NCAA Player Compensation Lawsuit Could Spark Conference Realignment

It might back fire on the teams that can’t afford it…

Oh Hell, just when I thought Attorneys and Accountants couldn’t wreck things enough.

BTW, are they REALLY structured around geography so much that they would want to change?

I wonder if the players that want to be paid understand that the moment it happens they become employees and every cent of the scholarship value not just the cash becomes taxable income and if they play any games in states and or cities that have income tax them the portion of compensation earned that week becomes taxable in that state and or city. For example, USC and UCLA players would have to pay Federal Income Taxes, California state income taxes, and Los Angles city income taxes on their tuition, board, books, fees, and any other non cash benefit that they receive as part of their scholarship and when they play Washington in Washington they will have to pay income tax there also.

3 Likes

Maybe colleges will call it an enhanced stipend, trying to get around tax laws. Well rich people find all kind of loopholes to not pay taxes.

2 Likes

Pro athletes have to pay the taxes just as I have described and once the “students” become employees they will have to pay taxes exactly that way.

1 Like

I imagine the schools would be in charge of handling the different tax jurisdictions. And so long as the net in pocket is higher than it is now, what’s the negative of paying taxes?

It could … but it won’t … when it comes to separating $$$ from the big time P5s schools … I am reminded of that ole Jack Benny skit …

Robber: Your money or your life!!
Jack: (no response)
Jack: (moments later … still no response)
Robber: WELL!!
Ole miser Jack: I’m thinking about it … I’M THINKING ABOUT IT!!!

3 Likes

They won’t be employees. It’ll be a stipend. It’s funny how everyone wants to be in a big time conference, but once it involves giving the players more they freak out.

All the major players want a top tier of football which will be smaller but more like a mini NFL. Most schools burn money playing football if that’s what you want to do then fine, but it shouldn’t be a requirement just to be competitive.

No taxes on the tuition portion of a scholarship. There are ways of getting around paying taxes on the rest too. Also L.A. does not have a city income tax, those are not allowed in California. There are other cities and counties across the US that have them, usually in states with no state income tax or a low state tax.

Not legally. The code is very specific as what is exempt from income tax with respect to the use of scholarship money. Surely any change in how scholarship money can be used will prompt court cases dealing with taxability or exemption and, in the end, the courts decide how we are to obey the law.

I think with the current actions the NCAA is taking, they will eventually budge on allowing players to profit off their image. It takes no real money out of the NCAA or conference money and now players can get money for endorsements, appearances, autograph signings, etc. It’s still a slippery slope because that officially makes them pros, then they will unionize, then negotiate a cut of the profits.

I was talking more about the exemption and standard deduction, which yes would be used on their new income anyway. There are some ways that colleges could lower the taxable number for certain things as well. Just depends if it is worth it or not as taxes wont be high on anything but the housing.

It would be taxable because it is part of their compensation package as a taxable benefit.

Washington doesn’t have income tax, but Oregon does. So does Colorado.

I know that 7 states do not have income tax but didn’t realize that Washington was one of them.

We are debating about students paying taxes, but this thing could turn out like the college basketball/shoe company scandal but only legal. A player may select a school because it’s a Nike school and Nike is going to pay him more than UnderArmor will. It’s legal corruption if there is such a thing.

I get the argument for and against. But what about the optics? How will it go over with faculty if they don’t get a raise but players get paid,more and more over time. Or to tell students you will have to pay more in tuition but players get paid. What schools can truly afford this model? What, maybe about 10-12 programs?

JV
The model I was giving was players being paid like what is mentioned in the quote. Colleges and the NCAA will not pay athletes but it would be a free market on your value, similar to what college coaches do.

Either way it will finally destroy college sports.

1 Like