New House Settlement Option

[MaxyJR1]

The Ivy League is not opting in to pay athletes. I saw that NDSU was not as well. Students will continue to earn NIL deals on their own or through collectives. Some FCS schools are opting in to pay athletes.

 

[upnorthkid]

The Ivy League is not opting in to pay athletes. I saw that NDSU was not as well. Students will continue to earn NIL deals on their own or through collectives. Some FCS schools are opting in to pay athletes.

regarding his weird comment in the tweet of "does it believe payments from schools are not legitimate?", no. it means they still have those opportunities to pursue them which they support. feels like he's being purposeful in trying to create back and forth/activity on his post intentionally.

seems reasonable as long as kids know what they're signing up for. they're entitled to decide to look elsewhere if so.

 

[Scottsdale Gopher]

Presumably that attorney is using legitimacy as a stand-in for maintaining amateurism and avoiding an employer/employee relationship rather than what the word actually means.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

more semantics. I would have used "traditional" NIL payments - as in compensation for name, image and likeness. the direct payments from schools are revenue-sharing and probably belong in a different category.

think of it this way - the direct payments from schools are like a salary, while the outside NIL payments from collectives are like endorsement deals.

 

[1983]

NIL, as we know, it not legitimate. Get yourself an endorsement, that was the intent originally. You can use your jersey to promote yourself. Now its just pay to play, period.

 

[WAGopher]

more semantics. I would have used "traditional" NIL payments - as in compensation for name, image and likeness. the direct payments from schools are revenue-sharing and probably belong in a different category.

think of it this way - the direct payments from schools are like a salary, while the outside NIL payments from collectives are like endorsement deals.

The bolded is what it should be, but in this Wild West of the compensated player, I’m not sure how it will look when all is settled.

 

[HitMeAgainIAmStillMoving]

If I had made it to an Ivy school I would not have worried too much about NIL.

 

[GopherGrit]

If your athletic department wasn't directly paying a red cent to any student-athlete in NIL contracts ... and now suddenly they're allowed to start paying up to $20M a year in those contracts .... that money has to come from somewhere. It doesn't grow on trees, last I checked.

So ... it seems like the OP Tweet is a little disingenuous. Unless donor were going to step up with a massive endowment or fork over a brand new $20M in donations every year, the Ivy League schools never had this money to spend in the first place.

Same is true with NDSU. Same would seem to be true at almost any school in the nation outside the Big Ten and SEC, and a few other Power schools that can either get or reallocate that money from somewhere.

The Big Ten schools are suddenly going to each be getting $20M more I believe, from the new TV contract. And well, that money is now going to go out the door immediately to players as NIL contracts.

 

[GopherGrit]

more semantics. I would have used "traditional" NIL payments - as in compensation for name, image and likeness. the direct payments from schools are revenue-sharing and probably belong in a different category.

think of it this way - the direct payments from schools are like a salary, while the outside NIL payments from collectives are like endorsement deals.

I disagree with this characterization.

A salary is wages paid to an employee. Student-athletes are not employees of the athletic department.

A NIL deal is a NIL deal. If it is signed with your school or if it is signed with a car dealership ... it's the same thing. You're selling the rights to use your Name, Image, and Likeness to the other party, for whatever value they have determined it is worth.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I disagree with this characterization.

A salary is wages paid to an employee. Student-athletes are not employees of the athletic department.

A NIL deal is a NIL deal. If it is signed with your school or if it is signed with a car dealership ... it's the same thing. You're selling the rights to use your Name, Image, and Likeness to the other party, for whatever value they have determined it is worth.

but it's two very different types of payments from two different sources. that's what I was trying to say.

Direct revenue-sharing from a school is not - IMHO - the same as an NIL deal from a collective.
the revenue-sharing is - in principle - a share of the revenue generated by the school from the marketing (TV, ticket sales, etc) of its athletic teams. the athlete is receiving a share of the overall proceeds, with the money coming through the school.

NIL from a collective - at least in principle - is payment for use of name, image and likeness. the athlete is supposed to be doing something in return for the money. in reality, they aren't - but that's what it was supposed to be. the money is coming through donations from individual donors.

 

[GopherGrit]

but it's two very different types of payments from two different sources. that's what I was trying to say.

Direct revenue-sharing from a school is not - IMHO - the same as an NIL deal from a collective.
the revenue-sharing is - in principle - a share of the revenue generated by the school from the marketing (TV, ticket sales, etc) of its athletic teams. the athlete is receiving a share of the overall proceeds, with the money coming through the school.

NIL from a collective - at least in principle - is payment for use of name, image and likeness. the athlete is supposed to be doing something in return for the money. in reality, they aren't - but that's what it was supposed to be. the money is coming through donations from individual donors.

They both use the exact same mechanism - a NIL endorsement contract.

It maybe seem like two very different things to you, because of the source of the money, and that's just fine. But they are exactly the same thing from the player's end.

(Other than, it depends on the terms of the contract as far as what the player is obligated to do ... make social media posts, make physical appearances at placed, appear in commercials, etc.)


This is all evolving very quickly. Next couple months from now we could be talking something different.

 

[50PoundHead]

but it's two very different types of payments from two different sources. that's what I was trying to say.

Direct revenue-sharing from a school is not - IMHO - the same as an NIL deal from a collective.
the revenue-sharing is - in principle - a share of the revenue generated by the school from the marketing (TV, ticket sales, etc) of its athletic teams. the athlete is receiving a share of the overall proceeds, with the money coming through the school.

NIL from a collective - at least in principle - is payment for use of name, image and likeness. the athlete is supposed to be doing something in return for the money. in reality, they aren't - but that's what it was supposed to be. the money is coming through donations from individual donors.

If I get what you're driving at, I agree. There's a difference between how NIL was initially envisioned and what it has turned into with the collectives. It seems the Ivy League is simply saying "We're not setting up a collective, but that doesn't limit you as individual athletes from seeking out endorsement possibilities."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

They both use the exact same mechanism - a NIL endorsement contract.

It maybe seem like two very different things to you, because of the source of the money, and that's just fine. But they are exactly the same thing from the player's end.

(Other than, it depends on the terms of the contract as far as what the player is obligated to do ... make social media posts, make physical appearances at placed, appear in commercials, etc.)


This is all evolving very quickly. Next couple months from now we could be talking something different.

The rev share “NIL” requires the player to be a member of the team, practice, play.

It’s not the same, but they would like it to be. This is why the players have to assert they will not sue for damages, assert they are/were employees.

It won’t hold up, and antitrust damages are triple awards. Pettiti know?

 

[MNVCGUY]

Not all that surprising that the IVY league wouldn't want to take part in paying players. Athletics are not a priority at those schools.

I would also bet that the NIL deals that players are getting in the IVY league are probably far more of the legit variety then the pay for play BS going on being called NIL at the power 4 level.

 

[1983]

I disagree with this characterization.

A salary is wages paid to an employee. Student-athletes are not employees of the athletic department.

A NIL deal is a NIL deal. If it is signed with your school or if it is signed with a car dealership ... it's the same thing. You're selling the rights to use your Name, Image, and Likeness to the other party, for whatever value they have determined it is worth.

The NIL was supposed to be the athlete getting their own deals, not the schools who divide it up to whom ever. Basically they are getting paid by a fictitious entity called a collective. Pay to play was supposed to be, you play and endorse us and if we sell more, you get money. Are these millionaires playing on Saturday going to class on Monday or ever?

 

[PMWinSTP]

The rev share “NIL” requires the player to be a member of the team, practice, play.

It’s not the same, but they would like it to be. This is why the players have to assert they will not sue for damages, assert they are/were employees.

It won’t hold up, and antitrust damages are triple awards. Pettiti know?

Where are you getting the bold part from?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Where are you getting the bold part from?

Another posted the link in the Wisconsin are idiots thread but I’ll repost it here for you

The MOU aggressively attempts to extinguish the prospect of an athlete arguing the deal reflects an employment agreement. Most directly, one clause is bluntly coined “No Employment.” It states the MOU “does not create a fiduciary relationship,” and that the athlete “acknowledges and agrees” they are not an employee and, further, “waives, “forever discharges” and agrees “not to sue the [college], NCAA [and] Conference” on the basis of them being an employee because of the MOU or by “serving as a marketing agent” as part of the deal.

Inside a Big Ten Athlete Revenue Sharing Agreement

In revenue-share MOUs, schools are asking athletes to sign away NIL rights, waive employee status, and accept performance-based terms.

www.sportico.com

 

[PMWinSTP]

Another posted the link in the Wisconsin are idiots thread but I’ll repost it here for you

The MOU aggressively attempts to extinguish the prospect of an athlete arguing the deal reflects an employment agreement. Most directly, one clause is bluntly coined “No Employment.” It states the MOU “does not create a fiduciary relationship,” and that the athlete “acknowledges and agrees” they are not an employee and, further, “waives, “forever discharges” and agrees “not to sue the [college], NCAA [and] Conference” on the basis of them being an employee because of the MOU or by “serving as a marketing agent” as part of the deal.

Inside a Big Ten Athlete Revenue Sharing Agreement

In revenue-share MOUs, schools are asking athletes to sign away NIL rights, waive employee status, and accept performance-based terms.

www.sportico.com

Thanks. Nothing would suggest to me that they were/are employees. Employment contracts are very specific in nature and none of the agreements or contracts these athletes signed are employment contracts.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Thanks. Nothing would suggest to me that they were/are employees. Employment contracts are very specific in nature and none of the agreements or contracts these athletes signed are employment contracts.

The department revenue comes from broadcast rights revenue negotiated between the conferences, the NCAA, and the media conglomerates. The revenue could not be possible (or paid) without the labor of the players. But, it seems to me this isn’t just a licensing or short-term NIL deal. There are all kinds of employment elements. There is a reason they are including that language. I’m open to hear why you think otherwise.

1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3. Type of relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (that is, pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

 

[PMWinSTP]

The department revenue comes from broadcast rights revenue negotiated between the conferences, the NCAA, and the media conglomerates. The revenue could not be possible (or paid) without the labor of the players. But, it seems to me this isn’t just a licensing or short-term NIL deal. There are all kinds of employment elements. There is a reason they are including that language. I’m open to hear why you think otherwise.

1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3. Type of relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (that is, pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Being in HR, I am well aware of the difference. Most of their benefits like healthcare are/were part of them being full-time students.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Being in HR, I am well aware of the difference. Most of their benefits like healthcare are/were part of them being full-time students.

If athletes cross out, delete the employment clause will the school say “oh well”. Yes? No? Why or why not? Does the employment language strike you as their having a strong legal footing? Why does the Big Ten, school refuse to release their rev share contract template?

Colluding in price-fixing compensation
“I never HEARD of it”

With NCAA Revenue Sharing Emerges a New Antitrust Challenge

Yesterday, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA class actio

www.si.com

 

[PMWinSTP]

If athletes cross out, delete the employment clause will the school say “oh well”. Yes? No? Why or why not? Does the employment language strike you as their having a strong legal footing? Why does the Big Ten, school refuse to release their rev share contract template?

Colluding in price-fixing compensation
“I never HEARD of it”

With NCAA Revenue Sharing Emerges a New Antitrust Challenge

Yesterday, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA class actio

www.si.com

I may have missed it, but where in the article does it refer to them as employees?

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Pompous - I get your point.

the NCAA is tap-dancing on the head of a pin with these rev-share MOU's. Players receiving direct payments are being treated as de facto employees, but for legal reasons, the NCAA wants to say they are not employees.

as to whether it gets challenged in court, that remains to be seen. shoot, we still don't have the final Court decision in the House case, so all of this could still change.

I still maintain that the only way to settle this is with national legislation. but given that Washington is even more dysfunctional than the NCAA, I put the odds of national legislation at about 3%.

I suspect the more likely path is court case, followed by adjustments, followed by another court case, followed by more adjustments, et sic ad infinitum.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I may have missed it, but where in the article does it refer to them as employees?

It mentions employment numerous times, and clawback provisions should a player transfer.

Do NFL players receive W-2 or 1099? Are college football players subject to the employment aspects mentioned in my post above? Similar to NFL players? Substitute conferences/schools for NFL teams and there is no difference other than the collective bargaining aspect. There are hefty penalties for misclassifying workers, as you know. Do the players know they are paying double/full employment tax as 1099?

If this issue were argued before a jury what do you think they would say? Antitrust violations are triple damages.

They are in a very bad position, grasping at straws. This is why every NCAA and school statement ends with a plea for congressional action, carve out. The refusal to release their contract template is shady. They don’t want it “out there” for broad social commentary.

 

[GopherGrit]

The rev share “NIL” requires the player to be a member of the team, practice, play.

It’s not the same, but they would like it to be. This is why the players have to assert they will not sue for damages, assert they are/were employees.

It won’t hold up, and antitrust damages are triple awards. Pettiti know?

Bold 1: is your point that, let's say Koi Perich would still be able to get 3rd party NIL deals if he left the Gophers but obviously could not get the U rev share NIL deal? Of course, you're right. But he also couldn't get Dinkytown Athletics deals, either. I imagine he'll pull in all three kinds.

Bold 2: I do not follow what you're saying here!

 

[GopherGrit]

Another posted the link in the Wisconsin are idiots thread but I’ll repost it here for you

The MOU aggressively attempts to extinguish the prospect of an athlete arguing the deal reflects an employment agreement. Most directly, one clause is bluntly coined “No Employment.” It states the MOU “does not create a fiduciary relationship,” and that the athlete “acknowledges and agrees” they are not an employee and, further, “waives, “forever discharges” and agrees “not to sue the [college], NCAA [and] Conference” on the basis of them being an employee because of the MOU or by “serving as a marketing agent” as part of the deal.

Inside a Big Ten Athlete Revenue Sharing Agreement

In revenue-share MOUs, schools are asking athletes to sign away NIL rights, waive employee status, and accept performance-based terms.

www.sportico.com

Oh, OK, this is what you meant.

What is wrong with this? Student-athlete shouldn't be considered legal employees of the University any more than a regular student who is in a club that represents the U at a (club) competition should be.

 

[GopherGrit]

The department revenue comes from broadcast rights revenue negotiated between the conferences, the NCAA, and the media conglomerates. The revenue could not be possible (or paid) without the labor of the players. But, it seems to me this isn’t just a licensing or short-term NIL deal. There are all kinds of employment elements. There is a reason they are including that language. I’m open to hear why you think otherwise.

1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3. Type of relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (that is, pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Bold 1: here is the latest financial report from the U, which I assume has to be for the 2023-24 school year since it is dated Jan 14 2025 but has stats for spring sports. gophersports.com/documents/2025/1/14/Minnesota_FY24_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_01.14.25.pdf

The revenue line items are interesting to browse. Media rights (which later on are shown split out to individual sports ... and only get credited to football mostly and men's basketball a bit) is the largest line item but still only accounts for about a third of reported revenues.

 

[EG#9]

This seems like a strange interpretation from Winter. I believe the Ivy League is using the word "legitimate" in relation to NIL payments. As in student athletes can secure payments from NIL where there is actually some sore of value to their NIL. Meaning that the sham NIL we see at the high major level where kids are just paid to play for/attend a school and not for any actual benefit they provide to a business will still not be allowed (in theory).

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Oh, OK, this is what you meant.

What is wrong with this? Student-athlete shouldn't be considered legal employees of the University any more than a regular student who is in a club that represents the U at a (club) competition should be.

Tell it to the judge (ok, jury).

Once the amateurism argument died as imperative to the economic model the antitrust onslaught was only matter of time. I think you’re being a little purposefully obtuse or maybe optimistic, but I also once held out hope they could hold it together. Maybe friendly judges or congress can help out the NCAA, schools. We’ll see. It’s going to be an interesting year or two.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Bold 1: here is the latest financial report from the U, which I assume has to be for the 2023-24 school year since it is dated Jan 14 2025 but has stats for spring sports. gophersports.com/documents/2025/1/14/Minnesota_FY24_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_01.14.25.pdf

The revenue line items are interesting to browse. Media rights (which later on are shown split out to individual sports ... and only get credited to football mostly and men's basketball a bit) is the largest line item but still only accounts for about a third of reported revenues.

I maybe overstated it but the media + ncaa distributions + conference bowl payout + conference gate sharing + bulk of tix + game day services + licensing or donations directly linked to the revenue sports has to be a pretty high percentage. Coyle IIRC said football alone drove about 80% of revenue but I might be out of my gourd. My memory ain’t what it used to be.