NCAA in "Deep Discussion" to Implement Revenue Sharing with Athletes

JJ Husker said:
I’m not holding on to anything except fond memories and the desire to have something significantly different than the NFL, which I really don’t care for, exactly because of the commercialization, money, contracts, egos etc.

Look, I know the players were getting hosed on the money side of things and I acknowledge that it was not fair. I just liked CFB much better when the players were actually student athletes and it wasn’t a professional sport. So shoot me….
Click to expand...
I do deeply understand this. But I also think these kids, by and large, aren't treated as student athletes. It's been a veneer for a very long time. 

Now, I do think part of their compensation will depend on them enrolling into schools and maintaining good standing. If anything, schools can - and should - negotiate enrollment into the school, community work, or whatever else into their side of the CBA. How much they want these kids to be part of the University is up to them to negotiate. 

 
pigfarmer said:
I mean, the NFL basically is.  Also the NBA (I still think they force the one and done?).
Click to expand...


They can if it's collectively bargained with the union.  So, the NCAA would have to allow players to unionize and create contracts with the union to limit salaries, but then players would still be eligible for NIL deals to increase revenue streams.  I wonder if schools could prevent NIL deals?  Imagine Nike offering Raiola $1M a year to wear their gear at press conference and in public even though UNL is an Adidas school for uniforms.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Five said:
I am pretty sure certain NIL deals are not allowed now (alcohol, smokes, etc).
Click to expand...
I get those, but hypothetically speaking, if Nike offered Raiola $1M/year to wear their gear when he's not required to wear Nebraska gear, could they? I'm sure the university would try to stop it, but would they legally be able to?

 
Madcows said:
I get those, but hypothetically speaking, if Nike offered Raiola $1M/year to wear their gear when he's not required to wear Nebraska gear, could they? I'm sure the university would try to stop it, but would they legally be able to?
Click to expand...


Just reading the tea leaves, I don't think the courts are going to allow any limitations on anything (except possibly the alcohol/nicotine stuff).

 
JJ Husker said:
It was probably bound to get effed up anyway but, personally, I think the schools and NCAA should’ve held the ground that provided a scholarship and stipend in exchange for being a player. Had players sign a contract that they were not entitled to their NIL and that’s the deal. Other than that nobody is forcing them to be a CFB player. But here we are…
Click to expand...
No the schools' greed and stubborness prevented them from striking a new deal.  It is untenable to have the head coach making 5 million, the schools takes 50 million, while they tell the young man to get his head impacted for room and board. 

hskrpwr13 said:
Correct. The court is essentially stating that if someone wants to pay a particular player a million dollars to play a season of football at a particular school, the NCAA can't tell the player "No". 

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if there is collective bargaining between the NCAA and a Player's org, common-sense rules on NIL, transfer, and etc. could be considered legal from an anti-trust perspective. 
Click to expand...
The antitrust act says that the schools cannot act in the restraint of trade.  Meaning the schools cannot tell players that they may not sell their NIL to 3rd parties.  A collective bargaining agreement with an employer and a union gets you out of the antitrust law.  I predict that powers that be will herd everyone into a CBA.

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
No the schools' greed and stubborness prevented them from striking a new deal.  It is untenable to have the head coach making 5 million, the schools takes 50 million, while they tell the young man to get his head impacted for room and board. 
Click to expand...


Good thing this hasn't been the case for a long time.

 
Back
Top