SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 26, 2024 13:00:00 GMT -5
These NIL contracts are a farce. Sure, you might be able to hold back money if a guy never enrolls, for example, or let's say he drops out. But, these NIL collective contracts are somewhat toothless. As SSHoya mentioned above, what school is going to want to be known as the one who files lawsuits seeking to recover NIL monies? That would make that university very popular. ("Don't go to X university, they promise NIL, but sue their players instead!") The problem with NIL contracts is on their face they are giving money to players to use their name, image, and likeness. In reality, they are contracts by a university using a proxy (the collective) to pay players legally to enroll and play basketball. The charity work or endorsements are all mask the true purpose, which is to pay players to play basketball. This is why real contracts and collective bargaining would be much better. It would make the relationships more clear, it would actually commit players, and it would end this free for all free agency. Also, once you get to the point where guys are getting salaries and not NIL, I think at that point, some of the inflation goes down. I was going to respond to SSHoya post but two birds with one stone. As the article above states, the players are paid for services rendered not upfront so programs won't have to sue for monies paid out. I assume your point about contracts will be between the school & the players, if so how will this eliminate NIL? Based upon a quick perusal of the NCAA guidance on NIL, I'm not sure where you are getting the specific performance aspect that the athlete is not paid "upfront." Each state may have different contract laws regarding the same and while the Iowa Hawkeye collective may have such a provision nothing I am aware necessarily governs precluding "upfront" payments. While the NCAA guidance on NIL does not permit payment for work not performed, nowhere does the guidance suggesting the timing of that payment. A contract is simply a promise in exchange for a promise. I agree to pay you $$ upfront and you promise to execute X. In some instances that is easily verifiable such as advertisements, personal appearances, autograph signing sessions, or charitable work. I get that. But NIL guidance that states that you cannot get paid for work not performed does not control the timing of that payment, subject to the contract law of the various states. Moreover, the NIL guidance also does NOT permit NIL money to be contingent upon enrollment at a particular school! How removed from reality is that?? Talk about a fiction. And setting aside that legal issue, it is easy to hypothesize a circumstances where an athlete may receive money for executing a contractual obligation that is impossible to verify. For example, what if Collective A consists of one funded by a single multimillionaire. He states that in exchange for $100,000, Athlete B to have dinner with me and my family and guests. How is that performance documented? Who monitors compliance of that contract? It is simply a gussied version of the old "golden handshake." To me, NIL policy is vague and so full of loopholes, outs, etc. it is rife for potential abuse and can be used for a pay-for-play system. While the NCAA states generally it is not pay-for-play, I fail to see how it is enforceable. And with any private contract, its enforceability is merely up to the parties to that contract. Moreover, the schools are NOT parties to the contracts but the contracts are between NIL collectives and the players themselves so the schools are never in a position to be suing the player. I stated very specifically that the corporate sponsors would be the ones to sue, not the schools or the Athletic Departments as there would be no privity of contract. www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/8/about-taking-action.aspx
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 26, 2024 13:29:59 GMT -5
I was going to respond to SSHoya post but two birds with one stone. As the article above states, the players are paid for services rendered not upfront so programs won't have to sue for monies paid out. I assume your point about contracts will be between the school & the players, if so how will this eliminate NIL? Based upon a quick perusal of the NCAA guidance on NIL, I'm not sure where you are getting the specific performance aspect that the athlete is not paid "upfront." Each state may have different contract laws regarding the same and while the Iowa Hawkeye collective may have such a provision nothing I am aware necessarily governs precluding "upfront" payments. While the NCAA guidance on NIL does not permit payment for work not performed, nowhere does the guidance suggesting the timing of that payment. A contract is simply a promise in exchange for a promise. I agree to pay you $$ upfront and you promise to execute X. In some instances that is easily verifiable such as advertisements, personal appearances, autograph signing sessions, or charitable work. I get that. But NIL guidance that states that you cannot get paid for work not performed does not control the timing of that payment, subject to the contract law of the various states. Moreover, the NIL guidance also does NOT permit NIL money to be contingent upon enrollment at a particular school! How removed from reality is that?? Talk about a fiction. And setting aside that legal issue, it is easy to hypothesize a circumstances where an athlete may receive money for executing a contractual obligation that is impossible to verify. For example, what if Collective A consists of one funded by a single multimillionaire. He states that in exchange for $100,000, Athlete B to have dinner with me and my family and guests. How is that performance documented? Who monitors compliance of that contract? It is simply a gussied version of the old "golden handshake." To me, NIL policy is vague and so full of loopholes, outs, etc. it is rife for potential abuse and can be used for a pay-for-play system. While the NCAA states generally it is not pay-for-play, I fail to see how it is enforceable. And with any private contract, its enforceability is merely up to the parties to that contract. Moreover, the schools are NOT parties to the contracts but the contracts are between NIL collectives and the players themselves so the schools are never in a position to be suing the player. I stated very specifically that the corporate sponsors would be the ones to sue, not the schools or the Athletic Departments as there would be no privity of contract. www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/8/about-taking-action.aspxMy bad I meant collectives or companies when I mentioned programs. I'm just going by the post that sparked this back & forth which heavily implied that Proctor was paid 100K by an Iowa collective and then he bolted without any blowback. Turns out that none of it was true. The article I posted stated that the following. “We’re structured a couple of different ways. We have the collective, which the student-athletes have to do work for charity in order to get paid. So, they go and they deliver Meals on Wheels on a Saturday morning for three or four hours, then they’re going to get paid a certain amount for doing that. The other piece of it, and this is where Kadyn has gotten some money, but only probably 15% of the annual amount, is on the Swarm Inc. side where he can do marketing work for businesses. So, corporations. A corporation asks Kadyn Proctor to do a commercial or advertising, social media or otherwise, then he’ll get paid to do that as well. So, that’s the only place where he’s actually gotten some, very little, money for NIL purposes since he’s been at Iowa. It’s not taken anything from the fan base,” Heinrichs said.Looks to me like this collective has guardrails in place to prevent players from scamming it out of money, I would assume most will follow this model.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 26, 2024 14:46:03 GMT -5
Based upon a quick perusal of the NCAA guidance on NIL, I'm not sure where you are getting the specific performance aspect that the athlete is not paid "upfront." Each state may have different contract laws regarding the same and while the Iowa Hawkeye collective may have such a provision nothing I am aware necessarily governs precluding "upfront" payments. While the NCAA guidance on NIL does not permit payment for work not performed, nowhere does the guidance suggesting the timing of that payment. A contract is simply a promise in exchange for a promise. I agree to pay you $$ upfront and you promise to execute X. In some instances that is easily verifiable such as advertisements, personal appearances, autograph signing sessions, or charitable work. I get that. But NIL guidance that states that you cannot get paid for work not performed does not control the timing of that payment, subject to the contract law of the various states. Moreover, the NIL guidance also does NOT permit NIL money to be contingent upon enrollment at a particular school! How removed from reality is that?? Talk about a fiction. And setting aside that legal issue, it is easy to hypothesize a circumstances where an athlete may receive money for executing a contractual obligation that is impossible to verify. For example, what if Collective A consists of one funded by a single multimillionaire. He states that in exchange for $100,000, Athlete B to have dinner with me and my family and guests. How is that performance documented? Who monitors compliance of that contract? It is simply a gussied version of the old "golden handshake." To me, NIL policy is vague and so full of loopholes, outs, etc. it is rife for potential abuse and can be used for a pay-for-play system. While the NCAA states generally it is not pay-for-play, I fail to see how it is enforceable. And with any private contract, its enforceability is merely up to the parties to that contract. Moreover, the schools are NOT parties to the contracts but the contracts are between NIL collectives and the players themselves so the schools are never in a position to be suing the player. I stated very specifically that the corporate sponsors would be the ones to sue, not the schools or the Athletic Departments as there would be no privity of contract. www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/8/about-taking-action.aspxMy bad I meant collectives or companies when I mentioned programs. I'm just going by the post that sparked this back & forth which heavily implied that Proctor was paid 100K by an Iowa collective and then he bolted without any blowback. Turns out that none of it was true. The article I posted stated that the following. “We’re structured a couple of different ways. We have the collective, which the student-athletes have to do work for charity in order to get paid. So, they go and they deliver Meals on Wheels on a Saturday morning for three or four hours, then they’re going to get paid a certain amount for doing that. The other piece of it, and this is where Kadyn has gotten some money, but only probably 15% of the annual amount, is on the Swarm Inc. side where he can do marketing work for businesses. So, corporations. A corporation asks Kadyn Proctor to do a commercial or advertising, social media or otherwise, then he’ll get paid to do that as well. So, that’s the only place where he’s actually gotten some, very little, money for NIL purposes since he’s been at Iowa. It’s not taken anything from the fan base,” Heinrichs said.Looks to me like this collective has guardrails in place to prevent players from scamming it out of money, I would assume most will follow this model. Yes, a good discussion and if the Iowa Hawkeye collective structures its contracts in a way to holds the athlete to his obligations, that is a good thing, and I appreciate your pointing that out to me. But more interesting is the fact that the NCAA guidlines do NOT "allow NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular institution." That makes sense for the likes of Caitlyn Clark who has a national brand. For most of D1 athletes, it will have no bearing and restrictions as contained in the Hawkeye collective make eminent sense.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 26, 2024 16:23:27 GMT -5
These NIL contracts are a farce. Sure, you might be able to hold back money if a guy never enrolls, for example, or let's say he drops out. But, these NIL collective contracts are somewhat toothless. As SSHoya mentioned above, what school is going to want to be known as the one who files lawsuits seeking to recover NIL monies? That would make that university very popular. ("Don't go to X university, they promise NIL, but sue their players instead!") The problem with NIL contracts is on their face they are giving money to players to use their name, image, and likeness. In reality, they are contracts by a university using a proxy (the collective) to pay players legally to enroll and play basketball. The charity work or endorsements are all mask the true purpose, which is to pay players to play basketball. This is why real contracts and collective bargaining would be much better. It would make the relationships more clear, it would actually commit players, and it would end this free for all free agency. Also, once you get to the point where guys are getting salaries and not NIL, I think at that point, some of the inflation goes down. I was going to respond to SSHoya post but two birds with one stone. As the article above states, the players are paid for services rendered not upfront so programs won't have to sue for monies paid out. I assume your point about contracts will be between the school & the players, if so how will this eliminate NIL? CTHoya08 essentially answered this above. But a few things: 1. Right now, donors are giving NIL as a way of paying salary to players. If fans/alumni could give it directly to universities to be used to pay players, you cut out the middle man, and you make it more reputable. It also makes the value of what I would call fake NIL diminish, since you can just pay the players for playing, rather than pretending you're paying someone like Massoud $300,000 for a local TV commercial or a few Instagram posts. 2. As CTHoya said, if you enter into collective bargaining, it means that you can actually enter into contracts with the players that commit them. Right now, NIL is offered to kids and other than staying and playing for that year, they really have no commitment or obligation. This, combined with the free transfers, is making things crazy and destroying continuity in the sport. 3. Right now, college basketball is a good example of what a professional league would look like if there were no contracts (or limited ones). Imagine if in MLB, the NFL, or NBA if players could only get 1 year contracts and could bargain with people every year? That's what we have in college sports now. It's horrible for the sport. Players have no commitment whatsoever. Coaches essentially have to constantly re-recruit their entire roster constantly. It must be exhausting, even for the coaches and programs that succeed year after year. I realize that for years universities were able to get tons of money and not share it with the players. In principle, I have no problem with players earning money, but the system we have now for doing that is horrible. Something needs to change on either the free transfer or NIL side or both. Otherwise the constant roster pandemonium will just keep happening. There is a HUGE gap between "players should get paid" and "players should get paid by shady collectives and alumni, with little transparency, and no commitment to the donors or universities for which they are playing."
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 26, 2024 17:08:43 GMT -5
My bad I meant collectives or companies when I mentioned programs. I'm just going by the post that sparked this back & forth which heavily implied that Proctor was paid 100K by an Iowa collective and then he bolted without any blowback. Turns out that none of it was true. The article I posted stated that the following. “We’re structured a couple of different ways. We have the collective, which the student-athletes have to do work for charity in order to get paid. So, they go and they deliver Meals on Wheels on a Saturday morning for three or four hours, then they’re going to get paid a certain amount for doing that. The other piece of it, and this is where Kadyn has gotten some money, but only probably 15% of the annual amount, is on the Swarm Inc. side where he can do marketing work for businesses. So, corporations. A corporation asks Kadyn Proctor to do a commercial or advertising, social media or otherwise, then he’ll get paid to do that as well. So, that’s the only place where he’s actually gotten some, very little, money for NIL purposes since he’s been at Iowa. It’s not taken anything from the fan base,” Heinrichs said.Looks to me like this collective has guardrails in place to prevent players from scamming it out of money, I would assume most will follow this model. Yes, a good discussion and if the Iowa Hawkeye collective structures its contracts in a way to holds the athlete to his obligations, that is a good thing, and I appreciate your pointing that out to me. But more interesting is the fact that the NCAA guidlines do NOT "allow NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular institution." That makes sense for the likes of Caitlyn Clark who has a national brand. For most of D1 athletes, it will have no bearing and restrictions as contained in the Hawkeye collective make eminent sense. Isn't this a good thing because it prevents boosters from paying kids upfront to attend a particular program? If your main point is that the NIL system has loopholes, then I agree but it's much better than the old system where players weren't allowed legal access into the boatload of cash fans were always willing to throw at them. The next stop should be allowing kids to share in the money generated by the tv contracts. It's already legal for players to receive money for bowl games so why not the tourney?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 26, 2024 17:48:50 GMT -5
Yes, a good discussion and if the Iowa Hawkeye collective structures its contracts in a way to holds the athlete to his obligations, that is a good thing, and I appreciate your pointing that out to me. But more interesting is the fact that the NCAA guidlines do NOT "allow NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular institution." That makes sense for the likes of Caitlyn Clark who has a national brand. For most of D1 athletes, it will have no bearing and restrictions as contained in the Hawkeye collective make eminent sense. Isn't this a good thing because it prevents boosters from paying kids upfront to attend a particular program? If your main point is that the NIL system has loopholes, then I agree but it's much better than the old system where players weren't allowed legal access into the boatload of cash fans were always willing to throw at them. The next stop should be allowing kids to share in the money generated by the tv contracts. It's already legal for players to receive money for bowl games so why not the tourney? I think there is a wink and a nod aspect to the whole concept. I have no objection to athletes getting a piece of the pie but this system seems rife with ambiguities.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 26, 2024 17:58:07 GMT -5
Again, while I have no objection in principle to guys getting something for the NCAA tournament, I also think most of the value is driven by the universities. The main reason people follow schools in the NCAA tournament is because they are alumni from the university, or in some instances because of geographic proxmity (especially in football schools where the same school garners a huge following). Obviously, the coaches and players are responsible for that success, and so I have no problem with the players enjoying the spoils. I am just saying that it's easy to forget the huge value the universities bring to it, too. That's why college basketball is so huge and the G league or whatever they're calling it now is not.
That's why I think collective bargaining would make sense. In professional sports, the players do not get a cut of TV receipts or value. Instead, there is value attributed to their talent and they are paid accordingly. College basketball would be better if money was allocated for that, rather than sham NIL contracts.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 26, 2024 18:20:51 GMT -5
Again, while I have no objection in principle to guys getting something for the NCAA tournament, I also think most of the value is driven by the universities. The main reason people follow schools in the NCAA tournament is because they are alumni from the university, or in some instances because of geographic proxmity (especially in football schools where the same school garners a huge following). Obviously, the coaches and players are responsible for that success, and so I have no problem with the players enjoying the spoils. I am just saying that it's easy to forget the huge value the universities bring to it, too. That's why college basketball is so huge and the G league or whatever they're calling it now is not. That's why I think collective bargaining would make sense. In professional sports, the players do not get a cut of TV receipts or value. Instead, there is value attributed to their talent and they are paid accordingly. College basketball would be better if money was allocated for that, rather than sham NIL contracts. Actually, TV revenues are shared with pro players under their CBAs. In professional sports leagues, athletes receive around 50% of all revenue including TV licensing, ticket sales, merchandise and more, which annually amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. If we treat college football like the NFL in regard to TV revenue, referred to as Broadcasting NIL (BNIL), theoretically how much would players be making? www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/10/25/oped-25-thomas
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 26, 2024 18:40:42 GMT -5
Isn't this a good thing because it prevents boosters from paying kids upfront to attend a particular program? If your main point is that the NIL system has loopholes, then I agree but it's much better than the old system where players weren't allowed legal access into the boatload of cash fans were always willing to throw at them. The next stop should be allowing kids to share in the money generated by the tv contracts. It's already legal for players to receive money for bowl games so why not the tourney? I think there is a wink and a nod aspect to the whole concept. I have no objection to athletes getting a piece of the pie but this system seems rife with ambiguities. This is what happens when one side has to get forced into this system by the courts.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 26, 2024 18:46:01 GMT -5
I think there is a wink and a nod aspect to the whole concept. I have no objection to athletes getting a piece of the pie but this system seems rife with ambiguities. This is what happens when one side has to get forced into this system by the courts. NCAA needs a federal antitrust exemption like baseball.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 26, 2024 18:56:21 GMT -5
Again, while I have no objection in principle to guys getting something for the NCAA tournament, I also think most of the value is driven by the universities. The main reason people follow schools in the NCAA tournament is because they are alumni from the university, or in some instances because of geographic proxmity (especially in football schools where the same school garners a huge following). Obviously, the coaches and players are responsible for that success, and so I have no problem with the players enjoying the spoils. I am just saying that it's easy to forget the huge value the universities bring to it, too. That's why college basketball is so huge and the G league or whatever they're calling it now is not. That's why I think collective bargaining would make sense. In professional sports, the players do not get a cut of TV receipts or value. Instead, there is value attributed to their talent and they are paid accordingly. College basketball would be better if money was allocated for that, rather than sham NIL contracts. Put a number on it 2003, what are the players worth to the sport in your view?
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by hoyaboya on Mar 26, 2024 20:47:31 GMT -5
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 26, 2024 21:22:38 GMT -5
NIL aside, Is there a reason the NCAA cannot set academic requirements for students choosing to transfer? Normal students, especially on scholarship, would not be accepted by these universities when transferring for the 3rd time in the 3 years. Maybe tougher academic standards could bring down the transfer numbers? I am thinking some sort of required number of credits earned at a university prior to being able to transfer again. The whole point of the NCAA is to help athletes get an education, if guys are just hopping from school to school without even making an attempt to further their education, that should be a problem. I mean these players are still considered students, I think.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 27, 2024 11:52:27 GMT -5
Again, while I have no objection in principle to guys getting something for the NCAA tournament, I also think most of the value is driven by the universities. The main reason people follow schools in the NCAA tournament is because they are alumni from the university, or in some instances because of geographic proxmity (especially in football schools where the same school garners a huge following). Obviously, the coaches and players are responsible for that success, and so I have no problem with the players enjoying the spoils. I am just saying that it's easy to forget the huge value the universities bring to it, too. That's why college basketball is so huge and the G league or whatever they're calling it now is not. That's why I think collective bargaining would make sense. In professional sports, the players do not get a cut of TV receipts or value. Instead, there is value attributed to their talent and they are paid accordingly. College basketball would be better if money was allocated for that, rather than sham NIL contracts. Actually, TV revenues are shared with pro players under their CBAs. In professional sports leagues, athletes receive around 50% of all revenue including TV licensing, ticket sales, merchandise and more, which annually amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. If we treat college football like the NFL in regard to TV revenue, referred to as Broadcasting NIL (BNIL), theoretically how much would players be making? www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/10/25/oped-25-thomasYes and no. The amounts earned in TV revenue do play a role in setting salary caps in the NFL and NBA, but it does not guarantee the players a specific amount of money. I think when you consider that Division 1 has 362 teams, and assuming 13 players each for about 4,706 players, once you divided up that money, it'd be less than it seems--even if you cut off the low level and mid-major conferences and focused on the "Power 6" (soon to be 5 without the PAC 12). And almost certainly far less than what players are getting paid in NIL. A Marquette blog did some math. Big East media + NCAA revenue in 2022 was $71,779,079. Of course, not all of that is for basketball (but most is) and much of that money is used to power non-revenue sports, including women's basketball. So, let's be generous and allot 30% to non-men's basketball. That leaves $50,245,355.30 in revenue. For argument's sake, let's say players should get 50% of that--$25,122,677.65. 11 teams, 13 scholarship players. That's 143 players. Do the math, and t that yields only $175,683.06 per player. Far less than these guys are getting through NIL, though it likely more closely approximates their actual value. NIL is inflated because fans throw money at players simply because they want their teams to win. (NOTE: These figures do not consider ANY expenses, either. Once you consider expenses, such as costs of running the BET and other costs for non-revenue sports, the pool of money available is surely much less than what I am using above. Meaning, players would actually get less than my estimates.)
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,657
|
Post by seaweed on Mar 27, 2024 12:12:34 GMT -5
Actually, TV revenues are shared with pro players under their CBAs. In professional sports leagues, athletes receive around 50% of all revenue including TV licensing, ticket sales, merchandise and more, which annually amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. If we treat college football like the NFL in regard to TV revenue, referred to as Broadcasting NIL (BNIL), theoretically how much would players be making? www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/10/25/oped-25-thomasYes and no. The amounts earned in TV revenue do play a role in setting salary caps in the NFL and NBA, but it does not guarantee the players a specific amount of money. I think when you consider that Division 1 has 362 teams, and assuming 13 players each for about 4,706 players, once you divided up that money, it'd be less than it seems--even if you cut off the low level and mid-major conferences and focused on the "Power 6" (soon to be 5 without the PAC 12). And almost certainly far less than what players are getting paid in NIL. A Marquette blog did some math. Big East media + NCAA revenue in 2022 was $71,779,079. Of course, not all of that is for basketball (but most is) and much of that money is used to power non-revenue sports, including women's basketball. So, let's be generous and allot 30% to non-men's basketball. That leaves $50,245,355.30 in revenue. For argument's sake, let's say players should get 50% of that--$25,122,677.65. 11 teams, 13 scholarship players. That's 143 players. Do the math, and t that yields only $175,683.06 per player. Far less than these guys are getting through NIL, though it likely more closely approximates their actual value. NIL is inflated because fans throw money at players simply because they want their teams to win. (NOTE: These figures do not consider ANY expenses, either. Once you consider expenses, such as costs of running the BET and other costs for non-revenue sports, the pool of money available is surely much less than what I am using above. Meaning, players would actually get less than my estimates.) No ticket revenue included? Seems like BET alone probably generates a tidy sum
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 27, 2024 12:21:48 GMT -5
Actually, TV revenues are shared with pro players under their CBAs. In professional sports leagues, athletes receive around 50% of all revenue including TV licensing, ticket sales, merchandise and more, which annually amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. If we treat college football like the NFL in regard to TV revenue, referred to as Broadcasting NIL (BNIL), theoretically how much would players be making? www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/10/25/oped-25-thomasYes and no. The amounts earned in TV revenue do play a role in setting salary caps in the NFL and NBA, but it does not guarantee the players a specific amount of money. I think when you consider that Division 1 has 362 teams, and assuming 13 players each for about 4,706 players, once you divided up that money, it'd be less than it seems--even if you cut off the low level and mid-major conferences and focused on the "Power 6" (soon to be 5 without the PAC 12). And almost certainly far less than what players are getting paid in NIL. A Marquette blog did some math. Big East media + NCAA revenue in 2022 was $71,779,079. Of course, not all of that is for basketball (but most is) and much of that money is used to power non-revenue sports, including women's basketball. So, let's be generous and allot 30% to non-men's basketball. That leaves $50,245,355.30 in revenue. For argument's sake, let's say players should get 50% of that--$25,122,677.65. 11 teams, 13 scholarship players. That's 143 players. Do the math, and t that yields only $175,683.06 per player. Far less than these guys are getting through NIL, though it likely more closely approximates their actual value. NIL is inflated because fans throw money at players simply because they want their teams to win. (NOTE: These figures do not consider ANY expenses, either. Once you consider expenses, such as costs of running the BET and other costs for non-revenue sports, the pool of money available is surely much less than what I am using above. Meaning, players would actually get less than my estimates.) The bolded part never makes sense to me, the market is what folks are willing to pay. As for your math, I like it a lot though I'm not sure why you brought up NIL. Honestly, I'd go 30% to players and I would scale the payments so the more successful teams get a bigger share of the pie.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 27, 2024 13:53:29 GMT -5
Yes and no. The amounts earned in TV revenue do play a role in setting salary caps in the NFL and NBA, but it does not guarantee the players a specific amount of money. I think when you consider that Division 1 has 362 teams, and assuming 13 players each for about 4,706 players, once you divided up that money, it'd be less than it seems--even if you cut off the low level and mid-major conferences and focused on the "Power 6" (soon to be 5 without the PAC 12). And almost certainly far less than what players are getting paid in NIL. A Marquette blog did some math. Big East media + NCAA revenue in 2022 was $71,779,079. Of course, not all of that is for basketball (but most is) and much of that money is used to power non-revenue sports, including women's basketball. So, let's be generous and allot 30% to non-men's basketball. That leaves $50,245,355.30 in revenue. For argument's sake, let's say players should get 50% of that--$25,122,677.65. 11 teams, 13 scholarship players. That's 143 players. Do the math, and t that yields only $175,683.06 per player. Far less than these guys are getting through NIL, though it likely more closely approximates their actual value. NIL is inflated because fans throw money at players simply because they want their teams to win. (NOTE: These figures do not consider ANY expenses, either. Once you consider expenses, such as costs of running the BET and other costs for non-revenue sports, the pool of money available is surely much less than what I am using above. Meaning, players would actually get less than my estimates.) The bolded part never makes sense to me, the market is what folks are willing to pay. As for your math, I like it a lot though I'm not sure why you brought up NIL. Honestly, I'd go 30% to players and I would scale the payments so the more successful teams get a bigger share of the pie. To avoid multiple posts, to answer the previous poster, in 2022, the BET revenue was approximately $6 million. Obviously, that's a ton of money, but it is important to keep in mind that is revenue and does not cover expenses. While I'm sure it's a net profit, keep in mind renting Madison Square Garden for 4 days has to be very expensive, along with other expenses like maintaining a BET wood floor, logistics, etc. EtomicB, on your point, I understand what you are saying. To use an analogy, let's say that in your town, the going rate to mow a lawn one time is $50. You have some companies a little lower, and some companies a little higher, but on average, people pay $50. But let's say your teenager nephew is visiting for the summer, and he's looking for work to pay his expenses and buy some fun things. You know he's only going to do the lawn a few times, and you want to help him out, so you tell him you'll give him $100 to mow the lawn. He gets to do the work and earn some money, and you get to be the favorite uncle. That's frequently what happens with NIL. The real market value let's say of Player X is well under $300,000. But there are fans/alumni/donors willing to give enough money to give him $300,000 so you give it to him to try to persuade him to come to Georgetown. Fans/alumni/donors and the collectives they donate to are basically the uncle in the scenario above, and the players are the nephew. So it's really talking about two different markets: 1. What REALLY is the market value of your NIL in terms of economic production. 2. What is the market value of your NIL in the system we have where fans/alumni/donors throw money all over with little relation to actual value. Put another way, think about an NBA player who gets a shoe deal. Nike isn't going to give a shoe deal to an NBA player for $50 million if they think the player is going to drive shoe sales of $25 million. But, in the NIL world, guys get deals like that all the time. Take Massoud, who reportedly got $300,000. Does anybody think he created $300,000 in value this season based on his name, image, and likeness? Doubtful.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 27, 2024 14:43:06 GMT -5
The bolded part never makes sense to me, the market is what folks are willing to pay. As for your math, I like it a lot though I'm not sure why you brought up NIL. Honestly, I'd go 30% to players and I would scale the payments so the more successful teams get a bigger share of the pie. To avoid multiple posts, to answer the previous poster, in 2022, the BET revenue was approximately $6 million. Obviously, that's a ton of money, but it is important to keep in mind that is revenue and does not cover expenses. While I'm sure it's a net profit, keep in mind renting Madison Square Garden for 4 days has to be very expensive, along with other expenses like maintaining a BET wood floor, logistics, etc. EtomicB, on your point, I understand what you are saying. To use an analogy, let's say that in your town, the going rate to mow a lawn one time is $50. You have some companies a little lower, and some companies a little higher, but on average, people pay $50. But let's say your teenager nephew is visiting for the summer, and he's looking for work to pay his expenses and buy some fun things. You know he's only going to do the lawn a few times, and you want to help him out, so you tell him you'll give him $100 to mow the lawn. He gets to do the work and earn some money, and you get to be the favorite uncle. That's frequently what happens with NIL. The real market value let's say of Player X is well under $300,000. But there are fans/alumni/donors willing to give enough money to give him $300,000 so you give it to him to try to persuade him to come to Georgetown. Fans/alumni/donors and the collectives they donate to are basically the uncle in the scenario above, and the players are the nephew. So it's really talking about two different markets: 1. What REALLY is the market value of your NIL in terms of economic production. 2. What is the market value of your NIL in the system we have where fans/alumni/donors throw money all over with little relation to actual value. Put another way, think about an NBA player who gets a shoe deal. Nike isn't going to give a shoe deal to an NBA player for $50 million if they think the player is going to drive shoe sales of $25 million. But, in the NIL world, guys get deals like that all the time. Take Massoud, who reportedly got $300,000. Does anybody think he created $300,000 in value this season based on his name, image, and likeness? Doubtful. The analogy doesn't work because I know my nephew(s) and would have given him money for school regardless of whether he cut my yard or not. Massoud was given the 300K because Cooley told the donors he was worth it and that's what was needed to stop him from going to another school. Massoud wasn't a favorite nephew of anyone at Gtown prior to arriving. Pretty big difference between the two scenarios. Multiple top programs entered into a bidding war for Dickinson last off-season, that was his market.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by hoyaboya on Mar 29, 2024 13:07:12 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by hoyaboya on Mar 30, 2024 12:44:05 GMT -5
|
|