Outside Topic OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic OT: The rich getting richer in college football (/thread-22108.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic OT: The rich getting richer in college football (/thread-22108.html)
OT: The rich getting richer in college football - JustAnotherFan - 07-20-2021
This is with respect to SEC football, and Alabama football in particular, not absurd endowments.
This article on ESPN points out that sophomore QB Bryce Young of Alabama is approaching $1 million in endorsement deals. Saban knows how to spin this into a recruiting pitch for top high school talent:
"While Saban wouldn't divulge the specifics of the deals Young has signed, Saban said the total compensation is "almost seven figures.""
""And it's like, the guy hasn't even played yet," Saban said, according to The Athletic. "But that's because of our brand.""
As if the cards weren't already stacked in favor of Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State ...
Might have to tweak the conversation around the 40 year decision a bit.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Brickcity - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 12:55 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: This is with respect to SEC football, and Alabama football in particular, not absurd endowments.
This article on ESPN points out that sophomore QB Bryce Young of Alabama is approaching $1 million in endorsement deals. Saban knows how to spin this into a recruiting pitch for top high school talent:
"While Saban wouldn't divulge the specifics of the deals Young has signed, Saban said the total compensation is "almost seven figures.""
""And it's like, the guy hasn't even played yet," Saban said, according to The Athletic. "But that's because of our brand.""
As if the cards weren't already stacked in favor of Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State ...
Might have to tweak the conversation around the 40 year decision a bit.
Hate to say it, but college sports - at least football and likely hoops - are about to become a joke. Personally, I've been on the side of paying scholarship athletes "something" e.g. maybe three grand a month or whatever - so they don't have to work while in school. Never even had a set number in mind. But, the fact that some players - even if only a handful - can make millions while in college is just absurd.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - 82lsju - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 03:48 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(07-20-2021, 12:55 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: This is with respect to SEC football, and Alabama football in particular, not absurd endowments.
This article on ESPN points out that sophomore QB Bryce Young of Alabama is approaching $1 million in endorsement deals. Saban knows how to spin this into a recruiting pitch for top high school talent:
"While Saban wouldn't divulge the specifics of the deals Young has signed, Saban said the total compensation is "almost seven figures.""
""And it's like, the guy hasn't even played yet," Saban said, according to The Athletic. "But that's because of our brand.""
As if the cards weren't already stacked in favor of Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State ...
Might have to tweak the conversation around the 40 year decision a bit.
Hate to say it, but college sports - at least football and likely hoops - are about to become a joke. Personally, I've been on the side of paying scholarship athletes "something" e.g. maybe three grand a month or whatever - so they don't have to work while in school. Never even had a set number in mind. But, the fact that some players - even if only a handful - can make millions while in college is just absurd.
what will be interesting to see is what happens to players who sign big NIL deals who never pan out on the field, I wonder if these deals are one year at a time or multi-year. And what happens if the player is still good but gets passed by a younger player and transfers from say Alabama to Oklahoma (e.g. Jalen Hurts), I wonder how those deals work out....
I would expect both sides of the deals to learn a lot in the first couple of years that will shape what becomes the new business model
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - teejers1 - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 03:48 PM)Brickcity Wrote: Hate to say it, but college sports - at least football and likely hoops - are about to become a joke. Personally, I've been on the side of paying scholarship athletes "something" e.g. maybe three grand a month or whatever - so they don't have to work while in school. Never even had a set number in mind. But, the fact that some players - even if only a handful - can make millions while in college is just absurd.
Gee, who could have possibly foreseen this turn of events? (Well, other than EVERYONE who had even a modicum of a clue).
And here's the really absurd part: this isn't even what Kavanaugh was lamenting about - "unpaid labor" - in his recent concurring opinion. NIL isn't about paying "labor" anything, nor is it about paying the people for the value they bring to the table. What's CRAZY about NIL compensation is that it has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with what the individual athlete uniquely brings to the table; and everything (or almost everything) to do with the fact that he is playing for college X or university Y. In this case, Alabama.
If this continues, Stanford will be out of major sports in 5 years . . . 10 years, max.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Brickcity - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 05:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(07-20-2021, 03:48 PM)Brickcity Wrote: Hate to say it, but college sports - at least football and likely hoops - are about to become a joke. Personally, I've been on the side of paying scholarship athletes "something" e.g. maybe three grand a month or whatever - so they don't have to work while in school. Never even had a set number in mind. But, the fact that some players - even if only a handful - can make millions while in college is just absurd.
Gee, who could have possibly foreseen this turn of events? (Well, other than EVERYONE who had even a modicum of a clue).
And here's the really absurd part: this isn't even what Kavanaugh was lamenting about - "unpaid labor" - in his recent concurring opinion. NIL isn't about paying "labor" anything, nor is it about paying the people for the value they bring to the table. What's CRAZY about NIL compensation is that it has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with what the individual athlete uniquely brings to the table; and everything (or almost everything) to do with the fact that he is playing for college X or university Y. In this case, Alabama.
If this continues, Stanford will be out of major sports in 5 years . . . 10 years, max.
I have always enjoyed watching Stanford baseball, particularly this past year, and may only be left with it in time. I can live with it.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - BostonCard - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 05:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(07-20-2021, 03:48 PM)Brickcity Wrote: Hate to say it, but college sports - at least football and likely hoops - are about to become a joke. Personally, I've been on the side of paying scholarship athletes "something" e.g. maybe three grand a month or whatever - so they don't have to work while in school. Never even had a set number in mind. But, the fact that some players - even if only a handful - can make millions while in college is just absurd.
Gee, who could have possibly foreseen this turn of events? (Well, other than EVERYONE who had even a modicum of a clue).
And here's the really absurd part: this isn't even what Kavanaugh was lamenting about - "unpaid labor" - in his recent concurring opinion. NIL isn't about paying "labor" anything, nor is it about paying the people for the value they bring to the table. What's CRAZY about NIL compensation is that it has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with what the individual athlete uniquely brings to the table; and everything (or almost everything) to do with the fact that he is playing for college X or university Y. In this case, Alabama.
If this continues, Stanford will be out of major sports in 5 years . . . 10 years, max.
The issue started when Ed O'Bannon (yes, that Ed O'Bannon) saw that the NCAA had licensed his image out to a video game and he didn't see one dime.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/31/360176715/episode-579-is-the-ncaa-an-illegal-cartel
Yes, what has happened is probably the beginning of the end, but the NCAA has wrought this unto itself. Even if you believe that student athletes should not be able to leverage their participation in NCAA sports to make money, we can probably all agree that the NCAA shouldn't be able to make money off their player's NIL's if the players themselves are not allowed to share. O'Bannon had a good case that this was exploitative.
By the way, in the meantime, yesterday it was reported that Mark Emmert made $2.9 million in 2019. The crazy thing is that this would not have been a crazy number for a professional sports league (I mean, Roger Goodell's salary was $40 million, Gary Bettman makes $9.6 million as commissioner of the NHL). But it is ridiculous for an organization that purports that its players are amateurs. Amateurism for thee but not for me, as the saying goes.
The NCAA has only itself to blame for its destruction.
BC
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Goose - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 06:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The NCAA has only itself to blame for its destruction.
BC
While I understand your sentiment, The NCAA was always engaged in an illegal restraint of trade. It doesn't matter that lots of people liked that restraint of trade. It doesn't matter if student athletes were "happy" with the NCAA's rules. It was against the law, and everybody knew it. They only got away with it because nobody was willing to rock the boat and sue over it. When somebody did finally get it litigated, the result was inevitable. The only way amateur sports will survive is if the congress legislates a way for regulatory bodies to collude with other entities (universities, conferences, club sports teams, individuals) to act in restraint of trade. Otherwise, game over (literally).
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - BostonCard - 07-20-2021
I don't know that this is necessarily true. There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid. For example, would you consider little leaguers employees? What about Texas high school football players? Somewhere, there is an alternate universe where organized athletics is an amateur endeavor even in the presence of bureaucratic organizations that enforce rules to prevent there being a completely free employment "market" for players (or, outside of sports, performers).
I think this is a case where NCAA athletes look like employees and act like employees in an industry where there is a ton of money sloshing around that is not getting to the players, but somewhere someone will need to devise a test as to what makes someone a true amateur and what makes them an employee. I mean, I'm not an employment lawyer, but somewhere stuff like the degree to which the organization controls your hours, how much money the organization is making and whether there are other paid employees there and probably some other criteria will need to devised.
I think it would be hard to hide the major D1 sports from the idea that athletes are employees and that the organization is making money off them. But what about, say, track and field at a small D3 college? Functionally, it's still under the NCAA, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that those student athletes need to be paid. So, what distinguishes BCS football at a power five school from D3 volleyball? Really just the amount of money that the sport makes (billions versus basically nothing). The NCAA restrains trade in both circumstances however, but in one, the restraint is significant compared to what would have happened had there been competition; in the other the NCAA's rules aren't really going to make a difference compared to what would happen to the in a "free" market.
I really wonder what would have happened had college football and basketball developed more akin to college baseball, a more low-key affair with a viable path that didn't involve college. Maybe collegiate sports is not a $19 billion industry, and the NCAA is not looked upon as a way to restrain trade, but rather as a low key organization, maybe more like a collegiate version of AYSO or something like that.
So, I don't think that the NCAA is inherently engaged in an illegal restraint of trade. That only happens when the NCAA becomes a revenue maximizing organization, placing the interests of student athletes behind things like maximizing television contracts.
BC
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - 82lsju - 07-20-2021
When Emmert says to decentralize and deregulate....
"NCAA President Mark Emmert said Thursday [15 July 2021] the time is right to consider a decentralized and deregulated version of college sports, shifting power to conferences and campuses and reconsidering how schools are aligned."
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31824357/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-right-consider-decentralized-deregulated-college-sports
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Softball Fan - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 07:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid. For example, would you consider little leaguers employees? What about Texas high school football players?
As far as I know high school athletic associations prohibit athletes from being compensated for any activity connected to their sport (i.e. they can't sell a photograph of themselves in their school uniform).
That will probably change along with college rules in the not-so-distant future. Catholic and private high schools would probably be the biggest benefactor for attracting elite athletes.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - needle - 07-20-2021
Quote:what will be interesting to see is what happens to players who sign big NIL deals who never pan out on the field, I wonder if these deals are one year at a time or multi-year. And what happens if the player is still good but gets passed by a younger player and transfers from say Alabama to Oklahoma (e.g. Jalen Hurts), I wonder how those deals work out....
We are definitely still in the "honeymoon" phase of NIL. I expect a lot of frivolous lawsuits.
BTW, someone whose opinion I really respect is very worried about female athletes. Scenarios of concern involve dangerous, obsessive types with a bit of cash able to "lure" athletes (and then stalk them, basically). My mind doesn't necessarily go there, but of course Olympic sports have been the backdrop for some awful stories.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Goose - 07-20-2021
(07-20-2021, 07:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I don't know that this is necessarily true. There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid. For example, would you consider little leaguers employees? What about Texas high school football players? Somewhere, there is an alternate universe where organized athletics is an amateur endeavor even in the presence of bureaucratic organizations that enforce rules to prevent there being a completely free employment "market" for players (or, outside of sports, performers).
I think this is a case where NCAA athletes look like employees and act like employees in an industry where there is a ton of money sloshing around that is not getting to the players,
<snip>
BC
It isn't that the players "look like employees". The problem is that the NCAA makes rules that prevent the players from being paid for using their "likeness" as well as a host of other things that any "normal" person can do. That isn't about how many hours the players put in, or the actual value of their scholarships. Remember, the walk-ons are bound by the NCAA rules just as much as the 5 star OMG recruits are.. For that matter, the NCAA says you can't take money from boosters for an autograph. That has nothing at all to do with what Alabama makes playing football. You can't collude to forbid such activity, period. Public entities that are part of the government, like public high schools can be a somewhat different case, since they are granted powers by the legislature/state constitutions that private organizations are not. Other than these cases, non-governmental organizations like the NCAA, conferences, the AAU and the USVBA etc. are in deep trouble. Any way you slice it, these organizations are colluding to restrain trade. It also doesn't matter if the NCAA gains no tangible benefit from their illegal restraint of trade. That isn't the issue.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - CTcard - 07-21-2021
(07-20-2021, 07:48 PM)paloalto Wrote:(07-20-2021, 07:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid. For example, would you consider little leaguers employees? What about Texas high school football players?
As far as I know high school athletic associations prohibit athletes from being compensated for any activity connected to their sport (i.e. they can't sell a photograph of themselves in their school uniform).
That will probably change along with college rules in the not-so-distant future. Catholic and private high schools would probably be the biggest benefactor for attracting elite athletes.
BC seems to be conflating the issue of whether college athletes are really employees or not with that of ownership of NIL rights.
There are inherent questions about when and if some organization can simply no longer be allowed to be an amateur athletics league. Though even there, the issue isn't whether the NCAA should be paying athletes but whether the NCAA can prohibit member institutions from doing so. I guess there would theoretically be nothing to stop, say Vandy, from choosing to field an amateur football team and still have games against Alabama with all players earning individually negotiated, $1 million plus salaries - it would just be an even stupider game than it is now.
On NIL, as far as I know, Little League doesn't prevent players from earning income in ways unconnected to playing in Little League. I think that the universities, through the NCAA, were always on shaky ground on that front.
Universities would have to allow their uniforms to be used for endorsements; there would be some reasons to do so but probably many to not do so. Besides, 90% of the NIL agreements will only nominally be endorsement deals, they will really be wealthy alums paying kids to play for their dear old school.
Issues I wonder about:
- to the extent universities run marketing operations to help athletes get NIL deals (which many are doing now), will they then be responsible for Title IX equity issues? Or other discrimination issues?
- will universities allow their uniforms to be used in player marketing deals? if they get a cut? It would be a boon to recruiting but may also increase their legal responsibilities.
- if random players from Alabama are already earning >$1 million, what will that do to NFL rookie contracts? will more players use up their eligibility to avoid a pay cut?
- can "advertisers" be restricted from encouraging transfers?
- if athletes in the high profile sports are making plenty of money, will this raise or lower pressure to increase scholarship benefits? (which will likely have a bigger effect on lower-profile sport athletes than NIL agreements)
- at what degree of un-level playing field will the sports lose fan interest?
At the moment, Alabama fans don't seem to mind paying up to watch their team shellack the likes Mercer, New Mexico State. Southern Miss and Vandy (the first three are on their schedule this year). Is there a limit?
Finally, at what level does Stanford have enough ethical concerns to pull out?
I think Stanford stays in the game almost no matter what, most likely just with football and basketball teams that are less competitive. Firstly, Stanford has a brobdingnagian investment already sunk into big time athletics - both in concrete facility terms and in self-identification. Secondly, they saw the firestorm that erupted when they attempted to drop some minor sports and can anticipate how that would scale up if it were football and basketball.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Goose - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 07:51 AM)CTcard Wrote: Finally, at what level does Stanford have enough ethical concerns to pull out?
I think Stanford stays in the game almost no matter what, most likely just with football and basketball teams that are less competitive. Firstly, Stanford has a of immense proportions investment already sunk into big time athletics - both in concrete facility terms and in self-identification. Secondly, they saw the firestorm that erupted when they attempted to drop some minor sports and can anticipate how that would scale up if it were football and basketball.
I don't think that Stanford will have much choice. Without any kind of governing bodies that can control the compensation of athletes, college sports will just fall apart. It will fall apart even in the SEC when the lower tier schools realize they have absolutely no change of being even respectable anymore. Right now, every team has at least the hope they can get a good coach and recruit some guys that are loyal to Good Old U of ..., but when some other teams can just offer what it takes to buy those guys out, you have no shot. On top of that, the fans will realize the guys playing the game are mercenaries with no loyalty to the school at all. Right now, there can be at least the hope/illusion that the name on the front of the jersey matters. Wit no externally mandated financial leveling of the playing field, that will no longer be true. The students will soon realize the guys playing the game are not "one of us". Eventually, even in the SEC, the fans will too. At that point, why watch and why care?
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - teejers1 - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 07:51 AM)CTcard Wrote: Finally, at what level does Stanford have enough ethical concerns to pull out?
I think Stanford stays in the game almost no matter what, most likely just with football and basketball teams that are less competitive. Firstly, Stanford has a of immense proportions investment already sunk into big time athletics - both in concrete facility terms and in self-identification. Secondly, they saw the firestorm that erupted when they attempted to drop some minor sports and can anticipate how that would scale up if it were football and basketball.
Great post and questions to ponder.
But I disagree that Stanford pulling out of football and hoops in this "pay the athletes" environment - if it expands/devolves in the manner many think it will - will engender the same kind outrage/opposition that the 11-sports cut did. That's because any college educated kid - even the avid sports fan - can see that what they're trying to save does not resemble the "college athletics" they supported and loved for years. That's essentially what Goose said, and I agree.
P.S. Loved the quote from Saban re: NIL - something along lines of "I'm not sure how this will all shake out, but it won't be even." Ya think???
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - JustAnotherFan - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 07:51 AM)CTcard Wrote: - if random players from Alabama are already earning >$1 million, what will that do to NFL rookie contracts? will more players use up their eligibility to avoid a pay cut?
Whoa. Didn't think about that one. I'm always shocked by folks declaring with the potential of being a 5th or 6th round draft pick, or not being drafted, when they can come back (if they are that good) and improve their draft position with another year against inferior college players. I've been of the opinion if you're not a projected 1st or 2nd round pick you should return. Maybe the breakeven point would shift to be just the 1st round for skilled positions, and maybe only the upper half of the 1st round for a non-skilled position?
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - SamuelMcF - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 01:04 PM)paloalto Wrote: https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/1417531025199144967?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1417531025199144967%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.dignittanyvolleyball.com%2Fthread%2F1153%2Fnils-thread-alive-sound-money%3Fpage%3D4
The end is closer than anyone could have imagined.
...this was the news that started this thread.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - BostonCard - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 07:51 AM)CTcard Wrote: BC seems to be conflating the issue of whether college athletes are really employees or not with that of ownership of NIL rights.
That is because they are conflated legally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Bannon_v._NCAA
O'Bannon v. NCAA was originally a NIL case, with Ed O'Bannon arguing that the NCAA rule banning him from receiving money from EA Sports for the use of his image and likeness in a videogame was a violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. So far, so good, but the remedy from the judge in the case was that the longstanding practice of not paying athletes was illegal, not just NIL.
Quote:On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws.[19] She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.[20]
While the USSC denied certiorari of the NCAA's appeal, in its aftermath Wilken heard NCAA v. Alston, which was a consolidated case in which Wilken ruled that the NCAA could not limit aid to cost-of-attendance aid. This case made it all the way to the USSC, which ruled, unanimously, against the NCAA in the spring.
Formally, the Supreme Court has only ruled in Alston, and the decision was relatively narrow. However, the groundwork seems to have been pretty cleanly laid for courts to determine that both limitations to payments for NIL and barring direct payments to athletes for their labor will prove to be violations of the Sherman antitrust act. I will be interested to see whether this is taken to its logical legal conclusion, which is that not only can the NCAA not restrain trade, but that schools are subject to employment rules, including minimum wage, etc. My guess is that this will finally get decided when former athletes file suit alleging wage theft and misclassification.
BC
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - Goose - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 02:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That is because they are conflated legally.As the quote you included shows it was the practice of BARRING payments to athletes that violated the anti-trust laws. This was an action by the NCAA, not by each school acting in isolation. Whether the schools were REQUIRED to pay the athletes was a different issue. Unfortunately, the judge did propose a remedy for the barring of payments by having the schools pay, but I think that was not really the point. I am pretty sure that Stanford can offer a program of football where the athletes participate for their own reasons (learning to play football, because they like it, you know, the same reasons you take calculus). They need not be paid by the school. However organizations like the NCAA and the conferences cannot bar athletes from receiving payments from other parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Bannon_v._NCAA
O'Bannon v. NCAA was originally a NIL case, with Ed O'Bannon arguing that the NCAA rule banning him from receiving money from EA Sports for the use of his image and likeness in a videogame was a violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. So far, so good, but the remedy from the judge in the case was that the longstanding practice of not paying athletes was illegal, not just NIL.
Quote:On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws.[19] She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.[20]
BC
AFAIK, the question "Are college athletes employees?" hasn't yet been answered in the courts. It is probable IMHO that the answer will be "It depends" with a list of criteria. Scholarships conflate the issue even more. Is a scholarship athlete an employee because he is compensated but a walk-on not an employee because he gets nothing? If you volunteer your labor, are you an employee? I would say no, you are not. It is also probably legal for the school to refuse to accept your volunteer labor if you engage in certain practices, like receiving payments from third parties. The problem occurs when the schools a) get paid for the products of your volunteer labor AND b) collude together in conferences and associations to bar the volunteer labor from receiving payments.
There are therefore two issues. The schools colluding together to form associations that restrain trade is clearly illegal. The question regarding the employee status of athletes is a separate one. The remedy proposed in the O'Bannon case was exactly that. A remedy for an illegal situation. It doesn't answer the question about employee status.
RE: OT: The rich getting richer in college football - BostonCard - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 03:17 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately, the judge did propose a remedy for the barring of payments by having the schools pay, but I think that was not really the point.
Why "unfortunately". That is what the judge ruled, and in so doing wound up tying NIL right to direct payments to athletes. Now, this may have been an attempt to give the NCAA some deference in controlling how athletes got paid for the NIL because of she found the NCAA's concerns about the corrosive potential of third party money to be persuasive. If you have the ruling, and it says that, I would be interested to read it. But otherwise, I see this is a series of rulings by the same judge (who ruled in both O'Bannon v. NCAA on NIL and Alston v. NCAA on limits to cost-of-attendance that basically say that the NCAA's limits on payments to athletes, whether for their NIL or for their labor, are trash.
You are right that we haven't gotten to whether the next step, which is not whether schools are required to pay. As I see it, the first thing will be a decision that gets rid of all limits on payments to athletes from all sources. The remedy for Alston v. NCAA was pretty narrow, but given that it was decided unanimously, I'm sure someone will want to test whether the payments have to be of an educational nature. If that flies, then it seems likely that we will see a Title IX challenge once it becomes clear that payments will be disparate between men and women.
BC