Virginia schools now allowed to pay "NIL" directly to players
The Virginia legislature just passed a law that allows their schools to enter NIL contracts with players. I expect the NCAA will say that all schools are allowed to pay NIL directly. That's what they did when some states first allowed NIL and others hadn't yet passed laws.
https://twitter.com/DanMurphyESPN/status/1780977241486139866
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate trade. Now that we all agree that intercollegiate, revenue sports are businesses, Congress should authorize the creation of an FDCS (Federal Department of College Sports) akin to the FDIC, FDA, FAA, etc. Would something like that be any better or worse than the NCAA? I have no idea, but at least the regulators/administrators would be indirectly accountable to the voter/sports fan through their elected officials.
The alternative is Congress gives college sports an antitrust exemption and the colleges band together to hire a commissioner, a la Roger Goodell or Gary Bettman. I’m pretty sure that is an awful idea. How does Commissioner Petitti sound to you? Ugh. So I don’t know what the answer is, but the wild, Wild West era we’re in now isn’t working so well.
It sounds like the bill was specifically crafted to force the issue (either at the NCAA level or via some federal legislation) which probably needs to be done to get this whole thing figured out. Does it bring Title IX into play? Are they employees even if the schools say they're not employees?
One thing of note, it would seem like if the school is paying players directly, that'll be publicly available (or at least FOIA-able for the state schools) info? So for better or worse kids are going to know what their fellow teammate next to them is making.
- Title IX is not addressed. So that will be decided in the courts once someone sues.
- I don't see how they're employees if it's a contract service with the players.
- It would be public information for public schools only.
They are either employees, or independent contractors... and:
'“independent contractor” refers to workers who, as a matter of economic reality, are not economically dependent on an employer for work and are in business for themselves.'
Criteria to be an independent contractor include - the opportunity for profit or loss, investment, permanency, control, whether the work is an integral part of the employer's business, and skill and initiative.
If you can't lose money doing it, and you don't have control of the details of the work - you aren't an independent contractor.
So...they're contractors, right?
The players would be getting paid appearance fees for events (charity/fundraising events or signing events) and for doing acting or modeling for advertising campaigns for the school. Basically they're doing gigs. And they'd be allowed to do those same gigs for anybody, not just the school.
Sure... But then they can't require them to play football for their money.
I haven't read the Virginia law, but the story presented it as they're allowed to pay NIL. NIL (officially) is not straight-up money for playing, so yeah, I would assume that's still the case.
What the school can do, I'm sure, is only offer contracts to people who it makes sense for them to go into business with. Obviously if you want to promote UVA football, you're only going to hire people from UVA football.
Virginia law doesn't get to override the FLSA in determining what defines "employees" and "independent contractors".
Obviously. That's why my assumption is that the Virginia law is permitting a situation where athletes can be paid as contractors but not employees since the Virginia law reportedly specifies that players cannot be employees (or at least not in the capacity of "athlete").
Yeah... I highly doubt that.
I'd bet they just pretty much ignored FLSA, Title IX, and every other legal consideration and just said "Yay sportsball".
Can someone smarter than me tell me how this won't put schools in different states at a massive competitive disadvantage? I have to believe Virginia (assuming the law passes) will not be the only state to do this, but then there are other states that will strike this down before it ever has a chance to see the light of day.
Whether the reasoning for rejecting the law is sound or not, how does it not put Michigan at an extreme disadvantage if the state government doesn't approve a similar law, but state governments in Ohio, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, California, and elsewhere all do? Now they all have a massive alternate route for providing money to athletes that Michigan, legally, does not.
Personally I'm not sure I'd want a law passed like this anywhere. Would it not push some schools that are already operating in the red even further into debt, causing massive ramifications for non-revenue sports and maybe the athletic department as a whole?
Can someone smarter than me tell me how this won't put schools in different states at a massive competitive disadvantage?
Are you expecting an explanation for this? Of course it's an advantage if you can pay players directly versus other schools that can't.
I think that's kind of the idea. State governments will likely enter into a race to give their local universities the greatest advantage.
Isn't this why we have federal education funds? Hopefully there will soon be NIL directed to pre-schoolers with advanced motor skills.
I suspect in a few years most schools will decide this isn't worth the hassle or expense and there will only be a handful of professional programs. the big budget programs will separate themselves from the others and what's left may be the best product. maybe what's left will look like years past. have the stories pre game of stellar students from tough backgrounds and the like again. miss those days.
dambreaks.gif
Peter Pan time...get Tom Mars, other lawyers to sue for the TV contract funds. This is the only logical answer - makes no sense to funnel illicit private funds into college athletics, especially since the leaches in the NCAA are making hand over fist from their TV contracts.
The conferences and schools are the primary beneficiaries of the TV contracts. Relatively, the NCAA doesn't make much from TV and half of what they make goes to the conferences and schools.
Games will now consist of 5 minutes of actually playing football and 55 minutes of commercials. They will play an 82 game schedule.
There was a HUGE first-mover advantage to this, and though I won’t be the least bit surprised when Michigan is the LAST school to implement this, I AM shocked that Georgia and Alabama and Texas didn’t get there first
This will allow the General Manager position to negotiate directly with the players and let the coaches perform their recruiting role in the process. Hope it works.
April 18th, 2024 at 10:15 PM ^
That's nothin'; Alabama's been doing it indirectly since 2007. Coincidently they had a mere 18- 5 stars on the roster versus Michigan. Barely stood a chance.