NCAA Clears Way for Athletes to Be Compensated...(WSJ)

[avabob1]

Anything can happen, but unlikely scholarship would become taxable.

The current model for college football has become increasingly unstable for many reasons. The new rule on players accepting compensation is probably just another straw . Whether it is the one to break the camels back is uncertain.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I think this is only related to athletic scholarships, the assumption is apparently that eventually athletes will be considered employees of the school with the scholarship being a salary of sorts

I think Universities would pull all sports before they added all athletes as employees. That would put them on the hook for way too much financial exposure via workers comp and other such issues.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Still Title IX implications too. I can't imagine the highest profile women athletes could garner anywhere near what anyone on the football or mens' basketball team could get.

It doesn't have to. All that matters is that the opportunity is open to men and women, which it is. Title IX doesn't require tv networks to pay as much for women's sports as they do for men. It only requires that a school has as many spots available for women athletes as there are for men (generic def).

 

[dgibbons]

It doesn't have to. All that matters is that the opportunity is open to men and women, which it is. Title IX doesn't require tv networks to pay as much for women's sports as they do for men. It only requires that a school has as many spots available for women athletes as there are for men (generic def).

I think the Department of Education would disagree.

 

[95coug]

It doesn't have to. All that matters is that the opportunity is open to men and women, which it is. Title IX doesn't require tv networks to pay as much for women's sports as they do for men. It only requires that a school has as many spots available for women athletes as there are for men (generic def).

TV networks don't receive funding from the Dept. of Education, and their operations do not impact access to educational resources, so they are not subject to Title IX.

 

[95coug]

Still Title IX implications too. I can't imagine the highest profile women athletes could garner anywhere near what anyone on the football or mens' basketball team could get.

Title IX would pretty much require that any compensation provided from the university to the athletes would have to be equal. It would have no impact on endorsement dollars that come from outside the university.

There's no equitable way to allow players to accept endorsements. That prohibition has to stay in place. If it's eliminated it will create too much inequity across geography, between schools, between genders, between sports, and between players.

 

[etowncoug]

Title IX creates a big problem for athletic departments if funds get diverted from the general athletic fund into "endorsement" deals from basketball/football players. Does the local car dealership take the 50K donation it was going to spend on a billboard at Martin and instead use a football player which it paid in it's advertising campaign?

The dirty secret on college athletics is they, as a whole, hemorrhage money each year. Despite the high revenues from football/basketball and donations most athletic departments find themselves flirting with the red each an every year. Cause: 1)debt service payments on capital projects 2) exploding coaching salaries 3) increased support staff (nutritionists, chefs, trainers, etc) 4) increasing tuition costs

If donation revenue to the schools takes a hit, and it likely will now that they have a way to get paid, something needs to fill the gap. Increased student fees? Are students going to stand for increased fees to subsidize essentially professional athletes? I know I would protest increased student debt to pay for athletics. Cutting non profitable sports? Possible, but you might run into Title IX issues. Drop athletics all together? You still need to repay the debts incurred during the nationwide facilities arms race.

This whole thing is going to be a massive mess. I have the feeling we are only scratching the surface of how this will radically transform college athletics. And there is plenty of potential to burst the higher education bubble as well.

 

[Observer11]

Title IX creates a big problem for athletic departments if funds get diverted from the general athletic fund into "endorsement" deals from basketball/football players. Does the local car dealership take the 50K donation it was going to spend on a billboard at Martin and instead use a football player which it paid in it's advertising campaign?

The dirty secret on college athletics is they, as a whole, hemorrhage money each year. Despite the high revenues from football/basketball and donations most athletic departments find themselves flirting with the red each an every year. Cause: 1)debt service payments on capital projects 2) exploding coaching salaries 3) increased support staff (nutritionists, chefs, trainers, etc) 4) increasing tuition costs

If donation revenue to the schools takes a hit, and it likely will now that they have a way to get paid, something needs to fill the gap. Increased student fees? Are students going to stand for increased fees to subsidize essentially professional athletes? I know I would protest increased student debt to pay for athletics. Cutting non profitable sports? Possible, but you might run into Title IX issues. Drop athletics all together? You still need to repay the debts incurred during the nationwide facilities arms race.

This whole thing is going to be a massive mess. I have the feeling we are only scratching the surface of how this will radically transform college athletics. And there is plenty of potential to burst the higher education bubble as well.

It's not a secret - the ADs are quite open about it. Then they point the fingers at the boosters for not caring enough to keep up with other schools who fall for the same song and dance.

It's fiscally irresponsible and has been for years. There will come a day of reckoning.

You're already seeing the effects of things when state governments step in with their "solutions".

Two to five years, it's all going to blow up. Maybe not even that long.

 

[etowncoug]

Maybe it's not a secret, but this fact is always omitted when the self righteous talking heads talk about paying the players being fair.

I'm reluctant to call for things to blow up super quickly because irrational trends persist for longer than anyone expects. But when they blow up they tend to cause a lot more damage than expected and cause ripple effects no one saw coming.

Take the housing bubble in 2008. Everyone knew that giving stated income loans to folks was a bad idea, but most figured the damaged would be confined to a bunch of liars losing their homes. No one expected this class of bad loans to have the ripple effects it had. Darn thing almost brought down the modern banking system.

I suspect the struggles in athletics to extend to other things we aren't bothering to thing about yet. Should be interesting to see.

It's not a secret - the ADs are quite open about it. Then they point the fingers at the boosters for not caring enough to keep up with other schools who fall for the same song and dance.

It's fiscally irresponsible and has been for years. There will come a day of reckoning.

You're already seeing the effects of things when state governments step in with their "solutions".

Two to five years, it's all going to blow up. Maybe not even that long.

 

[Dusty.Hooper]

Why doesn’t the NCAA just take a stand that they are a scholastic amateur club that provides athletes scholarships for financial assistance. The high school athlete can commit to join one of their colleges in this NCAA amateur club and use college as a platform to showcase their abilities for a future career.

However, if this high school athlete chooses to earn immediate money instead of an education, then let him go pro right out of high school. If they are so talented, let them apply to the NFL, CFL, XFL or any professional organization they want.

 

[OrangeGravy]

TV networks don't receive funding from the Dept. of Education, and their operations do not impact access to educational resources, so they are not subject to Title IX.

I don't see why Title IX would be in play at all other than being used by the side that wants to stop all of this. the universities don't have anything to do with paying the players (officially). A lot of these comments are treating this like the schools are gonna be paying players and they aren't. Does the department of Education have an issue with scholarship student outside of athletics getting differing amounts of compensation depending on the students abilities and demand?

 

[OrangeGravy]

Title IX would pretty much require that any compensation provided from the university to the athletes would have to be equal. It would have no impact on endorsement dollars that come from outside the university.

There's no equitable way to allow players to accept endorsements. That prohibition has to stay in place. If it's eliminated it will create too much inequity across geography, between schools, between genders, between sports, and between players.

Compensation isn't going to come from the Universities!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you guys keep running that narrative out there?

 

[dgibbons]

I don't see why Title IX would be in play at all other than being used by the side that wants to stop all of this. the universities don't have anything to do with paying the players (officially). A lot of these comments are treating this like the schools are gonna be paying players and they aren't. Does the department of Education have an issue with scholarship student outside of athletics getting differing amounts of compensation depending on the students abilities and demand?

Can't you hear the arguments? Why wasn't the young lady who decleated the ASU soccer player given the chance to sign autographs for $20 a pop? It went viral after all. What did the University do help her capitalize on her name, image and likeness?

On a side note, I'm also not sure how Title IX requires a university to take disciplinary action against a student who gets in a fist fight while on a spring break trip to Mexico, but it does.

 

[OrangeGravy]

It's not a secret - the ADs are quite open about it. Then they point the fingers at the boosters for not caring enough to keep up with other schools who fall for the same song and dance.

It's fiscally irresponsible and has been for years. There will come a day of reckoning.

You're already seeing the effects of things when state governments step in with their "solutions".

Two to five years, it's all going to blow up. Maybe not even that long.

I agree and it's the main reason I'm enjoying this and hope it blows up the whole system.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Can't you hear the arguments? Why wasn't the young lady who decleated the ASU soccer player given the chance to sign autographs for $20 a pop? It went viral after all. What did the University do help her capitalize on her name, image and likeness?

Sure I can see them, I just don't think they're valid if the money is coming from outside the university. What about this doesn't give her that chance in that scenario? The new rule wouldn't exclude her right to sign autographs. Is you problem that some athletes are more marketable than others men and women alike?

 

[OrangeGravy]

Why doesn’t the NCAA just take a stand that they are a scholastic amateur club that provides athletes scholarships for financial assistance. The high school athlete can commit to join one of their colleges in this NCAA amateur club and use college as a platform to showcase their abilities for a future career.

However, if this high school athlete chooses to earn immediate money instead of an education, then let him go pro right out of high school. If they are so talented, let them apply to the NFL, CFL, XFL or any professional organization they want.

Because they're not and haven't been since TV took over.

 

[dgibbons]

Sure I can see them, I just don't think they're valid if the money is coming from outside the university. What about this doesn't give her that chance in that scenario? The new rule wouldn't exclude her right to sign autographs. Is you problem that some athletes are more marketable than others men and women alike?

Like GI Joe says, knowing is half the battle. Check out #3 below and go ahead and read the FAQ from the NCAA.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Like GI Joe says, knowing is half the battle. Check out #3 below and go ahead and read the FAQ from the NCAA.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

So what in #3 get's violated by the university when the university has nothing to do with this new rule? The closest would be publicity and promotions and that is easily complied with by spending the same dollar amounts on men's athletic promotions as women's as a whole. Again, how does Title IX have any jurisdiction over outside entities that don't receive federal funding from the dept. of ED? This rule (as has been talked about, who knows what the NCAA is actually gonna do) is related to the individual athlete, not the university and it treats men and women equally. I don't see how it has any real bearing. I'm not saying it isn't gonna be the main wedge used by the opponents of this rule. Men and women will have the exact same opportunity.

 

[dgibbons]

So what in #3 get's violated by the university when the university has nothing to do with this new rule? The closest would be publicity and promotions and that is easily complied with by spending the same dollar amounts on men's athletic promotions as women's as a whole. Again, how does Title IX have any jurisdiction over outside entities that don't receive federal funding from the dept. of ED? This rule (as has been talked about, who knows what the NCAA is actually gonna do) is related to the individual athlete, not the university and it treats men and women equally. I don't see how it has any real bearing. I'm not saying it isn't gonna be the main wedge used by the opponents of this rule. Men and women will have the exact same opportunity.

WSU used to market "Spokane Week" for the spring game, which included an opportunity to get autographs from the players and coaches. Where is the same level investment for any womens' sport?

 

[OrangeGravy]

WSU used to market "Spokane Week" for the spring game, which included an opportunity to get autographs from the players and coaches. Where is the same level investment for any womens' sport?

Schools often spend tons of money marketing a Heisman candidate also. If it didn't/doesn't violate title IX then/now, why would that all of a sudden matter?
Did that autograph session cost fans money other than their ticket? If it did, did any of the players get any of it? It wouldn't be the school holding the autograph session in this new scenario, so how is that relevant?

 

[OrangeGravy]

Like GI Joe says, knowing is half the battle. Check out #3 below and go ahead and read the FAQ from the NCAA.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

I might buy #3 if it stopped at "other benefits", but it goes on to specify what "other benefits" means and doesn't say anything about outside endorsement money or include any language that leaves room for future interpretation of "other benefits"

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I hope it doesn't come off that way. I just don't see why/how title IX is violated by something that gives men and women the same exact opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA butchered this thing to new levels cause that's what they do, but until we see the language there's no way to know. Just going off the various state bills, this has nothing to do with the Universities at any monetary level. I think title IX is the last great hope for people wanting this to die on the vine. I also don't think protecting the "sanctity" of something that doesn't exist ( at the P5 football/basketball level anyway), the student athlete, isn't worth the energy. Something needs to give and if that means it all goes away, so be it.

 

[dgibbons]

Schools often spend tons of money marketing a Heisman candidate also. If it didn't/doesn't violate title IX then/now, why would that all of a sudden matter?
Did that autograph session cost fans money other than their ticket? If it did, did any of the players get any of it? It wouldn't be the school holding the autograph session in this new scenario, so how is that relevant?

That’s not putting money directly into the player’s pocket. And the DOE can always change the definitions.

 

[OrangeGravy]

That’s not putting money directly into the player’s pocket. And the DOE can always change the definitions.

I suppose they could change the definition, but I would imagine that would end up in court for years, which might happen to this also.

The funny thing about this is that I don't even think it's that great of an idea in and of itself. I just think that the major NCAA sports have been such a protected racket for the last 20-30 years that I'm ready to see it broken up. It's already to the point that only about 10-15 schools ( I think that's a generous number) are even competing on the same level anymore. I'd love for college football to be all about the student athlete/school like it was 40 years ago. I think all of this might be the catalyst to finally force the powers that be to admit what they are all about and break off from the NCAA and leave the rest of us to play and watch the game we used to love.
In my perfect world, there would be no athletic scholarships. How did that ever happen to begin with? I'm sure there would be schools that would be handing out academic scholarships to kids they wanted to play sports, but at least those kids would have to have decent credentials and people would be much quicker to call BS on that than the current system.

 

[Suudy]

Compensation isn't going to come from the Universities!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you guys keep running that narrative out there?

For my part, the discussion started with taxing scholarships, which apparently some politician is considering.

 

[couginphx]

The only way this works is if there’s a consistent scale across all schools. The pay amounts can’t be set by the individual schools. And I’m not sure how you individualize it at all, without creating inequities both within and between teams.

What NCAA just approved isn't the school's paying, its players being able to make money on their name and likeness.

 

[OrangeGravy]

For my part, the discussion started with taxing scholarships, which apparently some politician is considering.

That would be interesting. I don't think it would fly because they would have to tax all scholarships not just athletic. I think there are enough politicians with academic ties to squash that idea. I don't even know what taxing scholarships is supposed to do or prove. It sounds like a knee jerk reaction to punish kids on scholarship due to this new development. That, or a pure money grab by uncle sam

 

[avabob1]

I believe there is a specific exemption in the tax code for scholarships. Doesnt mean it couldnt be changed, but it would take an act of congress

 

[OrangeGravy]

Another note on the Title IX side of this. There are a handful of US senators/congress people that have made it known that they are in agreement with the states on this and have their own federal legislation tee'd up if need be. It's also been reported that the NCAA contacted congress to take their temperature on this issue and the reply they received led to them announcing that they were going to come up with something to try and get ahead of this. I think the NCAA was hoping that congress was gonna tell them it will never happen and that they could just sit back and do nothing. All of this is another reason I think Title IX will have zero bearing on any of this other than ensuring that the Universities will be left completely out of playing any part in this outside of maybe just tracking/reporting from a compliance standpoint.