What do we think about this?

[704App]

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

Sure, but Joey is likely to make 10x that endorsement when he creates an App.

And then LSU can contact him when he's rich and swimming in piles of cash and ask for a hefty donation..

Perhaps I misunderstood the initial question on what's the difference between the two and the reason why one person gets more money than the other.

I understood what you were saying. There is no difference. Olivia Dunne has endorsement deals because she has a large following on social media. I don’t know what she endorses outside of Fabletics so I can’t speak to her complete NIL deal. But she isn’t representing LSU in her Fabletics deal. She is making money off of her own marketability, which is what NIL was supposed to do.

Correct the money is coming from companies and not LSU.

But, majority of her posts before she got big are LSU gymnastics related. She got the endorsement regardless of LSU being involved.

Fabletics didn't come to her and say "we'll pay you money because you are a gymnast at LSU." They came and said "we'll pay you money because you can reach 15 million people in a matter of seconds because you are a popular athlete that posts a lot of material."

LSU has nothing to do with it, but they benefit heavily from it so it's in their best interest to facilitate it over facilitating it for Nerdy Joe. And they receive an instant guaranteed value today -- not potential value years from now IF (big if, not guaranteed) Nerdy Joe strikes it big.

Again, I must not be understanding either the original question or your discussion point because I don't see how this is even debatable.

Say you're a business owner that wants to give money to a student athletes at App so you reach out to whoever facilitates the NIL. Are you going to want the athlete with 2 million followers to get your money or the Nerdy Joe that has 1200 followers and zero notoriety around town? The answer is simple.

And that is the difference between the two and the reason LSU would rather Livvy Dunne make that money than Nerdy Joe.

And I certainly do not agree with it. I think it's ruined college sports until they get the reigns tucked in some, but that is the reason.

***Sorry for so many edits -- on phone flying in for the game and finding autocorrect typos***

[bcoach]

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

"play" ball
" work" in cafeteria

[Bigdaddyg1]

I always kind of hated when media teams (particularly ours) would overuse the term “student athlete” in game write ups and in press conferences. I know that’s what they technically are but it got a little nauseating for me. Perhaps the ultimate solution is to make basketball and football completely separate legal entities and keep the other sports as they were intended to be. For those sports keep the conferences regionalized to reduce travel costs. For the other 2 make whatever conferences you want. Of course we would take a financial bath with basketball but maybe we find a massive idiot donor or 2 to supplement football and we reach that magical pinnacle some are hoping for.

[ASUTodd]

Im going to ask what may be a stupid question.... if football and such breaks away and becomes its own entity.... would Title IX allow them to use the school's likeness to promote a sport if it would make the school non-compliant? Not sure I worded that right or if it would even matter. Some of you are more up on that part of sports than I am.

[appgrad95&97]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

[bcoach]

"They" didn't do anything. The NCAA caused all of this by not having a plan in place and making copious profits off the backs of unpaid labor. Now the labor is getting paid, and they don't like it.

"off the backs of unpaid labor"? really? You said that?

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

`They are getting for free what all other students must pay for. In fact all other students are paying a tax so the athletes can play their sport. Now maybe things have changed but if you take out those "taxes/fees" it is my understanding football had a hard time paying for itself much making the school all this money.
Yes they do have backs but they are not unpaid labor by any stretch of the imagination. Then indentured servitude? Really? Really? Lastly their scholarship is worth a bit more than an accademic one.
It's just funny that over the years players have had summer jobs to make money but suddenly player just can't work.
In this case the courts blew it as they often do. Looking into the future for a judge is wondering what they are going to have for lunch.

[704App]

My answer to NIL is to make all sports like college baseball. It would obviously require all the professional leagues to also buy in (which they won't), but this would help a lot.

If you think you're good enough out of high school, go to the pros.

If you're not good enough to be drafted in the pros out of high school, you're required 3 years out of HS before you can go pro. You dont have to play college, but it's obviously beneficial for your development. Or you can go play overseas or semi-pro leagues to develop.

If you do choose college, you get the room, board, tuition, etc all athletes get today plus a cost of living stipend. Each player gets the same amount. What they decide to do with that money is up to them, but there are no favorites.

Players can profit off their name, image, and likeness still, but it has to be through an entity not associated with the University at all outside of being a booster (i.e. no collectives, talent fees, or rolling up the price). So, using Livvy Dunne and Fabletics. That can still happen, but the only thing LSU can do is provide her legal support for the contract to make sure she's not getting screwed by Fabletics. This is no different than your Nerdy Joe working at the local restaurant to get his wages.

Where it gets sticky though is in the cases like BYU where all walk ons are getting essentially a scholarship from a local dealership (I think that's what it is at least). I don't know if you'll ever be able to enforce this. But, this is the type of scenario I was talking about when answering what the difference is. The difference is athletes bring way more eyes to the product so it's more beneficial for the company. Likewise, the University is inclined to get more partnerships like the BYU one to provide this for athletes instead of Nerdy Joes because then they can get better athletes, be more competitive, etc. Not the University physically paying the athlete. I do not agree with that.

[appgrad95&97]

Im going to ask what may be a stupid question.... if football and such breaks away and becomes its own entity.... would Title IX allow them to use the school's likeness to promote a sport if it would make the school non-compliant? Not sure I worded that right or if it would even matter. Some of you are more up on that part of sports than I am.

Tile IX is uncharted territory with NIL. In Grove City v. Bell (1983) the Supreme Court essentially held that Title IX only applied to programs receiving federal funds. Congress then amended Tile IX of the Civil Rights Act to make it apply to any institution that receives federal funds.

[704App]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

[AppState222]

Admittedly I didnt read this whole thread, so I apologize that I'm just jumping into the middle of the conversation.

It sounds to me like 704 is treating NIL as it was "expected" to be, by the powers that be. You get paid by companies for endorsing their products. 95/97 are making a similar argument, where its ok as long as none of the money is coming directly from the university. And I dont think that anyone really thinks thats wrong. I think most people agree that as long as the athletes are doing something (signing autographs, hosting events, posting on social media, whatever) then they're earning their money and lending their name, image and likeness to sell a product.

I think part of the disconnect is then what happens when it is the university paying them. That's what the Tennessee ticket fee is. That's what Georgia governor just signed an executive order allowing. That's what Virginia has done. I dont think thats what App's round up program is. At least not explicitly. But the writing is on the wall that that's coming, and I think that's where people draw the line and start to hate it.

It's basically using the university/ athletics dept as the company that athletes are then signing a marketing deal with, and its purely pay for play. I would not be surprised if you had an athlete say 'I'm not coming to FanFest unless you pay me', and thats a sad hypothetical future for college athletics. And the money is going to dry up at a lot of places and sports are going to get cut if you have to pay players to play.

[appgrad95&97]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

That's been my point the entire time. There is a difference between a university paying an athlete and you or Goldman Sachs doing it. If the University of Tennessee is collecting the money, that's entirely different from a private collective.

[bcoach]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

That's been my point the entire time. There is a difference between a university paying an athlete and you or Goldman Sachs doing it. If the University of Tennessee is collecting the money, that's entirely different from a private collective.

Honest question. How is it different?

[704App]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

That's been my point the entire time. There is a difference between a university paying an athlete and you or Goldman Sachs doing it. If the University of Tennessee is collecting the money, that's entirely different from a private collective.

Honest question. How is it different?

I agree. I don't like it, but what is the difference?

If the athlete is doing work marketing the university, should they not get paid? If Livvy Dunne posts a TikTok about how awesome the campus life is and you should really apply there, why shouldn't she get paid for that? It's no different than hiring a marketing student to make the same video. The only difference is Livvy likely has a much larger following and thus would be more effective, and likely more expensive.

And that's why this stuff is so tricky.

Damn O'Bannon brother (forget which one) for filling and winning the suit! Just kidding -- kind of.

[AppOrange]

I get it. But it's refreshing to only care about one score for those three hours.

Not being a smart ass, I promise, but you can also just turn your phone off, for 95% of us, we would like to send a text, picture, look at the radar, get a ride share, check scores, etc. I went to an nc state tailgate this past weekend for a quarter and with 60,000 people all around us, had no problem getting anything, including streaming. It’s not just the stadium, it’s Boone, I get it. I also know we don’t have the money for an upgraded town WiFi system for 6-7 weekends a year, but if I had my choice between seats or WiFi . . .

[appgrad95&97]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

That's been my point the entire time. There is a difference between a university paying an athlete and you or Goldman Sachs doing it. If the University of Tennessee is collecting the money, that's entirely different from a private collective.

Honest question. How is it different?

You don't get the difference between a university which receives federal and state support and an entirely private institution? Like ten years ago there were a few White only county clubs. There's a difference.

[Saint3333]

I get it. But it's refreshing to only care about one score for those three hours.

Not being a smart ass, I promise, but you can also just turn your phone off, for 95% of us, we would like to send a text, picture, look at the radar, get a ride share, check scores, etc. I went to an nc state tailgate this past weekend for a quarter and with 60,000 people all around us, had no problem getting anything, including streaming. It’s not just the stadium, it’s Boone, I get it. I also know we don’t have the money for an upgraded town WiFi system for 6-7 weekends a year, but if I had my choice between seats or WiFi . . .

I don’t have that level of restraint clearly!

[MrCraig]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

That's been my point the entire time. There is a difference between a university paying an athlete and you or Goldman Sachs doing it. If the University of Tennessee is collecting the money, that's entirely different from a private collective.

Honest question. How is it different?

I agree. I don't like it, but what is the difference?

If the athlete is doing work marketing the university, should they not get paid? If Livvy Dunne posts a TikTok about how awesome the campus life is and you should really apply there, why shouldn't she get paid for that? It's no different than hiring a marketing student to make the same video. The only difference is Livvy likely has a much larger following and thus would be more effective, and likely more expensive.

And that's why this stuff is so tricky.

Damn O'Bannon brother (forget which one) for filling and winning the suit! Just kidding -- kind of.

I just want to point out that universities, especially in the SEC, 100% are paying athletes and normal students to post content to their tik toks, Instagrams, etc. as a form of advertisement. Search basically any SEC school on tik tok and you'll find hundreds of "GRWM to go to class!!" from sorority girls or "Campus life is SICK" by some bro-bro in a tank top. I don't have time to find the article, but there was a news report about SEC and ACC schools paying influencers on campus to promote the school and its correlation to skyrocketing applications.

[MrCraig]

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

"play" ball
" work" in cafeteria

Man, you've got coach in your screen name. You don't think participating in a sport at the collegiate level is work?

[bcoach]

704, this entire thing started because the University of Tennessee is planning on charging season ticket holders 10% to pay for talent. LSU didn't pay for Olivia Dunne. I have no issues with kids being paid for their name, image or likeness. The problem I have is with universities paying athletes on an open market to play without contracts. Olivia Dunne was a student at LSU, not an employee. If LSU paid her to be an ambassador, fine. But that's not where she made her money.

Oh I agree with that. But the way I understand it is that 10% is going to a collective -- not the athletic department, so it's not against the rules. I really don't know how you manage that either unless you outlaw collectives. But then you'll just get boosters that spend $150 a year to have an LLC for the sole purpose of NIL.

I don't disagree is dumb and ruining college sports. But that does not make my reasoning why it's happening false either. That is precisely the difference between an athlete and an academic scholarship recipient.

That's been my point the entire time. There is a difference between a university paying an athlete and you or Goldman Sachs doing it. If the University of Tennessee is collecting the money, that's entirely different from a private collective.

Honest question. How is it different?

You don't get the difference between a university which receives federal and state support and an entirely private institution? Like ten years ago there were a few White only county clubs. There's a difference.

I have read it over and over and just don't get the country club thing.
What I am saying is I don't see the difference between the university collecting it and a collective collecting it.

[bcoach]

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

"play" ball
" work" in cafeteria

Man, you've got coach in your screen name. You don't think participating in a sport at the collegiate level is work?

If you don't see the difference I can't help you.