This is a great article describing what is going to happen later this year.
sports.yahoo.com
;TLDR
- Each school can spend up to about 20.5 million from their revenue, direct payments from the school to the players.
- NIL as we know it will change - no more pay for play - the NIL payments have to pass through a Clearinghouse and arbitration process to determine if they are real NIL deals.
- Lawyers are lined up to challenge this part of the House settlement, and I'd be shocked if it isn't immediately enjoined.
- That it won't work is unfortunate - the idea of revenue share is great, and making NIL real is great - top programs would be able to supplement the 20.5 million by about 3-5 million which means the top teams would stay the top teams.
- The article did not mention anything about state laws which will also be problematic.
- The article doesn't mention the transfer portal which is also a big part of the problem.
My take on this is that it is a great idea that just won't work. Instead of $20.5 million, it will be $20.5 million plus the tens of millions they are spending now. Does anyone thing that the top teams will stop doing what they are doing as soon as the injunction is in place? So now there will be $40 million in place. The only answer, and it is mentioned in the article, is collective bargaining and the schools just don't seem to like this.
I haven't found anything on this, but the transfer portal issue may get taken care of at some level. Once the schools are doing the actual negotiating, it may be possible to have contracts with the players that have a term to them. In other words, the contract for Athlete A could be $X for 2 years, with penalties if they decide to transfer. This may make the transfer problem a little less problematic.
With NIL era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. How will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?
College football’s more professionalized era arrives in July, and historic powerhouses like Ohio State and Texas could lose both their inherent recruiting advantage and their financial edge.
sports.yahoo.com
;TLDR
- Each school can spend up to about 20.5 million from their revenue, direct payments from the school to the players.
- NIL as we know it will change - no more pay for play - the NIL payments have to pass through a Clearinghouse and arbitration process to determine if they are real NIL deals.
- Lawyers are lined up to challenge this part of the House settlement, and I'd be shocked if it isn't immediately enjoined.
- That it won't work is unfortunate - the idea of revenue share is great, and making NIL real is great - top programs would be able to supplement the 20.5 million by about 3-5 million which means the top teams would stay the top teams.
- The article did not mention anything about state laws which will also be problematic.
- The article doesn't mention the transfer portal which is also a big part of the problem.
My take on this is that it is a great idea that just won't work. Instead of $20.5 million, it will be $20.5 million plus the tens of millions they are spending now. Does anyone thing that the top teams will stop doing what they are doing as soon as the injunction is in place? So now there will be $40 million in place. The only answer, and it is mentioned in the article, is collective bargaining and the schools just don't seem to like this.
I haven't found anything on this, but the transfer portal issue may get taken care of at some level. Once the schools are doing the actual negotiating, it may be possible to have contracts with the players that have a term to them. In other words, the contract for Athlete A could be $X for 2 years, with penalties if they decide to transfer. This may make the transfer problem a little less problematic.
