Would that apply to Notre Dame, Stanford, SMU, Vandy, etc?
Don’t believe anyone said anything about limiting endorsement work. In the post YOU quoted me in, I said “payrolls”.
Which league has boosters willing to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands to get players to sign with their team - aka pay for play?
Correct NIL is endorsement money. The player must endorse something, sign autograph, likeness in game or ad, etc… That should not be limited. “NIL” is being used for pay for play not endorsements that part should be limited. Hence the clearinghouse proposal to vet endorsement deals as valid endorsement deals.
Too many people are mixing or oblivious to the differences in what NIL and revenue sharing are/should be. Mostly by people wanting to skirt the system to buy a championship over earning a championship on a reasonably level playing field.
I completely agree with this part.
What I’m saying is that the game itself doesn’t address an economic need. Part of the educational ideal that encouraged founding all these schools is the need for a sound mind in a sound body–sports of all kinds and levels of competition are an extension of education for the participants, to include the school community that gathers around them.
Professional sports grew out of similar associations centered around industrial teams, military units, and athletic clubs. It’s relatively recent that any player or coach was paid enough to make a living, let alone get rich; Nolan Ryan was the first to get a million dollar contract in 1980.
Where does that money come from? Even at the pro level, tickets and concessions are solid revenue streams, but the big change is TV advertising (and now Internet). Advertisers realize that lots of attention aggregates around certain sports, and not others, so paying for advertising is worthwhile to them. Even pros don’t get paid for playing the game, they get paid out of sponsorship for the team and for their own off field appearances. (The exception is prize money, I guess, but most of that comes from gambling. What another can of worms that is.)
I still think the idea of sports as part of a complete education is important, but maybe not to the extent of separation and special treatment from the rest of the student body. I think there should also be minor leagues for those who don’t want to bother with the college stuff, and let the money go there. In a professional setting it’s a matter of labor and management, though still not much to do with capital and capitalism. I think this kind of money and extravagance is corrupting to players and to institutions and should be taken out of the educational setting. If people want to sell out for the money they’re welcome to do so, but don’t ruin a valuable institution in the process.
Ok, so the gist of your position is that pay for play and revenue sharing should be limited in some way, but NIL not, right?
The limit on NIL is that it shouldn’t be used falsely as a stand in for paying players, especially as a recruiting inducement.
If a kid appears in a TV commercial they get paid for it… but I could do the same thing if anyone wanted me to. I happen to think it’s craven and distasteful, and too easily becomes exploitative and distorts the on field competition.
What are you talking about? Players in the NBA, NFL etc are paid by teams and earn most of their money through their player contracts though there are some players who earn a considerable amount in endorsements. Their play and contribution help create a product that people want which drives up value and thus revenue. Of course players should be able to share in those revenues.
I don’t see Stanford, Texas, Michigan etc being ruined. The excellence of their academic programs is not in any way contingent on if players on their football teams are “selling out for money” or not.
1 Like
Correct.
Create a system where there are set monetary guidelines and rules that all member institutions play under - thus a roughly level playing field from a rules standpoint as controlled by the institutions and overarching committee (NCAA?). [Personally I would like a university spending limit formula of some sort too, where all revenue above it goes back to the education side of the school, but that is a whole other conversation as it is above and beyond level field and into university purpose]
NIL would be a players ability to work as any other student has the freedom to do so. In the case of players, that would be endorsements, autographs, appearances, commercials, etc… It would be based on fair market values not some rich person’s ego to try to circumvent the system above.
I think that would be a fair system that would provide some sort of opportunity for all.
Plus it goes back to the post above in universities trying to teach well rounded students. Not have students learn that you cheat and win by stepping on whoever you can.
1 Like
I’m talking about the money for those contracts comes from the advertising on every square inch of the stadium and the TV screen. The only product those players offer is the attention of millions of eyeballs.
If playing a sport was inherently valuable economically, then someone should be able to make millions by playing horseshoes, but they don’t because nobody is watching. I would like to make a lot of money for playing pickup Ultimate Frisbee on Tuesday nights, but I can’t because nobody cares.
The difference between an MLB player and many minor league players is vanishingly small compared to the general population, but the major league player receives millions more for the same game because millions more people are watching.
Pro teams hang on to boat anchor players too long because of merch sales, not on field performance. The game itself is basically valueless, but the people watching are worth billions. Similarly, social media is valueless, except for the ability to deliver very focused advertising. In both cases, sports and social media are not the product, YOU are the product.
I laughed when I read that the President was considering an Executive Order on NIL after Coach Saban had his private audience with the President. At best, an EO would be symbolic, and even that is a stretch. At worst, it is a publicity stunt to pander to college football fans.
A rich person’s ego is the market value. Or are you saying that the government or ncaa should come in and say you x dollars for an autographed and x dollars for a pizza commercial but x dollars more for a national commercial?
Market pays what the market seems as value.
Currently universities are not paying players a dime outside of the traditional full ride. And that is not even either. One might say a degree from a full ride at say Stanford or Washington is far more valuable than that of a degree from LSU or UH. How is that fair?
1 Like
Only stupid people or people trying to justify cheating think that.
There are industries of people that evaluate values of objects. Show me where rich people walk into sports memorabilia stores and voluntarily pay $100,000 for an autographed with a $100 price tag on it.
Then show me where they resold that item for equal or more than they paid.
I will settle to someone walking into a store and paying $100,000 for an oz of gold. At least that is considered an investment.
So what is the value of a commercial? If a player asks for 4 million from Tennessee fans, maybe they wind up as a player for a bad ucla team, and the market speaks.
Just because you won’t pay for it does not mean you are the market maker. The guy that writes the check determines the value.
Pretty much any agent or commercial producer can look at what was paid for other QBs to be in a commercial. It is not a fixed rate as it will also be impacted by the exposure of the commercial - local, national, broadcast or cable, prime time or late night, etc… Calculate the amount paid by other ad agencies to other QBs with similar recognition and info on the commercial can provide a baseline for the value to hire the QB. Not exactly hard.
Plus the whole settlement with the courts includes a potential clearinghouse for NIL to do just that.
Of course your example is stupid as tennessee fans were not hiring for a commercial were they? Just pay to play. Thus not NIL.
Now where is an example from the autograph purchase where someone paid $100,000 for an autograph listed for $100?
This is trying to be too cute by half logic. I am the consumer and I am looking for entertainment, a product. Companies create entertainment products in various forms to generate enough interest so that I am willing to search out and watch the product they have whether by buying a ticket and going to a game, show, concert, watching a broadcast or reading a write up about it. And while yes, the company that has a product I’m interested in can then commodify and use that interest to leverage advertisers, at the end of the day those advertisers are just trying to sell me more product because again I’m a consumer and my interests are subject to change.
Teams have to find the best players to give them the best chance of winning to keep their fanbase satisfied and growing. So yes, players are paid to play the sport and play well otherwise they are replaced to maximize fan interest. Player legends that are fan favorites staying on rosters post their prime is a rarity.
You can say sports or whatever are inherently valueless but in reality if you can hit, throw, shoot a ball well enough then there’s a market for that. Any skill or talent can be valuable if there’s a market for it. The players generate value through their skills and talent in contributing to a product that people consume. Markets can change as interests of consumers change for instance I’m not a fan of my hometown pro teams anymore. There is a market for college athletics and it’s not going away. Players who contribute to generating this value should be fairly compensated for it unless we’re just going to not broadcast college athletics on television anymore.
Student-Athletes need to meet academic requirements? Come on, man.
Wake-up and smell the coffee.
1 Like
A whole load of people thought it was a good idea to pay huge money for tokens and coins on the internet. Markets are weird.
Michael Jordan got a piece of Nike as an endorsement. That had never happened before. In your view they should have a set rate for everything?
Again totally irrelevant and unrelated examples.
Assume talking bitcoin on first. But I can log in right now and see a value for bitcoin. I am not going to pay three times the current rate for it, and no one else is either - stupid example. When it first came out there were no guidelines, but I am guessing that a QB has been in a commercial before today so there are guidelines as there is now current pricing for bitcoin.
Second also irrelevant to examples given. Jordan gets royalties for a line of shoes using his name. That is not hew and there were past examples that could have been used for valuation. It was not based upon a random person wanting to give Jordan money to play for the Bulls. It was based upon much expertise in value for both Jordan and Nike to profit from. But again, you said never done before - commercials, autographs, public appearances have all been done before.
Quit wasting time with irrelevant or unrelated examples.
Football is the creation of entertainment.
Labor negotiations with management are part of capitalism.
F-
1 Like
The system is going to be unionized eventually.