. And the NIL isn’t officially from the school. So if men athletes are able to draw endorsements and women are not from third party NIL..where is the issue?
B-I-N-G-O. There is a reason that male sports figures garner so much more pay ect, they bring in a lot more money than the non revenue/ Female sports. Proof is in the pudding watch a WNBA / NCAAW game. Might be a couple hundred maybe a couple thousand in attendance. Vs packed out for mens revenue sports.
No one especially government law makers seem to know this. You make less because you bring less. Now I would have been in the camp to get Abby Steiner some deals but other than that the athletes just don’t produce enough interest and money to justify any major deal. NIL is a complete crap shoot anyways when you have to start diverting that money away from what generates it to start with you’ll end up in trouble.
Now if they made the money I’d be all for it. But you can’t take money away from football to pay soccer when you’re already taking football money to even run soccer.
And I’d venture aby Steiner did get way more NIL due to her individual greatness, she’s a white sprinter in a sport dominated by black athletes, and she is good looking young lady…she’ll get more NIL then JJ Weaver or even Damion Collins off basketball team..and I’d argue nobody has a problem with that.
So why would the reverse be any different?
Waoh, hold the horses, Iowa Hawkeye here, hold on.
The Iowa SWARM has never been connected to the UI as it can't be....just like your collectives can't be connected with UK. They must be separate.
What you're quoting on Reddit is paints a wrong perception on what's the situation.
The reality is, and this comes DIRECTLY from the Head of Iowa's SWARM collective, is the AD at Iowa is not willing to share season ticket holder information with the SWARM CEO.
Additionally, UI wants the SWARM to include ALL athletes at Iowa; not just the football and basketball players.
These are the two fundamental issues here; nothing more, nothing less.
Exactly it’s a what can you do for me. Abby deserved hers no doubt. But College athletics as a whole are pretty much ram off football. We have one of the handful of basketball programs that are self sufficient, the majority of basketball programs in the NCAA ride off football, but god forbid that a QB of the biggest revenue sport at the university gets a NIL deal but some random girl no one’s heard of on the soccer team doesn’t make as much…… You don’t get much NIL because you don’t have much Name and Image. If you say KY QB you say Will Levis / or now Devin Leary. I can’t name a single soccer player never been to a game, never watched it on TV. I am 99% of the fan base. People can’t grasp that.
I don't think the concept of NIL is terrible but the execution has been poor to this point. I do agree that the value of a scholarship is lost in this whole thing but the bigger issue has been the total lack of leadership from the NCAA and the colleges who have had years to get their house in order but refused to do so and here we are.
20 years ago, Mitch told Guy Morris adios after Baylor offered him $800,000 vs. UK's 500,000. Now we have $9 million a year football and basketball coaches and on the hook for $46 million if we let the basketball coach go. The cost of living did not go up that much in 20 years. But TV money did and everyone from coaches, colleges, and athletic departments saw their cut increase dramatically. The only people it was unchanged for was the player and that is a problem.
It will take a few years to sort itself out but at the end of the day, the colleges, coaches, and fans will eventually act in self-preservation. It may mean shrinking from 85 scholarships, the transfer portal as it is now is going to have to be changed, since money is involved maybe players and colleges accepting transfers will require buyout money before they can leave or they go back to sitting out a year.
The Iowa thing is pretty dense. Title IX shouldn't be involved if the athletic department is not running the collective, the collective is a partner of athletics like Mingua Beef Jerky is with UK. A gymnast, golfer, wrestler is welcome to use their name, image, and likeness but in a non-revenue producing sport, you just may or may not have access to the collective.
20 years ago, Mitch told Guy Morris adios after Baylor offered him $800,000 vs. UK's 500,000. Now we have $9 million a year football and basketball coaches and on the hook for $46 million if we let the basketball coach go. The cost of living did not go up that much in 20 years. But TV money did and everyone from coaches, colleges, and athletic departments saw their cut increase dramatically. The only people it was unchanged for was the player and that is a problem.
It will take a few years to sort itself out but at the end of the day, the colleges, coaches, and fans will eventually act in self-preservation. It may mean shrinking from 85 scholarships, the transfer portal as it is now is going to have to be changed, since money is involved maybe players and colleges accepting transfers will require buyout money before they can leave or they go back to sitting out a year.
The Iowa thing is pretty dense. Title IX shouldn't be involved if the athletic department is not running the collective, the collective is a partner of athletics like Mingua Beef Jerky is with UK. A gymnast, golfer, wrestler is welcome to use their name, image, and likeness but in a non-revenue producing sport, you just may or may not have access to the collective.
Iowa is very delicately watching everything quite closely. They've lost two sex discrimination suits in the athletic dept. within the past 5 years and currently has a racial discrimination suit going on within the football program. This is why they're treading slowly.
Also, you don't think at some point there won't be law suits cropping up from athletes in non-revenue sports claiming they were excluded? Iowa may one day prove to have been ahead of the curve on this.
👏 great post. The legality of it as far as the GOV is concerned is settled, those mentioned have every right to use their NIL however they see fit. If they can get a deal great, but I have issue with saying they have to get as much as others.
You can’t make people give deals to people that doesn’t do anything for them, if I’m a business do I want a appearance by Will Levis, Oscar ect or would I rather sign my deal with someone 95% of fans have never heard of on a non revenue that the majority has never heard of? Easy decision to me.
No one can force anyone to give anyone a deal. If I’m a business am I investing my money in a well known figure like Will Levis or some girl who’s really good at soccer ect no doubt, but doesn’t move the needle for my business? And I’m definitely not donating money just so UK can have a kick ass soccer team that I care 0 about anyways if I’m donating a large sum it’ll be to things I am interested in. Should I give money away to soccer because no one else watches or cares either? That’s the issue. Can’t give deals just to give deals to make everyone happy.
Hmm, my friend, isn't that like Griner complaining she doesn't get the same money as Jordan? NIL is direct and for the most part, none of the schools business. Title IX should have nothing to do with it. There are probably privacy issues in sharing season ticket holder info but at the same time, that may be public record as well, I don't know.
Exactly, this Title IX stuff with NIL makes zero sense.
Eventually the university athletic dept's will control NIL so all these issues now will go away.
Iowa's AD simply wants ALL athletes in ALL sports to be recipients-- and I stated why some of the reason is at Iowa. Honestly, they are likely gun shy here in a way.
Let's just remember: NIL at Iowa, the SWARM is NOT suddenly being dissolved. Instead, season football ticket holders aren't getting a video from Coach Ferentz promoting it. That's all.
Sorry buddy, just because you're all football or men's basketball doesn't mean everyone is and doesn't mean athletes in only three sports can benefit. Ultimately there will be lawsuits challenging this from athletes of the sports not benefitting.
LOL, you’re talking to the most clueless on NIL group of fans in the country. They do no research and rely on message board posters made up rumors that they take as fact and a radio host with an axe to grind against the school. Take anything they say with a grain of salt.
They literally think the athletics department should fund NIL, they don’t realize that collectives are independent. They made up some lie about the AD threatening donors not to give to NIL. They claim UK controls where the money goes. They keep spewing some ignorance about the AD wanting to keep all the money and not allow NIL.
The root of this is the lack of understanding of equity vs equality, equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes, value vs potential value vs supported value, and the difference between a check, cash, and credit . If they still taught logic and basic consumer ed at the high school level it would help.
-There is equality of opportunity, but there is no guarantee of equality of outcome or value.
-The name, image, and likeness of every athlete has the potential to be worth money.
-That value can be lost or gained by activites, words, and interests.
-NIL value that is dependent on the activity, facility, or value of others is not true value.
-Everyone would like to be like Michael Jordan, but no one else is valued like Michael Jordan, because no one else IS Michael Jordan.
-Without the contributions of the rest of the football, volleyball, or baseball team what is the value of any ONE player? Golf, tennis, wrestling, etc... different story altogether.
-Without the NCAA what is the value of the HS and college athlete?
-Social media gives the appearance of value, but is it backed up by monetization? (Are people paying for your content or for your NIL? Would people cease to follow and monetize an athlete who stops participating, stops producing, has a production ending injury?)
-What demand is the athlete producing before they enter college? (How much can they charge a child or an adult for an autograph on a photo? How much are they getting paid to appear for or be on ads for a local business?)
-How much does the school benefit the NIL of the individual? If the No 1 HS QB goes to Alcorn St, is he worth as much as if he goes to Bama? (If he's not worth as much at Alcorn St, then it's not just HIS NIL value...)
-What does the value of college athletics become once they are paid/professional athletes? Time will tell, but there are people that currently watch or were watching that will not watch under these circumstances. How many and how quickly will determine the sustainability.
-Will the players unionize? (Won't they have to?)
-There is equality of opportunity, but there is no guarantee of equality of outcome or value.
-The name, image, and likeness of every athlete has the potential to be worth money.
-That value can be lost or gained by activites, words, and interests.
-NIL value that is dependent on the activity, facility, or value of others is not true value.
-Everyone would like to be like Michael Jordan, but no one else is valued like Michael Jordan, because no one else IS Michael Jordan.
-Without the contributions of the rest of the football, volleyball, or baseball team what is the value of any ONE player? Golf, tennis, wrestling, etc... different story altogether.
-Without the NCAA what is the value of the HS and college athlete?
-Social media gives the appearance of value, but is it backed up by monetization? (Are people paying for your content or for your NIL? Would people cease to follow and monetize an athlete who stops participating, stops producing, has a production ending injury?)
-What demand is the athlete producing before they enter college? (How much can they charge a child or an adult for an autograph on a photo? How much are they getting paid to appear for or be on ads for a local business?)
-How much does the school benefit the NIL of the individual? If the No 1 HS QB goes to Alcorn St, is he worth as much as if he goes to Bama? (If he's not worth as much at Alcorn St, then it's not just HIS NIL value...)
-What does the value of college athletics become once they are paid/professional athletes? Time will tell, but there are people that currently watch or were watching that will not watch under these circumstances. How many and how quickly will determine the sustainability.
-Will the players unionize? (Won't they have to?)
It's the same mess everyone will have on their hands. Way ahead of the curve out there in the hills, hogs, and corn fields of Iowa
Those hills supply you your food as do the hogs and corn fields. Grow to have a better appreciation and understanding.
The CEO of the Iowa collective (SWARM) has said t2he Reddit headline was mischaracterized in a big way. Again what I stated is the reality.
Like I said legally those players are free to use their NIL however they see fit. But you cannot ask a business to support players that they have no interest in supporting.
If the school said no only football ect can use NIL yes that’s a lawsuit.
Because every student athlete can use their NIL as they see fit. But you can’t make me sign a soccer player with my money, it’s not university ran.
Individual businesses cut their own deals with the` players they want-- that everyone should know.
And where the AD is giving the collective pushback is saying it should be all inclusive to sports/athletes and not just athletes from three different sports teams.
Actually Iowa Athletic Department will be sending the KF video out (new info on the situation), they are still reluctant to give up the mailing list. As rucker4 has stated, the SWARM is still in really good shape, this is just a bump in the road that will get resolved eventually. Nothing to see here.
We're going to disagree on this, big time. The schools have no right to limit NIL and trying to force equal participation is going to get Iowa sued, again. The courts would say, other than reasonable constraints on competing contracts and business types the players can represent, the state (schools) has no right to interfere with an individuals ability to profit from his or her own NIL.
If Iowa is really doing this, they are dead backwards. What right would school athletic departments have to control NIL? That goes against the basic thought Kavanaugh laid out. NIL belongs to the individual to do with as they wish with MINIMAL state contraints.
The schools have no right to limit NIL yet you claimed that, “At UK you're free to give to a collective UK has authorized, only. That is a fact. I bet that is about to change.” Now schools have no right to interfere. Well you’re right now but you were dead wrong when you made up this nonsense to forward y’all’s agenda.
You have always been free to give to any collective you want. I laugh when y’all change up you made up takes on NIL.
Last edited:
I didn't change anything. You have reading comprehension problems. Its the same complaint.
The Supreme Court was dead wrong on thier ruling now this is the mess that is left behind. I wasn't in the court room when the NCAA lawyers argued thier case but I imagine it sounded like the Charlie brown teachers
Nah, my comprehension is just fine. UK doesn’t control what collective you give to. That was made up BS. You claimed a collective had to be approved by UK for you to give to it. That is absolutely 100% false and a lie in a long series of lies y’all made up about NIL at UK.
No, I claimed a collective had to be approved by UK for the collective to be able to hire UK athletes. That is 100% correct. Of course anyone can give away their money to any group. Thats totally different than being able to funnel that money to particular players.
You need remedial reading classes.
SCOTUS hasn't "ruled" on this. It sent a clear warning. In what way do you think they were wrong?
No, SCOTUS has not ruled on NIL. What you posted was from Alston v NCAA. That was about educational benefits, cost of full attendance and that type issue. In its ruling Kavanaugh went further and gave his opinion on preventing players from making money in the free market - more or less at least.
That was not a SCOTUS ruling. It was a clear warning from Kavanaugh. At the same time, myriad state legislators were developing state laws to allow for NIL.
The NCAA realized the inevitable and gave up on NIL.
It’s interesting that probably the biggest NIL "name" at iowa is a female athlete. Caitlin Clark. I think Iowa is. School that would embrace female athletes as spokespersons. In fact, womens basketball attendance last year was third in the country and right behind the men's team in raw numbers.
Point is, Iowa supports female athletics in a big way.
Point is, Iowa supports female athletics in a big way.
We all have our feelings about NIL but the reasoning behind your arguments is complete nonsense.
Title IX has zero to do with NIL. Title IX stipulates what must be done with federal funds and those that use federal funding. Schools cannot directly pay athletes BECAUSE of Title IX unless the school directed that pay equitably. As long as NIL money remains private money and directed by private entities it will have zero Title IX impact. The only aspect that maybe could be argued is that public and private institutions cannot promote NIL collectives or direct those collectives on how to distribute their funds. The easy counter to that argument would be for schools who have sold their media rights to entities such as JMI, IMG, etc to have that entity do those promotions. So with UK/JMI…JMI would promote the 15 Fund because it is good for JMI for UK to be good. It improves the value of the media rights that they hold.
NIL isn’t a “thing” therefore wasn’t forced on anyone or anything. NIL is more accurately described as the lack of rules prohibiting what is happening. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that schools/NCAA could not make rules limiting earning potential and that individuals own their own names, images and likenesses. I’d like to see those supposed ruling you claim where the court has ruled against…again if you’re leaning on Title IX then you’re completely out of the water. Courts have ruled in favor of the student athletes in nearly every aspect…and I only say nearly because I am unaware of any rulings against them but am leaving room if one exists.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tyler Herro named NBA All-Star for the first time.- Latest: Son_Of_Saul
-
If cal is still coach are we Arkansas?- Latest: the nail at the foul line
