Per sources, some guys played last night knowing they were leaving

[volbound1700]

Yeah, maybe I read it in here, but there was a player that renegotiated his NIL to stay, collected the money and left anyway. So, he has his re-booted NIL money from said school, and his new money from new school. Dirty business. And stupid on the part of the payors not to protect their deals.

Schools are not mature enough here. I think they are afraid to put in these terms because they think players won't sign up (probably true right now as another school can offer them no string attached NIL deal. You can't do that at other levels because you sign contracts. Another issue would be signing anyone under 18. In US Contract Law, you can't enforce contracts signed by minors.

 

[GVF]

Schools are not mature enough here. I think they are afraid to put in these terms because they think players won't sign up (probably true right now as another school can offer them no string attached NIL deal. You can't do that at other levels because you sign contracts. Another issue would be signing anyone under 18. In US Contract Law, you can't enforce contracts signed by minors.

Would that not be covered under having to have an adult parent or representative of some sort co-sign ??

 

[The Original Fade]

The only problem with that is the schools and the NCAA keep losing in court because they can’t decide if football players are employees or amateur student athletes. Can’t have it both ways. If the schools and the NCAA can’t legally justify why the players’ labor should be unpaid, while raking in billions of dollars themselves, then they can’t complain when the labor starts grumbling and filing lawsuits.

At the college level I have a hard time calling it labor but I get it that it’s a legal term in this case

 

[volbound1700]

Would that not be covered under having to have an adult parent or representative of some sort co-sign ??

That is even iffy. The parents would technically be the ones responsible, not the child.

 

[GVF]

That is even iffy. The parents would technically be the ones responsible, not the child.

Technically, their being offered a substantial amount. does that not also make it a verbal contract over the amount of $500? And they're still minors. Seems to be too many ways to screw over the money people that are footing the bill.

The only thing that really leveled on this playing field is that players can now bounce around like the coaches. A coach can't really complain about the transfer rules and the money. They were doing the exact same thing to the kids they recruited, then bail out the next year for a higher paying job.

 

[volbound1700]

Technically, their being offered a substantial amount. does that not also make it a verbal contract over the amount of $500? And they're still minors. Seems to be too many ways to screw over the money people that are footing the bill.

The only thing that really leveled on this playing field is that players can now bounce around like the coaches. A coach can't really complain about the transfer rules and the money. They were doing the exact same thing to the kids they recruited, then bail out the next year for a higher paying job.

It doesn't matter, minors cannot technical enter in Contracts. That has been the case since the Founding of the United States and even English Common Law before that. You are at risk as a Contracting party if you enter that contract.

 

[CrownRoyalSaltedCaramel]

Yes, the Pell Grant. Nice. A lot were getting those because of their family income, but most weren't getting it. Those from middle class weren't getting them. Especially in my time in college. I knew some non athletes who got them and lived better than their parents. Hey, it's great to have tuition, room, books and food provided. Don't get me wrong, but not having the ability to spring for anything else is troublesome when the organization is making far more from your likeness than they're paying for your scholarship

Pell Grants were $500 per semester when I was in school….not big money.

 

[Mccage]

Why is it delusional to think that someone wouldn’t try and play their best game against the highest level of competition in the biggest game of the season?

Maybe they’re going to our competition

 

[Doberman]

It doesn't matter, minors cannot technical enter in Contracts. That has been the case since the Founding of the United States and even English Common Law before that. You are at risk as a Contracting party if you enter that contract.

How are child actors retained? Maybe that’s the way?

 

[TAF]

Would that not be covered under having to have an adult parent or representative of some sort co-sign ??

I'm NOT a tax Attorney (although I DID play one on TV) ...but, I'd imagine with the amount of $s we hear are in some of these NIL Deals...SOMEBODY is setting up LLCs for these kids for tax advantages...or I would at least hope so.

 

[GVF]

I'm NOT a tax Attorney (although I DID play one on TV) ...but, I'd imagine with the amount of $s we hear are in some of these NIL Deals...SOMEBODY is setting up LLCs for these kids for tax advantages...or I would at least hope so.

A living trust to keep the money out of their name and from view of vultures would be even better.

 

[CincinnatiVols]

Maybe they’re going to our competition

Or it could just be as simple as they are trying to learn a new playbook and are not prepping and watching film for the game like they should be or usually would.

 

[GVF]

The only problem with that is the schools and the NCAA keep losing in court because they can’t decide if football players are employees or amateur student athletes. Can’t have it both ways. If the schools and the NCAA can’t legally justify why the players’ labor should be unpaid, while raking in billions of dollars themselves, then they can’t complain when the labor starts grumbling and filing lawsuits.

They have scholarships that cover a $150K education. They are not unpaid. Only the NCAA limits that to 85. So to fill out a roster you move to PWO's and normal WO's. Those guys get nothing (above the table), so now you have two different scenarios that can cause a problem.

 

[GVF]

Yes, the Pell Grant. Nice. A lot were getting those because of their family income, but most weren't getting it. Those from middle class weren't getting them. Especially in my time in college. I knew some non athletes who got them and lived better than their parents. Hey, it's great to have tuition, room, books and food provided. Don't get me wrong, but not having the ability to spring for anything else is troublesome when the organization is making far more from your likeness than they're paying for your scholarship

That is all true, which is why instead of what we have happening now, I have always been open to adding reasonably expected monthly stipends to the scholly's. Don't know if that has ever been an answer or not, but it always sounded good to me.

 

[volbound1700]

How are child actors retained? Maybe that’s the way?

Via Parents. Hence all the messy fall out between parents and child actors over the money.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

They have scholarships that cover a $150K education. They are not unpaid. Only the NCAA limits that to 85. So to fill out a roster you move to PWO's and normal WO's. Those guys get nothing (above the table), so now you have two different scenarios that can cause a problem.

The NCAA fought REALLY hard to make sure that education wasn't considered payment legally. Because, and we see them squirming now with NIL and "revenue sharing" to avoid something considered payment, payment = employees.

So if that education WAS payment, these players have been professionals for a long time but the NCAA could not and can not say that and keep the "student athlete" notion alive.

It's a house of cards.

 

[GVF]

The NCAA fought REALLY hard to make sure that education wasn't considered payment legally. Because, and we see them squirming now with NIL and "revenue sharing" to avoid something considered payment, payment = employees.

So if that education WAS payment, these players have been professionals for a long time but the NCAA could not and can not say that and keep the "student athlete" notion alive.

It's a house of cards.

Yeah, and that coulda/woulda opened up a can of worms. Wouldn't matter who, athlete or not, or what discipline...if you have a scholly for providing any kind of benefit be it sports, band, whatever can be deemed to be providing a type of service to the school for the scholly would all fall into employee status. Don't know how the NCAA avoided that status for so long. Providing a full ride education for an athlete's services is a tangible payment and by nature makes them an employee.

 

[Raebo]

No comments on big market, mid market and small market thoughts? I thought there were few tidbits in there to debate.

Pell Grants were $500 per semester when I was in school….not big money.

Maximum is now 7,400 a year or about 600 per month.
They also can receive something called “cost of attending college” or something like that. I think that maximum is around $500 a month.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Yeah, and that coulda/woulda opened up a can of worms. Wouldn't matter who, athlete or not, or what discipline...if you have a scholly for providing any kind of benefit be it sports, band, whatever can be deemed to be providing a type of service to the school for the scholly would all fall into employee status. Don't know how the NCAA avoided that status for so long. Providing a full ride education for an athlete's services is a tangible payment and by nature makes them an employee.

I'm not an attorney nor IRS agent so I'm not sure. I AM surprised the IRS, who are quite vicious in declaring things "payments," haven't come after athletes previously.

Many here keep saying "they're getting a free education, lodging, healthcare, etc, etc so they ARE getting paid!" Apparently the IRS doesn't see it that way.

The IRS WILL call the scholarship benefit a form of payment when players are declared employees which is when the players will sue not to have to accept a scholarship + payment to play. At that point the student connection will disappear.

I've said it again and again. If the major schools actually cared about the student-athletes at most schools they'd separate, form a pro league, and leave the other schools to perhaps be able to salvage college athletics.

Via their legal challenges, it's very clear those schools making big money from athletics don't actually care about the majority of college athletes at schools not making money.

 

[VolinMichigan]

They have scholarships that cover a $150K education. They are not unpaid. Only the NCAA limits that to 85. So to fill out a roster you move to PWO's and normal WO's. Those guys get nothing (above the table), so now you have two different scenarios that can cause a problem.

In the eyes of the law, they are unpaid employees. The NCAA and member institutions have yet to win a case saying otherwise.

 

[DaddyChad]

Yes being paid 10m / per year to coach a s rough

Pay level doesn’t necessarily mean a fantastically easy life.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

In the eyes of the law, they are unpaid employees. The NCAA and member institutions have yet to win a case saying otherwise.

Enlighten me some. Where did the courts say anything other than to cannot limit athletes, on scholly or not, to earn money for their N, I, L?

Converting them to paid employees will create taxable income, and having their scholly funded or discounted like professors, maintenance workers, and the rest if the diverse employee lists at schools. You can bet Uncle Sam is going to get his taxes, and SS DEDUCTIONS on any “INCOME”. A big losing proposition for most athletes without market value. The pro model is a problem.

 

[GVF]

In the eyes of the law, they are unpaid employees. The NCAA and member institutions have yet to win a case saying otherwise.

Yep. But. I think we all understand there's some legal language that allows them to maintain that claim.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Enlighten me some. Where did the courts say anything other than to cannot limit athletes, on scholly or not, to earn money for their N, I, L?

Converting them to paid employees will create taxable income, and having their scholly funded or discounted like professors, maintenance workers, and the rest if the diverse employee lists at schools. You can bet Uncle Sam is going to get his taxes, and SS DEDUCTIONS on any “INCOME”. A big losing proposition for most athletes without market value. The pro model is a problem.

Justice Kavenaugh in Alston v NCAA:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.

The NCAA is not above the law."

Calling NCAA athletes workers and likening college sports to other businesses.

It seems the Supreme Court thinks NCAA student athletes are workers. 9-0 decision. No dissents.