It's Bad Amateurism Argument Time!
Nancy Skinner's NIL bill was signed into law by the governor of California—it turns out the delay was so he could sign it on LeBron's TV show, which is how all legislation should be approved. And now come the parade of incredibly dumb arguments. Darren Rovell won a fevered sprint to the summit of Mount Take:
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.
— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) October 1, 2019
What the what? Rovell thinks:
- the guys in charge of the billion-dollar industry are going to throw their hands up and walk away because Jimmy Football can make some money endorsing colored pencils
- there will be more cheating when boosters can give players money over the table, and
- because Jimmy Football can make some money on colored pencils he doesn't have to get a degree.
None of that is going to happen.
[After THE JUMP: more bad arguments!]
The NCAA is already preparing to wave the white flag and continue on, as Rodger Sherman notes at the Ringer:
…the NCAA’s response to Newsom’s signing the bill was … discernibly more measured [than previous doom and gloom proclamations]. The association released a statement that said the new law had caused “confusion”—exactly what type of confusion is left unspecified—and expressed concern that “a patchwork of different laws” across multiple states could potentially make its goal “unattainable.” The statement also said that “improvement needs to happen on a national level” and suggested that the organization could reconsider its own NIL rules to come up with versions that are “realistic in modern society.” In a little less than a month, the NCAA’s stance on the bill has morphed from claiming imminent doom and gloom to conceding that a national law would make more sense than individual ones in all 50 states.
There will be a lawsuit the NCAA will lose, like it loses all its lawsuits. Once that formality is out of the way the NCAA will suck it up and try to set up a system where they're still in charge of the money, however they figure they can manage it. Class will still be required. Donors will split their money between the school—which still has the tickets and skyboxes—and the players/recruits.
In the meantime, many bad arguments will be offered. Most won't be as unhinged as Rovell, but they won't be much better. Here's why each of these arguments is bad.
"This will crush non-revenue sports"
For Power Five schools the results here, if any, will be a slowing of revenue increase already tens of millions of dollars ahead of the situation from a decade ago. Last year's Big Ten revenue distribution was 51 million dollars. A decade ago it was 19 million.
Non-revenue sports have increasingly been gold-plated as athletic departments find any way to spend the tons of cash that are coming in. From 2013 to 2018 non-revenue sport coaches saw their total compensation go up 43%. The worst case scenario for P5 non-revenue sports is that their coaches are slightly less rich and their equipment is not quite space-shuttle material.
Meanwhile, few teams outside of the P5 have significant donor bases that would be eroded by players getting money directly. EMU's football program brought in just under 200k in donations last year, about 2% of their 9 million dollar operating budget. And in cases like EMU donors are probably better off directly supporting the program instead of individual players. Non-revenue sports at places like EMU are only getting program donations and should not see meaningful changes.
"This won't be a level playing field"
This was addressed in a recent mailbag: the current environment is rapidly approaching the maximum possible recruit consolidation.
The current system is already making the playing field as tilted as possible. If anything, giving players back their NIL rights has the potential to diversify the destination for top recruits as teams with a lot of resources who have previously been hesitant to flout NCAA rules also pay players.
"This will result in the professionalization of college sports"
College sports already has the worst aspect of professionalization: commercial-kickoff-commercial. Nobody cared when the Olympics dropped their amateurism requirements and nobody will care when colleges do. People are willing to put up with increasingly awful stadium experiences because of their teams. They're willing to watch horrible garbage football for years on end.
The fact that Jimmy Football has some money isn't going to change their behavior one bit. There are already reasons, in droves, to quit paying attention to college sports. And it doesn't matter. To believe that amateurism is the load-bearing wall in NCAA sports is absurd.
"These kids aren't worth anything"
No, really. Professional bad-take-haver Doug Gottlieb:
It proves there is no real value in a college kids name and likeness. The power is in the brand of the school. Ratings for TV, values of schools to networks depend on the brand of the school. Not the athlete. https://t.co/IW2ESeWdLW
— Doug Gottlieb (@GottliebShow) September 30, 2019
Then there's no problem. Give them their worthless rights back and quit complaining.
"This will lose in court"
There's a strange thread of court fatalism running through some comments. Dan Wolken:
It’s worth noting, however, that the NCAA’s recent success at beating back challengers in federal court may mean that SB 206 never survives. The NCAA may be forced into its own plan, which may prove better than the one politicians drew up.
The first is that the NCAA will surely challenge this legislation in court, where it will make the case that it’s unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws. Based on the NCAA’s track record, I like its chances to win that argument.
The NCAA's track record is dismal. Regents of OU: loss. Assistant coaches: loss. O'Bannon: loss. Alston: loss. It is true that the judge in the latter two cases proposed milquetoast remedies as she systematically obliterated the NCAA's arguments, but this isn't a situation where the court needs to impose a remedy. It merely has to let the law stand. And it seems like they will. The NCAA's bylaws are not laws; actual laws supercede bylaws. As Sherman put it:
…this organization has as much legal authority when it comes to rulemaking as a board game inventor. It’s illegal for an athlete to receive a huge payment from a booster in the same way it’s illegal for you to collect $1,000 in Monopoly money when passing go. Sure, the NCAA makes rules for how its member institutions should operate, and if you break those rules the NCAA could prevent your school from playing in a prestigious tournament or a bowl game. But it’s the government that actually makes and enacts laws.
"We can't cheat athletes out of their rights and that makes us sad" is not a legal strategy that will win.
"It's too complicated"
It's not complicated at all! We have an entire economy based around this that everyone else participates in! Is it too complicated for literally anyone else to go about their business and make some money?
The complicated thing is what's going on now, when there is an entire industry of people dedicated to monitoring and punishing normal economy activity:
a lot of not famous people are going to have their lives measurably improved because they can coach camps or have a youtube channel and make some money without having to worry about their scholarship
— mgoblog (@mgoblog) October 1, 2019
Deleting huge chunks of the NCAA rulebook is not making things more complicated.
"But then they will have money"
OK, you've got me there. Then they will have money.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:42 PM ^
The players are already criticized at an intense level so I doubt that it'll change. Shea Patterson has been heavily criticized by the fans and the reporters. The TV coverage opened up the can of worms for it and Social Media already accelerated the process
October 1st, 2019 at 3:55 PM ^
Agreed, but I think that if he had, for example, signed an endorsement deal in February for a lot of money that required him to record commercials, make appearances, or whatever, that it would be a lot worse for him.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:59 PM ^
There is surprisingly little criticism of Harbaugh and he is paid more money than god.
I don't think a little endorsement will change anything for players.
No one cares about other people's money.
October 1st, 2019 at 7:32 PM ^
Surprisingly little criticism of Harbaugh? Where? Mars?
All I've heard so far in this 3-1 season is that Harbaugh is either
A.) On the hottest of seats and coaching for his life, or
B.) He should have been fired already and banned from coaching forever because he is the literal worst.
do please let me know because i haven't seen any takes lower than the level of "scalding"
October 1st, 2019 at 11:23 PM ^
Go back and read the comments on this blog and count the number of times a complaint about Harbaugh is linked to “for how much he gets paid”. I believe I even once posted a comment asking if these same fans would be happy with Harbaugh’s record if he was being paid much less.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:35 PM ^
Crazy thought, but hear me out. Who cares? Seriously.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:35 PM ^
The current system is already making the playing field as tilted as possible.
Anyone have a guess as to why this is? I've long thought the internet & social media (late 90's/early 00's) is what changed recruiting and made it harder to UM to pull kids out of OH, CA, & the South like it did before. I don't know how the internet changed things, but I feel like it's more than a correlation and there is some causation there.
There are probably a number of reasons but probably the foremost one is the combination of amateurism with the proliferation of a polished, smart Saban system in which players get paid with the approval of but without the direct involvement of the head brass
I agree here. Saban and his disciples (Fisher & Smart) both turned in top recruiting classes the minute they reached schools with resources and prior to winning at an elite level and have continued to do so every year at those schools (LSU, Bama, UGA, FSU, & T A&M). That is fishy. But, I also don't think Meyer did this to the same degree as there are stories about him turning away kids that wanted cash. And, it also correlates to UM's post-Carr struggles. Did UM used to do this too and JH is just ethically against it?
Most importantly, if a system is created that allows this nationwide, will this narrow the recruiting between UM & OSU? Will we start to see UM be able to consistently land top 5 classes with the consistency OSU does?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:36 PM ^
This is awesome. I can't wait to see how creative they get with paying players. Can you imagine when Stephen M Ross writes a $100,000 check to each football player to show up to an autograph signing session?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:51 PM ^
Whatever somehow gets us more talent that OSU within the rules I'm down for.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:36 PM ^
The "it's complicated" argument has always amazed me. Universities and billion-dollar organizations have been handling licensing deals for decades. Hell, I once worked at a major university whose payout to a single lab was in the order of tens of millions of dollars a year from a single patent they licensed out. It ain't hard to basically run a payroll department for athletes.
The rest of your arguments are equally valid and highlight the stupidity of the NCAA's claims, but the complexity one has always driven me crazy.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:04 PM ^
It's especially galling because THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED. There are already entire offices of people devoted to ensuring compliance with the NCAA rulebook. Even if the new system is complicated, I fail to see how it could possibly be more complicated than the current iteration.
October 1st, 2019 at 5:57 PM ^
you can get $100k for signing autographs, but no cream cheese on you bagels, dammit!
October 4th, 2019 at 9:23 AM ^
Speaking as one devoutly on the "it's complicated" side, I'll reply from my perspective.
I don't care one iota for the paperwork complexity. When I use the term complicated, I'm saying this from a trying-to-predict-the-future complexity.
Here's my concern. There are going to be consequences beyond just, "the boys get some money". There is a very real risk of the worst of the slippery slopes. Boys getting paid, especially if they're paid very well (and some will be), will inevitably get into trouble (not all, but alcohol aged kids+unspent money, even well regulated kids = some level of trouble). Then, boys getting a lot of money start deciding they should have power, and thus, start asking questions about why classes are so important. Brian thinks this is laughable, but why? I'm not even sure it's likely, but then, I didn't attend THE "I didn't come here to play school" university. And if boys in school x start wielding power over classes, then competitive advantage starts weighing in. Slippery slope...
Ultimately, Brian has no capacity to guess where this one decision can lead to, so when I use the term "it's complicated", I mean it to argue against Brian's overly simplistic, highly naive stand that this is simply a question of fairness to the kids at question.
The paperwork is entirely separate, and mostly irrelevant. Bureaucracies feeding bureaucracies for the benefit of the bureaucracy :P .
October 1st, 2019 at 3:41 PM ^
This will certainly end up with the tag "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".
Since I contributed $100,000 for my out of state student to receive a U of M degree in ChemE ... which has been a valuable commodity for them, I do take issue with people that seem to think that a full ride scholarship is not of value - but getting cash $$$ is. This "law", like many other "feel good" opinions certainly gives those "schools" that already cheat a blank check to do as they please. I'm not against athletes deriving financial benefits from their pursuit of playing college sports, but hopefully there are considerations given to what form of financial benefit is derived (perhaps a future benefit vs "current income"). It is a very radical change to the current system.
Go Blue!
October 1st, 2019 at 4:02 PM ^
Well if most football players weren't highly discouraged from majoring in things like ChemE, players might actually be able to maximize the value of their scholarship but they are generally discouraged from doing so.
October 1st, 2019 at 7:24 PM ^
The ChemE degree is only a valuable commodity because they are allowed to make what the market allows. What if all the chemical companies were Goverened by an institution that determined what chemical engineers were allowed to make? And that institution capped what engineers were allowed to make despite skyrocketing profits for the companies and governing institution which adds no real value. Of course, all engineers making the same thing despite talent and skill level.
Then to make a little extra cash on the side the engineer wrote their name on some vials and sold them to a fan. The institution found out and blackballed the engineer and they are no longer allowed to work as an engineer.
October 2nd, 2019 at 10:15 AM ^
..but football players and basketball players CAN go pro straight out of high school.
October 2nd, 2019 at 2:14 PM ^
The degree's only valuable after graduation. That's not true for players.
The players earn what the market allows, lest you think #1 pick in the draft is done purely randomly or that #1 pick in the draft, or first round vs. 6th all get paid the same?
The institution can black ball the engineer while getting his degree, but can't affect them in the professional world.
Sorry, your analogy fails completely, please try again and use some logic.
October 2nd, 2019 at 6:14 PM ^
Ha, not yet another ChemE major analogy on a football fan site.
/s
October 1st, 2019 at 3:43 PM ^
I really like this. It's not perfect (while I don't see it harming non-revenue sports, it won't help those athletes much either) but it's pretty darned good. And there is something in me that rebels at the idea that someone like Denard or even Gardner when he was getting hype couldn't cash in on that a little, when the team and the conference most certainly are.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:46 PM ^
I have what may be a dumb question:
Does NIL also give the player control over his number on a jersey? Because would a school then need to give a cut of that jersey money to the player (which I feel like they should.) But would that money be from the school, and thus paying the player, or from the marketing/revenue arm.
I want players to benefit from NIL, I'm just seeing the schools weasel around this by no longer selling jerseys with numbers on them.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:47 PM ^
The real question:
How much longer til NCAA Football video games come back?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:47 PM ^
In the end, this is about power. The NCAA is fine with unequal playing fields as long as it is the one who makes those determinations and it is the one who handles the money. Let me list a few ways that things are unequal between Michigan and EMU.
Education value for player
Stadium you play in
Operating budget
Mode of travel between games
Support staff
TV exposure
SWAG from shoe companies
The list could go on and on forever. The common theme though is that the schools dictate these things and with the new law, the players will have some leverage and the schools don't want to give up that power.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:51 PM ^
I think there's a large contingent of people who believe that if enough of them join together to try to tweet something into reality, that everyone else is required to bend to their will. After they get their way, and there's any kind of unintended negative consequences, those same people will point a finger directly at the folks who caved in to their demands.
NIL rights will certainly help Michigan, so I say bring it on. Just expect there to be some turbulence along the way.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:53 PM ^
The states should just stay out of it.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:55 PM ^
This will widen the gap between OSU, Alabama and everyone else, while allowing MSU to become a tier one program.
Can you imagine the bidding war for OSU players to endorse coolers? Alabama players endorsing spittoons?
Then the mother of all endorsements. Bidding to get MSU players to endorse defense attorneys.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:05 PM ^
Couldn't it also level out the playing field for big time programs, who don't currently cheat to the degree that the osus and bamas and clemsons?
October 1st, 2019 at 4:00 PM ^
I am interested to hear an educated take on how this would impact Michigan Football and Basketball programs, and recruiting. If this will be a positive for Michigan then I am all in.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:10 PM ^
Since players can’t make money until they are at an institution, the whole bag man recruiting stuff will not go away.
I suspect programs will soon have entire teams of people coming up with portfolios to show recruits what their potential earnings could be at school x. I’m not sure what’s to stop a booster from promising to buy 10,000 “player x” jerseys if he signs with whatever school. I don’t think this will be good for Michigan at all. Maybe a wash.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:00 PM ^
Kelly Baraka must be pissed.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:01 PM ^
I know this borders on politics, but it's pretty hard to avoid looking at this like a bunch of rich guys trying to fight tooth and nail to make sure some hard working poor kids don't get any money for doing 95% of the work, to include even profiting from their own likeness (that's pretty darn personal, you know).
Can they make arguments? Maybe but nobody really wants to hear it. Would they win in the end? Possibly, stranger things have happened, but its definitely not the right thing and absolutely a bad look, so can we talk about the NCAA doing the right thing for once?
October 2nd, 2019 at 2:26 PM ^
"some hard working poor kids" that get more direct return payment already from the University than any other kids, unless you think these kids getting nutritionalists, tutoring, flights, professional mentors, and a free college degree among many other perks doesn't count?
You're looking at it from a very typical point of view, and a remarkably shallow one to boot.
Do I want to hear someone who's getting several hundred thousand dollars worth of value every year tell me why they deserve more? No. Am I willing to hear an argument from a third party on why they probably do deserve some actual direct payment as opposed to just services, and an argument that we should reward based on merit rather than flat rates for all - yes of course.
Here's the reality, paying kids directly opens a lot of doors with very unpredictable outcomes. What's the best case scenario? Effectively nothing changes save the kids have some cash. A zero change is the best case. What's the worst? The end of college football. What's the likely change? Somewhere in the middle of those two. If I have to make a choice where the best case is no change and the worst case is horror ... I'm going to look VERY HARD at this decision, and make darned sure it's a good idea before I implement.
So sorry Arb lover, but this isn't a case of simplistic "right thing".
October 1st, 2019 at 4:04 PM ^
What’s good for the players isn’t necessarily good for college football.
I expect the cheaters will continue to cheat and the top football schools will push this rule to its absolute limit. I have no idea how anyone could enforce fair play rules for NIL.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:08 PM ^
Doug Gottleib is the fucking worst.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:09 PM ^
why is nobody talking about how we didn't even make an OFFER to this Jimmy Football? sounds like he is poised to make millions with his endorsements as a college star. yet he never even showed up in a single recruiting post. shameful.
yet ANOTHER recruiting miss from the brain trust.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:12 PM ^
Does this mean that we could sign Denard Robinson to come back and play for us?
Currently the NCAA and its member schools are shielded from antitrust suits due to their status as an amateur organization. A player is prohibited from playing past five years because all the schools agree to those rules and those rules cannot be challenged as collusive because of the amateurism exemption to antitrust laws.
If these guys aren't amateurs anymore, why wouldn't older ineligible players be allowed back into the marketplace? Can the NCAA still collude to prevent Denard from playing when their shield against antitrust has been removed? Would we still root for a team full of 29 y/o college students going for their fourth masters?
Anybody with antitrust background have any input on whether older players could challenge the NCAA to get some of that sweet NIL booster money?
October 1st, 2019 at 4:54 PM ^
This is a fascinating take. I have no idea if this is actually true, but it strikes me as plausible that there might be other unintended legal consequences to allowing NIL rights. I am still in favor, but given the immensity of what this change would do to college sports, it's fair to expect lots of unintended consequences.
October 2nd, 2019 at 9:27 AM ^
Interesting...
If the money was good enough, why even bother with the NFL?
October 1st, 2019 at 4:13 PM ^
I agree with the fundamental premise of Brian's post and with most of the individual arguments he offers. It's absurd and unfair that universities get to appropriate every economically valuable aspect of student athletic performances. But I wonder about what economic interests are threatened when athletes can make money from their NIL. Brian seems to think that it's the colleges' access to donor contributions. In other words, donors will give less to athletic departments and universities generally if athletes are earning money on their own.
It seems to me that the real threat from the NIL legislation is to university's monopoly power, specifically to its monopoly power in athletic department marketing. Right now, athletic departments have effective monopoly power over the right to associate a product or business with a college athletic program. But if athletes can sell their NIL independently, the athletic department has a competitor for selling that right. If, for example, the local auto dealership wants its potential customers to associate it with a college team, it can pay one or more individual team members to make appearances or appear in ads, rather than paying the athletic department for advertising inside the venue or on the website or during the game broadcast.
Colleges make so much from athletics because they have total monopoly power over all of the profitable aspects of college sports. Once that monopoly power begins to erode, the erosion will probably continue and profitability will diminish dramatically.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:14 PM ^
Could athletes individually sign contracts with TV networks to play in games broadcast on those networks?
Most of the money is in TV so why wouldn't you go straight after the big bucks?
October 1st, 2019 at 4:19 PM ^
It seems to me that NIL is going to do more to spread out top talent than concentrate it. How much does an extra awesome DT mean in Tuscaloosa when they already have 18 5 stars right? But the one 5 star who signs with, I dunno, UNC and becomes the king of Chapel Hill and it seems like he'd make a lot more money.
I said it in another thread, but this also has the potential to dramatically decrease star player transfers that have seemed to be on an uptick lately. If you sign a multi-year contract with a local sponsor, that could be tough to walk away from unless the situation is really not great.
October 2nd, 2019 at 1:05 AM ^
How many star players are transferring? I don't think to many starting players are transferring schools right now. We just think of them as 'star' players because they were highly regarded coming out of high school.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:25 PM ^
I think it’s overly simplistic to say the NCAA will lose. This would be a SCOTUS case for sure. I think the current court would uphold the constitutionality of the law, but that’s just a guess.
One “issue” is that the players can’t enter into a contract until they are 18. So I could still see boosters going under the table before signing day when many of the recruits are still 17 years old. Parents can co-sign the contracts for the 17 year olds, but I have a feeling most 17 year olds won’t want to do that. This could still direct recruits in ways that following the system wouldn’t, by paying the under the table and then getting a big endorsement deal once a player signs and is enrolled. Cheaters will cheat and they will figure out a way to advantage their schools once the new rules come out.
One upside for the purists is that some endorsers could put that the players must play in the bowl games in the endorsement contract. Whether or not players sign that depends on how pervasive it is.
Another potential benefit is back loading the contract so guys will want to stay in college a fourth year and forego the draft. If the player is a marginal guy (Gentry), and due to receive more money after his final year, that could entice him to eschew the 6th round pick and come back for another year. It’ll be interesting to see how these deals are structured. I wish I went into sports agency law because it will be booming in about 5-7 years.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:32 PM ^
I am generally in favor of players owning the rights and being allowed to cash in on that.
My questions are-
1. Do you support ANY limit to how this plays out?
2. Is it ok for boosters to offer "special endorsement contracts" to players if they go to booster's school? Basically bagmen right out in the open.
October 1st, 2019 at 5:05 PM ^
If you do anything to limit compensation, you'll just keep the black market going and all the crappy side effects that come with that. The only hope for cleaning up college athletics is to stop pretending you can cap the market value of the athletes. The bagman exists because of the current NCAA rules which warp the market. Take them away, let the market decide what a good football player is worth, and stop having this system where some schools are more willing to go full steam ahead damn the torpedos than others are.
October 1st, 2019 at 6:41 PM ^
I definitely believe in the free market, I just wonder what the other consequences will be.
Could a sponsor require an athlete not leave a particular school? Can teams limit endorsements via "team rules"?
October 1st, 2019 at 4:47 PM ^
Question that's been bugging me and since I've now seen this figure a few times I'll go ahead and ask: What's the "COA" in the competitive imbalance figure? There's a vertical line and to the left of it says "Recruiting before COA adopted" and to the right it says "Recruiting after COA adopted".
October 1st, 2019 at 5:06 PM ^
Cost Of Attendance
October 1st, 2019 at 5:07 PM ^
Cost of attendance. It allowed schools to give a player additional money above room and board to cover the “full cost” of attending the school.
October 2nd, 2019 at 1:51 PM ^
And the reason for the spike in consolidation of talent after the COA began being used for the purpose of paying athletes is that many schools in the SEC dramatically raised their "cost of attendance" once it started being used to compensate football players. I believe a typical SEC school pays over $5k, where B1G schools are around $3k, despite the fact that cost of living is cheaper in the south.
So, in practice the SEC schools pay their players more, both legally and illegally.
Comments