NCAA Votes to Allow Athletes to Cash in on their fame

[bcoach]

I have to laugh at all the millions football and basket ball is making. Take out the student fees and get back to me about how many are left. A system supported by forced payments is not capitalism. Lets leave capitalism out of the discussion.
How long will a system that profits the QB and leaves the linemen who keep him alive last when the linemen can't cash in. This along with other things posted on here tells you this is a disaster in the making.

[AppDawg]

I am curious how this and title IX coexist.

I am also curious how the NCAA plans to keep HS recruiting from turning into endorsement contract negotiations with deep pocket donors &/or the major shoe brands.

Don't think it will affect Title IX since the university is not going to be the entity paying the $$$.

I'm all for people being able to make a buck off their NIL, but like all things, many already mentioned, there will be unintended consequences. It will be interesting to see what measures can be taken to mitigate them.

I do believe this is a better solution than just paying the athletes to play, but there are going to be some very creative interpretations of NIL.

This is very much a definite.

Also, good point about Title IX.

[Apple@chin1]

As long as it doesn’t affect the money they’re already making, I’m sure all of the big name athletes will be fine with the new rules.

[Yosef10]

we are just opening pandoras box for the bigger colleges to get the players they want.

How is this any different than how it already is? As long as scholarship limits are still imposed, it’s not at all.

Well, as an example... Say hello to the football-only alumni sponsored Yosef Club! Maybe we don’t have a same number of ultra-wealthy boosters that can put the starting offense on his (or her) payroll, but we can pool our cash and make sure it goes to football! (Of course, this is a re-channeling if funds from the University sponsored Yosef Club, which of course benefits all sports.) Is this such a good thing? Will this not harm the non-revenue sports? Maybe it’s okay because they are “non-revenue” and that whole “capitalism” thing, right?

Rich people ie boosters are rich because they don’t spend money foolishly. I highly doubt you would just see boosters throwing money carelessly at incoming freshman, other than a couple of the highly touted 5 stars who are deemed “can’t miss”. You earn those hundred dollar handshakes once you’ve proven you can be that guy on the field at the school you enrolled. And again, there’s scholarship limits. I just don’t see how allowing kids to make money off their NIL would make the recruiting scene any different than it is now. We’ve seen, other than the case of maybe 2 or 3 guys, that if a kid has a P5 offer then they’re not choosing App. Just how it’s always been. Yeah i know I’m in the minority but i could not care less if we didn’t have a track and field, soccer, or golf team. I’m already of the opinion we should drop a few sports.

[Yosef10]

I have to laugh at all the millions football and basket ball is making. Take out the student fees and get back to me about how many are left. A system supported by forced payments is not capitalism. Lets leave capitalism out of the discussion.
How long will a system that profits the QB and leaves the linemen who keep him alive last when the linemen can't cash in. This along with other things posted on here tells you this is a disaster in the making.

In 2017, the average FOOTBALL ONLY revenue in the NCAA was $39 MILLION per school. Highly doubt that’s coming from student fees.

[Yosef10]

Oh and y’all keep this same energy for the kids on academic scholarship too, it’s funny y’all only get your panties in a wad when it’s athletic scholarships being talked about.

[Yosef84]

I've been of the opinion for years that college sports will eventually become separate entities from the universities. I'm not sure what that would look like but the money being made off football and basketball is so absurd that the university system can't keep a hold of this stuff in the long term.

At that point it's no longer "college sports." It would just be a minor league / semi-pro league. I don't think this represents a wind-fall for anyone other that the elite "names" at the major universities. I just don't see G5 programs getting into the business of paying athletes for using their face. We would more likely just see a change in marketing to using other, non-compensation images. It would possibly allow athletes to get paid for advertising or endorsements. It just seems like a very slippery slope indeed.

[goapps93]

we are just opening pandoras box for the bigger colleges to get the players they want.

How is this any different than how it already is? As long as scholarship limits are still imposed, it’s not at all.

Well, as an example... Say hello to the football-only alumni sponsored Yosef Club! Maybe we don’t have a same number of ultra-wealthy boosters that can put the starting offense on his (or her) payroll, but we can pool our cash and make sure it goes to football! (Of course, this is a re-channeling if funds from the University sponsored Yosef Club, which of course benefits all sports.) Is this such a good thing? Will this not harm the non-revenue sports? Maybe it’s okay because they are “non-revenue” and that whole “capitalism” thing, right?

Rich people ie boosters are rich because they don’t spend money foolishly. I highly doubt you would just see boosters throwing money carelessly at incoming freshman, other than a couple of the highly touted 5 stars who are deemed “can’t miss”. You earn those hundred dollar handshakes once you’ve proven you can be that guy on the field at the school you enrolled. And again, there’s scholarship limits. I just don’t see how allowing kids to make money off their NIL would make the recruiting scene any different than it is now. We’ve seen, other than the case of maybe 2 or 3 guys, that if a kid has a P5 offer then they’re not choosing App. Just how it’s always been. Yeah i know I’m in the minority but i could not care less if we didn’t have a track and field, soccer, or golf team. I’m already of the opinion we should drop a few sports.

This.
And something I don't think anyone has mentioned is one big word, TAXES. One reason big time DONORS donate is because of the positive tax implications. Paying a player to use their likeness will not be a donation and will not have the same positive tax implications for the donors or the student athletes. The athletes will also not be able to use University logos. It'll be like the Baker Mayfield commercial where he's in some generic uniform. I don't really think this is going to be that big of an issue.

[Rick83]

we are just opening pandoras box for the bigger colleges to get the players they want.

How is this any different than how it already is? As long as scholarship limits are still imposed, it’s not at all.

Well, as an example... Say hello to the football-only alumni sponsored Yosef Club! Maybe we don’t have a same number of ultra-wealthy boosters that can put the starting offense on his (or her) payroll, but we can pool our cash and make sure it goes to football! (Of course, this is a re-channeling if funds from the University sponsored Yosef Club, which of course benefits all sports.) Is this such a good thing? Will this not harm the non-revenue sports? Maybe it’s okay because they are “non-revenue” and that whole “capitalism” thing, right?

Rich people ie boosters are rich because they don’t spend money foolishly. I highly doubt you would just see boosters throwing money carelessly at incoming freshman, other than a couple of the highly touted 5 stars who are deemed “can’t miss”. You earn those hundred dollar handshakes once you’ve proven you can be that guy on the field at the school you enrolled. And again, there’s scholarship limits. I just don’t see how allowing kids to make money off their NIL would make the recruiting scene any different than it is now. We’ve seen, other than the case of maybe 2 or 3 guys, that if a kid has a P5 offer then they’re not choosing App. Just how it’s always been. Yeah i know I’m in the minority but i could not care less if we didn’t have a track and field, soccer, or golf team. I’m already of the opinion we should drop a few sports.

This.
And something I don't think anyone has mentioned is one big word, TAXES. One reason big time DONORS donate is because of the positive tax implications. Paying a player to use their likeness will not be a donation and will not have the same positive tax implications for the donors or the student athletes. The athletes will also not be able to use University logos. It'll be like the Baker Mayfield commercial where he's in some generic uniform. I don't really think this is going to be that big of an issue.

If it's just an individual wanting to get money to a player then it wouldn't be a personal deduction as you mentioned.
However, if the booster has a business and he's paying the athlete for a business-relatated commercial then it'd be a deductible advertising expense for the business. I could see the IRS issuing rulings limiting deductions in certain obvious booster-related situations but this will be new territory.
ALSO, speaking of taxes, I've seen some discussion since the players would become income-producing entities related to their college playing career then their scholarships might be considered taxable income. It's a Pandora's box for sure...

[Black Saturday]

If I was a multi millionaire, I would make sure the coaches told all recruits of the banquet to honor their signing, where all would be brought to Boone all expenses paid, and the entire class would sign limited edition posters and the collective class would split the funds allocated for it. Imagine an 18 year old offensive lineman being told he will split 250k with his recruiting class. You don't think that would get people to sign on the line? I can spit out plenty more inventive ways to pay the players under the guise of Name, Image and Likeness that is really just flat out paying. Also, what about when the alums get smart and contract with the players but provide clauses that limit transferring thereby essentially making the owner of the contract the controlling factor and not the player. This will all grow into a huge mess before it gets any better. I understand the desire for players to cash in on the perception of big money, but people just forget how much free college, and room and board and medical and tutors and everything else that they already get is cashing in. I am a father of 4, I have 2 still in school and 2 that have their post grad degrees already, trust me a free ride for athletics is a big deal.

The hell of it is, where is the money of this nature to help the high academic students that will actually contribute to our society? I think the athlete is already overcompensated, when considering the majority of high academic achievers get peanuts in comparison. I'll bet you'd liked to have some of that with your kids when they came through, I know I surely would have.

[moonshine]

I have to laugh at all the millions football and basket ball is making. Take out the student fees and get back to me about how many are left. A system supported by forced payments is not capitalism. Lets leave capitalism out of the discussion.

A lot of programs could probably fund their revenue sports without student fees if those revenue sports/student fees did not also have to support non-revenue sports/Title IX.

Oh and y’all keep this same energy for the kids on academic scholarship too, it’s funny y’all only get your panties in a wad when it’s athletic scholarships being talked about.

Do academic scholarships also receive a FCOA stipend? (serious question) Not to mention, students on academic scholarships usually don't get exemptions to be accepted and enrolled at the university. If student-athletes want to "cash in" like other students, they should be held to the same academic standards to enroll.




On it's face, this looks like it's going to be a huge mess and I'm trying not to be skeptic until they outline how they plan to regulate it. We all know the NCAA's history of regulation and oversight or lack thereof. The small percentage of players who will benefit the most off of this are already getting paid so what does this actually accomplish except for the government to create more tax revenue?

If there is no cap put in place, you can kiss the scholarship limits goodbye as coaches will be able to tell kids they can "walk-on" and then receive a lucrative promotions deal to essentially pay for college. Donations will now become business expenses.

It seems to me, state governments are picking and choosing what private non-profit organizations to go after here. Why aren't they going after the NFL, instead of the NCAA, to remove the age restriction and create their own minor league so young players can get paid for their talents as opposed to being poor student-athletes? If the system is so repressive, why do players continue to accept athletic scholarships?

[NattyBumppo'sRevenge]

NC Senator Richard Burr plans to introduce a bill to tax said student athletes' scholarship if they receive money in relation to them cashing in on their fame.

[bcoach]

I have to laugh at all the millions football and basket ball is making. Take out the student fees and get back to me about how many are left. A system supported by forced payments is not capitalism. Lets leave capitalism out of the discussion.

A lot of programs could probably fund their revenue sports without student fees if those revenue sports/student fees did not also have to support non-revenue sports/Title IX.

Oh and y’all keep this same energy for the kids on academic scholarship too, it’s funny y’all only get your panties in a wad when it’s athletic scholarships being talked about.

Do academic scholarships also receive a FCOA stipend? (serious question) Not to mention, students on academic scholarships usually don't get exemptions to be accepted and enrolled at the university. If student-athletes want to "cash in" like other students, they should be held to the same academic standards to enroll.




On it's face, this looks like it's going to be a huge mess and I'm trying not to be skeptic until they outline how they plan to regulate it. We all know the NCAA's history of regulation and oversight or lack thereof. The small percentage of players who will benefit the most off of this are already getting paid so what does this actually accomplish except for the government to create more tax revenue?

If there is no cap put in place, you can kiss the scholarship limits goodbye as coaches will be able to tell kids they can "walk-on" and then receive a lucrative promotions deal to essentially pay for college. Donations will now become business expenses.

It seems to me, state governments are picking and choosing what private non-profit organizations to go after here. Why aren't they going after the NFL, instead of the NCAA, to remove the age restriction and create their own minor league so young players can get paid for their talents as opposed to being poor student-athletes? If the system is so repressive, why do players continue to accept athletic scholarships?

How do you think we would do?

[moonshine]

How do you think we would do?

Funding football and b-ball only?

[appgrouch]

I have to laugh at all the millions football and basket ball is making. Take out the student fees and get back to me about how many are left. A system supported by forced payments is not capitalism. Lets leave capitalism out of the discussion.
How long will a system that profits the QB and leaves the linemen who keep him alive last when the linemen can't cash in. This along with other things posted on here tells you this is a disaster in the making.

In 2017, the average FOOTBALL ONLY revenue in the NCAA was $39 MILLION per school. Highly doubt that’s coming from student fees.

App State from 15-16: https://www.statesville.com/sports/how- ... 850da.html

Breaking down the $31 million-plus in 2015-16 revenue, according to USA Today, $11,233,314 came from student fees, $9,068,079 came from school funds, $3,861,260 came from contributions, $3,649,415 came from rights/licensing, $1,573,482 came from ticket sales and $2,326,605 came from other sources.

[appgrouch]

NC Senator Richard Burr plans to introduce a bill to tax said student athletes' scholarship if they receive money in relation to them cashing in on their fame.

About time, if they are wanting to be semi-pro athletes then treat them like semi-pro athletes.

[bcoach]

How do you think we would do?

Funding football and b-ball only?

Yes

[Yosef84]

NC Senator Richard Burr plans to introduce a bill to tax said student athletes' scholarship if they receive money in relation to them cashing in on their fame.

Why would that require a bill? It would be considered taxable income already. The issue would just be whether it was enough to put the taxable category as a full time student.

[NattyBumppo'sRevenge]

NC Senator Richard Burr plans to introduce a bill to tax said student athletes' scholarship if they receive money in relation to them cashing in on their fame.

Why would that require a bill? It would be considered taxable income already. The issue would just be whether it was enough to put the taxable category as a full time student.

My apologies, not a bill, but tax legislation. Here it is from the horse's mouth:

"If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. I’ll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to “cash in” to income taxes,” tweeted Burr, who serves as the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

[WVAPPeer]

Hopefully Burr is spending the majority of his time on real problems we all face ---