Surprised the Irish not all over this. You guys being among the most pro education fans in college football. Not a sarcasm. But a very limited decision. Thank God for Catholic Justices like Kavanaugh. So college football stars can get more education benefits from busting their asses 40 hours a week. A laptop! Tuition to overseas college! Graduate scholarships! You know, to get more education. Damn, NCAA why couldn't you figure this out. Now go back to trying to figure out how to get back Johnny M's $33K in autograph payouts back. I knew Catholic schools would teach me something.
supreme court decision
- Thread starter Okie70
- Start date
$50,000 a year tax fee scholarship every year, considering that non athlete students’ family must come up the the $50, every year after taxes, is a great payment for kids playing a sport that they love. and of course, the kids get a chance to showcase
their Talents , and if they go professional the sky is the limit. If colleges start paying athletes, above and beyond , the full
scholarship, College sports will be mo more that professional Farm teams for the pros.
their Talents , and if they go professional the sky is the limit. If colleges start paying athletes, above and beyond , the full
scholarship, College sports will be mo more that professional Farm teams for the pros.
rgc7, I agree.
And college sports as we know it will be no more. Those with piles of $$ to give lavish things beyond tuition/room/board will reap all the 5 stars, while those who have less won't be able to compete ... and may decide to drop out of Div-1 or stop playing sports altogether.
Look at European colleges ... almost all are simply that, a college or university ... students who want to play sports while in college, play for local clubs not the school. Is that what we want in the USA? I think not. But maybe its the proper way to go.
And before anyone says "schools won't give up the millions they make from college football" ... only a few actually make a profit. Most schools operate at a loss. This article is old, but I'd assume it is still fairly accurate ... https://www.al.com/sports/2014/08/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.html
It’s been stated, very few colleges make money on sports. Maybe 15 schools out of the 200+.
You can expect some colleges to drop some sports. Budgets are called budgets for a reason.
Boosters will helps schools cover costs and recruting will be more about how much you are on TV.
The top schools just got another advantage. As an ND fan, we will benefit. As a CFB fan, I would expect some future massive pay to play scandal.
get your popcorn and enjoy how creative several teams get. What school will pay the first 1m payout to an incoming frosh? 😎
You can expect some colleges to drop some sports. Budgets are called budgets for a reason.
Boosters will helps schools cover costs and recruting will be more about how much you are on TV.
The top schools just got another advantage. As an ND fan, we will benefit. As a CFB fan, I would expect some future massive pay to play scandal.
get your popcorn and enjoy how creative several teams get. What school will pay the first 1m payout to an incoming frosh? 😎
The real issue is do players become employees ?
If that can of worms ever gets opened college sports is a sh***show in 18 months.
If that can of worms ever gets opened college sports is a sh***show in 18 months.
Every ACC school gets $34 million per year from ESPN and that's the lowest payout in the P5. If they're losing money on Sports they deserve to.
take the 34m and divide that by 24. That’s the average number of teams a college supports.
you thinks flights, training, buildings, equipment and room and board is more than 1m per team? Don’t forget the coaches you have to pay. The ACC is a premiere conf. That’s one of 5. That covers about 50 teams.
The other 200 make nothing. Just FB alone will run 20m of that 34m. Take the remaining 14m and divide it into 23.
ND, AL, TEX, OSU and Mich will be fine. A few others also. Most, just a wider gap.
you thinks flights, training, buildings, equipment and room and board is more than 1m per team? Don’t forget the coaches you have to pay. The ACC is a premiere conf. That’s one of 5. That covers about 50 teams.
The other 200 make nothing. Just FB alone will run 20m of that 34m. Take the remaining 14m and divide it into 23.
ND, AL, TEX, OSU and Mich will be fine. A few others also. Most, just a wider gap.
don't forget the special coordinator for alumni diversity, and her family of four's travel expenses to the Weedeater Bowl. There are plenty of costs that the AD is just paying to itself. The payment of players did not become a serious issue until the payment of coaches and ADs ballooned from excess profits. It's just not reasonable to worry that an industry will go broke from too much revenue.
There are for the Power 5 Schools. The media payouts have doubled from just 15 years ago. If ND or the P5 doesn't have enough money it is because they are wasting too much.
What will eventually happen is that the football players will get the equivalent of a gratuity you leave the waitress. Nice money but nothing life changing.
No, not really. Most schools lose money. A few make big bucks. The rest break even or make a slight profit. Here is a list from 2019, tha last figures before COVID. Take Ohio St. for example. They were 3rd in revenue, but were $10 million in the hole. Similar for Alabama. They were in the red too.
Yeah and there are many government divisions that are 'chronically underfunded' because they spend more than they're allotted. Any 2-bit corporate pointy haired boss could handle the finances of a P5 Athletic Dept.
Ask yourself this: if they're losing mo eu now then how did they they stay in business the first 100 years before the modern tv contracts era post NCAA vs OU Board of Regents?
Every piece of state legislation that will allow NIL payments has made it clear that the school itself cannot be making any of the payments to the student. The legislative records makes it clear that the full intent is that the players will not be classified as employees. Scholarships are tax free and it is possible for a student on scholarship to work for the school in a capacity related to the scholarship itself (professor assistants, etc) and still keep the scholarship tax free. But there is a risk that doing more than that can mean employee status beyond the scope of the scholarship and can make the tuition taxable. That is completely controlled by Federal law and the states didn't want to put the students at risk with regard to NIL. (States cannot control what is an "employee" under federal law with regard to income taxation.). The current Supreme Court decision adds more risk, depending on how it is administered. Congress does not want to subject the students to the risk of making the scholarships taxable. Clearly, all NIL payments will be taxable to the student, but only as "non-employee compensation". Well, that was the plan before this case came out.
It's up to the Congress to figure this out. It is the Congress that made scholarships tax free by statute, and only they can make any adjustment to how that works with regard to "who is an employee" and "when is an employee of a school ineligible to have a tax free scholarship".
Pretty sure scholarships are already tax free by law. And regardless, tuition paid is deductible.
Tuition is tax free to the recipient under the express language of the Internal Revenue Code, but there are rules. It is not tax free if it’s in exchange for services not related to the education purposes, whether or not the recipient is an employee. A tax deduction to a university is irrelevant as the university is a tax-exempt entity.
These are complex issues and the students will be unable to manage them without competent advice. A lot of taxable income may be pushed at them. Everything received under NIL will be taxable, and more importantly, may subject the student to self-employment tax (which always results in a tax liability regardless of level of taxable income).
People can laugh at the idea that Congress has to step in. But I don‘t know what else to say. NIL is complex enough….but as I noted, the goal of the NIL legislation is to not treat the student as an employee and payments are not made by the school. What the Supreme Court did is very different. Those payments are coming from the school. And how that impacts the tax free nature of the scholarship is something that the Congress must address.
Leadership is needed. And the NCAA has failed at every step of this process.
Yes, and in the 100 years before ... coaches and ADs were NOT paid what they are today.
I can remember back during Ara's years, ND's policy on pay was that no coach could earn more than a professor.
Congress has the responsibility to step in but will only due so kicking and screaming all the way. Then probably draft some crappy law that will only make things worse.
IF there is a more USELESS organization then the NCAA I have never heard of it.
And that's the problem. Schools make more money, but the costs have gone up concurrently.
I've said it a million times. Congress will step in with some feel good legislation that actually cuts and caps the football players pay. Because that's how the world works. Young workers must 'pay their dues' i.e. get exploited to support the system.
The world is currently ignoring the NCAA so it's not really their fault. The NCAA can't pick a fight with fifteen state governments.
This is GREAT news. The Irish can pay players now ! Just like they do in the SEC ! The playing field has been leveled !
The constant beating of the drum that this will lead to compensating players is, well…..concerning if that is where this is going. The vast majority or students that receive a scholarship are not athletes, they are truly academic scholarships, and somehow we are going to take a portion of them and pay them a salary based on their contribution to a non academic activity? That will clearly show that the athletes are being paid for something other than getting an education, and that will start the end of the sport. I don’t know how the scholarships remain tax free in that environment.
Yes, college football makes a lot of money. Huge TV contracts. But a lot of that money from this sport also comes from boosters who are holding onto the concept of “student-athlete”. There are no “boosters” in pro sports…just fans who may pay license fees to get access to season tickets. It’s all part of the business. Are boosters going to keep making contributions (which are now not tax deductible) if the money is being used to pay players? It’s perverse. Many boosters will look at that “business model” and walk away.
Once again, the Court held that the NCAA cannot prevent a school from making additional ”education related” payments to the athletes under scholarship. It didn’t rule that a school had to make ANY additional payments. This case was not decided under employment law. It’s up to the leadership of this sport to clarify this before this gets out of hand.
Yes, college football makes a lot of money. Huge TV contracts. But a lot of that money from this sport also comes from boosters who are holding onto the concept of “student-athlete”. There are no “boosters” in pro sports…just fans who may pay license fees to get access to season tickets. It’s all part of the business. Are boosters going to keep making contributions (which are now not tax deductible) if the money is being used to pay players? It’s perverse. Many boosters will look at that “business model” and walk away.
Once again, the Court held that the NCAA cannot prevent a school from making additional ”education related” payments to the athletes under scholarship. It didn’t rule that a school had to make ANY additional payments. This case was not decided under employment law. It’s up to the leadership of this sport to clarify this before this gets out of hand.
The boosters are the ones most likely to pay the players illegally. They sure as hell aren't going to stop once there is a right way to do it.
Leadership of this sport?
You are joking right?
There ain't any leadership in this or any sport that is worth a plug nickel.
There is no way to ever prevent boosters paying players.
Its like the drug trade; no way to ever stamp it out.
There is never a lack of leadership in any organization. What you are calling a "lack of leadership" is actually referring to "bad" leadership where individual parochial interests are pursued to the detriment of the organization as a whole. The NCAA has never really controlled the college football post season with regard to a national championship. The issue here is 5 power conferences, with separate TV revenue contracts (all with different expiration dates) and their first order of business will be the protection of their individual conference power. They will look at this proposal and immediately think about what is best for their conference. Will the Big Ten insist that the ACC and SEC go to 9 conference games, and stop playing FCS games in November? How will the Big Ten protect the Rose Bowl? Will the conferences scrap divisions to ensure that the "two best teams" play in their CCG (and basically put both in the playoffs if they are both highly ranked before the CCG. The playoff committee has always struggled with how to handle that "13th game")? How serious is the risk that 5 of the top rated 6 conference champions won't all be from the Power 5? And of course in all of this, how can the power 5 conferences each "manage their regular season schedules" to ensure maximum exposure to the playoffs? Is it better now to have competitive OOC games with games against teams from other P5 conferences (now that there are two pathways to the playoffs)?
Then...there's the money. ESPN has the total playoff contract for about 4 more years and this proposal might start earlier. ESPN is not going to give up what they are owed if the new playoff system goes out for bid. (And with 12 teams, it should). The revenue contracts with the B10, B12 and PAC12 are all up for renewal no later than 2025 (all with ESPN and FOX) and the new playoff system will impact all of them. The ND-NBC contract also ends with the 2025 season I believe.
The committee last week announced that this is going forward with further input from AD's, coaches, etc....and their "network partners". Now that this is a more structured playoff, will CBS (which just lost its SEC Game of the Week to ESPN) make a bid? Will NBC be more active with college football? Conversely, the expanded playoff adds one game post Jan. 1 (in the current proposal). All weekends in January belong to the NFL playoffs. That is why the current champ game is always on a Monday. Can there be two non Saturday games in January? What is the impact on the fan bases with all that travel?
So, yes, there absolutely will be an "excessive" amount of leadership at play here. But.. it may not be healthy.
No one wants the NCAA administering the college football national championship. Not even the NCAA. That lack of leadership is actually good leadership. It would be much better is the NCAA led the way back to their charter and stopped trying to tell schools what kind of mascot they can/cannot have or force men into the women's teams.
