OT: Practical NIL

[MikenNashville]

With Name, Image and Likeness compensation being in the news, IMO one easy start would be for college football players who have achieved junior level academically, or age 21, should be able to market their NIL, here’s why, these players are eligible for the NFL draft but a vast majority will never see a paycheck from an NFL franchise. Having said that, there are a fair amount of above average power 5 football players who are told they can make it in the NFL but fail. Unfortunately most of these who jump too quickly don’t finish a degree and end up not signing with a pro team and are now working at a Tuscaloosa filling station reminiscing with the locals about that play they made in the big game in 1996. NIL compensation at that age/college level could actually convince some who are desperate for income to stay longer in college and maybe graduate. Obviously this will not affect the projected first round draft picks but there are only 32 of those among the hundreds if not thousands of college players.

[commadore]

Will never work. It makes too much sense to be adopted.

[DivergentDore]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

[vandy05]

Will never work. It makes too much sense to be adopted.

I was reading the first post and thought, "that seems like a good practical place to start" and then I read your reply and thought, "yep, he's right".

[vandy05]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

Why does it have to be an either/or relationship between universities and the student-athletes. I think its pretty clear that they benefit each other. Neither could exist without the cooperation of the other. So why can't both sides participate in a free market.

Your position doesn't even address what the players are asking for with NIL. What does the university benefit from barring the student-athlete from marketing their NIL? I would be interested in understanding that. The argument has always been that they are amateurs and shouldn't make any money. That seems to be the hogwash part.

But my main point is that this seems to be a mutually beneficial relationship so why can't both sides participate in the spoils in a substantive way? Thank goodness the kids are getting more opportunities to transfer now. That never made any sense. It all really just seems to be set up in a way to limit players so that the universities can exact maximum profit from their talents. And as those profits have grown, the piece that players get to participate in has not grown. And now, some are upset that players are asking to make money off of their own image. My mind is boggled.

[alathIN]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

College football is a kabillion $ business.
I do not see any reason that the people actually spilling their blood and risking their long term brain health should not get a share of that.

It's easy as Vanderbilt fans to think of the typical player as a marginal athlete who gets a free Vanderbilt degree and becomes a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Yes, for those guys, the scholarship is decent compensation for their services.
But Vanderbilt players aren't typical, and most scholarships at most schools aren't worth jack. At many schools the players are actively discouraged from taking worthwhile classes because it takes too much away from their athletic endeavors. And many of the players on scholarship would not otherwise be candidates for higher education and wouldn't be able to pass the classes required for an economically viable degree.
And yet these same folks are putting in countless hours of work and taking nontrivial risks to their health... to generate kabillion$ in revenue... that all goes to others.

It is astonishing that anyone who professes free market capitalism could ever endorse this sort of arrangement. "I believe in free markets... but I'm in favor of a restricted market where you are forbidden to endorse products or businesses that are willing to pay you to do so."
This bears more resemblance to the situation of Soviet era athletes than anything that belongs in the US.

[DivergentDore]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

In free market capitalism if these players think they are undervalued with only receiving free tuition, room and board, tutoring, meal allotments, personalized training, access to world class training equipment, free medical, lifetime networking and name recognition; they are free to find a competing "company", ie: another place to play football that will immediately pay them through their 3 year wait before meeting NFL guidelines and will do so without requiring work in a classroom.

Free market capitalism isn't making the choice that benefits a person the most out of all available options and then trying to get more through a courtroom. My .02c

College football is a kabillion $ business.
I do not see any reason that the people actually spilling their blood and risking their long term brain health should not get a share of that.

It's easy as Vanderbilt fans to think of the typical player as a marginal athlete who gets a free Vanderbilt degree and becomes a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Yes, for those guys, the scholarship is decent compensation for their services.
But Vanderbilt players aren't typical, and most scholarships at most schools aren't worth jack. At many schools the players are actively discouraged from taking worthwhile classes because it takes too much away from their athletic endeavors. And many of the players on scholarship would not otherwise be candidates for higher education and wouldn't be able to pass the classes required for an economically viable degree.
And yet these same folks are putting in countless hours of work and taking nontrivial risks to their health... to generate kabillion$ in revenue... that all goes to others.

It is astonishing that anyone who professes free market capitalism could ever endorse this sort of arrangement. "I believe in free markets... but I'm in favor of a restricted market where you are forbidden to endorse products or businesses that are willing to pay you to do so."
This bears more resemblance to the situation of Soviet era athletes than anything that belongs in the US.

[VandyPhile]

So, how do you stop the boosters from Football Factory U. (FFU) from offering every signee to “market” them for big bucks? You might never see the field, but here’s your check.

[FayetteDore]

I saw the subject line and thought they had brought back the old N.I.L.

The Nashville Interscholastic League, which Nashville high schools used to play in before the TSSAA divided everything into districts and regions.

Screen Shot 2021-04-02 at 5.13.58 PM.png (706.39 KiB) Viewed 5742 times

[MikenNashville]

Nm

[OldDude]

I saw the subject line and thought they had brought back the old N.I.L.

The Nashville Interscholastic League, which Nashville high schools used to play in before the TSSAA divided everything into districts and regions.


Screen Shot 2021-04-02 at 5.13.58 PM.png

Thanks and ditto. Will never forget those horrible Madison High polka dot uniforms.

[3rdFloorDyer]

[/quote]

Thanks and ditto. Will never forget those horrible Madison High polka dot uniforms.
[/quote]

Would like to see a pic of those!

[alathIN]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

In free market capitalism if these players think they are undervalued with only receiving free tuition, room and board, tutoring, meal allotments, personalized training, access to world class training equipment, free medical, lifetime networking and name recognition; they are free to find a competing "company", ie: another place to play football that will immediately pay them through their 3 year wait before meeting NFL guidelines and will do so without requiring work in a classroom.

Free market capitalism isn't making the choice that benefits a person the most out of all available options and then trying to get more through a courtroom. My .02c

College football is a kabillion $ business.
I do not see any reason that the people actually spilling their blood and risking their long term brain health should not get a share of that.

It's easy as Vanderbilt fans to think of the typical player as a marginal athlete who gets a free Vanderbilt degree and becomes a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Yes, for those guys, the scholarship is decent compensation for their services.
But Vanderbilt players aren't typical, and most scholarships at most schools aren't worth jack. At many schools the players are actively discouraged from taking worthwhile classes because it takes too much away from their athletic endeavors. And many of the players on scholarship would not otherwise be candidates for higher education and wouldn't be able to pass the classes required for an economically viable degree.
And yet these same folks are putting in countless hours of work and taking nontrivial risks to their health... to generate kabillion$ in revenue... that all goes to others.

It is astonishing that anyone who professes free market capitalism could ever endorse this sort of arrangement. "I believe in free markets... but I'm in favor of a restricted market where you are forbidden to endorse products or businesses that are willing to pay you to do so."
This bears more resemblance to the situation of Soviet era athletes than anything that belongs in the US.

So, again, please explain how you justify prohibiting a college athlete from endorsing a product or business who is willing to pay them to do so.

[OldDude]

Thanks and ditto. Will never forget those horrible Madison High polka dot uniforms.
[/quote]

Would like to see a pic of those!
[/quote]

Look at Fayettedores screen shot in this thread - dead center. Their team took great abuse because of them.

[DivergentDore]

Because college football is a choice, not a requirement. If they want to endorse products, join a paid league.

In free market capitalism if these players think they are undervalued with only receiving free tuition, room and board, tutoring, meal allotments, personalized training, access to world class training equipment, free medical, lifetime networking and name recognition; they are free to find a competing "company", ie: another place to play football that will immediately pay them through their 3 year wait before meeting NFL guidelines and will do so without requiring work in a classroom.

Free market capitalism isn't making the choice that benefits a person the most out of all available options and then trying to get more through a courtroom. My .02c

College football is a kabillion $ business.
I do not see any reason that the people actually spilling their blood and risking their long term brain health should not get a share of that.

It's easy as Vanderbilt fans to think of the typical player as a marginal athlete who gets a free Vanderbilt degree and becomes a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Yes, for those guys, the scholarship is decent compensation for their services.
But Vanderbilt players aren't typical, and most scholarships at most schools aren't worth jack. At many schools the players are actively discouraged from taking worthwhile classes because it takes too much away from their athletic endeavors. And many of the players on scholarship would not otherwise be candidates for higher education and wouldn't be able to pass the classes required for an economically viable degree.
And yet these same folks are putting in countless hours of work and taking nontrivial risks to their health... to generate kabillion$ in revenue... that all goes to others.

It is astonishing that anyone who professes free market capitalism could ever endorse this sort of arrangement. "I believe in free markets... but I'm in favor of a restricted market where you are forbidden to endorse products or businesses that are willing to pay you to do so."
This bears more resemblance to the situation of Soviet era athletes than anything that belongs in the US.

So, again, please explain how you justify prohibiting a college athlete from endorsing a product or business who is willing to pay them to do so.

[alathIN]

So, again, please explain how you justify prohibiting a college athlete from endorsing a product or business who is willing to pay them to do so.

I personally do not believe in restricting economic freedoms unless there is a compelling reason to do so. You have not offered any compelling reason to prevent college athletes taking on what is essentially a side job.

But, hey, lots of people do believe in arbitrary restriction of freedoms. You're certainly not alone.

[dorepleganger]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

Why does it have to be an either/or relationship between universities and the student-athletes. I think its pretty clear that they benefit each other. Neither could exist without the cooperation of the other. So why can't both sides participate in a free market.

Your position doesn't even address what the players are asking for with NIL. What does the university benefit from barring the student-athlete from marketing their NIL? I would be interested in understanding that. The argument has always been that they are amateurs and shouldn't make any money. That seems to be the hogwash part.

But my main point is that this seems to be a mutually beneficial relationship so why can't both sides participate in the spoils in a substantive way? Thank goodness the kids are getting more opportunities to transfer now. That never made any sense. It all really just seems to be set up in a way to limit players so that the universities can exact maximum profit from their talents. And as those profits have grown, the piece that players get to participate in has not grown. And now, some are upset that players are asking to make money off of their own image. My mind is boggled.

I think you make an interesting point; however, what is the NIL value of an athlete without the associated university? University names, logos, and mascots are all trademarked and licensed, copyrighted, material. An Alabama player, for instance, cannot use Alabama’s trademarked material in an advertisement without Alabama’s agreement. Many advertisers that are willing to pay for endorsements will want the athlete AND the university as part of the advertising deal.

Further, the university has reputational risk associated with an athlete – particularly and 18 to 22-year-olds - who engages in “acts of moral turpitude.” Think about the Tennessee football team, as an example. If a player is using Tennessee’s copyrighted and trademarked material in NIL activities and is arrested for drug possession or assault, the entire brand is negatively impacted. (And yes, I understand that an arrest is not a conviction; I make the point about reputation, not guilt.) The same could be said, for instance, of a female gymnast who has compromising photos leaked online.

It may be that a university and an athlete sign a contract permitting the use of university copyrighted and trademarked material; however what recourse does the university have for a breach by the athlete of the agreement? Can a university tie a scholarship to a breach of a copyright and trademark agreement contract? Would a university want to do that?

My point to all of this is that universities may not be quick to permit athletes to use university copyrighted and trademarked material as part of NIL marketing. The free market arguments I read here seem to assume that universities will permit athletes to use copyrighted and trademarked material as part of NIL marketing and I do not think it is safe to assume this fact.

I believe that an athlete’s NIL value is proportionate to an athlete’s ability to associate and affiliate with a university which, in turn, depends on a university’s willingness to allow an athlete to use trademarked and copyrighted materials. This will likely cause future complaints that universities are being unfair and restrictive with respect to athletes and are still controlling the economics of college sports.

[vandy05]

If a player wants to get paid straight out of high school, there are a plethora of American style football leagues around the world that can and would sign them straight out of high school. These players make it about themselves and what they do for the universities (which is hogwash) and unfortunately too many fans agree with them. It should be looked at from the opposite spectrum; the exposure the schools gives the kids. Good luck getting that same name recognition and exposure in an independent football league somewhere during their "audition" years.

Why does it have to be an either/or relationship between universities and the student-athletes. I think its pretty clear that they benefit each other. Neither could exist without the cooperation of the other. So why can't both sides participate in a free market.

Your position doesn't even address what the players are asking for with NIL. What does the university benefit from barring the student-athlete from marketing their NIL? I would be interested in understanding that. The argument has always been that they are amateurs and shouldn't make any money. That seems to be the hogwash part.

But my main point is that this seems to be a mutually beneficial relationship so why can't both sides participate in the spoils in a substantive way? Thank goodness the kids are getting more opportunities to transfer now. That never made any sense. It all really just seems to be set up in a way to limit players so that the universities can exact maximum profit from their talents. And as those profits have grown, the piece that players get to participate in has not grown. And now, some are upset that players are asking to make money off of their own image. My mind is boggled.

I think you make an interesting point; however, what is the NIL value of an athlete without the associated university? University names, logos, and mascots are all trademarked and licensed, copyrighted, material. An Alabama player, for instance, cannot use Alabama’s trademarked material in an advertisement without Alabama’s agreement. Many advertisers that are willing to pay for endorsements will want the athlete AND the university as part of the advertising deal.

Further, the university has reputational risk associated with an athlete – particularly and 18 to 22-year-olds - who engages in “acts of moral turpitude.” Think about the Tennessee football team, as an example. If a player is using Tennessee’s copyrighted and trademarked material in NIL activities and is arrested for drug possession or assault, the entire brand is negatively impacted. (And yes, I understand that an arrest is not a conviction; I make the point about reputation, not guilt.) The same could be said, for instance, of a female gymnast who has compromising photos leaked online.

It may be that a university and an athlete sign a contract permitting the use of university copyrighted and trademarked material; however what recourse does the university have for a breach by the athlete of the agreement? Can a university tie a scholarship to a breach of a copyright and trademark agreement contract? Would a university want to do that?

My point to all of this is that universities may not be quick to permit athletes to use university copyrighted and trademarked material as part of NIL marketing. The free market arguments I read here seem to assume that universities will permit athletes to use copyrighted and trademarked material as part of NIL marketing and I do not think it is safe to assume this fact.

I believe that an athlete’s NIL value is proportionate to an athlete’s ability to associate and affiliate with a university which, in turn, depends on a university’s willingness to allow an athlete to use trademarked and copyrighted materials. This will likely cause future complaints that universities are being unfair and restrictive with respect to athletes and are still controlling the economics of college sports.

I think you are making an exceedingly fair point. I actually had this exact conversation with my father-in-law at Easter dinner yesterday. I told him that I did not think that the players should be allowed to use the university's trademarks, copyrights, etc. I also agree that their value is very closely tied to the university so for most players their value would be almost zero dollars. But just because it wouldn't be worth that much to players doesn't mean its something the NCAA should continue to unjustly restrict.

One thing I've always thought would be relevant for the NIL conversation is groups of position players getting together to market themselves. The o-line doing something together or the wide receivers. My father-in-law made the point that you would then start to get jealousy on the team when some guys are able to make more money than others. I told him (respectfully) that someone being jealous that someone else makes more money has never stopped me from paying some members of my team more than others. That's America. There are also plenty of ways for a guy to go on a tv commercial and say that he is a football player so he knows how to be tough or whatever schtick they want him to do. And he never has to mention the university.

I just don't see how the universities or the NCAA are materially harmed by no longer mandating that student-athletes can't utilize their NIL to make money if the market allows it. Frankly, I think its a dubious argument that college players have to be amateurs. People say that should be doing it for the love of the game. There are lots of jobs out there that people should be doing for altruistic reasons, but we still pay them.

As the money has gotten bigger, the equation has changed. Players still get a scholarship, but the money the coaches and ADs make is huge. The NCAA has a massive payroll. I'm not even advocating that those dollars be put directly into player's pockets. But at least let them figure out how to get their own piece of the pie.

[vandy05]

So, how do you stop the boosters from Football Factory U. (FFU) from offering every signee to “market” them for big bucks? You might never see the field, but here’s your check.

Haha, that's an excellent question that I'm glad you asked. And here is your answer. You DON'T. If a booster owns a car dealership and he wants to sign every player to a deal to be in his commercials then let him. I need someone to explain to me why this shouldn't be done (other than, it won't be fair to my favorite team's recruiting and competitiveness).

I would also offer that any smart business person wants a return on their investment. If a coach asks a bunch of boosters to load kids up with deals so they'll sign with the school, then those kids better perform or that coach is toast. That is an overly simplistic way to look at it, but that is my general point.

Again, I need a compelling reason that the market for this should be restricted. I just don't see who is harmed if the market is not restricted.

[VandyPhile]

So, how do you stop the boosters from Football Factory U. (FFU) from offering every signee to “market” them for big bucks? You might never see the field, but here’s your check.

Haha, that's an excellent question that I'm glad you asked. And here is your answer. You DON'T. If a booster owns a car dealership and he wants to sign every player to a deal to be in his commercials then let him. I need someone to explain to me why this shouldn't be done (other than, it won't be fair to my favorite team's recruiting and competitiveness).

I would also offer that any smart business person wants a return on their investment. If a coach asks a bunch of boosters to load kids up with deals so they'll sign with the school, then those kids better perform or that coach is toast. That is an overly simplistic way to look at it, but that is my general point.

Again, I need a compelling reason that the market for this should be restricted. I just don't see who is harmed if the market is not restricted.

So, you’re ok if, say, the owner of the Cleveland Browns wants to also fund a semi-pro team to play in Neyland stadium? Because he can afford it with zero business return. It would be a lot cheaper than the Browns and much closer to home.

And, I’m sure Bama / Auburn/ Georgia has the boosters to (perhaps cumulatively) do the same.