re: Let's unpack the NIL problem shall we?

quote:

---

You would think at some point, a private organization has to be able to implement their own rules and regulations. The Universities Play under the NCAA. These are the transfer rules if you agree to if you sign said scholarship. (Maybe Scholarships need to be from the NCAA and not each school) No one is forcing these kids to sign the scholarship and play under these rules. They can look for other avenues.

---

Perhaps. But that was the crux of the lawsuit(s) filed by the AGs of several states. Their position is that the NCAA should not be allowed to implement and enforce a "residency rule" (aka "sit-one-year rule) because it is anti-competitive, unnecessarily restrictive, and is an antitrust violation. The federal judge in West Virginia issued a temporary injunction in enforcement of the rule. The NCAA, in turn said they aren't going to enforce it for at least the remainder of this year.

More likely, they see the writing on the wall that the courts will strike down the "sit one" rule so it is not worth fighting for. The AGs, 2x transfer players, and fans who wanted their 2x transfers available NOW didn't see the forest for the trees. So, essentially, you aren't going to see anymore "sit one" rules...which means every player is basically a free agent every year.

It's a complete mess because you have to deal with federal laws. The major conferences would probably like to agree to having the football and basketball players held as "employees" so the schools/conferences can then negotiate terms with a player's union where the schools can directly pay the players. However, its impractical because Title IX would not allow the schools to pay just the football and men's basketball players, or the football/men's basketball players more than the women's soccer players. In a pure free market situation LSU would pay Jayden Daniels significantly more than the backup left fielder on the softball team because Daniels generates infinitely more revenue/profit than the softball player. But doing so would be a violation of Title IX.

If you are a football player you DON'T want to be paid by the school because they can't pay you anywhere close to your actual market value. A private booster can pay you $2M. Thus, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive for the football players to collectively bargain with the conferences because as long as they are tied to the school they can't just bargain/negotiate independently of the other student-athletes. The majority of which aren't profitable.

The solution to that, which won't happen, is if the schools drop every other sport besides football and men's basketball. That would alleviate the need to pay non-profit producing athletes. Then, the football/basketball players could form a union and negotiate a reasonable pay for play terms. But again, that won't happen.