NCAA Proposal: Select Div 1 Schools Should Pay Athletes

[Water Pony]

NCAA's Baker’s letter calls for those schools to “invest at least $30,000 per year into an enhanced educational trust fund for at least half of the institution’s eligible student-athletes.” It also would require them to “commit to work with their peer institutions in this subdivision to create rules that may differ from the rules in place for the rest of Division I. Those rules could include a wide range of policies, such as scholarship commitment and roster size, recruitment, transfers or NIL.”

https://www.si.com/college/2023/12/05/n ... y-athletes

[Topper]

I know that there are some lawyers here. I'm intersted to know if any of them have read the Supreme Court decision on NIL and whether they think there is anyway that the NCAA can stop a private concern from entering into a contract with any NCAA athlete or otherwise dictate the terms of an NIL agreement? From what I read the court said that these players have a property interest in their NIL and can do as they please with their property.

[Dukie]

I know that there are some lawyers here. I'm intersted to know if any of them have read the Supreme Court decision on NIL and whether they think there is anyway that the NCAA can stop a private concern from entering into a contract with any NCAA athlete or otherwise dictate the terms of an NIL agreement? From what I read the court said that these players have a property interest in their NIL and can do as they please with their property.

The Court can always "identify" limitations and caveats later, and often does, but I agree with you that the initial decision was almost cavalierly wide open.

[ponyte]

I read it as a disparate attempt to elevate the Big 2 conferences and make money off them while sacrificing the other institutions to 2 tier status. Which isn't surprising at all from the NCAA.

Another greedy ploy by the NCAA to make money will ignoring the vast majority of student athletes.

[Dukie]

I read it as a disparate attempt to elevate the Big 2 conferences and make money off them while sacrificing the other institutions to 2 tier status. Which isn't surprising at all from the NCAA.

Another greedy ploy by the NCAA to make money will ignoring the vast majority of student athletes.

Maybe it'll be the elevation of schools that want to play on that level over schools that don't. No reason this has to mean the B1G and $EC over the ACC and Big 12. Maybe it means tOSU and Alabama and FSU and SMU over Northwestern and Stanford and Vandy. Too inchoate to really know at this point, of course.

[Charleston Pony]

Some of you will remember the discussions about formation of "super conferences" back in the early 90's. What I remember is talk of a 64 school model based on the size of a school's athletic budget. Of course, that was long before NIL but this looks like thinking along the same lines. Just go with the top 64 or however many are willing to compete at the highest level and give everyone else a break.

[mtrout]

Just as long as the athlete pay isn't performance based (eyeroll).

The NCAA might as well recuse itself from all responsibilities other than organizing tournaments/championships.

[fan]

I read it as a disparate attempt to elevate the Big 2 conferences and make money off them while sacrificing the other institutions to 2 tier status. Which isn't surprising at all from the NCAA.

Another greedy ploy by the NCAA to make money will ignoring the vast majority of student athletes.

Maybe it'll be the elevation of schools that want to play on that level over schools that don't. No reason this has to mean the B1G and $EC over the ACC and Big 12. Maybe it means tOSU and Alabama and FSU and SMU over Northwestern and Stanford and Vandy. Too inchoate to really know at this point, of course.

P4 would be in, the rest not so much. Makes the timing of our move all the more incredible.

[highlander]

I learned a new word today: inchoate.

[Water Pony]

My first reaction to this proposal was what could possibly go wrong?

College football is untethered from the common good. This brave new world may not resemble the sports we grew up with. Professionalism has already arrived and will accelerate. Some P4/5 schools may struggle too, while G5 and FCS schools will see their financial budget stretched even further, if they make any attempts to participate in the employment of football players.

Second, the proposal will formalize a 50/50 distribution between Men and Women athletes in schools that opt-in. As a longtime, non-revenue sport advocate, the big loser will be Men's teams, which aren't FB and MBB. The cancellation of more of these Men's sports teams will occur.

The future is not one some of us will recognize or desire.

[Topper]

So if this trust fund money has to be equally distributed between men and women, and the result will be that it will kill off a number of non-revenue men's sports, I can see real political problems at some of the public institutions. For instance could women soccer players get paid but men's soccer players get only their scholarships assuming they even have scholarships? I may be totally off-base but I can see schools like Cal dropping football or going to a lower division in order to avoid cutting other programs or dealing with disparities.

[birddogger]

Lunchtime ramblings:

The latest NCAA compensation scheme is little more than an early blueprint, but it’s difficult to imagine how the idea could be executed legally. The SCOTUS opinion that led to NIL did not address whether universities could directly pay student athletes, so it didn’t speak to whether universities could pay different different wages. But if the NCAA proposal allows for tiered compensation or disparate wages for the same activity, I don’t see how it would comply with Title IX or federal employment laws.

The outline provides that all athletes get paid from a trust fund to be divided equally between men’s and women’s sports. It’s unclear how a university could lawfully pay different wages for different players on the same team. How can you pay your best volleyball player more than her teammates without violating federal wage laws? Further, how can we distinguish pay for an OL vs. a DL? The NCAA scheme would appear to work only if the athletes are not “employees” under federal law, which prohibits wage discrimination.

I don’t see how athletes paid directly by a university, or even from a university trust, can be anything other than “employees.” Those in management know how difficult it is to categorize a worker as an “independent contractor.” The federal government’s multi-factor test requires, among other things, consideration whether a worker: is bound to one job or employer; works a certain number of hours; or is directed and managed by university personnel. There are more factors, but these alone would lead me to believe that a court would find a student-athlete whose only job is to practice and play, who spends 30+ hours a week at it, and who is coached by a university employee, is an “employee,” not an independent contractor. In turn, employment status opens the door for the potential of collective bargaining, wage discrimination and all the other claims that public and private businesses and face routinely under federal and state employment laws.

Maybe the NCAA can convince the courts to ignore that full-time athletes–although paid and managed by university staffs–aren’t really employees and should be exempted from labor laws, but that, IMO, would be very difficult given where we are now.

[mtrout]

In addition to Title IX, they're gonna need something for foreign athletes to get $ without jumping through ridiculous work visa type hoops.

[Topper]

Lunchtime ramblings:

The latest NCAA compensation scheme is little more than an early blueprint, but it’s difficult to imagine how the idea could be executed legally. The SCOTUS opinion that led to NIL did not address whether universities could directly pay student athletes, so it didn’t speak to whether universities could pay different different wages. But if the NCAA proposal allows for tiered compensation or disparate wages for the same activity, I don’t see how it would comply with Title IX or federal employment laws.

The outline provides that all athletes get paid from a trust fund to be divided equally between men’s and women’s sports. It’s unclear how a university could lawfully pay different wages for different players on the same team. How can you pay your best volleyball player more than her teammates without violating federal wage laws? Further, how can we distinguish pay for an OL vs. a DL? The NCAA scheme would appear to work only if the athletes are not “employees” under federal law, which prohibits wage discrimination.

I don’t see how athletes paid directly by a university, or even from a university trust, can be anything other than “employees.” Those in management know how difficult it is to categorize a worker as an “independent contractor.” The federal government’s multi-factor test requires, among other things, consideration whether a worker: is bound to one job or employer; works a certain number of hours; or is directed and managed by university personnel. There are more factors, but these alone would lead me to believe that a court would find a student-athlete whose only job is to practice and play, who spends 30+ hours a week at it, and who is coached by a university employee, is an “employee,” not an independent contractor. In turn, employment status opens the door for the potential of collective bargaining, wage discrimination and all the other claims that public and private businesses and face routinely under federal and state employment laws.

Maybe the NCAA can convince the courts to ignore that full-time athletes–although paid and managed by university staffs–aren’t really employees and should be exempted from labor laws, but that, IMO, would be very difficult given where we are now.

You are right. And if the NCAA is serious about this they really should lobby Congress for legislation to exempt them from all of the red tape involved in such a scheme. It really is simple to just let the athletes negotiate the sale of their NIL to whoever will pay. The NCAA doesn't like it, but that seems to be the law right now. I am not sure that the current NIL system is that great, but I can't stand the NCAA. Why don't they try to control coaches and AD salaries?