Schools Now Can Pay Athletes Directly

[max the wonder dog]

NCAA Agrees to Share Revenue with Athletes in Landmark $2.8 Billion Settlement
Breaking with more than a century of policy, the NCAA will pay billions in damages to former athletes and allow schools to pay athletes up to $20 million per year

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ncaa-revenue-athletes-settlement-0b53306d?mod=hp_lead_pos2

[max the wonder dog]

Here's another story on the same topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/05/23/ncaa-settlement-revenue-sharing/

[ponyte]

If the NCAA starts paying players, shouldn't the NCAA give itself the Death Penalty? Seems only fair. Oh, where's my check?

[birddogger]

ponyte, I hope you and your teammates enjoy those big checks you'll be receiving....

Seriously, though, where do we stand in this new model? How does this model jibe with Title IX and what will the economic fallout be for non-revenue or non-profitable sports? How will it work?

And will it work for us? Will we be among the "haves" that everyone seems to be talking about? I am trying to understand where the fall out will be. Will we see old rivals left behind and fade into obscurity (at least relative to the "haves").

I feels as if the timing of our jump to the ACC couldn't have been more fortuitous--as if it we were the last one in the lifeboat. My guess is that our leadership knew this was coming and were willing to make the big commitment to keep SMU relevant.

Anyone here care to speculate on the new landscape of college sports and whether SMU can thrive in it?

[mrydel]

Setting a cap limit only opens the door to more cheating as teams try to pay certain players more than the allowed amount. And you know who they will come after. Just allow anyone to pay any amount. The market will eventually even out. For instance, I am sure there are A&M boosters not willing to pay as much this year as last after seeing the results.

[bubba pony]

I might have this wrong and feel free to enlighten.
It seems to be a salary cap of $20 m for each school per year.
The school decides who gets the money and must work within title IX
Currently NIL money is taxable.
This new found money must be taxable as well.
All away games will be subject to state tax. Just like the NBA and NFL away game.
No way is a state not going for its share.

I would suspect the jumping to another school every year would subside if there is a salary cap. A university can only offer up to the limit.

Another worry for the colleges is employee status. Medical coverage, saving programs (403b), social security taxes, unemployment taxes. And “UNIONS”. NFL, NBA, MLB have unions. Why not minor league college sports.

[birddogger]

I might have this wrong and feel free to enlighten.
It seems to be a salary cap of $20 m for each school per year.
The school decides who gets the money and must work within title IX
Currently NIL money is taxable.
This new found money must be taxable as well.
All away games will be subject to state tax. Just like the NBA and NFL away game.
No way is a state not going for its share.

I would suspect the jumping to another school every year would subside if there is a salary cap. A university can only offer up to the limit.

Another worry for the colleges is employee status. Medical coverage, saving programs (403b), social security taxes, unemployment taxes. And “UNIONS”. NFL, NBA, MLB have unions. Why not minor league college sports.

So, does this replace NIL? It wouldn't seem to and I can't see the "haves" like UM agreeing to the same spending limit as Northwestern.

[SMU15]

we are so back.

[Hoss]

Setting a cap limit only opens the door to more cheating as teams try to pay certain players more than the allowed amount. And you know who they will come after. Just allow anyone to pay any amount. The market will eventually even out. For instance, I am sure there are A&M boosters not willing to pay as much this year as last after seeing the results.

Exactly. Now that it's legal, eager alums will use their money to get close to players — it has happened for generations, and now happens out in the open. But put a cap on it and people will just be more and more secretive about it.

Shudder the thought: imagine a cap is set, and big-bucks alums around the country start finding ways around the rules, so the NCAA decides to punish a program as a statement/reminder to programs across the country. Do we dare ask which school might be in the NCAA's crosshairs?

[birddogger]

I did not see that NIL is going away under this new plan., but I miss something?

If NIL is here to stay, I can't see any need for under-the-table payments?

A combo of NIL and $20 million directly from the University would be a compelling combo.

[leopold]

See, this is exactly the thing that worries me.

Schools. Do. Not. Make. Money. They don't.

There are 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA and only about 20 of them break even, and it's well documented that major programs such as Cal, Washington State, Kansas, and others have lost an enormous amount of money over the years, but everyone sees the size of the TV contracts and just assume they do. Our program is paid for by generous boosters who are in a position to cover the fact that we absolutely don't make money but that doesn't change basic financial facts.

It's the schools who have taken all the blame while providing the very trough that the likes of ESPN, Fox Sports, Disney, THE COACHES and everyone else who makes money off of the NCAA, such as local businesses, the people employed around the program, and, yes, the athletes themselves.

So it concerns me that now they are putting the schools, who are in many cases already overextended, directly into a model that is absolutely not a business model - the modern NCAA Div. 1 program isn't set up to make money. If you don't believe this just look at the laws governing everything from Title IX to the rules of the NCAA itself; this is anything but capitalism.

I do worry about not only SMU's place in the future but also any school that has a bad decade and doesn't have as deep of pockets as they think they do when everybody wants to turn this into some sort of business model, something it was never intended to be and can't be.

And, not to mention, you know, the kid's actual education....

[mtrout]

Setting a cap limit only opens the door to more cheating as teams try to pay certain players more than the allowed amount. And you know who they will come after. Just allow anyone to pay any amount. The market will eventually even out. For instance, I am sure there are A&M boosters not willing to pay as much this year as last after seeing the results.

Exactly. Now that it's legal, eager alums will use their money to get close to players — it has happened for generations, and now happens out in the open. But put a cap on it and people will just be more and more secretive about it.

Shudder the thought: imagine a cap is set, and big-bucks alums around the country start finding ways around the rules, so the NCAA decides to punish a program as a statement/reminder to programs across the country. Do we dare ask which school might be in the NCAA's crosshairs?

Programs only get punished if they roll over. The NCAA loses every lawsuit from institutions that actually push back.

[Dukie]

I might have this wrong and feel free to enlighten.
It seems to be a salary cap of $20 m for each school per year.
The school decides who gets the money and must work within title IX
Currently NIL money is taxable.
This new found money must be taxable as well.
All away games will be subject to state tax. Just like the NBA and NFL away game.
No way is a state not going for its share.

I would suspect the jumping to another school every year would subside if there is a salary cap. A university can only offer up to the limit.

Another worry for the colleges is employee status. Medical coverage, saving programs (403b), social security taxes, unemployment taxes. And “UNIONS”. NFL, NBA, MLB have unions. Why not minor league college sports.

The taxable point is interesting. Advantage to Texas schools (and a few others in states without income tax)?

[birddogger]

Players are taxed based upon where they play. So i when we play Cal or Stanford, our athletes are taxed based upon the pro rata income attributable to that away game. A good CPA would of course attribute the lion's share of income to TX based upon practices, film study, as well as games on campus.

[Dukie]

Players are taxed based upon where they play. So i when we play Cal or Stanford, our athletes are taxed based upon the pro rata income attributable to that away game. A good CPA would of course attribute the lion's share of income to TX based upon practices, film study, as well as games on campus.

You’re correct about CA, where a single day of work is taxable. I know NY though only trades you after a certain number of days are worked in state. Not sure if that also applies to athletes, though, whether pro or NIL.