Jump to content

NCAA moves toward allowing athletes to be paid sponsors


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Brighton said:

I have to believe SLU will be fine. They're in a major metro area with great facilities and basketball talent. It's the Saint Bonaventures and Daytons that will suffer.

The Flyers are Dayton’s main attraction. I would expect this rule to help them greatly. The players will have virtually no competition for local endorsement money. Our guys will be competing against the Blues, Cards, and MSL players for those $$’s. 
This rule will favor any school where they’re the only big time sport in their region. Schools like UK, Duke, KU, et al. are as big in their regions as the Packers are in Green Bay. Only game in town teams will fare well with this rule. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The thing about all these changes is that I believe that athletes should receive compensation for the money the school makes off them. And I believe that athletes should be able to transfer without sitting out a year (with some obviously restrictions on this). But since the NCAA screwed this up for years, now we will enter the wild west in a free-for-all that will hurt a lot of schools. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

The thing about all these changes is that I believe that athletes should receive compensation for the money the school makes off them. And I believe that athletes should be able to transfer without sitting out a year (with some obviously restrictions on this). But since the NCAA screwed this up for years, now we will enter the wild west in a free-for-all that will hurt a lot of schools. 

I partially disagree that the schools are making money off the players. College sports are more about loyalty and affection to the school then the players. You could replace all D1 basketball players with D2 players and as long as SLU or Kentucky or Oklahoma are competitive and winning the fans will come out. A certain amount say 6k a game are coming out to watch SLU even if they are mediocre. 

And if it's about making money off them then why shouldn't schools drop all sports that don't make money or require students to pay extra to cover the amount they are in the red. Shouldn't it work both ways. No more title 9 as no money no sport. The profits made from basketball at SLU funds much of these other sports. Most schools do not make money overall from sports as a whole. 

As now planned, I think one way it might help a school like SLU is we probably aren't competing for how much sponsorship we could give Kentucky's top 2-3 players most of the time. We'd be competing with how much they can pay their next tier generally. 

If the G League is also going to be coming after players schools will also have to compete with them. I think it will drive up the costs to acquire the top players in the country

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-in the current world scholarships are not taxable income, are these compensation arrangements taxable? does the money go through the school then to the kid? 

If they are going to make money they should be taxed, in fact I'll go one farther since they would now be basically professional athletes they should be taxed on the value of the everything they are given by the school. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, slu72 said:

The Flyers are Dayton’s main attraction. I would expect this rule to help them greatly. The players will have virtually no competition for local endorsement money. Our guys will be competing against the Blues, Cards, and MSL players for those $$’s. 
This rule will favor any school where they’re the only big time sport in their region. Schools like UK, Duke, KU, et al. are as big in their regions as the Packers are in Green Bay. Only game in town teams will fare well with this rule. 

The Billikens only have the Blues to compete against since both are winter sports. MLS  ? Yeah no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kshoe said:

This is essentially pay for play. There is really no way around it. If you are for a free agency type market then you should be for this. If you don't want players to be paid disparate amounts then you should be against this. Personally I would have been for paying the players a fixed amount, not an open free agency like this really is. Double down with the potential for not sitting out for transferring, and it will become a bidding war.

At Kentucky, they will line up sponsors all across the state and Calipari will use that as part of his recruiting pitch. If you come here, we've got car dealership offering 20k a year and KFC offering 40k, etc. SLU will do the same thing but it'll be at places like the pasta house, the parking spot, etc.

Players always have had the tough decision of deciding between going to a blue blood school and potentially riding the bench vs. playing a ton at a mid major vs. now they'll have to also decide between disparate amounts of "semi-guaranteed" endorsement deals.

All good points. Good considerations. 

But what the theme seems to be is: Big programs with big followings and committed business boosters will have an outsized advantage in recruiting. Small programs with small followings in small markets will be be at a disadvantage. Other than some endearing outliers that punch above the weight of their media market / local economic stature (Gonzaga, Murray State, Wichita State, Western Kentucky, Northern Iowa, etc...). Coaches that are better salesmen and better at lining up business boosters and getting attention for their programs will do better in recruiting. 

None of this seems that different from the way things work now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

If they are going to make money they should be taxed, in fact I'll go one farther since they would now be basically professional athletes they should be taxed on the value of the everything they are given by the school. 

i agree, tuition, room and board, shoes, sweatsuits and practice clothes.   as well as their sponsorship money should all be taxed.  unless they do away with scholarships and the player concerned pays his own way.   the ncaa is opening quite the can of worms imo.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Brighton said:

The Billikens only have the Blues to compete against since both are winter sports. MLS  ? Yeah no. 

not really.   most businesses have limited advertising endorsement budgets for the entire year.   so if they blow their money 50-50 on the blues and the cardinals there is nothing left for the billikens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whose job will it be to line up sponsors?  The AD, the coaching staff, the players “agent”?  Someone has to coordinate this.  Will a player be allowed to have more than one sponsor?  Wonder if there will be a cap on the $$.  Probably not. 

Will Team Blue pool their sponsorships and divide amongst the 'Team' or will it be "I got mine, you get yours"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i agree, tuition, room and board, shoes, sweatsuits and practice clothes.   as well as their sponsorship money should all be taxed.  unless they do away with scholarships and the player concerned pays his own way.   the ncaa is opening quite the can of worms imo.  

The NCAA is basically minimizing the value of the academic side of playing in college. This is serious, because only a fraction of all the college players will end up playing professionally. It is true that many may develop sports related careers (journalists, announcers, coaches, etc...), but a large number of the players will need to depend upon their education and degree (s) to make a living.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slu72 said:

The Flyers are Dayton’s main attraction. I would expect this rule to help them greatly. The players will have virtually no competition for local endorsement money. Our guys will be competing against the Blues, Cards, and MSL players for those $$’s. 
This rule will favor any school where they’re the only big time sport in their region. Schools like UK, Duke, KU, et al. are as big in their regions as the Packers are in Green Bay. Only game in town teams will fare well with this rule. 

Dayton is already getting the best players in Dayton.  They're not going to outbid Ohio State and Xavier for the best in-state players or comparable mid-majors for out of state players.  Comparable mid-majors are in the same boat.

The overwhelming winners in this scenario are 5 Star recruits who will  receive inflated prices for their services from competing blue bloods.  Instead of Zion Williamson staying in a McMansion during his one year visit to Durham, he'll get that house and a luxury vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Old guy said:

The NCAA is basically minimizing the value of the academic side of playing in college. This is serious, because only a fraction of all the college players will end up playing professionally. It is true that many may develop sports related careers (journalists, announcers, coaches, etc...), but a large number of the players will need to depend upon their education and degree (s) to make a living.

I think we are losing sight of why the NCAA is doing this. They were sued for using the images of players and the players were not compensated. They are losing the compensation battle in the courts. They are trying to get out ahead of the legal battles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Dayton is already getting the best players in Dayton.  They're not going to outbid Ohio State and Xavier for the best in-state players or comparable mid-majors for out of state players.  Comparable mid-majors are in the same boat.

The overwhelming winners in this scenario are 5 Star recruits who will  receive inflated prices for their services from competing blue bloods.  Instead of Zion Williamson staying in a McMansion during his one year visit to Durham, he'll get that house and a luxury vehicle.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, willie said:

I think we are losing sight of why the NCAA is doing this. They were sued for using the images of players and the players were not compensated. They are losing the compensation battle in the courts. They are trying to get out ahead of the legal battles. 

Very simple solution.  Take all the money they make from video games and other uses of their "likenesses" and put it in a pot.  Divide by the number of players in Division 1.  Make an equal payment to each, through the schools.  Now they have been paid for their likeness and have no lawsuit to bring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes 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.

Great post. This is exactly what is going to happen.

Someone asked the question in another post about who is going to be responsible for getting these endorsement deals. It's almost certainly going to be the schools! It's going to be part of the recruiting pitch and each player will be offered differing amounts based on how valuable they are perceived to be.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoosierPal said:

Whose job will it be to line up sponsors?  The AD, the coaching staff, the players “agent”?  Someone has to coordinate this.  Will a player be allowed to have more than one sponsor?  Wonder if there will be a cap on the $$.  Probably not. 

Will Team Blue pool their sponsorships and divide amongst the 'Team' or will it be "I got mine, you get yours"?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the money going to the players for the "endorsement" deals will be money that would normally be going to the athletic department.  The donors aren't going to pay the players and double up by also paying the school.  Now the athletic department is short on cash, because it's not getting the money that the players are getting.  This means that that the track team, swim team, softball team, volleyball team, tennis team, etc. all suffer so that the basketball players get paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Also, the money going to the players for the "endorsement" deals will be money that would normally be going to the athletic department.  The donors aren't going to pay the players and double up by also paying the school.  Now the athletic department is short on cash, because it's not getting the money that the players are getting.  This means that that the track team, swim team, softball team, volleyball team, tennis team, etc. all suffer so that the basketball players get paid.

This is one of the things I keep going back to, completely agree with this and your previous post. This is going to be really interesting to see play out, but I think it’s going to be a clusterf*ck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slufanskip said:

If they are going to make money they should be taxed, in fact I'll go one farther since they would now be basically professional athletes they should be taxed on the value of the everything they are given by the school. 

I'm confident the money will be treated like any other come, and will be subject to tax. I worked a variety of jobs during college and had to report all of that income to the IRS. It usually probably wasn't enough to pay real taxes but I don't think the general concept will be any different for players. 

I think you were talking tongue in cheek, but I hope you really don't believe that KC Hankton or Fred Thatch should be taxed as if they were making 60 grand a year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes 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.

Where's the disagreement?  Let's say mid-majors do have to line up a sponsorship for a 4 star recruit. They will simply be paying for the same players they were already getting at the cost of a scholarship. The blue bloods will pay a lot more to get the same players they've been getting because they have a lot more.  It's just a matter of degree.  If a one-and-doner is getting 200K worth of sponsorships to play versus the standard 60K he's getting under the table now, he's still the big winner in this scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am by no means an expert on this issue, but I really don't think this will change things as drastically as some believe. Realistically, how many St. Louis Cardinals players make meaningful money off of endorsement deals? There are tons of NBA players whose endorsement money consists of nothing other than residuals from video games and $20,000 in store credit to NIKE. This will certainly have a big impact on the Zion WIlliamson's of the world, but that type of player has historically always usually gone somewhere to maximize their exposure anyways. I could be totally wrong, and certainly understand why some people bristle at the thought. 

Side note, former Billiken Dustin Mcguire actually started a law firm to represent / market players, presumably with the idea that this rule would be coming to pass: https://nameimagelikeness.com/about-maguire-law-firm/

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NH said:

I'm confident the money will be treated like any other come, and will be subject to tax. I worked a variety of jobs during college and had to report all of that income to the IRS. It usually probably wasn't enough to pay real taxes but I don't think the general concept will be any different for players. 

I think you were talking tongue in cheek, but I hope you really don't believe that KC Hankton or Fred Thatch should be taxed as if they were making 60 grand a year. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it may be the case, and usually is, attempts to wiggle out of a negative court decision may engender a whole raft of additional negative court decisions. As we all know, the NCAA is a non profit organization. How does a non profit organization remain non profit, the answer is simple, the profits are returned to the members and used to defray expenses of the organization.

But, just wait a second, are the salaries and compensation levels of high executives of the NCAA considered part of the expenses? Yes they are. Bingo, that is where a hefty portion of the profits made by NCAA find their way into, compensating the execs for their hard work. Do you think they want to voluntarily give up any part of these compensation levels by dividing the profits from anything with the members? I find that hard to believe.

Let the schools find the sponsors, let NCAA keep the profits or something like it. This is just an opinion, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

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

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...