- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Boosters in the NIL era
Posted on 1/17/22 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 1/17/22 at 12:37 pm
How will the NIL changes change the way that boosters support their school? Look at how much money boosters have paid to buyout over payed coaches lately. As we move forward, will boosters feel more comfortable signing an NIL deal with a recruit or player and less likely to give millions of dollars to coaches?
Posted on 1/17/22 at 12:53 pm to SupermanSlim
They will still be willing to put up money for the coaches and big time fundraising purchases Woodward and crew hustle for. What I believe LSU will start to see a decrease in is just annual donations. The boosters paying the NIL deals will take that money out of a portion they would usually give to the school/athletic department.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 1:00 pm to geauxtigers33
Coaches are earning that money now
It’s the buyouts that need to be eliminated
No other profession gets that kind of job protection
It’s the buyouts that need to be eliminated
No other profession gets that kind of job protection
Posted on 1/17/22 at 1:04 pm to SupermanSlim
Boosters in Louisiana can't create or facilitate NIL deals for players or recruits.
LINK
This stipulation doesn't exist in Texas. Boosters can directly create whatever kind of deals they want for recruits. See A&M's 2022 class as an example.
The state of Alabama is also in the process of repealing their law and setting up a framework more similar to that of Texas - LINK
LSU is playing the game with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to the state legislators.
quote:
A postsecondary education institution shall not use an athletic booster to, nor shall an athletic booster, directly or indirectly, create or facilitate compensation opportunities for the use of an intercollegiate athlete’s name, image, or likeness as a recruiting inducement or as a means of paying for athletics participation.
LINK
This stipulation doesn't exist in Texas. Boosters can directly create whatever kind of deals they want for recruits. See A&M's 2022 class as an example.
The state of Alabama is also in the process of repealing their law and setting up a framework more similar to that of Texas - LINK
LSU is playing the game with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to the state legislators.
This post was edited on 1/17/22 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:02 pm to SupermanSlim
NIL may go beyond boosters, no?
If a rising superstar has high future value NIL to a company or brand, influence sales or market awareness of a product, why not market the player beyond boosters?
From the other perspective, if my company is launching the next cool sportswear or equipment, I am school agnostic. Give me the influencer.
If a rising superstar has high future value NIL to a company or brand, influence sales or market awareness of a product, why not market the player beyond boosters?
From the other perspective, if my company is launching the next cool sportswear or equipment, I am school agnostic. Give me the influencer.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:25 pm to Cs
So if Louisiana state law prohibits a booster from facilitating an NIL deal, is it an NCAA infraction or just an infraction of state law? Either way it needs to be repealed just like Alabama is doing. State Legislature shouldn’t be worried about college recruiting.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:29 pm to SupermanSlim
quote:
So if Louisiana state law prohibits a booster from facilitating an NIL deal, is it an NCAA infraction or just an infraction of state law?
State law.
Boosters in Texas are throwing together multi-million dollar NIL deals for recruits and the NCAA couldn't care less. And even if they did, they can't do anything about it.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:37 pm to Cs
Well. This state law needs to be fixed. I really hope they don’t plan on wasting state resources in the state police or state attorney generals office to investigate recruiting.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:39 pm to Cs
quote:
Boosters in Louisiana can't create or facilitate NIL deals for players or recruits.
That’s not exactly what the law says.
quote:
A postsecondary education institution shall not use an athletic booster to, nor shall an athletic booster, directly or indirectly, create or facilitate compensation opportunities for the use of an intercollegiate athlete’s name, image, or likeness as a recruiting inducement or as a means of paying for athletics participation.
It doesn’t say boosters can’t create or facilitate NIL deals. It just says they can’t use NIL deals as pay-to-play. Similarly..
quote:
This stipulation doesn't exist in Texas. Boosters can directly create whatever kind of deals they want for recruits.
Here’s what Texas state law says:
quote:
(g) A student athlete participating in an intercollegiate athletic program at an institution to which this section applies:
. . .
(2) may not enter into a contract for the use of the student athlete's name, image, or likeness if:
. . .
(B) the compensation for the use of the student athlete's name, image, or likeness is provided:
(i) in exchange for athletic performance or attendance at the institution;
So a student-athlete can’t accept NIL deals as a pay-for-play.
quote:
(j) No individual, corporate entity, or other organization may:
(1) enter into any arrangement with a prospective student athlete relating to the prospective student athlete's name, image, or likeness prior to their enrollment in an institution of higher education; or
(2) use inducements of future name, image, and likeness compensation arrangement to recruit a prospective student athlete to any institution of higher education.
And nobody can arrange NIL deals prior to enrollment (which is important, as the term “arrangement” is distinct from the term “contract” used elsewhere in the Texas law) and nobody can use NIL as a recruitment tool.
It says everything the part of LA law that you quoted says, and more. It just isn’t specific to boosters. If anything the Texas law is more restrictive than the LA law.
quote:
See A&M's 2022 class as an example.
If the rumors about A&M’s signing class are true, they (or the recruits and the people facilitating the deals) are 100% violating Texas state law. At a minimum, they would be arranging NIL deals prior to enrollment.
quote:
The state of Alabama is also in the process of repealing their law and setting up a framework more similar to that of Texas
The current Alabama law goes way further than Texas and Louisiana. In particular:
quote:
Section 2.
. . .
(c) Compensation for a student athlete's name, image, or likeness may not be conditioned on athletic performance or attendance at a particular postsecondary educational institution.
(d) Compensation for the use of a student athlete's name, image, or likeness may be provided only by a third party not owned or operating under the authority of the student athlete’s postsecondary educational institution.
(e) A postsecondary educational institution, an entity with the purpose of supporting or benefitting the institution or its intercollegiate sports, or any officer, director, or employee of the institution or entity may not compensate or cause compensation to be directed to a student athlete or the family of a student athlete for use of their name, image, or likeness.
. . .
Section 12. (a) An individual other than a student athlete who violates subsections (c), (d), or (e) of Section 2 or who grants compensation to a student athlete in a manner that causes the student athlete to violate Section 8 shall be guilty of a Class C felony.
They made it a felony to use NIL as pay-for-play.
TL;DR - The Louisiana NIL law isn’t any more restrictive than the Texas law and it’s certainly not more restrictive than the Alabama law.
ETA: Bill text for anyone interested..
Texas
Louisiana
Alabama
This post was edited on 1/17/22 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:45 pm to lostinbr
Good Info. How is A&M (boosters) signing recruits to multi-year deals that are void if the recruit transfers without violating this law?
Posted on 1/17/22 at 2:50 pm to lostinbr
Preeshate the info.
I just don’t see state law stepping into say Alabama and regulating what Saban does. Louisiana how liberal the government is most definetly could see them try to burn LSU.
I just don’t see state law stepping into say Alabama and regulating what Saban does. Louisiana how liberal the government is most definetly could see them try to burn LSU.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 3:03 pm to SupermanSlim
quote:
How is A&M (boosters) signing recruits to multi-year deals that are void if the recruit transfers without violating this law?
Your guess is as good as mine.
It’s probably either:
A) The reports are vastly over exaggerated.
B) A&M boosters are betting that the state isn’t going down the political rabbit hole of enforcement given the quagmire that is UT/A&M politics. Remember, there are NIL shenanigans at Texas as well.
C) Some combination of A and B.
That said, it’s not just state enforcement they have to worry about - it’s also the NCAA, who is (supposedly) holding schools to whatever the laws are in their states. But they could also be banking on the NCAA just slapping people on the wrist since there is so much ambiguity.
The “no arrangements prior to enrollment” thing is the one that gets me. It seems like it would be pretty easy for the boosters to get burned on that front.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 3:04 pm to Cs
State legislators in Louisiana are only interested if THEY can figure out how to profit off NIL
Posted on 1/17/22 at 3:18 pm to Icansee4miles
Look and see who gets the $$$$$ before it gets too the players .
Posted on 1/17/22 at 3:54 pm to nicholastiger
"It’s the buyouts that need to be eliminated"
How do you propose this be done? You want to hire the next big coach but say no to his buyout request? His agent will U turn his arse before he sits down at the negotiating table and walk out the door for the next team willing to put it in their contract. It's part of a compensation package now and not going anywhere. You are going to have to pay a whole lot more up front if you don't want buyouts but that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to get.
How do you propose this be done? You want to hire the next big coach but say no to his buyout request? His agent will U turn his arse before he sits down at the negotiating table and walk out the door for the next team willing to put it in their contract. It's part of a compensation package now and not going anywhere. You are going to have to pay a whole lot more up front if you don't want buyouts but that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to get.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 4:21 pm to PeleofAnalytics
I don’t think buyouts will be eliminated, but I think eventually boosters will be paying players through NIL in some form or another. This will cut into the pool of money that is dipped into when it’s time to renew a coaches contract or buy them out. In the past, college coaches were the by far the highest paid people in their organization. In the NFL, it’s obviously a lot different. The days of seeing coaches sponsored by business like Raising Cains may be coming to an end. That just gets in the way of another NIL deal for an athlete.
This post was edited on 1/17/22 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 1/17/22 at 5:09 pm to SupermanSlim
quote:you stopped short there.
State Legislature shouldn’t be worried about college recruiting.
The state legislature should be, just like AL, helping us by removing restrictions that they can. ESPECIALLY Louisiana (and MS).
Why?
FACT: better athletics = more donations = more money returned to the academic side = less taxpayer funds needed/surplus
Just stay away from pay-for-play and use it for retention (non-recruits) and go nuts (as can be inferred from lostinbr's post).
This post was edited on 1/17/22 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 1/17/22 at 5:20 pm to I20goon
Anyone else concerned about a scandal coming from an NIL deal leading to someone tanking a game? Maybe not with football, but other sports are a lot easier to fix. A&M booster gives a million bucks, they’ve already lost 3 games, what’s stopping that booster from fixing a game and betting/getting his money back?
Posted on 1/17/22 at 5:43 pm to SupermanSlim
The boosters were already giving money to both coaches and players. Now the players can be listed as payroll or marketing expense making that money tax deductible.
This is a net win for the boosters.
This is a net win for the boosters.
Posted on 1/17/22 at 5:45 pm to SupermanSlim
I guess the issue is how far ranging was the Supreme Court decision allowing student athletes to profit from their NIL?
Do any of these laws survive that decision?
Do any of these laws survive that decision?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News