re: Now that players are getting paid for NIL should they have to pay for tuition ?

Is this currently a possible scenario out there in wild:

Chemistry major on full scholarship has a youtube channel that does at home experiments and other science content. They make money from the channel. Maybe they get bigger and get paid to go on a science program, or they get sponsored by DOW Chemical or something.

Should that student's scholarship be brought under the microscope and potentially negatively impacted? Is it now, and if not, would it have to be in your scenario? If not, why not?

quote:

---

So what? Coaches, trainers, admin all can leave whenever they choose, why does the athlete need to be stuck?

---

That's not true, coaches cannot leave whenever they want without a buyout penalty being paid if they are still under contract. As for trainers and admin most can leave whenever they want without a penalty because they are not as coveted an asset as a coach is and can be easily replaced. When you have an asset that is in high demand and low availability, such as a good coach, good athlete, or good AD you pay top dollar and then put restrictions on when they can leave.

quote:

---

Why when the athletes get a just a little piece of the pie do people like you want to punish them for it?

---

I am not punishing them for it. I'm glad they are able to get NIL, and I am for them getting even more of the pie. What I'm saying is that as you do start to get more of the pie there will be increasing restrictions put in place to protect a school's investment in you. Same as a company paying an individual to go to school then demand a certain payback period before they can leave. In this case they are paying to develop the athlete primarily on the field and want to get the most out of their investment.

quote:

---

The "buyout" is any remaining scholarship funds they'd have used in the future at that institution. What you want is a penalty, and you give absolutely zero good reason for it.

---

I believe I have given plenty of good reasons for it. It's protecting your asset and investment from rival schools who seek to take your asset and use it against you. Pretty simple.

quote:

---

That's not true, coaches cannot leave whenever they want without a buyout penalty being paid if they are still under contract

---

Well, the schools don't have contracts with the players. Scholarships are one year deals.

quote:

---

I am not punishing them for it

---

bullshite. You want to make major changes based on something that is realistically only going to effect a fraction of a percent of NCAA athletes that will hurt most of them. Maybe you don't realize is, but here's your chance to take a moment and consider that.

quote:

---

I believe I have given plenty of good reasons for it. It's protecting your asset and investment from rival schools who seek to take your asset and use it against you. Pretty simple.

---

Nah.

Take that up with Title IX. Football foots the bill for all the other programs anyways

Only if you do the same for academic scholarship recipients

quote:

---

bullshite. You want to make major changes based on something that is realistically only going to effect a fraction of a percent of NCAA athletes that will hurt most of them. Maybe you don't realize is, but here's your chance to take a moment and consider that.

---

I'm not following you here. What change are you referring to that is realistically only going to affect a fraction of NCAA athletes that will hurt most of them? What do I need to consider?

quote:

---

They should be required to pay income taxes on the value of their athletic scholarships. Plain and simple. It is only fair if they want to play the game of being paid, then be treated as such.

Their scholarship should be taxed, and the benefit for the university is they are not required to pay employer FICA taxes from that money, but the athletes are.

In the end, they need to just shut down college athletics as it has become an utter joke both from the university side and the greedy players side.

---

Bump

I'd like to see the nonpaid tuition and tuition should be taxed folks explain/answer this post.

quote:

---

They should be required to pay income taxes on the value of their athletic scholarships. Plain and simple. It is only fair if they want to play the game of being paid, then be treated as such.

Their scholarship should be taxed, and the benefit for the university is they are not required to pay employer FICA taxes from that money, but the athletes are.

---

what? I, a non athlete, got an academic scholarship to go to LSU and then law school. Should i be required to pay income taxes on my scholarships?

They're already getting taxed on the NIL stuff. It doesn't make any sense to tax a scholarship.

quote:

---

You want to make it harder on all the athletes to leave because a very small minority of them are going to make some money.

---

What I'm proposing has nothing to do with stopping people from leaving to make money. Not sure where you got that from. What I'm proposing is a protective clause to allow schools to recoup some of their investment back if an individual wants to leave one school to go play for another. There was a protective clause in place that made them sit out a year before they could play that is no longer around.

The way I see this playing out is that there will be some second and third stringers that will want to transfer any given year because they are not going to be starters like they thought. I would see the coach allowing them to leave and waiving any payback/buyout clauses as a good will gesture. Schools don't want to be seen as being overbearing in this regard.