[2006alum]

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.

Yes, but if Stanford started marketing Reese Witherspoon's classes, which they also compensated her for teaching, and they also directed when she taught them, how she taught them, and what precisely she taught, then I'm afraid she's employee. Not sure how all those fancy lawyers are going to argue out of such a pretty obvious analog. The only thing previously keeping students from being employees is that to the degree they had monetary "compensation," it was incidental to their academic scholarships. That fiction is obliterated by the NCAA's proposal. 

This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

Thirded. But honestly, at this point, it can't come fast enough.

[2006alum]

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.

Yes, but if Stanford started marketing Reese Witherspoon's classes, which they also compensated her for teaching, and they also directed when she taught them, how she taught them, and what precisely she taught, then I'm afraid she's employee. Not sure how all those fancy lawyers are going to argue out of such a pretty obvious analog. The only thing previously keeping students from being employees is that to the degree they had monetary "compensation," it was incidental to their academic scholarships. That fiction is obliterated by the NCAA's proposal. 

This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

Thirded. But honestly, at this point, it can't come fast enough.