re: Unconfirmed reports that LSU athletics made a private equity deal.

Not from what moscona has said most of the attendees told him.

You were right, it was always meant as a tool to gain control of the players and leverage them against the programs.

quote:

---

private equity screws up pretty much everything it touches f

---

this is patemtly false

Perhaps it’s Private equity affiliated with LSU and/or other state institutional endowment funds?
Having Private Equity isn’t necessarily a bad thing until you see the terms and understand the valuation given and path to exit or return on investment.
LSU athletics is not a failing entity that needs/can be broken down and sold for component parts.
Agree with others this is first step towards a class of “ownership”

quote:

---

And I also argued for years, and wasn't alone, that NIL would never be "just a little spendin' money" like people argued it would be, and that it would open a can of problems that would be nearly impossible to recover from.

All we heard from the pro-NIL crowd was "But it's not fair! They deserve money!". Life isn't always fair, and some "fixes" cause more harm than good.

---

You can argue all day about whether pay for play is a good idea or not. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you think about fairness or fixes or the fairness of fixes.

The SCOTUS seems to think that you can't artificially decrease labor costs by using the term "amateur sports."

Not paying players is no longer a choice for the NCAA or its members.

quote:

---

You were right, it was always meant as a tool to gain control of the players and leverage them against the programs.

---

NFL revenue: ~$20 billion
NBA revenue: ~$13 billion
MLB revenue: ~$11 billion
NHL revenue: ~$6 billion
FBS revenue: ~$5 billion

The NFL Players Association negotiates compensation with the NFL. owners
The National Basketball Players Association negotiates compensation with the NBA owners.
The Major League Baseball Players Association negotiates compensation with the MLB owners.
The National Hockey League Players' Association negotiates compensation with the NHL owners.

Isn't it about time for college athletes to negotiate compensation with the programs?

It's a trick question because it's happening now without a salary cap or any rules that favor the programs.

quote:

---

coneman is the most plugged-in LSU media personality. If he says it’s not true, it’s not true

---

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. There are plenty of things he has reported that ended up being bullshite. But there is no doubt he is a mouth piece for certain people connected at LSU.

What happened to the sport I love

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I also argued for years, and wasn't alone, that NIL would never be "just a little spendin' money" like people argued it would be, and that it would open a can of problems that would be nearly impossible to recover from.

All we heard from the pro-NIL crowd was "But it's not fair! They deserve money!". Life isn't always fair, and some "fixes" cause more harm than good.

---

You can argue all day about whether pay for play is a good idea or not. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you think about fairness or fixes or the fairness of fixes.

The SCOTUS seems to think that you can't artificially decrease labor costs by using the term "amateur sports."

Not paying players is no longer a choice for the NCAA or its members.

---

What does any of this have to to with NIL? There is a way to pay players without NIL. Name, image and likeness covers such a broad scope of things, that there was no way to control how players and their agents would take advantage of it.

---

Do you want to talk about player compensation or do you want to talk solely about NIL.

If you want to talk solely about NIL and not player compensation in general, that conversation will be short. The SCOTUS said that players are entitled to compensation for NIL, and neither the NCAA nor its members can reduce that compensation.

Your two posts make it appear that you want to talk about player compensation in general.

quote:

---

And SCOTUS has no standing to to say what players are owed, because if we're treating it like a business, then the business owners decide what somebody is worth, and if players don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

---

Please don't say SCOTUS has no standing. That's just ignorant.

SCOTUS did not say the amount that players are owed. SCOTUS said you can't eliminate or reduce NIL payments by calling the players "amateurs."

SCOTUS also suggested that the NCAA and its members cannot reduce their labor costs by calling the players "amateurs." And if you suggest that "if players don't like it, they can go somewhere else," you're going to run into something called anti-trust.

quote:

---

That's the way the real world works. They could have done the revenue share, and left it at that. SCOTUS argued about why you can't decrease "labor' costs, not about how much you should increase it. But there's another problem: Who decided that sports were considered "labor"? It's not a service, it's entertainment. Entertainment is given value by consumer interest, not by any real world need that must be met.

---

SCOTUS decided that sports athletes are considered "labor." Read the Alston decision.

quote:

---

I used to be in a band. That means we were entertainers. We almost never got paid, because the small venues didn't bring enough people for us to get paid. We could complain if we wanted, or we could just be happy that we got to play music in front of people and get some exposure. College sports brings in enough revenue in some sports to be able to share that revenue with their players. But not all sports. And NIL is a completely different animal, as I explained before.

---

I'm sorry your band almost never got paid because people did not want to listen to you. FBS football is different.

NFL revenue: ~$20 billion
NBA revenue: ~$13 billion
MLB revenue: ~$11 billion
NHL revenue: ~$ 6 billion
FBS revenue: ~$ 5 billion

The market is there to compensate players. The NCAA and its members cannot use "amateurism" or violate anti-trust laws to reduce player compensation.

Similarly, players are entitled to compensation for NIL, and the NCAA and its members cannot use "amateurism" or violate anti-trust laws to reduce NIL compensation.

quote:

---

All we heard from the pro-NIL crowd was "But it's not fair! They deserve money!". Life isn't always fair, and some "fixes" cause more harm than good.

---

NIL as a general premise is a fundamental aspect of capitalism. No one should be able to use another's Name Image or Likeness to profit without compensating the person's whose NIL they are using. That is what EA Sports was doing that put the discussing in overdrive. The colleges themselves were doing it too. LSU licensed its trademarks to be used on jerseys made by Nike. Nike paid LSU for those rights. They then turned around and sold a lot of "Number 9" LSU jerseys in 2019-2020. That wasn't because it was just a coincidence number 9 was a lot of LSU fans' favorite number. It's because it was a Joe Burrow jersey. People were making money selling his jersey...except for Joe...who was the reason the jersey was selling so well.

It also was fundamentally anti-capitalist that a business was prohibited from paying a college player to endorse their product/business when anyone else who wasn't a college athlete could be paid for such endorsement. In many towns the star football player is the biggest celebrity in the town. McDonalds pays athletes to endorse their product. So why shouldn't Raising Cane's be able to pay an LSU player to endorse theirs in Baton Rouge?

Of course, NIL stopped being purely compensation for endorsements about 20 minutes after it became "legal". It became, and remains, de facto pay for play. Even today, that arrangement is technically banned by the NCAA. A business can't expressly pay a player to play for LSU. But it can offer an NIL deal to a player...if he just so happens to agree to play for LSU.

The bigger issue is revenue sharing. Major conf. college football and basketball are multi-million/billion entertainment businesses. Just ask the NCAA. It gets paid over a BILLION a year for the for the rights to broadcast the NCAA men's tournament...which is "property" of the NCAA. In isolation, major conf. college football is a business just like the NFL. There is a huge market for the produce (as evidenced by the big TV contracts and willingness of fans to pay thousands to attend games over the course of a season). The players play a big role in helping generate that revenue just like in pro sports.