Contracts for Players

[Mavric]

I've said for awhile this is really the only way to get some structure back.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I've said for awhile this is really the only way to get some structure back.

 

 

Yep. 

[knapplc]

If they institute this soon, Nebraska can proudly say we didn't have any bowl opt-outs in the NIL Era.

[Dr. Strangelove]

21 hours ago, Mavric said:

I've said for awhile this is really the only way to get some structure back.

 

 

It's great that they're going to bring the efforts in house. But I'm once again disappointed by the NCAA grasping, kicking, and trying to keep alive a structure that's going to die. 

 

Why not just declare athletes employees and let the Unionization process play out? That's the endgame for all this anyway. Allowing a $15-$20 million 'salary cap' just kicks the can down the road for a few more seasons. 

 

As you point out, I do hope that schools use this as an opportunity to address opt-outs!

[Mavric]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

It's great that they're going to bring the efforts in house. But I'm once again disappointed by the NCAA grasping, kicking, and trying to keep alive a structure that's going to die. 

 

Why not just declare athletes employees and let the Unionization process play out? That's the endgame for all this anyway. Allowing a $15-$20 million 'salary cap' just kicks the can down the road for a few more seasons. 

 

As you point out, I do hope that schools use this as an opportunity to address opt-outs!

 

I guess that's how I read that description of what's going to happen.  At least something very close to that.  The athletes will sign contracts with the schools and be paid for their play/performance.

 

I guess there may be some semantic difference between and employment contract and a compensation contract but that seems like it's basically the same thing.

[BigRedBuster]

25 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I guess that's how I read that description of what's going to happen.  At least something very close to that.  The athletes will sign contracts with the schools and be paid for their play/performance.

 

I guess there may be some semantic difference between and employment contract and a compensation contract but that seems like it's basically the same thing.

If this is what needs to happen, to get out of this total crap show we are in now, I support it.  But, the devil will be in the details.  How are they going to have this, while abiding by Title 9 issues....and be workable for AD departments that already are running in the red?

 

Also, athletes need to be ready to give up some of what they have enjoyed.  (being able to transfer whenever they want, opting out of bowl games...etc.)

 

10 years ago, all the power was with the programs/teams.  Now, all the power is with the players......with this, hopefully that evens out in the middle somewhere.

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If this is what needs to happen, to get out of this total crap show we are in now, I support it.  But, the devil will be in the details.  How are they going to have this, while abiding by Title 9 issues....and be workable for AD departments that already are running in the red?

 

This is my biggest question on this.  If they do it as "revenue sharing" can they get away with directing most of the payments to the revenue-generating sports?  If not there are going to be a whole lot of happy golfers and tennis players and a bunch of pissed-off football players.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

This is my biggest question on this.  If they do it as "revenue sharing" can they get away with directing most of the payments to the revenue-generating sports?  If not there are going to be a whole lot of happy golfers and tennis players and a bunch of pissed-off football players.

Or, if they are all considered employees....do the title 9 issues go away?  It's going to be a travesty if this allows all the revenue from revenue generating sports (with employees) to stay with the men.....which would drastically cut funding for women's sports.

 

Or, if we can declare our volleyball players employees and pay them, but the vast majority of other programs can't, so they die off....along with the sport.

[Mavric]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Or, if they are all considered employees....do the title 9 issues go away?  It's going to be a travesty if this allows all the revenue from revenue generating sports (with employees) to stay with the men.....which would drastically cut funding for women's sports.

 

Or, if we can declare our volleyball players employees and pay them, but the vast majority of other programs can't, so they die off....along with the sport.

 

I would think Title IX would still apply to employees because I think you are supposed to (more or less) spend the same amount.  So if you're spending more on men's employees, I would think you still have to spend that amount on women.  

 

But as I say that, the salaries of coaches are significantly different right now.  So I'm not sure how that all plays out.

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I would think Title IX would still apply to employees because I think you are supposed to (more or less) spend the same amount.  So if you're spending more on men's employees, I would think you still have to spend that amount on women.  

 

But as I say that, the salaries of coaches are significantly different right now.  So I'm not sure how that all plays out.

If they are truly employees, companies aren’t required to have the same number of women vs men employees….or spend the same on them as a whole.   
 

Where it might come into play is discrimination if you’re paying a men’s basketball player more than a women’s.  That not title 9 though. 

[Mavric]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If they are truly employees, companies aren’t required to have the same number of women vs men employees….or spend the same on them as a whole.   
 

Where it might come into play is discrimination if you’re paying a men’s basketball player more than a women’s.  That not title 9 though. 

 

Here is the Cliff's Notes from the OCR

 

There is a component that says men's and women's coaches have to "receive equivalent compensation".  But you can have extenuating circumstances like number of athletes.  So maybe they can get away with huge salaries for football coaches under the auspice of "they have a lot more athletes to supervise".  But they are definitely employees and it says they have to be paid similarly unless it can be justified.  I don't know why having athletes as employees would be any different.

 

Right now, it only says that "scholarships and financial assistance" has to be commensurate with total population.  I don't think this would probably be strictly "financial assistance" but it seems very likely that paying athletes would get lumped into the same bucket.

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

I guess that's how I read that description of what's going to happen.  At least something very close to that.  The athletes will sign contracts with the schools and be paid for their play/performance.

 

I guess there may be some semantic difference between and employment contract and a compensation contract but that seems like it's basically the same thing.

That's true, functionally it works the same. But, ultimately, athletes are going to negotiate CBAs which will allow their share of the revenue to go from $15-$20 million to $60-70 million.

 

I understand that schools want to hold into as much money as possible, but that's where all this is heading anyway. I think I just want the endgame to arrive so college football can stabilize. Instead we're going to wait until the 2030s for everything to play out. 

[RedDenver]

22 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

If this is what needs to happen, to get out of this total crap show we are in now, I support it.  But, the devil will be in the details.  How are they going to have this, while abiding by Title 9 issues....and be workable for AD departments that already are running in the red?

 

Also, athletes need to be ready to give up some of what they have enjoyed.  (being able to transfer whenever they want, opting out of bowl games...etc.)

 

10 years ago, all the power was with the programs/teams.  Now, all the power is with the players......with this, hopefully that evens out in the middle somewhere.

 

22 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

This is my biggest question on this.  If they do it as "revenue sharing" can they get away with directing most of the payments to the revenue-generating sports?  If not there are going to be a whole lot of happy golfers and tennis players and a bunch of pissed-off football players.

I talked to a lawyer (she's a corporate contracts lawyer, not a in sports or labor law though) that said Title IX only applies to equality of participation for players, she thinks that the universities can pay the players as a separate entity and not as employees to avoid Title IX salary issues. It's a new area of the law though, so no one really knows what will happen.

[hskrpwr13]

I certainly won't claim to know the legalities with Title IX. However, with the risk of sounding political, the irony in the arguments fascinate me. 

 

Seems many of the same people claiming that football players deserve their share of the revenue since they are the product and they've "earned" it, are many of the same people that believe the revenue should be shared with players of lesser revenue (if any) generating sports. Its essentially the argument from a couple of years ago regarding compensation for U.S. National Men's and Women's soccer teams.

 

I don't suggest to know the appropriate answer, I just find the discussion interesting. 

 

[runningblind]

47 minutes ago, hskrpwr13 said:

I certainly won't claim to know the legalities with Title IX. However, with the risk of sounding political, the irony in the arguments fascinate me. 

 

Seems many of the same people claiming that football players deserve their share of the revenue since they are the product and they've "earned" it, are many of the same people that believe the revenue should be shared with players of lesser revenue (if any) generating sports. Its essentially the argument from a couple of years ago regarding compensation for U.S. National Men's and Women's soccer teams.

 

I don't suggest to know the appropriate answer, I just find the discussion interesting. 

 

I've always thought the Men's and Women's teams should have the same base salary. They then could earn performance incentives and extra endorsement type things based on the revenue generating aspect of the sport.  To me, that is the only way it is fair. Equal at the core while acknowledging that some teams generate more revenue.