Yeah it doesn't immediately abolish amateurism, but it starts the ball rolling. Now athletes will be able to get more benefits like paid internships and free things like laptops.The opinion is pretty narrow, but the Kavanaugh concurrence makes it pretty clear he is actively signalling "I want a full NCAA anti-trust case"
It looks like even the most die-hard NCAA supporters want no part of crafting any supporting laws or an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA.I wonder if there will be movement for a legislative solution.
I'm pretty sure that "likely" is an understatement. From the main opinion:Basically it seems to signal that the entire NCAA business model is likely at risk in the next 5 years depending on how long it takes cases to move through the pipeline.
There was a whole lot less money in sports in 1975. Even pro sports weren't making super wealthy people money on average until the TV and apparel contracts took off in the 80s.Doesn't this tidbit say a lot? "Wooden’s final salary in the 1975 season, when he won his 10th NCAA title, was $40,500. Ninegar calculated that would now be $175,358. "
$175K is a nice salary, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly the annual earnings of a wealthy person, considering it's less than half the figure that Biden says he wants to increase taxes for.
Yes I thought about that after I sent that post. I think this falls into a different category because it's outside the NCAA purview. If schools were specifically paying athletes, then Title IX equity would come into play, but this is money coming from outside the schools themselves, so Title IX doesn't apply, I don't think.I’m no lawyer but my perusal if Wikipedia seems to place the burden of Title IX on the universities providing proportional opportunities across genders. The burden of monetizing off NIL stuff is all on the student athlete doing it themselves.
I might be. I just know that compared to the male athletes, it isn't going to be remotely close, as a group anyway. I can see Paige Bueckers (UConn women's basketball) making a TON; she's one of the most popular college athletes - male or female - in the country. But on the whole there's reasons why male sports generate FAR greater revenue and FAR greater gear sales and such. It's just way way way more popular.I also think you’re underestimating 18-22 year old female college athlete’s ability to monetize themselves.
Individual males probably will end up the most highly paid. But from what I've seen with social media influencers, the median female athlete could end up making more flogging various crap.Yes I thought about that after I sent that post. I think this falls into a different category because it's outside the NCAA purview. If schools were specifically paying athletes, then Title IX equity would come into play, but this is money coming from outside the schools themselves, so Title IX doesn't apply, I don't think.
I might be. I just know that compared to the male athletes, it isn't going to be remotely close, as a group anyway. I can see Paige Bueckers (UConn women's basketball) making a TON; she's one of the most popular college athletes - male or female - in the country. But on the whole there's reasons why male sports generate FAR greater revenue and FAR greater gear sales and such. It's just way way way more popular.
Why doesn't this happen in pro sports then? Men make a lot more than women in endorsements.Individual males probably will end up the most highly paid. But from what I've seen with social media influencers, the median female athlete could end up making more flogging various crap.
Because you're talking about the top few percent of all athletes, male and female. There are more eyeballs watching, gambling on, and caring about the top few percent of males than females. But nobody cares about the average college male athlete. Fit females on insta and whatever appear to make pretty decent cash talking about their favorite workout leggings and healthy green shakes and blah blah blah though. Female college athletes are pretty well placed to get in on that action. I'm not talking about national ads for Chevy or Tag Heuer, but the small time stuff. The next Heisman award winner will be making way more than the best female basketball player of the year, but her team mate with the nice smile and social media hustle might make more than the non starters on the Heisman winner's team.Why doesn't this happen in pro sports then? Men make a lot more than women in endorsements.
Well, you may be right. And by nice smile, I assume you're alluding to the idea that especially if they're pretty, they have a chance to make more because "pretty" sells.Because you're talking about the top few percent of all athletes, male and female. There are more eyeballs watching, gambling on, and caring about the top few percent of males than females. But nobody cares about the average college male athlete. Fit females on insta and whatever appear to make pretty decent cash talking about their favorite workout leggings and healthy green shakes and blah blah blah though. Female college athletes are pretty well placed to get in on that action. I'm not talking about national ads for Chevy or Tag Heuer, but the small time stuff. The next Heisman award winner will be making way more than the best female basketball player of the year, but her team mate with the nice smile and social media hustle might make more than the non starters on the Heisman winner's team.
That is definitely a big part of it. Selling things is generally pretty superficial. Although the direct to consumer aspect of social media does open up a bigger range of what can be considered attractive or aspirational. People who would never have been chosen by advertising agencies to be in ads 20 years ago can build a niche for themselves online now.Well, you may be right. And by nice smile, I assume you're alluding to the idea that especially if they're pretty, they have a chance to make more because "pretty" sells.
I don't know, attractive female athletes with huge social media followings could make a dime.I do wonder when Title IX lawsuits are coming. Yes women athletes will have equal RIGHT to make money off their likeness but in no way will there be equity between the genders. It’s one thing for things at the pro level to not be equitable. Title IX doesn’t cover pro sports. This is college, where Title IX rules.
I think this is precisely the concern. There’s nothing stopping this kind of thing now (as far as I know - how could there be?). So it becomes an arms race that’s all about money. Whichever school - via the boosters and other fan interests - can give star recruits more money wins.I only superficially follow this, but what prevents the local booster that owns a car dealership from giving some kid a couple million bucks to go on a billboard? Not that it’s a bad thing, but I presume that’s the way this is headed? Each team buys its own players, Blue Chips style?
Would Zion have made more in 4 years of college or on his first NBA contract?I think this is precisely the concern. There’s nothing stopping this kind of thing now (as far as I know - how could there be?). So it becomes an arms race that’s all about money. Whichever school - via the boosters and other fan interests - can give star recruits more money wins.
Sure that’s possible. I just used Jones as an example of someone who would likely make more in college than in his first few years in the NFL. At Bama or Texas or wherever.It is funny you choose Alabama as an example. They are at the top of the mountain and anything that changes the recruiting and retention and transfer balance is probably not good for them. Texas, for example, has lots of rich donors itching to pony up. They would probably pay Mac Jones more than Alabama for his senior year.
Yes for sure. I was addressing this question by luckiestman: "Endorsements for being a star at Duke might be more lucrative than what you will make as pick X*, right? *What pick does this become true?"The financial benefit to Mac Jones going pro is not limited to his year 1 NFL salary. If he succeeds, he will get an extension 1 year sooner which in theory could give him an extra year as a pro at a significantly higher salary. I do not disagree that he could make a lot for his senior year at Alabama, but there is an element to "betting on yourself" to going pro in this hypothetical.
Only at the top, and the same will likely happen in College. The top players BB stars, FB skill players, etc. on the men's side will get shoe deals and big money, the linemen, deep bench and smaller schools will get very little. On the women's side, the top BB players will probably do well, but then there will be a tier of women who have big Instagram followings (mostly because they are attractive) and they will make more than the next tier of men, because they'll get paid like influencers, where women do better than men (promoing beauty products and clothes mostly). Then there will be the bottom tier where both men and women likely make very little, but maybe get some sport specific endorsements.Why doesn't this happen in pro sports then? Men make a lot more than women in endorsements.
But as pros they will also have the same if not more opportunities for sponsorships, and then also have a considerably higher salary compared to whatever stipend they may be able to get in college. In some extreme situations they may be taking a pay cut to go pro, but it would be incredibly rare I'd think.Sure that’s possible. I just used Jones as an example of someone who would likely make more in college than in his first few years in the NFL. At Bama or Texas or wherever.
I'd imagine that it might happen if an athlete (especially a two-sport athlete) went pro in baseball, since the minor leagues pay peanuts and most minor leaguers don't make it to the bigs.But as pros they will also have the same if not more opportunities for sponsorships, and then also have a considerably higher salary compared to whatever stipend they may be able to get in college. In some extreme situations they may be taking a pay cut to go pro, but it would be incredibly rare I'd think.
https://miami.rivals.com/news/american-top-team-plans-500-000-plus-nil-commitment-to-miami-players"American Top Team, one of the nation's top training academies for MMA fighters which has 44 licensed gyms throughout South Florida and the world, has finalized plans to offer Name, Image, Likeness contracts to every University of Miami scholarship football player.
Each of the 90 existing Miami scholarship players will be offered a $500 a month contract (up to $6000 for a year) to endorse American Top Team through their social media accounts, personal appearances and other marketing vehicles. If all 90 players opt to accept a deal, the total American Top Team investment in year one could reach $540,000.
The deal is being administered by a new marketing company - "Bring Back The U" - which was created by South Florida businessman Dan Lambert, who founded American Top Team and is a longtime Golden Cane and member at CaneSport.com."
https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-ofToday, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum to all Field offices providing updated guidance regarding her position that certain Players at Academic Institutions (sometimes referred to as student athletes), are employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and, as such, are afforded all statutory protections.
The memo further advises that, where appropriate, she will allege that misclassifying such employees as mere “student-athletes” and leading them to believe that they are not entitled to the Act’s protection has a chilling effect on Section 7 activity and is an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.