https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...hletes-nil

"The new law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, is the first in any state making it illegal for the NCAA to punish a school for compensating athletes for their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights. Current NCAA rules prohibit schools from signing NIL deals with their own players. The law could either give Virginia schools a significant recruiting advantage or provide a catalyst for similar changes elsewhere."

(04-18-2024 10:40 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...hletes-nil

"The new law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, is the first in any state making it illegal for the NCAA to punish a school for compensating athletes for their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights. Current NCAA rules prohibit schools from signing NIL deals with their own players. The law could either give Virginia schools a significant recruiting advantage or provide a catalyst for similar changes elsewhere."

Good for Virginia and the College Athletes in that Commonwealth

Interesting. The Virginia law goes against the current NCAA NIL restrictions (the NCAA doesn’t currently allow universities to direct/fund NIL payments). Yet, NCAA President Baker in December himself proposed a new “division” where schools could provide NIL payments to student-athletes. Once again, it seems that the NCAA regulations aren’t keeping up with evolving NIL needs. More reason for at least a partial NCAA breakaway…so that high revenue schools can be flexible in modifying regulations in a timely basis. Not sure that the NCAA wants a legal challenge on this issue.

Very, very close to becoming employees.

Fair pay and equity for all!

If anything this is a yuuuge win for female athletes. No university in its right mind is going to put male athletes on a pedestal alone.

(04-18-2024 10:40 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...hletes-nil

"The new law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, is the first in any state making it illegal for the NCAA to punish a school for compensating athletes for their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights. Current NCAA rules prohibit schools from signing NIL deals with their own players. The law could either give Virginia schools a significant recruiting advantage or provide a catalyst for similar changes elsewhere."

I bet the Texas State Legislature are now kicking themselves for not thinking of this one first.

(04-18-2024 11:33 AM)b2b Wrote:  Very, very close to becoming employees.

Close, but I believe the law dictates that they are not state employees.

On separate note. The law is voluntary I believe, but even if a breakaway to allow for said NIL payments, it would be hard to exclude Virginia public universities from the new division since they all could pay via their nil, etc.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

The agents are going to lead kids away from Virginia because I doubt these universities are going to be willing to push 20% to a handler.

A step in the right direction with (hopefully) less opportunity for scams, financial mismanagement, and tax evasion.

(04-18-2024 01:36 PM)hburg Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 11:33 AM)b2b Wrote:  Very, very close to becoming employees.

Close, but I believe the law dictates that they are not state employees.

On separate note. The law is voluntary I believe, but even if a breakaway to allow for said NIL payments, it would be hard to exclude Virginia public universities from the new division since they all could pay via their nil, etc.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

This will be challenged. They would become employees.

(04-18-2024 02:04 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The agents are going to lead kids away from Virginia because I doubt these universities are going to be willing to push 20% to a handler.

A step in the right direction with (hopefully) less opportunity for scams, financial mismanagement, and tax evasion.

It’s an interesting point: does direct NIL (or any type type of compensation whether employment or otherwise) from schools to players actually maximize the income for those players?

The details certainly matter. If a school is paying $x to every athlete in every sport for NIL rights to university-specific items (e.g. promotional materials, posters, billboards, etc.) but allows players to still have their own separate NIL deals as they do now, then that seems to be a win for players overall (whether an elite star in a revenue sport or a bench warmer in a non-revenue sport). That’s an add-on to the current system.

However, it the university is asking an athlete to assign their NIL rights over to the university itself (which seemed to be what the Baker/NCAA proposal was suggesting), then it’s tough to see that being a good deal for the star athletes. The biggest stars like Caleb Williams and Caitlin Clark that had legit blue chip national advertising campaigns aren’t benefiting from that type of structure at all.

Maybe it can be a hybrid where some athletes sign over all of their NIL rights to the university while others don’t.

Like I’ve said, the devil is in the details.

When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

I’m still trying to work out the implications of the players essentially signing an NiL GoR with the university. What would this mean for transferring if the original university signs a multi-year GoR?

(04-18-2024 04:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I’m still trying to work out the implications of the players essentially signing an NiL GoR with the university. What would this mean for transferring if the original university signs a multi-year GoR?

I think the fans’ desire for multi-year restrictions is much more than what the law would allow for even if we had full-blown employment contracts.

Next week, the FTC is going to vote on rules to effectively ban non-compete clauses between employers and employees. This isn’t the same as a school signing a GOR - an employee situation is going to be treated very differently because of the difference in bargaining power. So, even with employment status, employers may not be able to place restrictions (including giving up rights or forcing payments) on employees that leave.

My educated guess is that colleges are going to stay far away from any hint of non-compete-like restrictions. Those have always been one of the greatest reasons why college sports have been an antitrust lightning rod in the first place. The more control these entities attempt to exert, the more likely that they are to break the law.

(04-18-2024 04:07 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

I’ve said so for a while. It’s the logical progression..

(04-18-2024 04:07 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

Eh - I get it that the slippery slope argument can go on forever and a lot of forum posters love jumping to that conclusion, but there is a colorable defense that schools can require student-athletes to be both students and meet whatever academic requirements are necessary (e.g. must be a full-time student on track for a degree with a certain GPA). The courts are full of judges that were overachieving students - the issue that they had was the collective agreement among the NCAA to suppress wages as opposed to an issue with academic requirements. There is an entirely different public policy rationale that supports the academic requirements that doesn’t exist for the compensation side.

(04-18-2024 04:07 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

What grounds would they have to challenge eligibility rules?

Different classes of employees have different JOB Descriptions.

(04-18-2024 04:34 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 04:07 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

What grounds would they have to challenge eligibility rules?

Different classes of employees have different JOB Descriptions.

They don’t have grounds. It’s fear-mongering. There are plenty of university jobs that also require being a student, e.g. work-study programs, teaching and graduate assistants, etc.

Speaking as a lawyer that has been extremely critical of pretty much everything that the NCAA has done in fighting athlete employment status, I would say that the slippery slope arguments that this will somehow translate into a complete lack of academic requirements are unfounded.

(04-18-2024 11:33 AM)b2b Wrote:  Very, very close to becoming employees.

The split occurs when it's time for a CBA and salary caps.

By that point I probably won't care anymore so have at it.

(04-18-2024 04:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 04:34 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 04:07 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

What grounds would they have to challenge eligibility rules?

Different classes of employees have different JOB Descriptions.

They don’t have grounds. It’s fear-mongering. There are plenty of university jobs that also require being a student, e.g. work-study programs, teaching and graduate assistants, etc.

Speaking as a lawyer that has been extremely critical of pretty much everything that the NCAA has done in fighting athlete employment status, I would say that the slippery slope arguments that this will somehow translate into a complete lack of academic requirements are unfounded.

Once the employment status is solidified, academics are the next on the litigation chopping block.

The tuition room and board may end up being imputed as a taxable employee benefit.


It's everything I said this system would develop into.

(04-18-2024 08:52 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 04:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 04:34 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 04:07 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  When will someone challenge the four year eligibility rule of the NCAA? 97% of college basketball and football players don’t play professionally. Therefore, someone is going to challenge why they should be limited to four years.

And once four years of eligibility is challenged and dumped, actually attending class and being academically eligible will be challenged. The University Police aren’t required to attend classes, so why should your new athlete employees have to attend class?

The Universities, courts, local government, state government, and federal government have doomed college sports to glorified minor leagues.

What grounds would they have to challenge eligibility rules?

Different classes of employees have different JOB Descriptions.

They don’t have grounds. It’s fear-mongering. There are plenty of university jobs that also require being a student, e.g. work-study programs, teaching and graduate assistants, etc.

Speaking as a lawyer that has been extremely critical of pretty much everything that the NCAA has done in fighting athlete employment status, I would say that the slippery slope arguments that this will somehow translate into a complete lack of academic requirements are unfounded.

Once the employment status is solidified, academics are the next on the litigation chopping block.

The tuition room and board may end up being imputed as a taxable employee benefit.


It's everything I said this system would develop into.

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of "never gonna happen" happening.