US Senate agrees to let NIL Salary cap increase by $27.5MM to $48MM.
So now that the Big XII and ACC can afford players through their TV payouts, the SEC and Big 10 who both are going to make $50MM on their tv contract wants to make NIL unaffordable for the ACC and XII.
So just when we can pay our players what they can pay their, they work with Congress to sink the have-nots.
If a program can pay $50MM to players, then they should not get academic government funding. They obviously have the money.
Worse than that. Your wording is not entirely correct as there is no NIL salary cap and cannot be one.
The proposal is for keeping the 21.5 million revenue sharing. plus bring in an additional 27 million to replace the NIL collectives schools run. So yes, as you point out, a 50 million dollar payroll which will eliminate most schools from competing under this new government legislation.
The next issue is that it cannot prevent additional NIL from players getting outside likeness deals such as a commercial. Supreme Court already ruled on that.
so now you would have players getting part of a $50 million payroll and NIL deals. Just the schools could possibly no longer have an NIL collective to help support their players get recognition as many smaller schools (ie. Big 12 and ACC) benefit from.
Congress can always override a Supreme Court decision by enacting a law that addresses the case in question. The trick of course is to get the bill passed.
So how does this get rid of NIL collectives
Couldn’t that just pay players directly like any other outside entity?
And if the amount is raised up to 48M
Can’t the funds from tv rev, other naming rights, jersey patches and nil collective all be part of that
Meaning schools who don’t have 48m in tv rev per school can make it up with an nil collective
Those who do would not benefit from an NIL collective
Maybe I don’t see this correctly
I read that in another article, that it was presented by the B1G or SEC as a way to remove the collectives and merge that money into the school. How exactly, you would have to ask the congressmen and conference execs what wording they may use.
Also read on one of the articles that it would use stricter NIL verification format. No school tie at all or help from schools getting NIL deals.
I will use Tech as an example. Tech pays 21M to players, Campbell comes in and pays another 25M or so. That keeps up with most of the other top paying schools in the B1G with their $40-50M “payrolls”.
Now change that to the school can pay almost $50M, which means the school can pay more than Tech did plus its NIL. Now Tech has to find donors to come up with another $25M to up its game to the $65-75 the B1G schools can now pay. The difference is the B1G school get that difference in media money which Tech does not get. So harder for Tech to keep up.
Now apply that to all the Big 12 and ACC schools that were already having a hard time keeping up with the top level of money. Now they are another $25 million further behind. Plus with limiting collectives, these players need to go out and find their own media deals, no more collectively having some donor just give $50,000 to each lineman.
Completely removes G schools from the field.
As with the first go around with NIL, we saw how the supposed rules were not rules, so it will depend on legislation wording.
Over half of the states in the U.S. have either an SEC or Big10 school in them (26 to be exact).
So… Any congressman who wants to keep his job would vote against that.
That’s 52 of the 100 Senators and I’m not going to calculate the House of Representatives… but I’m fairly certain it’s also well over half given that of those 26 states, you have California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, etc…
In addition to what Dude posted, It would depend on the merits used in the case. Congress can not just pass a law that over rides the decision if there was a constitutional basis. That would be something requiring a constitutional amendment.
I do not know how the case was argued, but a consideration.
God love people who throw out ideas without even thinking about them, and then piss on people who bother to respond.
Go on and “shake your head”.
You don’t have to be a “lawyer” to know the law, the constitution, or how our government works.
My BS is in political science, with a graduate degree in Government, and 30 years working for the government, having taken an “oath” to, and putting my life on the line to, support and defend the constitition.
You better bet if I was risking my life for something, as a career professional, I had some idea what it was I was doing, and why.
All 30 of those years I took around a picture of my family tucked inside my headgear and a copy of the U.S. Constiution in my upper left breast pocket next to my heart.
From a practical standpoint, I know how government actually works better than most lawyers.
7 Likes
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
10
Is the ncaa going to stay as “the top enforcer”? If indeed it is true what does this bill accomplish? Clearly we are where we are because of the ncaa’s inaptitude at governing its own set of rules. It looks like this bill caved in to the big10 and sec demands.
Antitrust law is statutory. A product of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, both of which Congress passed pursuant to its Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
This legislation would be passed pursuant to that same Constitutional authority.
Good insofar as it makes a P2 breakaway nearly impossible.
The P2 already enjoy a money and resource advantage, so that’s really not a change. Not sure why people think that that’s anything preventable, much less a reason to be opposed to this. There’s no way to neutralize that advantage. It is what it is. Some schools and some conferences are simply bigger and more valuable brands than others.
That said, as I mentioned elsewhere, even without this, should the P2 ever breakaway and then refuse to play the remaining 8 conferences, that might qualify as a “group boycott,” which is considered a PER SE Sherman Act antitrust violation.
Given that, I don’t really want to see college football get an anti-trust exemption.
That’s the one remaining weapon we have against the P2 should this legislation fail and the P2 then attempt a breakaway: ANTITRUST action.
Senator Ashley Moore from Florida is proposing a new amendment that would allow P4 schools to change conferences without the five year independence period.
Can you guess who two of the schools in her state are? You guessed it! Miami and Florida State…two schools that want OUT of the ACC and think that they belong in the P2.
The Congress cannot override a clause in the Constitution by passing a law. For example, the Congress passed an Income Tax during the Civil War, but the Court said it was unconstitutional. So an amendment has to be passed. Similarly, a Congress could not pass a law that said a person cannot enter into a contract. However, Congress could regulate who offers the Contracts; like in the context of employment. However, the problem for the NCAA is that only employees and employees can enter into contracts. This bill specifically says that college athletes are not employees. That to me is probably why much of this bill will eventually get thrown out.