NCAA moves toward allowing athletes to be paid sponsors

[NH]

17 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

only if they are also getting this endorsement money.   once we call it pay, it's all pay

What about students who have academic scholarships and then also part time jobs? Should they be paying taxes on their scholarship? 

[billiken_roy]

9 minutes ago, NH said:

What about students who have academic scholarships and then also part time jobs? Should they be paying taxes on their scholarship? 

hell i gotta pay taxes they should too.  maybe in the big picture it reduces taxes for everyone.

[Old guy]

9 minutes ago, NH said:

What about students who have academic scholarships and then also part time jobs? Should they be paying taxes on their scholarship? 

It does get sticky, does it not? This promises to be or become a very large legal mess with claims and counter claims. The schools will not be able to maintain programs if they have to defend who is owed what or by  whom?

[Quality Is Job 1]

How can an athletic scholarship be considered "income"?  Income is something you can decide what to spend it on (even if you have little choice, practically — taxes, rent, insurance, etc.).  But you can't take your scholarship and exchange it for some other expense.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Quality Is Job 1
Clarification needed.

[Cowboy]

17 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

How can an athletic scholarship be considered "income"?  Income is something you can decide what to spend it on (even if you have little choice, practically — taxes, rent, insurance, etc.).  But you can't take your scholarship and exchange it for some other expense.

-one also doesn't have accept a scholarship

-the can of worms has been opened, spilled and it appears there is no going back, the consequences of this will go to places not fully comprehended

-whoever made the point that what I will call, for lack of a better term, the lower level sports,  will be the ones reduced or eliminated I can see this happening and with Title 9 it will be equal for ladies and gentlemen 

[slufanskip]

21 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

How can an athletic scholarship be considered "income"?  Income is something you can decide what to spend it on (even if you have little choice, practically — taxes, rent, insurance, etc.).  But you can't take your scholarship and exchange it for some other expense.

So should all employers be allowed to provide unlimited education expenses to employees tax free if they just call it a scholarship? 

 

[slufanskip]

15 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-one also doesn't have accept a scholarship

-the can of worms has been opened, spilled and it appears there is no going back, the consequences of this will go to places not fully comprehended

-whoever made the point that what I will call, for lack of a better term, the lower level sports,  will be the ones reduced or eliminated I can see this happening and with Title 9 it will be equal for ladies and gentlemen 

That was me as it seems to me that when you start talking about paying athletes because they make money for the school, you have to take the same approach with the ones who lose money. If they make you money you have to pay them, if they lose you money you can't charge them. Doesn't seem right does it? 

And we have to remember that most schools do not make money off athletics. The sports that do pay for the sports that lose money. 

It's a tough question all the way around. Imo the answer in basketball lies with the G League. If your concern is making money and your good enough go play pro. No one is stopping you except your own ability.  Maybe you limit salaries at any non profit organization. (we should do this anyway to include churches and charities) then require the school to invest profits made from sports back into the school or the athletic department. 

[Old guy]

32 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

So should all employers be allowed to provide unlimited education expenses to employees tax free if they just call it a scholarship? 

 

Sulfan, ask yourself do the employers really  desire to provide unlimited education expenses to their employees tax free? I have no idea what kind of hoops they would have to jump through to call educational support or whatever they call it a scholarship. It is a lot easier for them to list this expense as extra employee compensation.

[HoosierPal]

3 hours ago, cheeseman said:

The buck stops with the AD so whether he/she physically is doing it he/she will be responsibility for hiring and supervising the person who is doing it.

The money won't be coming out of the AD Department, so why would he/she/mx be the focus.  This $$ is all third party.  But yeah, someone has to head it up.  Just not sure if the AD is the main cog in this Wheel of Fortune.

[NH]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

hell i gotta pay taxes they should too.  maybe in the big picture it reduces taxes for everyone.

So if an 18 year-old is a full-time student, and the university says, "Hey, we are so impressed with your grades and academic achievement that we will let you come here free of charge" you think the student should have to pay income taxes on the value of that education , even though the student may have no actual cash income, no paycheck, etc.? I just want to make sure I have this straight.

[3star_recruit]

1 hour ago, slufanskip said:

and I don't think you can have it two ways really, so to NH's point that it was tongue in cheek. Actually it wasn't. If D1 basketball players are professional, then they are professional. And lets get real what a current D1 basketball player at SLU gets in a given year is worth more than 50% + of citizens in the US make per year. 

My understanding is that if a company reimburses or pays an employees tuition only about 5k per year is non taxable. What's the difference? 

Why are one set up students who don't play sports allowed to go to school tax-free and have summer jobs and the other set of students considered professional athletes?  If they were really professional athletes, they wouldn't have to attend classes or do homework and they would be getting a check deposited to their account every two weeks.

[3star_recruit]

1 hour ago, slufanskip said:

So should all employers be allowed to provide unlimited education expenses to employees tax free if they just call it a scholarship? 

 

The employee gets a substantial check every two weeks.

[billiken_roy]

38 minutes ago, NH said:

So if an 18 year-old is a full-time student, and the university says, "Hey, we are so impressed with your grades and academic achievement that we will let you come here free of charge" you think the student should have to pay income taxes on the value of that education , even though the student may have no actual cash income, no paycheck, etc.? I just want to make sure I have this straight.

Sure.   

[brianstl]

This might actually work out for us.  We got a billionaire super fan and no football program to draw boosters money away. 
 

The big losers in all of this will be the coaches.  They will become instantly much less valuable to programs.

[Billiken Rich]

4 hours ago, cgeldmacher said:

I disagree.  Every kid will want to know "what package am I getting."  This will be true even at schools like SLU.  You're making the mistake of assuming that the sponsor dollars are coming from Pepsi or Ford.  The reality is that big companies aren't going to sign athletes and give the appearance of favoritism to one program over another.  What will really happen is the a school's boosters will be hit up to pay kids to "endorse" their products.  The entire system will be a sham of paying players for local endorsements that the business wouldn't have paid for normally.  Like someone said, Kentucky will find a car dealership to pay a player $100,000 to put their face on ONE billboard.  It won't be because that business is getting value out of that endorsement, but will completely be a payoff to the player.  Once Kentucky does it, then Butler will decide it has to keep up, so it will tell a kid that they will get $50,000.00 "endorsement" deal to show up at a CPA firm for 2 hours and sign autographs.  No one will show up for the autograph session, but it will all be legal.  Then SLU will have to do the same thing.  Now Ford and May are having to hit up the Billiken donors for these deals.

Then, what happens when French and Goodwin are getting endorsement deals, but Perkins is not?  Is he now unhappy, because he sees French's new car, and he doesn't have one?  I wouldn't blame him.  Why shouldn't he get paid under this system?  So, May gets him an autograph signing somewhere and a $20,000 check.  Now Yuri sees that and thinks, "I had a good year last year, why didn't they get me anything."

Conclusion: this is a nightmare.

Would we get to a point where our adam oats want to renegotiate his deal three times a season?

[HoosierPal]

So will athletes sign contracts with these business owners?  I believe it would be prudent. Here is what I expect and here is what you get. Could these be 2, 3, 4 year deals? 

[almaman]

Why not have sponsors for teams? figure 100k each for 13 players? School saves all that cash, 45 for actual tuition and the rest for travel etc. I can hear Guy now "Introducing your Dobb's Tire and Auto Center's  St Louis University Billikens". 

[Major Majerus]

2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

hell i gotta pay taxes they should too.  maybe in the big picture it reduces taxes for everyone.

If you get a cash stipend, it’s reportable income; tuition & direct educational expenses picked up by the school are not. 

[slu72]

I'll give you a actual example of how this will work. Ohio St, which is about as dirty as it gets in college sports, will exploit this rule. I have a friend in Columbus who owned a car dealership. First approached about giving a loaner car for a year to an OSU assistant FB coach. In return 2 good season tickets to OSU FB games. Hard to get in Columbus. Next, approached to give a loaner and a summer job to an OSU FB recruit. Two more season tickets. He refused this deal. He was worried about the NCAA when it came to student athletes. 

Point being if it's made legal-- no problem plus the car dealer gets the benefit of having the athlete as a promoter of his business. At OSU that would be a big deal. As it would be for a player at UK , KU, or Duke. 

If this happens, SLU has to get some businesses to sign on. If not we will lose recruits. 

[Compton]

To clarify, the proposed rule changes would not permit schools to pay players. However, a school booster could pay a student-athlete $200,000 a year for "basketball instruction services" or buy a signed basketball from a student-athlete for $5,000. So the ties could be pretty close. Any income would be taxed by Uncle Sam as is his won't. And any such arrangement would have to be reported by the student-athlete to the school's AD. 

Same goes for any non-booster arrangement, i.e. a kid being paid $20,000 to appear (although not in school uniform or with any school iconography) in a car dealership or Imo's or Becky's Carpet ad. 

 

[brianstl]

8 minutes ago, slu72 said:

I'll give you a actual example of how this will work. Ohio St, which is about as dirty as it gets in college sports, will exploit this rule. I have a friend in Columbus who owned a car dealership. First approached about giving a loaner car for a year to an OSU assistant FB coach. In return 2 good season tickets to OSU FB games. Hard to get in Columbus. Next, approached to give a loaner and a summer job to an OSU FB recruit. Two more season tickets. He refused this deal. He was worried about the NCAA when it came to student athletes. 

Point being if it's made legal-- no problem plus the car dealer gets the benefit of having the athlete as a promoter of his business. At OSU that would be a big deal. As it would be for a player at UK , KU, or Duke. 

If this happens, SLU has to get some businesses to sign on. If not we will lose recruits. 

Well we do have Lou Fusz.

[slufanskip]

2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Why are one set up students who don't play sports allowed to go to school tax-free and have summer jobs and the other set of students considered professional athletes?  If they were really professional athletes, they wouldn't have to attend classes or do homework and they would be getting a check deposited to their account every two weeks.

I was referring to if D1 players were getting paid to play. 

I get this isn't exactly that. However it won't be long before sponsors get sweet deals to advertise and then the sponsor pays the kid. Just laundering money from the school to the kid, nothing else. 

My opinion won't change. If they want to be paid to play and are good enough let them go do it. Don't enroll in college. 

[cheeseman]

4 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

The money won't be coming out of the AD Department, so why would he/she/mx be the focus.  This $$ is all third party.  But yeah, someone has to head it up.  Just not sure if the AD is the main cog in this Wheel of Fortune.

He/she will be involved.  The money will come from outside the school but the athletic department will have a hand in it would be my guess.

[HoosierPal]

https://sports.yahoo.com/finally-ncaa-will-allow-athletes-to-make-money-on-their-names-142306697.html

According to this article, we are looking at January 2021 for an NLI vote.

Here are some interesting comments from the article.

There are still details to be ironed out. There are, no doubt, unexpected issues that could flare up. A priority will be given to trying to create fairness in recruiting.

The player would be able to retain a marketing agent to handle the deals. The school would be separate and “guardrails” (that word again) will be put in place to keep boosters out of this in the recruiting process. Athletes also can’t use school logos or uniforms — similar to the NFL or NBA.

Side businesses are allowed too. An athlete who is also a recording artist, or opens his or her own company that isn’t even sports-related, will finally be allowed.

Another article I read said the athletes will be signing contracts with the business.

 

[dlarry]

Is this being done because the NCAA knows that the Kentucky’s, Arizona’s, Kansas’s, etc. of the world have been doing this all along and they are worried it’s all going to come out? 
This way instead of punishing them they can say “well it’s legal now so we really don’t need to punish them.”