NY Times says one Mich St. player being paid $750,000 a year by boosters

Donate To GopherHole
PMWinSTP said:
I don't think this is the same based on the circumstances of the siut.
Click to expand...
Why? The whole point was EA Sports was profiting off the players names and images. They (players) wanted to get slice of the action. Now they do.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Oh. Ok. But typically, when quoting someone else, you use quotation marks, and generally you put the quoted stuff in italics so people can tell the difference. My mistake on that part.



Nothing illegal about that. Granted, it's starting to ruin college football, but it's still legal.



Glad they both get the opportunity to earn. Fairness. Does Opendorse mention all the money that female gymnast for LSU made? How many men earned that amount?


It's not a sham.
Click to expand...
Collectives are a sham. They are pay for play, period. I have no problem with a gymnast or other athlete who has massive following doing a commercial or tweeting getting paid for it in a real business transaction. Donations to a collective aren’t a business investment. They are a sport’s investment. Sham.
 


I don't mind athletes doing the shoe leather and selling themselves to potential sponsors, or monetizing an Instagram, TikTok, or You Tube account.

It's the athletes that get money for just being there that irk me.
 

Ope3 said:
Why? The whole point was EA Sports was profiting off the players names and images. They (players) wanted to get slice of the action. Now they do.
Click to expand...
I believe it focused on after the player graduated. It may have started the ball rolling.
 


Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I don't mind athletes doing the shoe leather and selling themselves to potential sponsors, or monetizing an Instagram, TikTok, or You Tube account.

It's the athletes that get money for just being there that irk me.
Click to expand...
You mean like McNamara getting paid by Iowa for volunteering that he’d do as part of the team anyway? Or the 25k many athletes are getting for just being on the team?
 

upnorthkid said:
You mean like McNamara getting paid by Iowa for volunteering that he’d do as part of the team anyway? Or the 25k many athletes are getting for just being on the team?
Click to expand...

1. You shouldn't be paid for volunteering. If you are doing work for a non-profit and being paid, you are an employee or a contractor.

2. Yes, you shouldn't be paid for being there.

If you want to make money during your time as a college athlete, work for it. Go out and arrange personal appearances, or make some quality videos, or do some endorsements on Insta.
 

Holy Man said:
Collectives are a sham. They are pay for play, period. I have no problem with a gymnast or other athlete who has massive following doing a commercial or tweeting getting paid for it in a real business transaction. Donations to a collective aren’t a business investment. They are a sport’s investment. Sham.
Click to expand...
Very true. I think many small donors don’t want to see their team get left behind in the NIL Wars. I know we have a very few supporters that have made large donations to the athletic department, and some are certainly giving to NIL. But we lack the ego driven very large donors like some other teams seem to have. In our case, it makes sense to have an NIL group that can facilitate and wisely use those donations.

Personally, I don’t like the pay for play aspect, and think our NIL groups should be more like agents finding advertising and other promotional opportunities for our athletes. But when schools are already telling prospects how much they’ll earn by signing with their team, that is really hard to combat and there should be sensible regulations. However as many have stated, the cat is out of the bag and it will be a difficult road to regulation.
 

Holy Man said:
Collectives are a sham. They are pay for play, period. I have no problem with a gymnast or other athlete who has massive following doing a commercial or tweeting getting paid for it in a real business transaction. Donations to a collective aren’t a business investment. They are a sport’s investment. Sham.
Click to expand...
By "sham" I was referring to the comment that men are getting more in NIL than women and that was the basis for calling it a sham. I agree with you that collectives posed as NIL are a sham, but male athletes making more NIL than female athletes is just the free market at work.
 





once a player is on campus and participating in sports, that's one thing. then they are at least theoretically marketing their Name, Image or Likeness.

but High school students being offered large sums of money before they have committed to a school or begun classes - that is an entirely different matter. If that somehow wound up before the Supreme Court, I don't see any way that falls under Alston or O'Bannon as precedent.

the question is how to get it before the court. I would still like to see Congress adopt national NIL legislation. then, if someone wanted to challenge that legislation, it would open up a way for the Court to get involved.
 





GopherTheJugular said:
Nor should it have. Do you really want the Supreme Court to rule along the lines of, "well, we'd like you to have these rights, but since some people might abuse the situation, we won't give them to you"?

Really? You'd be ok with that?



First off, title 9 has nothing to do with this. title 9 is for universities, not individual people who are not employed by universities. Secondly, title 9 is about equal opportunity, not equal results. Women have the same opportunity as men. So it is completely fair.

But, since you brought it up, doesn't Paige Bueckers make more than our entire football team? Is that a title 9 violation, or are title 9 violations just a one-way street in your world?


What's your point??? You create a thread about an MSU player and then you begin to ramble on about title 9 and Ohio State.... Why not change the thread title to "I don't like collectives and I want to rant about it, please read." That would be far more appropriate.
Click to expand...
The Title IX discussion was in the story. This development will destroy college football as surely as the TV income greed is destroying conferences. Combined with the easy transfer rule, we will have chaos, players poached left and right. No players should not be paid at all, other than scholarships, which are worth, on average, $50k to $80k or so. The NCAA was right, the Court wrong (as is often the case). It isn't a matter of "some people" abusing the new system, but rather of the new system being itself abuse. Obviously most schools will not be able to match the booster spending of Ohio State and Alabama and other top-ranked programs. The top 20 will be frozen. My guess is that it will not stand - reinstating the sit-out-a-year transfer rule would be a start. The point of the story (read it online) is that this is bad for student athletes and for football, and I agree with that.
 

Ope3 said:
Why? The whole point was EA Sports was profiting off the players names and images. They (players) wanted to get slice of the action. Now they do.
Click to expand...
There is far more to it than "a slice of the action." They are creating phony charities to enable huge payments to selected athletes. Nor would this be the end of it - unions would eventually pop up, strikes for fairness, some schools refusing to participate, and so on. The Court destroyed local government (NCAA) on behalf of the aggrieved individual - a theme with SCOTUS since the 1960s. The individual (Madalyn Murray O'Hair, e.g.) is right, the community wrong. The Court probably never imagined what the consequences would be when they made their 9-0 ruling. They were thinking of small potatoes in payments rather than a revolutionary change in college sports.
 

MplsGopher said:
Again, I think you’re being excessively hyper-technical borderline obtuse, without a valid justification for doing so.

Go ahead and give it, then.
Click to expand...

The law in a nutshell. I don’t know why the myth persists, but seems to have a life of its own now.
 

Ope3 said:
Why? The whole point was EA Sports was profiting off the players names and images. They (players) wanted to get slice of the action. Now they do.
Click to expand...

NCAA decided to not fight it.
 

Great Plains Gopher said:
The Title IX discussion was in the story. This development will destroy college football as surely as the TV income greed is destroying conferences. Combined with the easy transfer rule, we will have chaos, players poached left and right. No players should not be paid at all, other than scholarships, which are worth, on average, $50k to $80k or so. The NCAA was right, the Court wrong (as is often the case). It isn't a matter of "some people" abusing the new system, but rather of the new system being itself abuse. Obviously most schools will not be able to match the booster spending of Ohio State and Alabama and other top-ranked programs. The top 20 will be frozen. My guess is that it will not stand - reinstating the sit-out-a-year transfer rule would be a start. The point of the story (read it online) is that this is bad for student athletes and for football, and I agree with that.
Click to expand...
We already have chaos. Conferences are already destroyed. Yet there were over 30 million viewers for the Top 10 highest rated games alone.

I don't think the courts were wrong. The member NCAA institutions were wrong to hang on to the antiquated Amateur Student-Athlete system, hauling in the hundreds of millions bucks and crying that they couldn't pay the players while dishing out tens of millions to the coaches.

Not SCOTUS fault it got to that point.
 


Ski U Mah Gopher said:
Bueckers money comes from monetizing her Instagram & X. I think she has a TikTik and You Tube channel, too.
Click to expand...
MplsGopher said:
Alright fine, you pedants.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston - Wikipedia

www.wikipedia.org www.wikipedia.org

Even though O’Bannon is cited as the direct predecessor :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Unabomber likes this.

Regarding the courts, the players failed to get a favorable ruling on appeal. The state legislatures then took up the cross and yada yada yada here we are. There is no Supreme Court edict in place at this time. The lower courts actually stated NIL is a bad idea…specifically excluded..
 

Ope3 said:
The Alston 9-0 decision indicates it's a losing battle. Big.
Click to expand...

I‘ve read the ruling. Pertains to education costs limitations.

Post the wording from the ruling that supports NIL and I’ll eat my crow.
 

I am not particularly interested in professional sports and college football has become just that and I can feel my enthusiasm for it waning. And as it does, it makes me wonder the same thing that many non college sports fans wonder. Why give free education to individuals making 6 figures? They are either good enough and making enough to pay their own way or not good enough and not making the university and money anyways. The way it is becoming it shouldn’t have anything to do with our educational system anyways.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I‘ve read the ruling. Pertains to education costs limitations.

Post the wording from the ruling that supports NIL and I’ll eat my crow.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking you to eat crow. The NCAA institutions are not fighting it because:

A. They know they will most likely lose.
B. They don't want to pay the players beyond the scholarships and stipends so they are letting those behind NIL do it for them.
 

Ope3 said:
I'm not asking you to eat crow. The NCAA institutions are not fighting it because:

A. They know they will most likely lose.
B. They don't want to pay the players beyond the scholarships and stipends so they are letting those behind NIL do it for them.
Click to expand...

I don’t know how to convince you. Your own link states:


Legal impact​

This ruling only concerned education-related payments and did not address restrictions on direct compensation payment to athletes. However, it also opened the door for the possibility of future court cases concerning this matter.[13][15][16]
 

@Pompous Elitist

Kavanaugh's opinion also spoke to other NCAA regulations that he believed "also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws" and would be struck down if challenged under the same legal principles used by the lower courts in Alston.[13]


This opinion was issued because of the Alston lawsuit.

If that opinion had not been issued, the NCAA would not have changed its rules prohibiting athletes from financially benefiting by selling their NILs.

That's a direct consequence of the lawsuit and its review by SCOTUS. Direct causation.
 

Furthermore, additional lawsuits are seeking to rip down what little rules the NCAA has around NIL at all:


Sept 22, 2023
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ncaa-granted-class-action-status/70934441007/

A federal district judge on Friday granted class-action status to the portion of an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA and the nation’s top college conferences that challenges the association’s remaining rules regarding athletes’ ability to make money from their names, images and likenesses.

Based on the lawsuit’s allegations, an injunction against the NCAA’s remaining rules regarding athletes’ ability to make money from their names, images and likenesses (NIL) could create the possibility of athletes being able to get NIL money from their schools for any reason.

"We're now poised to get the rules stricken that prevent conferences and schools from making NIL payments," said Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs. "That's going to be huge for these athletes."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case also a seeking class-action status for a damages claim that, according to filings by the NCAA, could be worth more than $1.4 billion. Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken expressly does not address that issue, with Wilken writing that she resolve that matter in a separate order.

Wilken is the judge who previously oversaw the O’Bannon and Alston cases that resulted in findings of antitrust violations by the NCAA.
 

fmlizard said:
A Michigan State football player is being paid this?

Kenneth Walker III doesn't get paid a whole lot more than this and he's a top 10 NFL RB right now.

Sounds like it came from the financial geniuses who gave Mel Tucker almost $10M a year for a partial year run of close wins against bad teams.

NIL and Collectives are so full of obvious loopholes and exploits an 8 year old could figure out how to funnel unlimited money to players and not go to prison. I'm not even sure it's fair to call them loopholes since the rules are so ill-defined and fragmented.
Click to expand...
To be fair his signing bonus was over 4x that
 

MplsGopher said:
@Pompous Elitist

Kavanaugh's opinion also spoke to other NCAA regulations that he believed "also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws" and would be struck down if challenged under the same legal principles used by the lower courts in Alston.[13]


This opinion was issued because of the Alston lawsuit.

If that opinion had not been issued, the NCAA would not have changed its rules prohibiting athletes from financially benefiting by selling their NILs.

That's a direct consequence of the lawsuit and its review by SCOTUS. Direct causation.
Click to expand...

He is referring to PAY FOR PLAY, not just NIL. Direct employment. He also specifically states the Alston ruling does NOT address this. He also states the concurring opinion is just that, his sole opinion.

College athletics compensation is unique. He’s right that it wouldn’t fly in any other employer/employee situation. Are they employees? Would pay for play destroy athletic departments and shrink college sports scholarships and be a net societal negative? There are legal carveouts all over the bleeping place. Purportedly for societal favorable entities. Why in the world are athletic departments tax exempt, for one? Does that make “sense”?

He talks about favoring pay for play in relation to his interpretation of law here:




Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student ath-

letes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the

NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to

generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises

serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular,

it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member

colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share

of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining

characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay

student athletes. And if that asserted justification is una-

vailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its

remaining compensation rules.

If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining

compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some diffi-

cult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly en-

sue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation

to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports?

Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive

compensation?

How would any compensation regime com-

ply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some-

thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve

competitive balance, how would that cap be administered?

And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I stu-

dent athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly

compensating some or all of those student athletes?

Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in

ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option.

Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in

collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agree-

ment) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the rev-

enues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how pro-

fessional football and basketball players have negotiated

for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football,

Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Bas-

ketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Win-

ter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be

resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation re-

gime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.


 

Great Plains Gopher said:
They were thinking of small potatoes in payments rather than a revolutionary change in college sports.
Click to expand...
Do college sports really matter that much?

I would say they only do to the people getting rich off them.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom