Today’s compensation round up

Three more stories:

  • I agree with one thing in this story.  NIL compensation is likely to have a bigger impact in basketball than it will in football, simply because of numbers.  Fewer players mean more concentration of resources; fewer players also mean fewer targets to enlist for promotional purposes.  Supply and demand, on the other hand.  But I disagree with the assumption that it would have little impact on the top prospects’ decision making.  Sure, a Zion Williamson would have little reason to choose Podunk U over Duke merely for money, but that sure wouldn’t eliminate money as a factor in choosing Duke over, say, Kentucky or some other elite program.
  • Here’s some speculation about what kind of money in NIL compensation might await college athletes.
  • Dan Mullen sounds pretty gleeful about the Florida legislation that, if passed, would result in a new recruiting pitch next year.  I wonder how long that glee will last after Alabama and Georgia quickly pass matching legislation.

19 Comments

Filed under Political Wankery, Recruiting, The NCAA

19 responses to “Today’s compensation round up

  1. I imagine Kirby’s friends in the General Assembly have a bill based on the California bill ready to be filed as soon as they are told to release the hounds.

    Like

  2. SenorLorenzo

    One question I‘ve yet to see addressed is what possible effect this will have on the NCAA’s current enforcement of rules pertaining to under the table booster payments. How are they gonna maintain that control after this genie is let out of the bottle? Depending on the size of the financial gift, it might just have to fall solely under the jurisdiction of the IRS the same as with all such gifts for anyone.

    Like

    • If there are still payments that would be considered under the table after a rules change, why would the NCAA not be able to enforce restriction of those? In fact, wouldn’t it be easier to do so, since there would be a smaller universe of violations to restrict?

      Like

      • SenorLorenzo

        I guess I would use the same argument of ‘fairness’ that’s initially being used for justifying compensation. If a non-athlete can receive a cash gift for whatever reason, why can’t an athlete? Why should that be the business of the NCAA? They’re infringing on the private rights of the athlete and donor. Once again, I assume that IRS gift tax laws would still be in effect.

        Like

      • From the story above: “Will a coach potentially recruit a student-athlete in the future and say, ‘Hey, this former athlete who was here was able to make X amount of dollars when he was here?'” said Darren Heitner, a South Florida lawyer who helped write the Florida bill. “Sure, but what’s wrong with that?”
        Personally I think there is a lot wrong with that. For one the really good but less well known players would be able to make more money in larger metropolitan areas. So this type arrangement will be a boon for schools like Georgia Tech and Houston and others like them.
        In addition it will be impossible to regulate. It will be worse than the days when the players could have paying jobs they never performed or in some cases never showed up for.

        Like

  3. Bill Glennon

    There’ll be federal legislation. Republicans will vote to retain the amateur model. Democrats will too. Democrats will vote for amateurism because their power constituencies: colleges, Disney, and women’s sports will want them too. Moreover, Democrats in flyover country come from states whose college teams will be hurt by it.

    A handful of RBs, QBs and 1 and done basketball players are not a powerful enough constituency to warrant a law that will suck revenue from all womens sports. Raising taxes for this ain’t gonna happen.

    Small stipends are a possibility.

    Like

    • Republicans will vote to retain the amateur model.

      Better explain that to Mark Walker.

      Democrats will vote for amateurism because their power constituencies: colleges, Disney, and women’s sports will want them too.

      That would explain why California refused to pass a compensation law… oh, wait.

      I’m sensing a fair amount of projection here.

      Like

      • Bill Glennon

        I don’t understand the “projection” comments, but if you can’t address the political realities or counterarguments, then what’s the point of your posts on the topic?

        Politicians with regional interests have different motives than national politicians. At the end of the day though, there are a lot more people with interests, monetary and otherwise, that are vested in the current model and would be hurt if it changed. An few athletes who are in college for a year or two when they would benefit, are not a lasting constituency that would influence a politician to change the law.

        Bloggers and state legislators won’t matter in the end. The supremacy clause will rule, and so will power politics.

        Like

        • I get how politics work, Bill. But it feels like you’re suggesting your own perspective is shared by Congress. I’ve not seen anything so far to suggest you’re right about that. Mark Walker is a Republican congressman. Chris Murphy is a Democratic senator. They don’t seem to be adhering to your analysis.

          I think it’s way to soon to know how this is going to play out in Washington.

          Like

    • Dylan Dreyer's Booty

      “Democrats will vote for amateurism because their power constituencies: colleges, Disney, and women’s sports will want them too.”
      Not so fast – the women’s sports participant seem to be in favor of it: https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/10/watch-former-ucla-gymnast-katelyn-ohashi-states-her-case-for-fair-pay-to-play-movement

      Like

    • Khari Vion Jr.

      Why would this suck revenue from women’s sports? No one is talking about the schools paying athletes, this is about athletes having the ability to earn money. Non revenue generating sports are supported by student fees not taxes, especially at smaller schools. And why do you think this is only for a handful of players? I was a D3 baseball player (no scholarship) but would have lost eligibility if I had given pitching lessons to a kid in middle school. This would have benefited me, someone with no pro potential, and not cost my school a dime.

      Like

      • Union Jack

        I do think one of the reasons that college athletic departments are slightly scared of these bills is that i do think it will take some revenues away from Olympic sport programs.

        Big sponsors like Nike, Adidas etc are still going to pay lots of $ to sponsor UGA football and UK basketball etc. Yes they may divert some sponsorship dollars to pay a few athletes – but I doubt their budgets will change much.

        However, the Olympic sport programs typically have smaller sponsor revenue which comes from more specialized sponors with smaller sponsorship budgets (think UGA gymnastics in its hey day.) I can totally see some of those sponsors pulling out of an official UGA deal that costs them $100k per year and paying the gymnasts (or just a couple of them) a fraction of that amount. Despite what we think in certain sports in certain college towns, some of these athletes are well-known. It’s why the schools themselves put them on posters and promotional materials.

        It won’t be life changing money for these athletes but putting a few thousand in their bank account during the school year would be pretty cool to them.

        I think all of the handwringing over the big time booster paying $$$ to high level recruits is overblown but I do think it scares them that they will lose some sponsor money in sports with less profile.

        Like

  4. chopdawg

    Interesting stuff, senator. A couple of points:

    You say “Zion Williamson would have little reason to choose Podunk U over Duke merely for money.” Does the name on the front of the jersey really have that much value?

    Also, in the USA Today article, volleyball player Hodson felt she had the choice to either play professionally in Europe or play at Stanford. She chose to play at Stanford, knowing she’d be unable to make any money off her NLI while there. So, obviously she believed there was greater value derived from playing her sport in college, even given the current rules concerning NLI.

    Like

    • Does the name on the front of the jersey really have that much value?

      For the player, maybe not, but the track record of the program would. For Nike? Hell, yeah.

      So, obviously she believed there was greater value derived from playing her sport in college, even given the current rules concerning NLI.

      While also being denied a chance to monetize her name, which is the real issue. Once again, nobody is claiming there is zero value to pursuing a collegiate career in athletics. The question is why does that give the NCAA the right to limit a person’s ability to earn money just like others do.

      Like

  5. Hunkering Hank

    The money shot:

    “The universities, they’re going to fight this the whole time. But as soon as it becomes law, then they’re going to want to be in on it, too. They can finally fully monetize the athletes.”

    I’m all for it.

    Like

  6. Hunkering Hank

    And this will trickle down to high school athletes and even youth athletes too. No longer will they be in fear of losing their eligibility.

    Like

  7. The ability to capitalize on your likeness is a conversation worth having…might a jealousy/ill will factor creep into a football program should said 18 year old qb start ca$hing check$ 10 times that of another starting player who receives an up graded stipend or worse…bank$ more than the oc of that program, me thinks an imbalance could have negative effects…(no comparison or conversation to profe$$ional salarie$)

    Like

    • … me thinks an imbalance could have negative effects…(no comparison or conversation to profe$$ional salarie$)

      Because?

      Like

      • Down Island Way

        Out of proportion might be the wording here, pro salaries are what they are…top qb’s make more than the top oc’s, pitchers make more than the managers and so on…at the collegiate level the coaches/staff have always been compensated more than the athletes they coach, their salaries are based on the next guy or the natty they won…the possibility of student athletes receiving compensation based on marketing speculation will be new to a lot of peoples, the envelope passed to athletes at a social gathering is timeless…18-19-20 year olds receiving an increased stipend works, 18 year old ca$hing on their long locks from Got hair shampoo company, just say for $750,000 a year could have adverse affect/reaction from inside and outside the program..it’s a new day, don’t know if some “gym teachers” are ready for that day

        Like