Schools To Directly Pay Players

[HuskerBred]

So here’s one concrete preview, of a hundred possible previews, of future chaos. If the athletes are determined to be employees down the road — litigation that hasn’t happened yet (the NLRB decision regarding Dartmouth was a preview but not determinative for anyone other than Dartmouth for now) they likely will form a bargaining unit. Under the terms of the settlement, if a future bargaining unit reaches an agreement with better terms than this in the settlement, the settlement is dissolved. So how does that work? How do schools plan for that? Save for that? That’s just ONE potential issue on the horizon. None of this is manageable by the schools. They can’t put the genie back in the bottle. And they have a long history of not being able to cooperate with each other. Unless someone can describe a concrete roadmap to me, I don’t see it.

 

[NU_Alum]

Lots to unpack in this thread. A few thoughts:
-If you're an employee, can we fire you for performance? Where does that leave the B10's "can't pull a scholarsip"?

-If there's a contract for xxx $$$ can we prorate if they leave early?

- can we implement non-compete clauses?

- If DR makes a million $$$ from NIL can he waive the UNL contract? Does he then waive revenue sharing?

I know there are a lot of lawyers and smart folks here so I'm really interested in your thoughts.

The list of potential issues with "employee/employer" relationship in this scenario is long. Yes to performance, unless there's a CBA in place. Or an employment contract.

Whatever the contract says, governs. Of course, you really can't sign 17 year olds up either (you can, it's just harder).

Likely no on the non-competes. Those are currently very unfavored (especially so in NE) but newer rules from the feds (provided they hold up) will effectively make non-competes illegal, for our purposes here anyway.

Of course, if another school approaches a kid and offers them a spot or whatever, you'd have tortious interference with a business/contractual relationship claims by Nebraska against the other school.

The bigger problems though for the EE/ER relationship, is going to be benefits, OT, disability, PTO, duties the EE owes to the ER, going to school won't be a factor anymore and even if it is, there won't be a time limit (imagine a QB that's really good in CFB but knows he can't make it big in the NFL. Why leave?

The cost for a traditional EE is roughly 25% of their base salary. So if we're paying our entire football team a salary of $85,000,000 ($100k x 85) that would mean benefits alone will cost roughly another $21,250,000. That puts our costs at $106MM plus a year just for the football team employees. That doesn't count the coaches, staff, etc...

A CBA could do away with many of the problems, but of course, it creates its own set of issues as well. You could have individual employment contracts with each player too (again, solves some issues, creates others).

 

[Hville]

SEC's Sankey would 'welcome' national standard

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said he would "welcome" congressional action that would establish national rules for college athletics.

www.espn.com

good comments by SEC commissioner. Its apparent that all sides of the table want structure to the new future. Some interesting comments that he talks to a lot of student athletes and nobody is asking to become an employee. They still seem to look at it as student/athlete.

 

[NU_Alum]

Two Questions:
a) At what point does taking classes/working on a degree become optional? Day one of employment.
b) At what point is Recruiting replaced by a Player Draft. The system is set up to recruit, I don't see that changing.

IMO.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Aren't certifications, education requirements across many jobs? And kept up to date?
I see no difference here. Some of those costs are borne by the employer, some by the employee just to get in the door.
Assuming it is required, there are no employee borne costs yet made and those requirements the same per school as it is now.
Asking the government to regulate here is a no brainer, though it adds the legal structure that'll be required.

 

[WestTexasHusker]

I would think almost all schools will keep certain schooling requirements and that they be met.
If anything, as employees this is a reflection on the school overall, and is very visual, not easily hidden from the school.
Money has been running academics for awhile now, but even so it has its limits.

Agree, and would even state that athletics has been running academics for a while now, even at the D2 and D3 levels. There are many D3s and NAIAs, and some D2s, where most of the student population is athletes. They are taking out massive student loans, paying to play, and keeping the school afloat. As a result, the academic curriculum is dumbed down to a 9th grade level to keep all of those athletes passing and paying the school's bills. There is a lot of that going on in Texas at NAIA and D3 schools. Pretty messed up.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Even if the decision to pay all athletes equally comes down (via law, CBA, whatever) I could see schools like Alabama removing half of their sports. Now they can pay double what we're paying for football/basketball players.

The people pushing this are the elite athletes, the media, and others that haven't thought this through. The VAST majority of college kids are going to be hurt by this. Maybe I'm wrong and guardrails are put in place so everything stays "equal" for all sports and across schools, but I don't have any confidence in NCAA, conferences, schools, or Congress.

Potentially, but I could see a correction factor on that too. In reality, they either need to set up a salary cap by sport, or some sort of maximum players can receive. The ultimate goal needs to be to prevent this from hurting the smaller sports.

 

[NU_Alum]

Potentially, but I could see a correction factor on that too. In reality, they either need to set up a salary cap by sport, or some sort of maximum players can receive. The ultimate goal needs to be to prevent this from hurting the smaller sports.

No way to do that without an anti-trust exemption or CBA. I don't see how/why several positions would agree to a CBA, I think that's going to be a hard road to go down. Does Congress have the stomach for an AT exemption? The intelligence to draft it wisely?

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Potentially, but I could see a correction factor on that too. In reality, they either need to set up a salary cap by sport, or some sort of maximum players can receive. The ultimate goal needs to be to prevent this from hurting the smaller sports.

With room and board covered, adding some monies can go aways.
Add in NIL you still have a separator.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Lots to unpack in this thread. A few thoughts:
-If you're an employee, can we fire you for performance? Where does that leave the B10's "can't pull a scholarsip"?

-If there's a contract for xxx $$$ can we prorate if they leave early?

- can we implement non-compete clauses?

- If DR makes a million $$$ from NIL can he waive the UNL contract? Does he then waive revenue sharing?

I know there are a lot of lawyers and smart folks here so I'm really interested in your thoughts.

I would assume eventually this system will work as annual or multi-year contracts. That will lock the athlete in for at least the full year, meaning they will be guaranteed the full amount of their contract, unless there is something that voids said contract. Even in multi-year contract, you could have buyouts (like what we see in coaching contracts).

There will likely be some sort of reconciliation between NIL and this revenue sharing. NIL and pay-to-play are not mutual exclusive. You should be able to earn money from both. The question will be whether some of that booster money that is currently being funneled into NIL will be funneled through the schools instead to cover the "revenue sharing"? That could mean that some of these athletes are making might not go up, but instead would just be redistributed into different buckets.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I would assume eventually this system will work as annual or multi-year contracts. That will lock the athlete in for at least the full year, meaning they will be guaranteed the full amount of their contract, unless there is something that voids said contract. Even in multi-year contract, you could have buyouts (like what we see in coaching contracts).

There will likely be some sort of reconciliation between NIL and this revenue sharing. NIL and pay-to-play are not mutual exclusive. You should be able to earn money from both. The question will be whether some of that booster money that is currently being funneled into NIL will be funneled through the schools instead to cover the "revenue sharing"? That could mean that some of these athletes are making might not go up, but instead would just be redistributed into different buckets.

This formula, for those schools unable to meet a certain criteria could be advanced

 

[Cornhuskers7]

No way to do that without an anti-trust exemption or CBA. I don't see how/why several positions would agree to a CBA, I think that's going to be a hard road to go done. Does Congress have the stomach for an AT exemption? The intelligence to draft it wisely?

I think a CBA is ultimately going to have to happen. Granted, I don't know if it can happen presently, since college athletes are still considered "not employees". I anticipate there will be further lawsuits claiming that athletes are employees since they are being paid and "work" enough hours to be treated as such.

The NCAA/Power Conferences are working to try and set up a system that benefits athletes but avoids a CBA. If they can manage to get that system setup where athletes are happy, a CBA might not happen. In turn, though, they need to realize that certain safeguards need to be put in place to protect other collegiate sports and fairness among the big money sports. That is the job of these athletic directors. While you could go all in and try and just become a football power, their responsibility is to all sports, not just one.

 

[NU_Alum]

I think a CBA is ultimately going to have to happen. Granted, I don't know if it can happen presently, since college athletes are still considered "not employees". I anticipate there will be further lawsuits claiming that athletes are employees since they are being paid and "work" enough hours to be treated as such.

The NCAA/Power Conferences are working to try and set up a system that benefits athletes but avoids a CBA. If they can manage to get that system setup where athletes are happy, a CBA might not happen. In turn, though, they need to realize that certain safeguards need to be put in place to protect other collegiate sports and fairness among the big money sports. That is the job of these athletic directors. While you could go all in and try and just become a football power, their responsibility is to all sports, not just one.

I don't know nearly enough about labor union laws in each state or what it takes to get a union formed/contract ratified, so maybe the majority of players could force a union on the small number of kids that won't want to join. I know some states have opt-out laws, how will that affect a stud QB, for example, from getting paid more? Will he just accept the same rate of pay as the others but collect more through NIL?

I'm not sure there's a way to play big time CFB and keep the other sports intact. The money situation is just too insane IMO.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I don't know nearly enough about labor union laws in each state or what it takes to get a union formed/contract ratified, so maybe the majority of players could force a union on the small number of kids that won't want to join. I know some states have opt-out laws, how will that affect a stud QB, for example, from getting paid more? Will he just accept the same rate of pay as the others but collect more through NIL?

I'm not sure there's a way to play big time CFB and keep the other sports intact. The money situation is just too insane IMO.

Rolling several markets into one and trying to keep them the same, or better put, to think of them as the same is todays madness.
Hopefully better heads prevail and we move towards a merit/value based way of thinking. With all the players in mind at a minimum.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

I don't know nearly enough about labor union laws in each state or what it takes to get a union formed/contract ratified, so maybe the majority of players could force a union on the small number of kids that won't want to join. I know some states have opt-out laws, how will that affect a stud QB, for example, from getting paid more? Will he just accept the same rate of pay as the others but collect more through NIL?

I'm not sure there's a way to play big time CFB and keep the other sports intact. The money situation is just too insane IMO.

This isn't reinventing the wheel. I understand labor laws differ from state to state, but professional leagues have managed to deal with those and come to a system that works across the entirety of the league. I can't tell you the specifics of how/why they are able to do what they do, but I do know that it works. It isn't an opt-in/opt-out thing, it controls the way in which the league operates.

I think you can have big time CFB and keep other college sports alive, albeit probably not to the level they currently are. I wouldn't be surprised if non-revenue sports revert back to more geographic conference layout or even to more of a club sports model. Fiscally, it doesn't make sense to operate sports like bowling or golf at a $600-800k loss every year. I'm not sure how the spending breaks down, but the only reason those sports are able to exist in their current form is because football subsidizes it. I'm not saying those sports shouldn't exist, but they might need to change the way in which they operate in the coming age of college athletics.