Why the NIL is going to fail in college football

[pittdan77]

If I was a gambling man....I would say the "College Athlete" will eventually evolve into being an employee of the university.

Doubt it. The NIL just made something that was happening pretty routinely, legal. That's it. Too many people are making too much money from the way things are being done for anyone to want to change. Plus, there really aren't any good reasons for a university to want to do this. Contracted employees have rights that you can't exploit. Let the paycheck be someone else's problem.

 

[jivecat]

Doubt it. The NIL just made something that was happening pretty routinely, legal. That's it. Too many people are making too much money from the way things are being done for anyone to want to change. Plus, there really aren't any good reasons for a university to want to do this. Contracted employees have rights that you can't exploit. Let the paycheck be someone else's problem.

good point but what about those not receiving NIL money?

 

[lilspainishflea]

It is an interesting question ... which version of Jordan Addison was a better player? The 2021 version at Pitt that was in the program for several years, or the mega-NIL deal 2022 version at USC? He accomplished more in 2021. Both teams had excellent QBs running the offense, both offenses seemed to be schemed-up really well. His success at Pitt could be because of better luck in terms of being healthier. It could be because of Pitt needing to rely on him more.

I personally think Addison was worse at USC because he transferred in so late in the game and just never had enough time to get into 6th gear in their offense. They also played him a majority outside whereas he played a majority in the slot at Pitt. So schematically he was put in a tougher position, too. But even at being 80% effective, he was still pretty good.

 

[lilspainishflea]

If I was a gambling man....I would say the "College Athlete" will eventually evolve into being an employee of the university.

Sort of. I think they'll be employees of an "athletics association" that is a 3rd party affiliated with, but not run by, the school itself. The "athletics association" will contract its players to the school.

 

[pittdan77]

good point but what about those not receiving NIL money?

Probably like any other system. Always have's and have not's. Not sure it's more complicated than that. Probably more likely that you'll see a stipend-like system. Over the long haul it's probably more sustainable. Especially for mid-tier programs.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Doubt it. The NIL just made something that was happening pretty routinely, legal. That's it. Too many people are making too much money from the way things are being done for anyone to want to change. Plus, there really aren't any good reasons for a university to want to do this. Contracted employees have rights that you can't exploit. Let the paycheck be someone else's problem.

There are already a couple lawsuits out there from college athletes attempting to be declared employees. When it happens, and it will happen at some point, it isn't going to be because the schools or the coaches want it. It's because, once again, the NCAA isn't going to have a choice. Rather than attempt to devise a system on their own that works at least reasonably well for everyone, much like with NIL they will wait until the courts tell them they have to change, and at that point it will be more chaos.

 

[pittdan77]

There are already a couple lawsuits out there from college athletes attempting to be declared employees. When it happens, and it will happen at some point, it isn't going to be because the schools or the coaches want it. It's because, once again, the NCAA isn't going to have a choice. Rather than attempt to devise a system on their own that works at least reasonably well for everyone, much like with NIL they will wait until the courts tell them they have to change, and at that point it will be more chaos.

The root of the problem is that the NCAA did attempt to devise a system and it was challenged and ruled on in court. Several times. It's also a very complex problem for schools to treat athletes as employees. I personally hadn't heard about a player suing to be an employee but I'm not entirely certain why a college kid would want that. It sort of flies in the face of all of the NIL gains and transfer portal freedom they've made because an employer could exert so much more control.

 

[Upg bobcat]

The root of the problem is that the NCAA did attempt to devise a system and it was challenged and ruled on in court. Several times. It's also a very complex problem for schools to treat athletes as employees. I personally hadn't heard about a player suing to be an employee but I'm not entirely certain why a college kid would want that. It sort of flies in the face of all of the NIL gains and transfer portal freedom they've made because an employer could exert so much more control.

But how much control can the schools really exert, if they cannot collude? They do not have an antitrust exemption like the pro leagues, do they?

And if they are employees, it's not like they cannot get NIL sponsorships on top of whatever salary and benefits they get from the schools themselves.

 

[ChazzMo]

Comment relating to making athletes employees -

Now suddenly you’ve got work comp, due process for grievances, possibility of more enforceable non-compete clauses, etc. What a can of worms!

 

[pittdan77]

But how much control can the schools really exert, if they cannot collude? They do not have an antitrust exemption like the pro leagues, do they?

And if they are employees, it's not like they cannot get NIL sponsorships on top of whatever salary and benefits they get from the schools themselves.

I don't know that you could necessarily force the schools to operate that way. And I'm way out of my league with this but I would have to wonder if a school's founding documents would even allow it. Especially in places where schools get public funding.

So far as the NIL, I'm certain there could be limits placed on it by the employer. Not limited completely but the school would have interests they want to protect. Probably not too different than what is in place now but consider the revenue sources at schools that take a lot of corporate research dollars, I could see why a company that is donating to the school wouldn't want the star player, who is an employee of the school, taking money from a competitor. Could put conditions on that money to force the school's hand. It gets complicated, for sure.

I honestly don't understand why a player would want employee status. I think there are other ways to get similar benefits and protections without creating a formal relationship.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The root of the problem is that the NCAA did attempt to devise a system and it was challenged and ruled on in court. Several times. It's also a very complex problem for schools to treat athletes as employees. I personally hadn't heard about a player suing to be an employee but I'm not entirely certain why a college kid would want that. It sort of flies in the face of all of the NIL gains and transfer portal freedom they've made because an employer could exert so much more control.

That really isn't true. The NCAA never came up with a system to deal with NIL. I mean unless you consider we aren't allowing any of it to be dealing with it. Which was absurd, and why they lost in court.

What athletes gain as employees is protections that all other employees have. To start with, a paycheck. Seems like a lot of athletes might like that, since most college athletes don't actually make money on things like NIL. And they would get health insurance, which they do not currently get. They would get protections so that if they were injured playing and practicing their sports that the University can't just simply cut them loose, like they can now, the schools would have to pay for all the medical care needed until the problem was solved. It would also give the athletes a chance to organize into a union and ask for and possibly get things that the schools don't do right now. For instance they could make scholarships guaranteed for four or five years. They could try to get guarantees that if athletes had to leave school before finishing their degree that they could come back at a later date and finish their education. And whatever else they might dream up.

Seriously, I can't think of any reason why an athlete wouldn't prefer to be considered an employee. What would the real world downside be?

 

[Upg bobcat]

That really isn't true. The NCAA never came up with a system to deal with NIL. I mean unless you consider we aren't allowing any of it to be dealing with it. Which was absurd, and why they lost in court.

What athletes gain as employees is protections that all other employees have. To start with, a paycheck. Seems like a lot of athletes might like that, since most college athletes don't actually make money on things like NIL. And they would get health insurance, which they do not currently get. They would get protections so that if they were injured playing and practicing their sports that the University can't just simply cut them loose, like they can now, the schools would have to pay for all the medical care needed until the problem was solved. It would also give the athletes a chance to organize into a union and ask for and possibly get things that the schools don't do right now. For instance they could make scholarships guaranteed for four or five years. They could try to get guarantees that if athletes had to leave school before finishing their degree that they could come back at a later date and finish their education. And whatever else they might dream up.

Seriously, I can't think of any reason why an athlete wouldn't prefer to be considered an employee. What would the real world downside be?

I agree with this. And they would still be able to sell their name, image, and likeness to whoever is willing to pay for it ... and apparently lots of college boosters are willing to pay a decent amount for it. So why wouldn't you want to be getting money from both the schools and from sponsors?

 

[cashisking884]

That really isn't true. The NCAA never came up with a system to deal with NIL. I mean unless you consider we aren't allowing any of it to be dealing with it. Which was absurd, and why they lost in court.

What athletes gain as employees is protections that all other employees have. To start with, a paycheck. Seems like a lot of athletes might like that, since most college athletes don't actually make money on things like NIL. And they would get health insurance, which they do not currently get. They would get protections so that if they were injured playing and practicing their sports that the University can't just simply cut them loose, like they can now, the schools would have to pay for all the medical care needed until the problem was solved. It would also give the athletes a chance to organize into a union and ask for and possibly get things that the schools don't do right now. For instance they could make scholarships guaranteed for four or five years. They could try to get guarantees that if athletes had to leave school before finishing their degree that they could come back at a later date and finish their education. And whatever else they might dream up.

Seriously, I can't think of any reason why an athlete wouldn't prefer to be considered an employee. What would the real world downside be?

Depends on the athlete.
I could see collective bargaining not being great for the top % of athletes.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Depends on the athlete.
I could see collective bargaining not being great for the top % of athletes.

I mean sure, it might not be great for a half dozen or a few more at some schools. But that's out of the hundreds of athletes at each school. It would be a benefit to well over 95% of all college athletes. Probably closer to 99%.

 

[FrogmoreZeke]

Yeah, the rules for grad transfers are different.

And the covid year has added to the confusion.

 

[FrogmoreZeke]

That makes more sense.

you made great points all along and even if the dude was trolling, I enjoyed the back and forth. Wish more topics were debated like this that are actually important and not the usual, these refs hate us and the media is unfair to us, posts.

 

[pittdan77]

That really isn't true. The NCAA never came up with a system to deal with NIL.

Part of the NIL equation is the transfer portal. Not saying the NCAA handled it well but they tried.

 

[pittdan77]

I mean sure, it might not be great for a half dozen or a few more at some schools. But that's out of the hundreds of athletes at each school. It would be a benefit to well over 95% of all college athletes. Probably closer to 99%.

I disagree. Being an employee takes a ton of freedom away from the player. Look at how the NFL does things and how the guys at the bottom half of the scale are treated.

 

[cashisking884]

Part of the NIL equation is the transfer portal. Not saying the NCAA handled it well but they tried.

They also couldn’t have much of a system.

They could try to regulate not having the schools directly involved, and that’s what they do. Or at least allege that they do.

But even if USCw was directly involved, that’s not really the complaint people have about NIL.

There’s absolutely nothing the NCAA can do about the “pay for play” aspect that people think is going on.

 

[Upg bobcat]

I disagree. Being an employee takes a ton of freedom away from the player. Look at how the NFL does things and how the guys at the bottom half of the scale are treated.

I am curious in what ways college kids have "more freedom" than NFL players, even those players in the bottom half of the NFL? I feel like right now they have next-to-zero rights in college, so there is nothing to give up if they became employees and entered a collective bargaining agreement. Now if college football players were employees they would gain some rights, and would have to give some concessions to the schools in order to get other things in their favor, but I think that's better than the powerless position they are currently in.

 

[pittdan77]

I am curious in what ways college kids have "more freedom" than NFL players, even those players in the bottom half of the NFL? I feel like right now they have next-to-zero rights in college, so there is nothing to give up if they became employees and entered a collective bargaining agreement. Now if college football players were employees they would gain some rights, and would have to give some concessions to the schools in order to get other things in their favor, but I think that's better than the powerless position they are currently in.

Can NFL players just randomly decide to stop playing part way through a season? Can they opt out of games? Can they just switch teams if they're not happy? Any time you contractually bind yourself you're giving things up. Yeah, you might "gain" legal status but beyond that, you're not necessarily better off.

 

[Upg bobcat]

Can NFL players just randomly decide to stop playing part way through a season? Can they opt out of games? Can they just switch teams if they're not happy? Any time you contractually bind yourself you're giving things up. Yeah, you might "gain" legal status but beyond that, you're not necessarily better off.

Sure NFL players can stop playing if they want -- obviously they forfeit salary and money and perhaps other rights granted them under their contracts, but nobody is forcing them to play. The switch teams issue would have to be negotiated under the collective bargaining agreement. If keeping that right is so important to the college football players, they could insist on making sure the contracts with the schools maintain that right, but they would have to accept a lower salary or something else (e.g., if you switch teams you have pay back your salary for the years spent at the former school or something like that) in exchange.

As I see it, they basically have zero rights now. The only "rights" they have are those afforded them by the NCAA and its member schools, rights that the schools could take away and the players could do nothing about. The players don't have a true seat at the NCAA's bargaining table right now. As employees, they would.

 

[pittdan77]

As I see it, they basically have zero rights now. The only "rights" they have are those afforded them by the NCAA and its member schools, rights that the schools could take away and the players could do nothing about. The players don't have a true seat at the NCAA's bargaining table right now. As employees, they would.

Except the NCAA, which is effectively the collective of all of the member schools, is losing on every front when it comes to regulating what the players can and can't do. As employees, they would work for the university they play for so it's not like they would have much to bargain over. It wouldn't be like the NFL.

 

[Upg bobcat]

Except the NCAA, which is effectively the collective of all of the member schools, is losing on every front when it comes to regulating what the players can and can't do. As employees, they would work for the university they play for so it's not like they would have much to bargain over. It wouldn't be like the NFL.

How are they losing on every front? They are making tens of millions of dollars from college football, and do not compensate the players, the product on the field, with a single penny of it. If you asked a professional sports franchise owner "we're gonna let the players play for any team they choose after each season but they aren't going to be entitled to money or benefits, you can entice them to play for your team with a fancy stadium and charismatic coach and nice practice facility" I'm sure the owners would take it.

Sure the schools will throw the players some crumbs in terms of changing transfer rules or whatever, but the whole system is based on the (arguably fundamentally unfair) tenet that schools get the money and do not have to share it.

 

[pittdan77]

How are they losing on every front?

They're not, financially. You said the players don't have any rights and the NCAA has lost every case where player rights have been litigated.

Sure the schools will throw the players some crumbs in terms of changing transfer rules or whatever, but the whole system is based on the (arguably fundamentally unfair) tenet that schools get the money and do not have to share it.

So explain how making the players employees fixes this? What kind of benefit will the players get? All you're doing is turning a scholarship into compensation along with some kind of salary. Now they're paying taxes on it. Probably will have schools force kids into contracts with penalties. Will Purdue be negotiating a buyout with Stanford because some kid wants to change schools? It won't be like the NFL. Schools just aren't going there. They don't have a reason to.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

As employees, they would work for the university they play for so it's not like they would have much to bargain over. It wouldn't be like the NFL.

Well that doesn't make any sense. Kenny Pickett is employed by the Pittsburgh Steelers, but the union that Kenny Pickett belongs to negotiated terms of a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL. Just like Kenny Pickett at Pitt would have been employed by Pitt, but a college players union would negotiate with the NCAA. It would be almost exactly like the NFL.

And as to them not having much to bargain over, you can't be serious. They'd have everything that the NFL players bargain over plus everything that them being at a college entails. They would, in fact, have way MORE to potentially bargain over than the NFL players and owners do.

 

[cashisking884]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Kenny Pickett is employed by the Pittsburgh Steelers, but the union that Kenny Pickett belongs to negotiated terms of a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL. Just like Kenny Pickett at Pitt would have been employed by Pitt, but a college players union would negotiate with the NCAA. It would be almost exactly like the NFL.

And as to them not having much to bargain over, you can't be serious. They'd have everything that the NFL players bargain over plus everything that them being at a college entails. They would, in fact, have way MORE to potentially bargain over than the NFL players and owners do.

Would Pickett be making more money right now without the union?

 

[pittdan77]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Kenny Pickett is employed by the Pittsburgh Steelers, but the union that Kenny Pickett belongs to negotiated terms of a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL. Just like Kenny Pickett at Pitt would have been employed by Pitt, but a college players union would negotiate with the NCAA. It would be almost exactly like the NFL.

And as to them not having much to bargain over, you can't be serious. They'd have everything that the NFL players bargain over plus everything that them being at a college entails. They would, in fact, have way MORE to potentially bargain over than the NFL players and owners do.

The NFL behaves as something of an ownership collective and share equally in all revenues generated from that group. They have local income streams but those are comparatively minor.

The biggest thing players could gain would be long term healthcare for injuries they experienced while playing. Most of the other issues raised when the players at Northwestern briefly flirted with unionizing have been addressed through litigation unless you think there would be some way the players could cut into TV money. For what it's worth, the NLRB eventually shot that down the idea and admitted there was no obvious answer for whether college players should be considered employees. There would also be problems with the differences between private and public institutions and the different labor laws from state to state. Also possible you create a situation where a coaching candidate avoids a school where he has competitive limitations on practice hours or a smaller budget. Do wealthy donors with anti-union sentiment close their wallet? Also the Title IX stuff. I know everyone likes to discount that out of turn but no university is risking any of it's broader funding over football. Lots more to the equation than just signing cards and getting representation.

For what it's worth, if a team ever did win union protection you could bet that the school would change its athletic model the next day. They're just not going to go down that road.

 

[pittdan77]

Would Pickett be making more money right now without the union?

Do you mean in the regard that he is making less because the players negotiated a CBA model that effectively limits what players can make in their first five years and allows the team to limit his ability to test the market for another couple of years beyond that in order to artificially keep the market for a particular position from getting out of hand?

 

[cashisking884]

Do you mean in the regard that he is making less because the players negotiated a CBA model that effectively limits what players can make in their first five years and allows the team to limit his ability to test the market for another couple of years beyond that in order to artificially keep the market for a particular position from getting out of hand?

That’s it.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

The biggest difference with college and NFL players is that high school recruits aren’t originally restricted to play for whatever college decides to select them. They can make their best deal (both NIL and under the table payola, which still happens) immediately and go anywhere they want. And basically every year after that, they can redo their deal immediately and move on to the next school. Flip side, if they suck, he’s probably one and done at least with the original level of NIL he got… likely has to immediately move down in school stature and money. USC to Pitt, Pitt to Akron, Akron to Sonic, etc.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Would Pickett be making more money right now without the union?

That's an interesting question. If there were no union and no collective bargaining agreement the labor landscape would be completely different. But the last thing that the players would want would be for every player to be a free agent every year. Because the best players would absolutely get paid, but most of the players would not. Pickett is no where near one of the best quarterbacks, but quarterbacks are held down more salary-wise than anyone else.

So I'd say that he in particular would be making more money. But that most rookies, and most of the players in the league, would absolutely not.

 

[boseman7]

I think the interesting question would be is how good do you think your coaching staff is at developing players. I think I’d rather have the three star player if I have a confidence in my coaching staff to develop that player and if I know that that that player is there for more reasons than just making money on the NIL. I also can see why people would want to get the four-star or five star freshman but what good is getting a five star? If at the first sign of adversity and him not playing he just transfers? So there might be a lot of guys who are better players coming in in terms of Pedegree, but I think that this NIL thing is going to ruin the mindset of a lot of kids and you’re not gonna see as much greatness from these kids. You wont see the guys like Antonio Bryant, who have the chip on his shoulder because he didn’t get recruited by Miami. Because now you’ll see Miami just offer him the money after he has a big freshman year to come down and sign with them. Lol.