I'm replying to the first post because there are some things about NIL that really bother me.
I like the amateur athletics model that the NCAA developed over the years. I like that players are not compensated directly, in cash, by their schools. I like that there is a payment-in-kind in the form of a scholarship. I like it that everyone on the team is treated equally in that regard. I note that while this model does not encompass direct salaried remuneration for services rendered, there is nonetheless an objective value to the scholarship, and that Syracuse has been "paying" its athletes more than most other schools for a long time now, according to the rules of the NCAA model.
I believe that being a fan means supporting the team through means not targeted to individual players. It means attending games and cheering. It means donating money to the program for general uses, such as the construction of facilities or general recruiting purposes like airfare for coaches. I believe that boosters who seek to influence a program's success through any means that result in direct payments to, or services rendered to, individual players, are
pathetic losers who should be publicly called out and highlighted for their stupidity, and corrosive impact on the sport.
I believe there is a troublesome disconnect between the status of players under the NCAA amateur model, and the status of coaches as ordinary employees of the school. I think a lot of that can be improved through NCAA regulations.
I believe there is a troublesome relation between the value extracted from players' labor and the value of the scholarship. I believe that the conferences' TV contracts for football are a corrupting influence on the sport, in their degree. What is the money used for, though? Is it lining the pockets of Athletic Department administrators? Is it funding non-revenue sports at the school? Is it supporting the general fund? I believe that there should be some measure of equity between the value a player/team brings to the school and the value the school extracts from external contracts. However, I believe that the contracts are out of hand, and I also do not believe that players "deserve" "every cent they are owed" under the NCAA amateur model. I believe that funding for non-revenue sports is worthwhile, and football players need to accept that some of their effort will support opportunities for others.
Now, the concept of "Name, Image, and Likeness" is an interesting one. All three components of that term-of-art are inherent to a person, regardless of circumstance. If they inhere to the individual, they cannot - by definition - depend on context. Let's think about that for a moment.
What is the value of an individual's NIL? How would you measure it on an unrestricted, open market? You cannot simply say that the total cash value of everything anyone is willing to give the person is their NIL value, because intent and context matter. Let's say that Joe Blockhead enrolls at LSU and receives $1 million in "NIL" money his first year. Let's also say that he had a standing offer from Alabama to receive $900K in "NIL" money if he enrolled there. If NIL is an inherent part of Joe Blockhead's identity, why are there different NIL values? If NIL is an inherent attribute of a person's identity, then its objective value should be constant.
If NIL value is context-dependent in advance, then it is not NIL. It is direct payment for anticipated services rendered.
I believe that NIL, in its theoretical proper formulation, allows players to be rewarded for their efforts
by people who are not in a position to influence the player's team membership. I believe that Eric Dungey is the exemplar of NIL. He developed an Image that fans liked, and was worthy of direct support. Merchandising was the proper channel. Boosters should not have been able to give him money, nor should the school. But he should have been able to get paid for jerseys sold with his name. (But see below)
NIL should not be a vehicle for a small number of influential boosters (
losers) to send money to a player. It should be a mechanism for a large number of people to send money to a player based on Name, Image, and Likeness. There should be a statistical test assessing NIL contributions. NIL has to be a community phenomenon. NIL with a huge statistical outlier contribution should be punished and invalidated.
Going back to the earlier question about NIL in advance. It's a thorny problem and I'm not sure there is any way, in theory, to protect against abuses. Let's say that Texas A&M pools a thousand gazillion dollars for NIL. And their NIL collective (a
gang of pathetic losers), decides that the position of starting left tackle at Texas A&M carries with it an NIL grant of $1.5 million. That is not NIL, because it does not make any reference to the inherent NIL triumvirate that exists in the player, not in the position. How would you police that?
I'll tell you how I would police it. NCAA regulations dictate that no player can receive NIL in their first year at a school. If that's going to be challenged in court by
losers, then I will suggest that no player is eligible to play in his first year at a school, period, unless it's a grad transfer. Mandatory freshman redshirts, and the reinstatement of transfer rules that require a sit-out year. If that is going to be challenged in court, then such
losers can take their "sport" and shove it. I'm out.
Even in the case of an Eric Dungey, I am still somewhat uncomfortable about the theoretical status of NIL. Would fans of Boston College buy Eric Dungey jerseys? Fans of Ohio State? If not, then what does NIL mean? It's not "Name, Image, and Likeness of the person", it's "Identity of the person as a member of sports team XYZ". And to me, that invalidates the concept.
Now someone like Michael Jordan has a better claim to NIL. His status is tied to basketball, but it largely transcends his identity as a member of a team. I see validity in NIL when the identity is tied to a broad class, and not to a very specific subclass.
Even if we allow particular context-specific factors to define NIL, then as I understand it, there at least has to be some business nexus to the commerce. Players can sell merchandise. They can advertise for local businesses. And there is an enforcement hook I would use. Sponsorship deals should be open to NCAA investigation, and players can be declared ineligible if the sponsorship is not justifiable as a legitimate business expense. Is there a measurable return on the sponsorship? Is it within reason for advertising purposes? Does a deal fail the smell test for a legitimate business expense?
To be clear, if a local business awards a player $1M in advertising fees, but the business cannot show that the expense resulted in a reasonable return on that investment, then I would bring down the hammer. And I assume that these business-specific expenditures are accounted and reported. I would do whatever possible to get the business in trouble for tax purposes or other regulatory purposes. If it's a good ad spend, fine. If it's booster diddling, then
hammer the loser.
Merchandise raises another interesting avenue for abuse. Some booster (
loser) buys 10,000 shirts to funnel money to the player. I'd give the NCAA authority to audit such merchandising businesses and watch for crap like that. Declare players ineligible, and hammer the abusers in whatever ways possible.
Now if you don't think the NCAA has any way to audit or enforce stuff like that, then we get to the end game. NIL is a concept that has some validity in theory. If it is not practicable, though, and has no theoretical mechanism for discernment and prevention of abuse, then it is a veneer of respectability spread on a rotten mold.
Did I mention that I hate corrupt boosters? I would love to see a website, with one page per "factory" team, that identifies significant boosters via their Name, Image, and Likeness. I'd love to see them held up for ridicule on players that didn't pan out. How much money did you waste on QB Joe Schmo? I'd love to see SEO used to boost the boosters' search results so that their public reputation is tied to their corrupt stupidity in ruining college football.
I'd also love for folks to laugh at them in public. At airports, at Starbucks, wherever. If their Name, Image, and Likeness is clear enough, then let them deal with a little ostracism. Thanks for ruining college football. LOL at that QB bust you just paid $2M for. Does your wife approve of the way that you waste money on college football players? A couple simple questions like that, and move along.
Maybe there's a way to make NIL work on a solid theoretical foundation. If it's indistinguishable, even in theory, from a corrupt slush fund for
losers to funnel money to college football players, then burn the whole thing down. And let me know how I can light a match.
