[Goose]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

It is different if playing on a sports team is a de-facto requirement to be paid for a clearly bogus marketing campaign. It is also a problem if the vast proportion of your time (and compensation) come from a single source. That makes you a "statutory employee", as many "consultants" found out the hard way.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I agree, so I expect this will never happen. Difficult to be sure though, as it is often possible to find lawyers that will support their clients desires even when it is "obvious" to disinterested observers that they will lose. See Lyon & Lyon and Cellpro.

[Goose]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

It is different if playing on a sports team is a de-facto requirement to be paid for a clearly bogus marketing campaign. It is also a problem if the vast proportion of your time (and compensation) come from a single source. That makes you a "statutory employee", as many "consultants" found out the hard way.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I agree, so I expect this will never happen. Difficult to be sure though, as it is often possible to find lawyers that will support their clients desires even when it is "obvious" to disinterested observers that they will lose. See Lyon & Lyon and Cellpro.