https://sports.yahoo.com/3-us-senat...legislation-for-college-sports-110014074.html Some highlights... Athletes, meanwhile, would follow fairly permissive NIL rules. They would receive lifetime scholarships and long-term medical coverage through both their schools as well as an established medical trust. In a way to modernize them, the Act establishes the College Athletics Corporation to serve as an NIL clearinghouse in charge of administering the bill, creating specific policy and regulating and certifying NIL agents. The CAC will have a 15-member board of directors, one-third of which must be current athletes or those who played in the previous 10 years. The CAC will have subpoena power. prohibits compensation to be used for inducements with recruits and retention of current players. In a non-NIL provision, the Act permits underclassmen to enter a professional draft and then retain their eligibility if they (1) return to school within seven days of the draft ending and (2) don’t receive compensation from a sports league, team or agent. As for medical care, the Act requires schools making $20 million in athletic revenue to cover athlete medical expenses for at least two years after their final competition. Schools making at least $50 million will have to cover expenses for a four-year period following play. A medical trust fund will cover long-term injuries not covered by schools. Schools making at least $50 million in revenue must contribute annually to the fund.
What are they going to do this specific point? Make it so you can't have anything lined up or even negotiate until the players are enrolled?
The NFL is never going to allow a player to enter the draft, get drafted, then return to school effectively wasting that pick. The NFL has no say in this legislation, other than to lobby, but they can change their collective bargaining agreement with the players to kill that.
Right Star Player already signed to NIL deal wants to play at a top school, school he's at can't induce him to stay.....but what about a pay raise based on job performance?
There’s also so much plausible deniability built into a lot of these things. So unless you’re willing to go to court over all this stuff, it’s not going to be easily regulated.
What laws are they breaking by paying players by inducing them in recruiting or retention? How are they going to police any of this?
Limiting inducements would be, considering that’s where the vast majority of these dollars are coming from. Very few brands are actually driving positive ROI on these things.
Inconsistency in State NIL laws where local lawmakers are trying to create competitive advantages for their own Universities over others. That’s really all they can successfully solve for here.
Any limits are going to push things back under the table. But the players are still going to want the rates they get today. Bad time to be a booster.
I'm not saying you're wrong about inducements but do you have anything to support that? Brand ROI is a very different conversation, I think.
A huge part of a players bargaining power is whether he is getting offered something more from someone else. If you take that away, that severely reduces what they can get paid and that's what this is, plain and simple
This is a step in the right direction but not sure how they will enforce the inducement aspect would like to see some way for the athletes to be compensated but with a more sustainable model that doesn’t create more of a power imbalance in the sport
Did you read the article? Lifetime scholarships, mandatory long term healthcare, and the option to return to college seem like objectively good things.
This gets really interesting in states that allow a private cause of action to sue, based upon violation of statutes. In a significant number of states, if you are harmed because another party has violated a statute, you can sue that party. As an example, would Pitt sue USC for tampering with Addison? If they do, all of the coaches’ emails and texts are fair game.
How are they giving away their entire market value because I don't think I understand where you're coming from? In my understanding, if a QB from say Iowa St is making 100k a year in NIL wants to enter the transfer portal, teams interested in that QB can say "our starting QB typically makes 1M a year in NIL deals" as a recruiting tactic they just wouldn't be allowed to cut a check to get them to sign on the dotted line. There has to be some sort of balance, every sport in the modern world that pays athletes has some sort of enforceable guideline or regulation in how those players are paid except CFB. I don't think this is the perfect solution by any means but I do think it would be a step in the right direction as it's pretty obvious the current way things are being done isn't sustainable.
I mean how else does this read other than you can't pay guys in recruiting or to keep them from entering the portal
If you’re not allowing someone to receive any/all payment for their services for whatever reason, you’re inherently limiting their ability to receive full market value. Market value is determined by whoever is willing to pay it. So if you stop someone from paying for inducements, you’re ultimately limiting the income of the players. The bigger picture question here is should these kids be considered amateurs (with NIL opportunities) or professionals? Because that’s the line that’s gotten blurrier with all this. If it’s the former (which I personally think it should be), it is inherently limiting their income opportunities. That’s not debatable. And it’s likely going to create legal battles.
Right but that's not "giving away your entire market value". You could make these same arguments against max contracts in the NBA or a salary cap in any sport that employs one. Inducements are already "illegal" it's just the NCAA has no teeth to enforce it.
The NCAA and conferences avoid lawsuits by successfully lobbying for this. Seems a clear win for them
The main reason they have no teeth is because they ceded it with the antitrust ruling Congress came out with. The other reason though (that nobody talks about) is that it’s close to impossible to actually enforce. If some rich booster who owns a car dealership is willing to pay a kid $2m per year and a Ferrari lease so that athlete plays at his school, what’s to stop him? He’s a business owner that can likely put that kid in an advertisement or two. He’s receiving services. Proving inducement vs “real” NIL is extremely difficult, and likely comes with long, drawn out legal battles vs business entities. This is why the traditionalists years ago always called paying players a single dollar a “slippery slope”. It’s not governable. The kids deserve to get theirs, but there’s no way to make it work without turning into a disaster.
Completely destroying the market where your value as a player resides is definitely destroying your market value
Yep, the “value” the vast majority of these players create is via play on the field. It’s not via their faces in billboards, in commercials, etc. So if you want them to actually take advantage of their true market value, you need to allow them to become professionals. If you don’t, you need to own that and be transparent about it. I’m for keeping college athletes amateurs but putting no limitation on their ability to play pro sports. Let them enter the draft/free agency at whatever age. The pro sports can figure out their market values.