Supreme Court Ruling

[DocBarrister]

This will clear the way to get rid of the most stupid stuff that impacts athletes in our sport (lacrosse), but the real question is whether this is the death knell of the NCAA and whether full unionization happens across the board.

I'm having a difficult time envisioning anything but unions for each sport, or some group that can bargain with the NCAA or Conferences etc. for their share of the take.

The ruling is about use of a player's name and image, right? Well, where else is a player's name and image used more than a telecast of a game? And are they getting paid for the use of their image and name in these games? Nope.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like those TV contracts are where the bulk of the money is piled for Football and Basketball players. I can't imagine that money being left on the table by a billion dollar sports agency repping the players. They're going to insist on their cut for using the players Name and Image during a broadcast.

And I can't see that happening in a reasonably orderly fashion without a player's union.

But...who knows where this is headed?

My son is predicting player's reps right away beginning to make inroads, player's unions shortly. Thinks it's ultimately the death knell for the NCAA other than as sort of caretaker, referee in some instances.

We're having a barbecue Sat eve with a couple of his buddies, including a college coach, and expect we'll discuss over a few beers...

There definitely should be student-athlete unions for the major revenue sports like football and basketball. Not just to negotiate revenue sharing, but also healthcare benefits after college for the vast majority of players in those sports who will never play in the major professional leagues. Such unions would also have negotiating power to safeguard the health of students during college and to prevent abusive practices by coaches.

DocBarrister

You just killed college lacrosse. And every other sport besides football and basketball.

Yup and then some.

Nonsense. There is plenty of money to go around, just be more equitable about distributing it. In negotiating broadcast rights, for example, have the networks pitch in more cash to cover post-college healthcare benefits and the revenue to be shared with student-athletes. A good negotiator for colleges and conferences might be able to secure money for those additional benefits for student-athletes in a union while maintaining the same level of revenue that the colleges themselves receive.

The losers? The networks and their shareholders, who will have to pay more and profit less. Screw ‘em.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Call them what they already are for certain athletes/sports at many schools: independant contractors. Get rid of the requirement to enroll as a student. Just do your job and get paid.

As independent contractors, the athletes would have fewer protections. That’s a major step backwards. Plus, for the vast majority of students in even the major revenue sports, the single most important benefit will be their education and (hopefully) college degree.

No, independent contractor status would be far worse than their current circumstances.

DocBarrister

[InsiderRoll]

Call them what they already are for certain athletes/sports at many schools: independant contractors. Get rid of the requirement to enroll as a student. Just do your job and get paid.

As independent contractors, the athletes would have fewer protections. That’s a major step backwards. Plus, for the vast majority of students in even the major revenue sports, the single most important benefit will be their education and (hopefully) college degree.

No, independent contractor status would be far worse than their current circumstances.

DocBarrister

That will also make their taxes very interesting. If things ever got to the point of athletes being compensated through shared revenues by the school, a school could put in tax paperwork on the value of their scholarship as a “benefit”, I don’t think these full scholly football players will be that excited when they owe $20k in taxes to the IRS every spring. Tax code isn’t my forte, but things can surely get interesting and very complex. They can also tax them on equipment and apparel.

[a fan]

That will also make their taxes very interesting. If things ever got to the point of athletes being compensated through shared revenues by the school, a school could put in tax paperwork on the value of their scholarship as a “benefit”, I don’t think these full scholly football players will be that excited when they owe $20k in taxes to the IRS every spring. Tax code isn’t my forte, but things can surely get interesting and very complex. They can also tax them on equipment and apparel.

The IRS isn't going to start taxing scholarships as "income". If they did that, what do you suppose would happen to all those students on non-athletic grants and scholarships?

They'll tax the actual work income, just as they do for any other student who gets paid for work.

And no they won't tax equipment and apparel any more than they would do that to any other worker. If your job gives you a laptop to use for your job, do you declare that as income?

[InsiderRoll]

That will also make their taxes very interesting. If things ever got to the point of athletes being compensated through shared revenues by the school, a school could put in tax paperwork on the value of their scholarship as a “benefit”, I don’t think these full scholly football players will be that excited when they owe $20k in taxes to the IRS every spring. Tax code isn’t my forte, but things can surely get interesting and very complex. They can also tax them on equipment and apparel.

The IRS isn't going to start taxing scholarships as "income". If they did that, what do you suppose would happen to all those students on non-athletic grants and scholarships?

They'll tax the actual work income, just as they do for any other student who gets paid for work.

And no they won't tax equipment and apparel any more than they would do that to any other worker. If your job gives you a laptop to use for your job, do you declare that as income?

If they are paying players a salary to be there as employees then the scholarship should be viewed as a benefit. Typically you don’t keep your laptop after your done working, it goes back to the employer. I know for a fact many D1 coaches are taxed on the apparel that they receive. They are also taxed on value of tickets they receive. (Ie football season ticket Value at Ohio state, penn state, etc). It really wouldn’t be up to the IRS, it would be up to each individual college and how they decide to categorize compensation for their “employees”, and it would save them hundreds of thousands to transfer the tax to the “employees” rather than pay it themselves. As I understand it colleges do pay taxes on the money coming into the college, including grants and scholarships, that isn’t just magical free money as far as bookkeeping is concerned. why would colleges continue the burden of paying that for employees?

[InsiderRoll]

That will also make their taxes very interesting. If things ever got to the point of athletes being compensated through shared revenues by the school, a school could put in tax paperwork on the value of their scholarship as a “benefit”, I don’t think these full scholly football players will be that excited when they owe $20k in taxes to the IRS every spring. Tax code isn’t my forte, but things can surely get interesting and very complex. They can also tax them on equipment and apparel.

The IRS isn't going to start taxing scholarships as "income". If they did that, what do you suppose would happen to all those students on non-athletic grants and scholarships?

They'll tax the actual work income, just as they do for any other student who gets paid for work.

And no they won't tax equipment and apparel any more than they would do that to any other worker. If your job gives you a laptop to use for your job, do you declare that as income?

If they are paying players a salary to be there as employees then the scholarship should be viewed as a benefit. Typically you don’t keep your laptop after your done working, it goes back to the employer. I know for a fact many D1 coaches are taxed on the apparel that they receive. They are also taxed on value of tickets they receive. (Ie football season ticket Value at Ohio state, penn state, etc). It really wouldn’t be up to the IRS, it would be up to each individual college and how they decide to categorize compensation for their “employees”, and it would save them hundreds of thousands to transfer the tax to the “employees” rather than pay it themselves. As I understand it colleges do pay taxes on the money coming into the college, including grants and scholarships, that isn’t just magical free money as far as bookkeeping is concerned. why would colleges continue the burden of paying that for employees?

I only believe this could apply to a future scenario in which football & Bball players received salary (revenue sharing) from the college.

Perhaps a better example would be to look at how employee tuition discounts are handled. A quick google search would indicate that for employees of an institution, tuition remission is a tax free benefit. So there’s a solution.

[a fan]

If they are paying players a salary to be there as employees then the scholarship should be viewed as a benefit.

The IRS has never done that. This would apply to most graduate students who also teach or perform research as employees....and get tuition waived.

Or how about the deal many Universities offer to children of their employees? That's not taxed either.

They will be taxed for income from work. The scholarships will be left well alone. That much is certain. Higher ed would fall apart if they handed a Grad Student a tax bill for the $75K in "income" they got from a tuition waiver for being a TA to the kids at Duke while they pursued a PhD.

As I understand it colleges do pay taxes on the money coming into the college, including grants and scholarships, that isn’t just magical free money as far as bookkeeping is concerned.

No. They don't pay taxes. The Universities in question are all tax exempt. And of course, many of the Universities we're discussing are literally government entities. The University of Maryland doesn't pay income taxes to the State of Maryland. Neither does the Naval Academy.

[a fan]

I only believe this could apply to a future scenario in which football & Bball players received salary (revenue sharing) from the college.

Sure, but do we know that's who's going to cut these players a check? Checks could come from Conferences. Or the NCAA. Or from the media companies. Or even from a players Union. Or all four!

We don't know. Which is why this is all so fascinating. There's 1,000 different ways this could go. It's pretty crazy, no?

[cbrass]

My original thought would be for schools to have a certain number of “slots” for non-student athletes. These athletes would be there to only represent the school on the field of play. They would play alongside “traditional” athletes who are enrolled and working toward a degree. Would this be limited to certain sports? Would it be available for athletes in all sports? Would it have to conform to Title IX ratios/balance.

The term “independent contractor” was just thrown out there because there is not, to the best of my limited knowledge, currently an organization representing the players.

[laxpert]

What I learned so far and where the money is.
https://www.newsweek.com/lsu-gymnast-ol ... il-1606213

A Schools intellectual property is protected. Trevor Lawrence couldn't appear at a car dealership in a Clemson Jersey to do an autograph signing. He wouldn't receive any proceeds from jersey sales, etc.

[a fan]

A Schools intellectual property is protected. Trevor Lawrence couldn't appear at a car dealership in a Clemson Jersey to do an autograph signing. He wouldn't receive any proceeds from jersey sales, etc.

That's not at all settled. Not after the SCOTUS ruling.

Remember that now the tables are turned: previously, the school's IP was protected, and the players name image and likeness (NIL) was not.

It is now. So now we have a problem. If a player can't use a school's IP----what makes anyone think that the School can use the players NIL (their own IP) without compensation? This is the heart of the whole issue. One entity is using another's IP without paying them.

So there will have to be negotiations to sort all this out.

[Typical Lax Dad]

A Schools intellectual property is protected. Trevor Lawrence couldn't appear at a car dealership in a Clemson Jersey to do an autograph signing. He wouldn't receive any proceeds from jersey sales, etc.

That's not at all settled. Not after the SCOTUS ruling.

Remember that now the tables are turned: previously, the school's IP was protected, and the players name image and likeness (NIL) was not.

It is now. So now we have a problem. If a player can't use a school's IP----what makes anyone think that the School can use the players NIL (their own IP) without compensation? This is the heart of the whole issue. One entity is using another's IP without paying them.

So there will have to be negotiations to sort all this out.

Don’t put the player’s name on the back of the jersey.

[a fan]

Don’t put the player’s name on the back of the jersey.

And during TV broadcasts----broadcasts that are lining the pockets of the NCAA, Conferences, the Schools.....how do you run a telecast without using their names and showing their faces? How do you market your team without mentioning names, or showing faces?

You can't.

Billion dollar sports agencies with people who are far smarter than I am are not going to let these schools get away with this anymore. These kids are going to get their cut.

And the SCOTUS has their back.

Current NCAA TV contracts are worth $1 Billion per year, and rising. What sports agent worth their salary is going to say "naaaah, we don't want a cut of that"?

I'm not sure folks understand how many things need to be sorted out, and sorted out fast.

Picture trying to use Lebron James' name and likeness to promote something without his permission. What do you think his agents and lawyers would do?

That's where we are right now.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don’t put the player’s name on the back of the jersey.

And during TV broadcasts----broadcasts that are lining the pockets of the NCAA, Conferences, the Schools.....how do you run a telecast without using their names and showing their faces? How do you market your team without mentioning names, or showing faces?

You can't.

Billion dollar sports agencies with people who are far smarter than I am are not going to let these schools get away with this anymore. These kids are going to get their cut.

And the SCOTUS has their back.

Current NCAA TV contracts are worth $1 Billion per year, and rising. What sports agent worth their salary is going to say "naaaah, we don't want a cut of that"?

I'm not sure folks understand how many things need to be sorted out, and sorted out fast.

Picture trying to use Lebron James' name and likeness to promote something without his permission. What do you think his agents and lawyers would do?

That's where we are right now.

Not sure. I would offer kids a flat stipend of maybe $1,000 a month, let them make money in a side hustle and offer lifetime free education. If athletes want more than that, find a professional farm league. I would play with whomever we get through the door. Fans don’t particularly care. College basketball is so watered down and the numbers are through the roof. Baseball manages. I am not for professionalizing college sports any more than what we already have. Nobody is forcing kids to play for a college team. NFL can start a farm system. Don’t know why they haven’t already. Hell, football teams should cut rosters to 60 kids and let the rest go a pro route. I am still going to root for THE Ohio State University Buckeyes no matter who is wearing the jersey.

LeBron is a pro. His high school team used him to promote games and got National exposure back when he was an amateur. I would have players sign a waiver. Otherwise they don’t have to play.

[youthathletics]

A glimpse....

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CQzd_NYl ... _copy_link

[a fan]

Not sure. I would offer kids a flat stipend of maybe $1,000 a month, let them make money in a side hustle and offer lifetime free education. If athletes want more than that, find a professional farm league.

I don't think you understand where we are after this ruling. The players are holding ALL the cards now. I just told you that the NCAA....so this doesn't include the BCS or Bowl games.....has a $1 Billion in TV contracts.

What you are telling me here is: the NCAA, the Conferences, the Schools, all those middle men.....don't want this money. They'd rather fold, than give their labor pool a cut of the insane amount of money they're getting off of the player's backs.

The vibe I'm getting from posters is that some of you seem to want to punish these kids for getting paid for their work.

The last time we discussed this, I suggested that if getting that scholarship and room and board is enough, and the nobility of amateur athletics should rule the day? And that capping what an American can earn for their work is a great idea? Fantastic: Then cap every coach and every administrator at these schools to an annual salary equal to the cost of tuition, room & board at each school.

Nothing would make me happier than to see Nick Saban at UAlabama earn $60k per year because sports fans think that amateurism is more important than free markets. Right now? He's getting, what, $9 million per year? And this is your idea of amateur athletics?

I don't understand how some seem to think that the players are the problem, and that their demand for a piece of the pie is what "broke" the NCAA.

That's absurd. The Presidents, Coaches, the Administrators..... are the ones who got greedy and chose money over education. This is 100% on them.

Nobody is forcing kids to play for a college team.

And no one is forcing you to work at YOUR job. But do you think that US labor laws protect you anyway? You bet they do. Well.....they protect these student athletes, too. And the SCOTUS disagrees with your view that they shouldn't be protected.

I'm frankly surprised that you feel this way.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not sure. I would offer kids a flat stipend of maybe $1,000 a month, let them make money in a side hustle and offer lifetime free education. If athletes want more than that, find a professional farm league.

I don't think you understand where we are after this ruling. The players are holding ALL the cards now. I just told you that the NCAA....so this doesn't include the BCS or Bowl games.....has a $1 Billion in TV contracts.

What you are telling me here is: the NCAA, the Conferences, the Schools, all those middle men.....don't want this money. They'd rather fold, than give their labor pool a cut of the insane amount of money they're getting off of the player's backs.

The vibe I'm getting from posters is that some of you seem to want to punish these kids for getting paid for their work.

The last time we discussed this, I suggested that if getting that scholarship and room and board is enough, and the nobility of amateur athletics should rule the day? And that capping what an American can earn for their work is a great idea? Fantastic: Then cap every coach and every administrator at these schools to an annual salary equal to the cost of tuition, room & board at each school.

Nothing would make me happier than to see Nick Saban at UAlabama earn $60k per year because sports fans think that amateurism is more important than free markets. Right now? He's getting, what, $9 million per year? And this is your idea of amateur athletics?

I don't understand how some seem to think that the players are the problem, and that their demand for a piece of the pie is what "broke" the NCAA.

That's absurd. The Presidents, Coaches, the Administrators..... are the ones who got greedy and chose money over education. This is 100% on them.

Nobody is forcing kids to play for a college team.

And no one is forcing you to work at YOUR job. But do you think that US labor laws protect you anyway? You bet they do. Well.....they protect these student athletes, too. And the SCOTUS disagrees with your view that they shouldn't be protected.

I'm frankly surprised that you feel this way.

I believe farm systems should be on the backs of pro leagues. I would ramp it all down if that’s what it came to. Athletes should get something but I have never believed college sports should be modeled after pro sports. Baseball and basketball players have options. NFL should carry its own water too. I would dial it back. Fans will still watch. College basketball has been completely watered down since the ban on the direct to NBA path along with the league implementing slotting and the “rookie contract period”. Sport still popular. G-League and Overtime League won’t deliver the same ratings.

[a fan]

Athletes should get something but I have never believed college sports should be modeled after pro sports.

And yet that's where the NCAA, the Presidents of Colleges, and the Conferences took it. They chose money over education, and we all know it.

What the heck were they doing, for example, putting the lacrosse Final Four in pro stadiums if they "shouldn't be modeled after pro sports"?


John Woodens starting salary at UCLA was $45K, adjusted. After decades of coaching, and all those Chamionships, he made $175K, adjusted, in his Final season.

There are scrub Basketball coaches in D1 making north of $2 million here in 2021, for coaching what is supposed to be an amateur sport.

If I'm an agent for one of these players....or, more likely, a player's Union? I'm going to get those kids access to every single revenue stream.

[HooDat]

So anyone thought about how the booster might abuse this rule for their team. Maybe the summer internships are $35,000

It is really quite simple. The local car dealer/law firm/furniture store ... heck let's take it a step further whatever business a booster owns, oh I don't know maybe Nike or your friendly neighborhood hedge fund titan - can now pay the next Vince Young or Shaq or Trevor Lawrence $1mm per year to endorse their business. Heck - the next Lebron could make more playing for Oregon than he would in the NBA.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Athletes should get something but I have never believed college sports should be modeled after pro sports.

And yet that's where the NCAA, the Presidents of Colleges, and the Conferences took it. They chose money over education, and we all know it.

What the heck were they doing, for example, putting the lacrosse Final Four in pro stadiums if they "shouldn't be modeled after pro sports"?


John Woodens starting salary at UCLA was $45K, adjusted. After decades of coaching, and all those Chamionships, he made $175K, adjusted, in his Final season.

There are scrub Basketball coaches in D1 making north of $2 million here in 2021, for coaching what is supposed to be an amateur sport.

If I'm an agent for one of these players....or, more likely, a player's Union? I'm going to get those kids access to every single revenue stream.

I would ramp it all down. I actually saw Nick Saban say college football doesn’t make any money. I am all for players getting something. Players used to get a stipend.