[Mick]

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.

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 don't think you are wrong. Isn't this like every contract I sign?  'Consultant is an independent contractor and in no way shape or form considered employees of [client]?'  We get paid and 'work' for the client, but we don't work for the client.

Just because your contract says you aren’t an employee doesn’t make it so. There are very specific IRS tests. I’m sure one of the smart people here can google them. 

If it walks, quacks, and flies like a duck, the IRS is gonna call it a duck. Doesn’t matter if the contract says it’s a frog. 

Get your popcorn ready.

WAY more than you want to know about independent contractors vs. employees in the great State of California, featuring AB 5 from 2019

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independ...ractor.htm

[Mick]

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.

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 don't think you are wrong. Isn't this like every contract I sign?  'Consultant is an independent contractor and in no way shape or form considered employees of [client]?'  We get paid and 'work' for the client, but we don't work for the client.

Just because your contract says you aren’t an employee doesn’t make it so. There are very specific IRS tests. I’m sure one of the smart people here can google them. 

If it walks, quacks, and flies like a duck, the IRS is gonna call it a duck. Doesn’t matter if the contract says it’s a frog. 

Get your popcorn ready.

WAY more than you want to know about independent contractors vs. employees in the great State of California, featuring AB 5 from 2019

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independ...ractor.htm