[BostonCard]

https://sports.yahoo.com/north-carolina-...34451.html

A UNC tennis player filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA amateurism restrictions.  Given the current state of collegiate sports, I think it is farcical that a football player can collect a six-figure NIL check, while a golf player cannot collect any money from playing in a non-NCAA tournament.  As the suit notes:

“Over the last three years, tens of millions of dollars have flowed with the NCAA’s knowledge and acquiescence, to mostly male student-athletes in the Power Conferences from third-party, booster-funded and operated collectives that are associated with virtually all NCAA FBS-level athletic departments and which sprung up in 2021 in the wake of the NCAA’s temporary suspension of its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness payments.

“While these tens of millions of dollars have been paid to student-athletes under the guise of acquiring rights to utilize their NIL, the vast majority of the money is in reality ‘pay-for-play’ compensation to student-athletes that has little or no relation to the actual market value for the supposed NIL services that the student-athletes must provide ‘in exchange’ for that compensation.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course, the solution is to actually regulate NIL so that
1) NIL deals are transparent with a public database
2) NIL deals are actually for a player's name, image, or likeness
3) NIL deals are for fair market value for that name, image, or likeness
4) NIL deals are not contingent for a student-athlete's playing for a particular team
5) NIL deals cannot be negotiated or signed until after a player enrolls in a school
6) "Collectives" that funnel donor money into NIL deals are prohibited
7) NIL deals are only tax deductible to the extent that any other marketing payment can be a write-off

But, nah.  Nobody will want to give up on an under-the-table pay-to-play scheme and thus, the judge will, appropriately determine that NCAA athletes are approximately professional, and thus that restrictions on prize money are thus an illegal restraint of trade.  So, we will have elite golfers and tennis players fitting in college and collegiate events during breaks in their professional schedule.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://sports.yahoo.com/north-carolina-...34451.html

A UNC tennis player filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA amateurism restrictions.  Given the current state of collegiate sports, I think it is farcical that a football player can collect a six-figure NIL check, while a golf player cannot collect any money from playing in a non-NCAA tournament.  As the suit notes:

“Over the last three years, tens of millions of dollars have flowed with the NCAA’s knowledge and acquiescence, to mostly male student-athletes in the Power Conferences from third-party, booster-funded and operated collectives that are associated with virtually all NCAA FBS-level athletic departments and which sprung up in 2021 in the wake of the NCAA’s temporary suspension of its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness payments.

“While these tens of millions of dollars have been paid to student-athletes under the guise of acquiring rights to utilize their NIL, the vast majority of the money is in reality ‘pay-for-play’ compensation to student-athletes that has little or no relation to the actual market value for the supposed NIL services that the student-athletes must provide ‘in exchange’ for that compensation.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course, the solution is to actually regulate NIL so that
1) NIL deals are transparent with a public database
2) NIL deals are actually for a player's name, image, or likeness
3) NIL deals are for fair market value for that name, image, or likeness
4) NIL deals are not contingent for a student-athlete's playing for a particular team
5) NIL deals cannot be negotiated or signed until after a player enrolls in a school
6) "Collectives" that funnel donor money into NIL deals are prohibited
7) NIL deals are only tax deductible to the extent that any other marketing payment can be a write-off

But, nah.  Nobody will want to give up on an under-the-table pay-to-play scheme and thus, the judge will, appropriately determine that NCAA athletes are approximately professional, and thus that restrictions on prize money are thus an illegal restraint of trade.  So, we will have elite golfers and tennis players fitting in college and collegiate events during breaks in their professional schedule.

BC

[needle]

https://sports.yahoo.com/north-carolina-...34451.html

A UNC tennis player filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA amateurism restrictions.  Given the current state of collegiate sports, I think it is farcical that a football player can collect a six-figure NIL check, while a golf player cannot collect any money from playing in a non-NCAA tournament.  As the suit notes:

“Over the last three years, tens of millions of dollars have flowed with the NCAA’s knowledge and acquiescence, to mostly male student-athletes in the Power Conferences from third-party, booster-funded and operated collectives that are associated with virtually all NCAA FBS-level athletic departments and which sprung up in 2021 in the wake of the NCAA’s temporary suspension of its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness payments.

“While these tens of millions of dollars have been paid to student-athletes under the guise of acquiring rights to utilize their NIL, the vast majority of the money is in reality ‘pay-for-play’ compensation to student-athletes that has little or no relation to the actual market value for the supposed NIL services that the student-athletes must provide ‘in exchange’ for that compensation.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course, the solution is to actually regulate NIL so that
1) NIL deals are transparent with a public database
2) NIL deals are actually for a player's name, image, or likeness
3) NIL deals are for fair market value for that name, image, or likeness
4) NIL deals are not contingent for a student-athlete's playing for a particular team
5) NIL deals cannot be negotiated or signed until after a player enrolls in a school
6) "Collectives" that funnel donor money into NIL deals are prohibited
7) NIL deals are only tax deductible to the extent that any other marketing payment can be a write-off

But, nah.  Nobody will want to give up on an under-the-table pay-to-play scheme and thus, the judge will, appropriately determine that NCAA athletes are approximately professional, and thus that restrictions on prize money are thus an illegal restraint of trade.  So, we will have elite golfers and tennis players fitting in college and collegiate events during breaks in their professional schedule.

BC

The NCAA truly faces annihilation. Smart university leaders should band together to scrap the NCAA concept and instead come up with a new organization similar to, I don't know, maybe the World Fair Trade Organization. Member schools would pay for and allow independent auditors unfettered access to review athletic department processes to ensure student welfare. Would that be a farce? Probably, so I'd be open to other ideas. My main point is the NCAA is on its last legs, and universities should be prepared for other forms of accountability that at least preserve a modicum of common sense when it comes to how college sports should be governed.

[needle]

https://sports.yahoo.com/north-carolina-...34451.html

A UNC tennis player filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA amateurism restrictions.  Given the current state of collegiate sports, I think it is farcical that a football player can collect a six-figure NIL check, while a golf player cannot collect any money from playing in a non-NCAA tournament.  As the suit notes:

“Over the last three years, tens of millions of dollars have flowed with the NCAA’s knowledge and acquiescence, to mostly male student-athletes in the Power Conferences from third-party, booster-funded and operated collectives that are associated with virtually all NCAA FBS-level athletic departments and which sprung up in 2021 in the wake of the NCAA’s temporary suspension of its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness payments.

“While these tens of millions of dollars have been paid to student-athletes under the guise of acquiring rights to utilize their NIL, the vast majority of the money is in reality ‘pay-for-play’ compensation to student-athletes that has little or no relation to the actual market value for the supposed NIL services that the student-athletes must provide ‘in exchange’ for that compensation.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course, the solution is to actually regulate NIL so that
1) NIL deals are transparent with a public database
2) NIL deals are actually for a player's name, image, or likeness
3) NIL deals are for fair market value for that name, image, or likeness
4) NIL deals are not contingent for a student-athlete's playing for a particular team
5) NIL deals cannot be negotiated or signed until after a player enrolls in a school
6) "Collectives" that funnel donor money into NIL deals are prohibited
7) NIL deals are only tax deductible to the extent that any other marketing payment can be a write-off

But, nah.  Nobody will want to give up on an under-the-table pay-to-play scheme and thus, the judge will, appropriately determine that NCAA athletes are approximately professional, and thus that restrictions on prize money are thus an illegal restraint of trade.  So, we will have elite golfers and tennis players fitting in college and collegiate events during breaks in their professional schedule.

BC

The NCAA truly faces annihilation. Smart university leaders should band together to scrap the NCAA concept and instead come up with a new organization similar to, I don't know, maybe the World Fair Trade Organization. Member schools would pay for and allow independent auditors unfettered access to review athletic department processes to ensure student welfare. Would that be a farce? Probably, so I'd be open to other ideas. My main point is the NCAA is on its last legs, and universities should be prepared for other forms of accountability that at least preserve a modicum of common sense when it comes to how college sports should be governed.

[dabigv13]

Great post BC. Only Congress can really save the college amateur model in any remnant fashion. Hard to see that happening anytime soon.

[dabigv13]

Great post BC. Only Congress can really save the college amateur model in any remnant fashion. Hard to see that happening anytime soon.

[Sakibomb25]

This truly is the end of the NCAA… I can almost feel like the court is going to side with Brantmeier… and then when the NCAA completely implodes, I hope she knows she dealt the final nail in the coffin.

I am not saying student athletes don’t deserve to get paid… but the way it’s going, all the guard rails are coming off and the death of the NCAA as we know it will come within a few years.

[Sakibomb25]

This truly is the end of the NCAA… I can almost feel like the court is going to side with Brantmeier… and then when the NCAA completely implodes, I hope she knows she dealt the final nail in the coffin.

I am not saying student athletes don’t deserve to get paid… but the way it’s going, all the guard rails are coming off and the death of the NCAA as we know it will come within a few years.

[M T]

Hey guys, don't forget about sports at, say, Foothill College or Menlo College, etc. 
If the SCIAC prohibits athletic scholarships because they want a level playing field, then let 'em.

Under the table, or over the top, payments will happen, whether it be to play, win, lose, or trim points.  i hope that doesn't mean that a group can't decide, "Let them go elsewhere, as we want to be a school first where sports are really ancillary."

Don't bury the NCAA for the benefit of a small percentage of the half-million current NCAA athletes..

Another ugly side of pay-to-play is the threat to withhold the pay. "If you want to be paid next year, gain 50 pounds" (or lose 10 pounds) or some other pressure. If you think 18yo student-athletes have a lot of pressure on them now, wait until money (with all its implications) is added to the mix. "OMG, I'm batting .160 and I'm going to lose my NIL, my apartment, my car, and my booze money. Everyone's going to think I'm a loser."

(BC always brings up important and interesting threads.)

Related in the aspect of pay and participation in sport, but unrelated as it is not college-based, is this BBC article on the experiences and income of elite British women athletes. (I don't mean to drift from this subject, but it is related IMO.)

[M T]

Hey guys, don't forget about sports at, say, Foothill College or Menlo College, etc. 
If the SCIAC prohibits athletic scholarships because they want a level playing field, then let 'em.

Under the table, or over the top, payments will happen, whether it be to play, win, lose, or trim points.  i hope that doesn't mean that a group can't decide, "Let them go elsewhere, as we want to be a school first where sports are really ancillary."

Don't bury the NCAA for the benefit of a small percentage of the half-million current NCAA athletes..

Another ugly side of pay-to-play is the threat to withhold the pay. "If you want to be paid next year, gain 50 pounds" (or lose 10 pounds) or some other pressure. If you think 18yo student-athletes have a lot of pressure on them now, wait until money (with all its implications) is added to the mix. "OMG, I'm batting .160 and I'm going to lose my NIL, my apartment, my car, and my booze money. Everyone's going to think I'm a loser."

(BC always brings up important and interesting threads.)

Related in the aspect of pay and participation in sport, but unrelated as it is not college-based, is this BBC article on the experiences and income of elite British women athletes. (I don't mean to drift from this subject, but it is related IMO.)

[Mick]

Hey guys, don't forget about sports at, say, Foothill College or Menlo College, etc. 
If the SCIAC prohibits athletic scholarships because they want a level playing field, then let 'em.

Under the table, or over the top, payments will happen, whether it be to play, win, lose, or trim points.  i hope that doesn't mean that a group can't decide, "Let them go elsewhere, as we want to be a school first where sports are really ancillary."

Don't bury the NCAA for the benefit of a small percentage of the half-million current NCAA athletes..

Another ugly side of pay-to-play is the threat to withhold the pay.  "If you want to be paid next year, gain 50 pounds" (or lose 10 pounds) or some other pressure.  If you think 18yo student-athletes have a lot of pressure on them now, wait until money (with all its implications) is added to the mix.  "OMG, I'm batting .160 and I'm going to lose my NIL, my apartment, my car, and my booze money.  Everyone's going to think I'm a loser."

(BC always brings up important and interesting threads.)

Related in the aspect of pay and participation in sport, but unrelated as it is not college-based, is this BBC article on the experiences and income of elite British women athletes. (I don't mean to drift from this subject, but it is related IMO.)

If you're batting .160, maybe you should give up the booze...

[Mick]

Hey guys, don't forget about sports at, say, Foothill College or Menlo College, etc. 
If the SCIAC prohibits athletic scholarships because they want a level playing field, then let 'em.

Under the table, or over the top, payments will happen, whether it be to play, win, lose, or trim points.  i hope that doesn't mean that a group can't decide, "Let them go elsewhere, as we want to be a school first where sports are really ancillary."

Don't bury the NCAA for the benefit of a small percentage of the half-million current NCAA athletes..

Another ugly side of pay-to-play is the threat to withhold the pay.  "If you want to be paid next year, gain 50 pounds" (or lose 10 pounds) or some other pressure.  If you think 18yo student-athletes have a lot of pressure on them now, wait until money (with all its implications) is added to the mix.  "OMG, I'm batting .160 and I'm going to lose my NIL, my apartment, my car, and my booze money.  Everyone's going to think I'm a loser."

(BC always brings up important and interesting threads.)

Related in the aspect of pay and participation in sport, but unrelated as it is not college-based, is this BBC article on the experiences and income of elite British women athletes. (I don't mean to drift from this subject, but it is related IMO.)

If you're batting .160, maybe you should give up the booze...

[Goose]

https://sports.yahoo.com/north-carolina-...34451.html

A UNC tennis player filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA amateurism restrictions.  Given the current state of collegiate sports, I think it is farcical that a football player can collect a six-figure NIL check, while a golf player cannot collect any money from playing in a non-NCAA tournament.  As the suit notes:

“While these tens of millions of dollars have been paid to student-athletes under the guise of acquiring rights to utilize their NIL, the vast majority of the money is in reality ‘pay-for-play’ compensation to student-athletes that has little or no relation to the actual market value for the supposed NIL services that the student-athletes must provide ‘in exchange’ for that compensation.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course, the solution is to actually regulate NIL so that
1) NIL deals are transparent with a public database
2) NIL deals are actually for a player's name, image, or likeness
3) NIL deals are for fair market value for that name, image, or likeness
4) NIL deals are not contingent for a student-athlete's playing for a particular team
5) NIL deals cannot be negotiated or signed until after a player enrolls in a school
6) "Collectives" that funnel donor money into NIL deals are prohibited
7) NIL deals are only tax deductible to the extent that any other marketing payment can be a write-off

But, nah.  Nobody will want to give up on an under-the-table pay-to-play scheme and thus, the judge will, appropriately determine that NCAA athletes are approximately professional, and thus that restrictions on prize money are thus an illegal restraint of trade.  So, we will have elite golfers and tennis players fitting in college and collegiate events during breaks in their professional schedule.

BC

First, thanks to BC for starting this thread and for his other insightful posts on this topic.

I think we all agree the topic of permissible regulation of college sports is a complex issue. My read of the majority opinion on the Alston case is as follows. First, the opinion clearly stated that college sports are involved in "trade" and therefore subject to anti-trust regulations. This was the "big deal" in the decision. Second, the opinion clearly stated that the Supreme Court of the United States (USSC) would only rule on the arguments and the issues presented in the current case. There would be no attempt to define general rules for all possible disputes regarding NCAA regulation of college sports. Third, it was permissible for organizations engaged in "trade" to adopt regulations that benefited the industry as a whole, but those regulations had to be "minimally restrictive". In this case, the NCAA argued the regulations were necessary because providing the expanded aid to athletes would damage  NCAA athletics popularity. The court ruled that 1) the NCAA hadn't convincingly established that there would be damage and 2) a less restrictive set of rules existed that would allow the academic aid and not reduce the popularity of NCAA sports. The court did point out that the judiciary can't "micromanage" college sports, but in this case the NCAA was using regulation that was excessive.

IMO it is pretty clear that actual legitimate NIL deals do not hurt the popularity of college sports. In fact, the opposite is true. Most fans like to see their favorite players get the opportunity to use their NIL for their benefit. It can be argued it is "good" for the image of college sports. It definitely can be argued that it is separate from the sport itself. Selling cars or selling Turbo Tax has nothing to do with playing football, basketball, or anything else. I believe the NCAA realized that if they continued their current regulations that forbade NIL deals that the USSC would reason as above and strike them down. The NCAA therefore needed a new set of regulations (at a minimum). The goals that BC sets out above could have been the basis for that set of regulations. The USSC majority appeared to be of the belief that regulations to "protect" college athletics can be "reasonable" and allow them to stand. Some such regulations are arguably needed to prevent "bogus" NIL deals from greatly reducing the popularity of college sports. That is an argument that I think can "win" if properly researched and presented. The regulations may not be trivial to create and enforce, and the courts may require tweaks but it is possible to do it.

If one buys the above argument, it is abundantly clear that allowing players that play professionally the same sport they playing in college would seriously damage the college product. The perception of amateurism is unquestionably a significant part of the appeal college sports has to many fans. If nothing else, playing professionally dilutes the value of the college appearances by any given athlete. This argument would be a slam-dunk.

Now we reach the real problem. To counter the above argument the plaintiffs would argue that college athletes are ALREADY professionals. They "work" for the colleges and are payed by the tuition etc. they receive. They are employees. At a minimum, one justice indicated he might buy that argument. The other justices said they were not going to opine on that (among other things) in their Alston decision (because they weren't asked to), but they may well rule that college athletes are indeed employees. The NCAA and lots of other people dread that happening. Thus they are afraid to regulate anything, even things that might pass USSC muster. The consequences of the USSC declaring players employees is just too damaging. The NCAA is now totally risk averse. IMO the NCAA is not being realistic. That argument will be used eventually and the decision is IMO unpredictable. Legislation may be the only way forward, but as others have said, good luck with that.

[Goose]

https://sports.yahoo.com/north-carolina-...34451.html

A UNC tennis player filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA amateurism restrictions.  Given the current state of collegiate sports, I think it is farcical that a football player can collect a six-figure NIL check, while a golf player cannot collect any money from playing in a non-NCAA tournament.  As the suit notes:

“While these tens of millions of dollars have been paid to student-athletes under the guise of acquiring rights to utilize their NIL, the vast majority of the money is in reality ‘pay-for-play’ compensation to student-athletes that has little or no relation to the actual market value for the supposed NIL services that the student-athletes must provide ‘in exchange’ for that compensation.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course, the solution is to actually regulate NIL so that
1) NIL deals are transparent with a public database
2) NIL deals are actually for a player's name, image, or likeness
3) NIL deals are for fair market value for that name, image, or likeness
4) NIL deals are not contingent for a student-athlete's playing for a particular team
5) NIL deals cannot be negotiated or signed until after a player enrolls in a school
6) "Collectives" that funnel donor money into NIL deals are prohibited
7) NIL deals are only tax deductible to the extent that any other marketing payment can be a write-off

But, nah.  Nobody will want to give up on an under-the-table pay-to-play scheme and thus, the judge will, appropriately determine that NCAA athletes are approximately professional, and thus that restrictions on prize money are thus an illegal restraint of trade.  So, we will have elite golfers and tennis players fitting in college and collegiate events during breaks in their professional schedule.

BC

First, thanks to BC for starting this thread and for his other insightful posts on this topic.

I think we all agree the topic of permissible regulation of college sports is a complex issue. My read of the majority opinion on the Alston case is as follows. First, the opinion clearly stated that college sports are involved in "trade" and therefore subject to anti-trust regulations. This was the "big deal" in the decision. Second, the opinion clearly stated that the Supreme Court of the United States (USSC) would only rule on the arguments and the issues presented in the current case. There would be no attempt to define general rules for all possible disputes regarding NCAA regulation of college sports. Third, it was permissible for organizations engaged in "trade" to adopt regulations that benefited the industry as a whole, but those regulations had to be "minimally restrictive". In this case, the NCAA argued the regulations were necessary because providing the expanded aid to athletes would damage  NCAA athletics popularity. The court ruled that 1) the NCAA hadn't convincingly established that there would be damage and 2) a less restrictive set of rules existed that would allow the academic aid and not reduce the popularity of NCAA sports. The court did point out that the judiciary can't "micromanage" college sports, but in this case the NCAA was using regulation that was excessive.

IMO it is pretty clear that actual legitimate NIL deals do not hurt the popularity of college sports. In fact, the opposite is true. Most fans like to see their favorite players get the opportunity to use their NIL for their benefit. It can be argued it is "good" for the image of college sports. It definitely can be argued that it is separate from the sport itself. Selling cars or selling Turbo Tax has nothing to do with playing football, basketball, or anything else. I believe the NCAA realized that if they continued their current regulations that forbade NIL deals that the USSC would reason as above and strike them down. The NCAA therefore needed a new set of regulations (at a minimum). The goals that BC sets out above could have been the basis for that set of regulations. The USSC majority appeared to be of the belief that regulations to "protect" college athletics can be "reasonable" and allow them to stand. Some such regulations are arguably needed to prevent "bogus" NIL deals from greatly reducing the popularity of college sports. That is an argument that I think can "win" if properly researched and presented. The regulations may not be trivial to create and enforce, and the courts may require tweaks but it is possible to do it.

If one buys the above argument, it is abundantly clear that allowing players that play professionally the same sport they playing in college would seriously damage the college product. The perception of amateurism is unquestionably a significant part of the appeal college sports has to many fans. If nothing else, playing professionally dilutes the value of the college appearances by any given athlete. This argument would be a slam-dunk.

Now we reach the real problem. To counter the above argument the plaintiffs would argue that college athletes are ALREADY professionals. They "work" for the colleges and are payed by the tuition etc. they receive. They are employees. At a minimum, one justice indicated he might buy that argument. The other justices said they were not going to opine on that (among other things) in their Alston decision (because they weren't asked to), but they may well rule that college athletes are indeed employees. The NCAA and lots of other people dread that happening. Thus they are afraid to regulate anything, even things that might pass USSC muster. The consequences of the USSC declaring players employees is just too damaging. The NCAA is now totally risk averse. IMO the NCAA is not being realistic. That argument will be used eventually and the decision is IMO unpredictable. Legislation may be the only way forward, but as others have said, good luck with that.

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is a summary of the current cases in the courts that are challenging college athlete amateurism. If taken up by the courts, the UNC tennis player case would be added to this list. The NCAA and its constituent universities appear to be heavy underdogs in all of them. But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234767315/

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is a summary of the current cases in the courts that are challenging college athlete amateurism. If taken up by the courts, the UNC tennis player case would be added to this list. The NCAA and its constituent universities appear to be heavy underdogs in all of them. But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234767315/

[M T]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

[M T]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

[dabigv13]

Hard to envision an athlete union that would equally represent the interests of all the different college athletes though.

A men's wrestler would probably just want his partial scholarship preserved, while a football player would want to maximize his revenue and not care if wrestling got axed entirely.

Under an employment model, CFB, MBB, and enough women's sports to pass Title IX are the only college sports that will be left. Everything else will be axed, or become a club sport. I would envision in that scenario that CFB and MBB interest and thus revenue would significantly decline (with a lot of regional variation, probably will hold up stronger in the south and midwest) over the ensuing 10 to 20 years as the sports become less nationally competitive and the athletes become mercenaries without even a fig leaf of academic attachment to the school. Maybe this is an incorrect assumption but I don't think so, only uncertainty is just how quickly interest will decline and where it could bottom out.

Probably impossible to put the pieces of the amateur college athlete model back together after this process has run it's course.

For those of us who grew up with and enjoyed the old system this change sucks, but maybe it is better for everybody for sports to just be a club level thing (if the judges will let us have that.)

[dabigv13]

Hard to envision an athlete union that would equally represent the interests of all the different college athletes though.

A men's wrestler would probably just want his partial scholarship preserved, while a football player would want to maximize his revenue and not care if wrestling got axed entirely.

Under an employment model, CFB, MBB, and enough women's sports to pass Title IX are the only college sports that will be left. Everything else will be axed, or become a club sport. I would envision in that scenario that CFB and MBB interest and thus revenue would significantly decline (with a lot of regional variation, probably will hold up stronger in the south and midwest) over the ensuing 10 to 20 years as the sports become less nationally competitive and the athletes become mercenaries without even a fig leaf of academic attachment to the school. Maybe this is an incorrect assumption but I don't think so, only uncertainty is just how quickly interest will decline and where it could bottom out.

Probably impossible to put the pieces of the amateur college athlete model back together after this process has run it's course.

For those of us who grew up with and enjoyed the old system this change sucks, but maybe it is better for everybody for sports to just be a club level thing (if the judges will let us have that.)

[Giants]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

Because any labor agreement would have to be bargained by both parties.  As we have seen in professional sports, CBA’s set a level playing field.  

In college athletics, the rules are administered by a toothless organization populated by people who dream of a return to the 1950’s.  Currently, the NCAA issues orders and waits for the states/conferences/players to file legal action to counter the NCAA proclamations.  In the meantime, the playing terrain is littered with potholes that cannot be filled until a judicial body makes a decision.

The inevitable outcome of the current mess is a collectively bargained agreement.  Why not just skip all the chatter and get to it……

[Giants]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

Because any labor agreement would have to be bargained by both parties.  As we have seen in professional sports, CBA’s set a level playing field.  

In college athletics, the rules are administered by a toothless organization populated by people who dream of a return to the 1950’s.  Currently, the NCAA issues orders and waits for the states/conferences/players to file legal action to counter the NCAA proclamations.  In the meantime, the playing terrain is littered with potholes that cannot be filled until a judicial body makes a decision.

The inevitable outcome of the current mess is a collectively bargained agreement.  Why not just skip all the chatter and get to it……

[BillBradley]

A poll would be interesting, but I don't know how to do one. Something like this:

Which best describes your position on the current state of collegiate athletics and NIL:

1) Athletes should be compensated, and NIL is just as good a method as anything else.
2) Athletes should be compensated, but NIL in its current version is not the way to do it.
3) Athletes should not be compensated outside their scholarship. 

Other choices?

[BillBradley]

A poll would be interesting, but I don't know how to do one. Something like this:

Which best describes your position on the current state of collegiate athletics and NIL:

1) Athletes should be compensated, and NIL is just as good a method as anything else.
2) Athletes should be compensated, but NIL in its current version is not the way to do it.
3) Athletes should not be compensated outside their scholarship. 

Other choices?

[M T]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

Because any labor agreement would have to be bargained by both parties.  As we have seen in professional sports, CBA’s set a level playing field.  

In college athletics, the rules are administered by a toothless organization populated by people who dream of a return to the 1950’s.  Currently, the NCAA issues orders and waits for the states/conferences/players to file legal action to counter the NCAA proclamations.  In the meantime, the playing terrain is littered with potholes that cannot be filled until a judicial body makes a decision.

The inevitable outcome of the current mess is a collectively bargained agreement.  Why not just skip all the chatter and get to it……

I agree with dabigv.  Would the college wrestlers or the Podunk U football players get a fair shake when the union is controlled by the money from the political action committees funded by the FB + BB players from the top 50 FB schools?

Or, turn it around, in case if it really were democratic, would those 10,000 FB+BB players making big bucks be out-voted by the other 500,000 student-athletes?

I believe the NCAA and its member organizations have done a good job for making things work well for at least 90% of the student-athletes who aren't dreaming of >$1M/yr contracts for maybe 10 years.

[M T]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

Because any labor agreement would have to be bargained by both parties.  As we have seen in professional sports, CBA’s set a level playing field.  

In college athletics, the rules are administered by a toothless organization populated by people who dream of a return to the 1950’s.  Currently, the NCAA issues orders and waits for the states/conferences/players to file legal action to counter the NCAA proclamations.  In the meantime, the playing terrain is littered with potholes that cannot be filled until a judicial body makes a decision.

The inevitable outcome of the current mess is a collectively bargained agreement.  Why not just skip all the chatter and get to it……

I agree with dabigv.  Would the college wrestlers or the Podunk U football players get a fair shake when the union is controlled by the money from the political action committees funded by the FB + BB players from the top 50 FB schools?

Or, turn it around, in case if it really were democratic, would those 10,000 FB+BB players making big bucks be out-voted by the other 500,000 student-athletes?

I believe the NCAA and its member organizations have done a good job for making things work well for at least 90% of the student-athletes who aren't dreaming of >$1M/yr contracts for maybe 10 years.

[Giants]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

Because any labor agreement would have to be bargained by both parties.  As we have seen in professional sports, CBA’s set a level playing field.  

In college athletics, the rules are administered by a toothless organization populated by people who dream of a return to the 1950’s.  Currently, the NCAA issues orders and waits for the states/conferences/players to file legal action to counter the NCAA proclamations.  In the meantime, the playing terrain is littered with potholes that cannot be filled until a judicial body makes a decision.

The inevitable outcome of the current mess is a collectively bargained agreement.  Why not just skip all the chatter and get to it……

I agree with dabigv.  Would the college wrestlers or the Podunk U football players get a fair shake when the union is controlled by the money from the political action committees funded by the FB + BB players from the top 50 FB schools?

Or, turn it around, in case if it really were democratic, would those 10,000 FB+BB players making big bucks be out-voted by the other 500,000 student-athletes?

I believe the NCAA and its member organizations have done a good job for making things work well for at least 90% of the student-athletes who aren't dreaming of >$1M/yr contracts for maybe 10 years.

One size does not all.  I would suggest there will be multiple unions representing the entire scope of athletic programs.  For example, the company I was employed by has 11 unions representing 85,000 workers.  I foresee a setup with football, basketball and Olympic sports having separate unions within each division handling their interests.  

Obviously, to put together something as complex as a multi-divisional/multi-sport structure would take considerable time to develop; however, it could be done using models from other industries.

[Giants]

But the writer does identify a path forward for the NCAA to avert disaster - collective bargaining with an athletic union.

Why would one believe that an "athletic union" would be better for the athletes than the NCAA?

Because any labor agreement would have to be bargained by both parties.  As we have seen in professional sports, CBA’s set a level playing field.  

In college athletics, the rules are administered by a toothless organization populated by people who dream of a return to the 1950’s.  Currently, the NCAA issues orders and waits for the states/conferences/players to file legal action to counter the NCAA proclamations.  In the meantime, the playing terrain is littered with potholes that cannot be filled until a judicial body makes a decision.

The inevitable outcome of the current mess is a collectively bargained agreement.  Why not just skip all the chatter and get to it……

I agree with dabigv.  Would the college wrestlers or the Podunk U football players get a fair shake when the union is controlled by the money from the political action committees funded by the FB + BB players from the top 50 FB schools?

Or, turn it around, in case if it really were democratic, would those 10,000 FB+BB players making big bucks be out-voted by the other 500,000 student-athletes?

I believe the NCAA and its member organizations have done a good job for making things work well for at least 90% of the student-athletes who aren't dreaming of >$1M/yr contracts for maybe 10 years.

One size does not all.  I would suggest there will be multiple unions representing the entire scope of athletic programs.  For example, the company I was employed by has 11 unions representing 85,000 workers.  I foresee a setup with football, basketball and Olympic sports having separate unions within each division handling their interests.  

Obviously, to put together something as complex as a multi-divisional/multi-sport structure would take considerable time to develop; however, it could be done using models from other industries.

[dabigv13]

I think if there were dedicated football and basketball unions, then you wouldn't need any other unions because the other sports would just be cut. That's the whole crux of this problem, that the vast majority of college athletes are in sports that are pure loss only underwriten by revenues from football and basketball.

To then employ those athletes in money losing sports would probably mean much more expense. Wages, healthcare, workplace liability. Could there be a specific wrestler union that agrees a CBA that lessens some of those expenses for the school? I suppose it's possible but I think the school would rather just cut the sport than work all that out.

And then of course those schools will at the same time need to spend much more on their money making sports like football and basketball to stay competitive.

And oh yeah, we're probably at peak cable and the big money deals that fund a large chunk of these schools' ADs are probably not going to be getting much bigger if at all in the future.

Where else do you cut then in the university budget to keep your AD afloat?

[dabigv13]

I think if there were dedicated football and basketball unions, then you wouldn't need any other unions because the other sports would just be cut. That's the whole crux of this problem, that the vast majority of college athletes are in sports that are pure loss only underwriten by revenues from football and basketball.

To then employ those athletes in money losing sports would probably mean much more expense. Wages, healthcare, workplace liability. Could there be a specific wrestler union that agrees a CBA that lessens some of those expenses for the school? I suppose it's possible but I think the school would rather just cut the sport than work all that out.

And then of course those schools will at the same time need to spend much more on their money making sports like football and basketball to stay competitive.

And oh yeah, we're probably at peak cable and the big money deals that fund a large chunk of these schools' ADs are probably not going to be getting much bigger if at all in the future.

Where else do you cut then in the university budget to keep your AD afloat?

[Giants]

I think if there were dedicated football and basketball unions, then you wouldn't need any other unions because the other sports would just be cut. That's the whole crux of this problem, that the vast majority of college athletes are in sports that are pure loss only underwriten by revenues from football and basketball.

To then employee those athletes in money losing sports would probably mean much more expense. Wages, healthcare, workplace liability. Could there be a specific wrestler union that agrees a CBA that lessens some of those expenses for the school? I suppose it's possible but I think the school would rather just cut the sport than work all that out.

And then of course those schools will at the same time need to spend much more on their money making sports like football and basketball to stay competitive.

And oh yeah, we're probably at peak cable and the big money deals that fund a large chunk of these schools' ADs are probably not going to be getting much bigger if at all in the future.

Where else do you cut then in the university budget to keep your AD afloat?

We are well past peak cable.  We are now in the infancy of streaming and other potentials sources of revenue are in the pre-conception phase. 

The money will be there.  It is just a matter of time before we see the next “best thing”.

[Giants]

I think if there were dedicated football and basketball unions, then you wouldn't need any other unions because the other sports would just be cut. That's the whole crux of this problem, that the vast majority of college athletes are in sports that are pure loss only underwriten by revenues from football and basketball.

To then employee those athletes in money losing sports would probably mean much more expense. Wages, healthcare, workplace liability. Could there be a specific wrestler union that agrees a CBA that lessens some of those expenses for the school? I suppose it's possible but I think the school would rather just cut the sport than work all that out.

And then of course those schools will at the same time need to spend much more on their money making sports like football and basketball to stay competitive.

And oh yeah, we're probably at peak cable and the big money deals that fund a large chunk of these schools' ADs are probably not going to be getting much bigger if at all in the future.

Where else do you cut then in the university budget to keep your AD afloat?

We are well past peak cable.  We are now in the infancy of streaming and other potentials sources of revenue are in the pre-conception phase. 

The money will be there.  It is just a matter of time before we see the next “best thing”.