NCAA President Charlie Baker Released a Statement Friday Afternoon Addressing the State of the NIL Landscape and Calling for Congressional Assistance.

[Steven A]

Here is the text of the article, I can't get it to load.

 

The comments come days after UNLV starting quarterback Matthew Sluka announced he was stepping away from the program and redshirting because representations “were not upheld” after he enrolled. Sluka was verbally promised a minimum of $100,000 during his recruitment but only saw a $3,000 relocation fee, his agent Marcus Cromartie of Equity Sports told On3.

The promises were made by an offensive assistant during Sluka’s recruitment, Cromartie said. The NIL collective and school have pushed back on the claim.

 

“We continue to see evidence of dysfunction in today’s NIL environment, including examples of promises made but not kept to student-athletes,” Baker wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Just as anyone that owns stock or buys a house is afforded basic consumer protections, it’s clear that student-athletes entering NIL contracts should be too.”

 

On Thursday, plaintiffs’ and NCAA attorneys submitted the revised long-form House v. NCAA settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Attorneys did not change much despite Judge Claudia Wilken asking for the parties to “go back to the drawing board” when it came to enforcement of NIL collectives and boosters.

 

The new settlement changed the definition of a booster, limiting it to a “narrower group of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools.” Commercial parties like shoe companies and people who have given $50,000 to a school will be exempt from NIL enforcement.

 

If the settlement is not approved, the NCAA will head to trial and could face over $20 billion in back damages. Baker went on to write that the NCAA continues to lobby Congress for national NIL guidelines.

 

The NCAA has lobbied lawmakers in Washington, D.C., dating back to the summer of 2022.

 

“While we’d love to see these resources used to protect student-athletes in every NIL deal, it’s not something the NCAA has the authority to mandate,” Baker wrote. “In the meantime, we’re continuing to advocate for Congress to create national NIL guidelines that will protect student-athletes from exploitation, including the use of standard contracts.”

 

[JabbaNoBargain]

Congress getting involved with the pay of professional athletes. Interesting.

[Steven A]

On 9/27/2024 at 1:33 PM, JabbaNoBargain said:

Congress getting involved with the pay of professional athletes.

It already has with exemptions for pro sports.

 

Plus, several state legislatures have gotten involved with NIL.

[JabbaNoBargain]

Have those involved an individuals compensation? Stadiums being built, sure. Use of public monies, ok. I’m actually asking and don’t know.
 

Just seems like there is zero chance they could be nimble enough at the federal level to accomplish anything on this front.

[FG Lumber]

a real dumpster fire.........probably getting worse

[mikethehiker]

I wrote this back in April (any of us could have predicted it) and we are here:

 

The pendulum has swung dramatically in favor of highly talented college football players.  If the pendulum is done swinging, one has to wonder if the current state is sustainable.

 

I don't think the pendulum is done swinging.  There are still questions around tampering, player agents, there will be NIL buyouts, and using NIL in lieu of scholarships allowing teams to work around the 85 scholarship limit.  It is wild out there right now and it reminds me of children playing on a playground with no supervision.  At some point, someone is going to get hurt and the yard duty is going to come over and put an end to all fun.  The NCAA has been rendered toothless and it may not be long before legislation steps in to classify these athletes as employees.

 

Now you're dealing with minimum wages, insurance, workman's comp, unions to increase fairness up and down the roster, etc.  At this point, we can remove the word student from student-athlete.  Once the student tag is removed, why would there be any limit on how long an athlete can play college football?

 

I'm not sure how far the pendulum will continue swinging, but I don't believe we've reached a steady state.

 

Once government gets involved, I think non-revenue sports will fold because the same rules for football can't apply to non-revenue athletics.  This will in turn lead to a bunch of Title IX issues.  Not to mention the trickle effect throughout FCS, Division I, and Division II where little to no revenue exists.  What are we thinking?  You DO NOT want the yard duty to get involved!

 

Schools may shut down football all together once it becomes a losing proposition with compensation and regulation in the mix.  If colleges were smart (hopefully there are a few left), they will give up the arms race and gather together and create a league in parallel that returns to pre-NIL days and simply offers scholarships with a return focus on the student part of student-athlete.  Let the semi-pros, who are wealthy enough, have their league and whatever ramifications.

Edited September 27 by mikethehiker