This pretty much echoes my thoughts on the issue.
I've already prattled on way too much about NIL issues today, but there's another big one about the way it's being covered that's really been bothering me, and I wanted to explain. A on terminology vs. substance and why sports media is failing on this issue...
Amateurism and the rules of college sports are NOT being subverted by NIL. They're being subverted by a black market pay-for-play that everyone is just calling NIL. There is a big difference & it's a distinction the media needs to take seriously (myself included).
NIL deals should have 2 central tenets that probably seemed obvious before last summer: 1.) The value stems from a player's name, image and likeness (i.e. NIL) and 2.) a deliverable provided in exchange for that money (i.e. a "deal"). Yet this is being mostly ignored. (3/15)
1st, the NIL portion. The value is supposed to be derived from the name on the back of the jersey, not the front — your name has similar value in Texas & NY. So any deal that says "you get paid this IF you play for School X" is not NIL. It's employment under another name. (4/15)
2nd, the deliverable. If your name, image or likeness has value, you must then showcase that value with a return on investment - ads, social media, etc. So when a company pays scholarship for ALL walk-ons at a school, it's just a handout under another name. (5/15)
Now, we can (and should!) have real discussions about whether players are employees, what their fair market value for that employment should be, and who should pay it. We can say that if a fan wants to chip in for a handout to a player, its akin to tipping your barista. (6/15)
But that's not what we're doing. We're putting all these deals under the umbrella of NIL, because the NCAA decided not to define what NIL was, and now it's the backdoor through which pay-for-play is happening. But it's not NIL! We’re calling an apple an orange. (7/15)
You may say: Who cares? The distinction doesn't matter. Players are getting paid. End of story. But that's bad policy because there are A LOT of athletes making real money off real NIL with real effort and real deliverables & it stalls real talk on real employment issues. (8/15)
@D_Rench_
’s podcast is great & he worked his ass off creating a brand to sell. Olivia Dunne was a friggin' star and can finally be paid accordingly. When a gymnast goes viral, that celebrity has real value now. These are HUGE success stories & should be applauded. (9/15)
But by talking about collectives paying $500K any O-lineman who goes to State U as NIL, we're muddying the waters -- putting athletes who earned legitimate revenue through work & marketing next to athletes who (perhaps justifiably) are being paid just to be athletes. (10/15)
When a company like Opendorse talks about NIL success stories, those are real & are particularly impactful for women, who’d sacrificed their most marketable years to amateurism before. But they’re lumped in with pay-for-play when we call it all NIL. (11/15)
When boosters pay part of a coach’s salary, it’s employment. When a car company pays him for an ad, it’s NIL. Yet we don’t use that logic at all for the actual athletes. Why? We’re covering for the NCAA here, like mindlessly adopting “student-athlete" (12/15)
Again, this is entirely the fault of the NCAA & its membership for failing to create any meaningful distinction (and shocking that once again it adversely affects women's sports more because of course it does). But media don’t need to oblige this obfuscation. (13/15)
If congress passed a bill called the "Eat at Arby’s Law" bill that legalized clubbing baby seals, any honest observer would understand the name was not at all related to the action (except for the Market Fresh Baby Seal 'N' Cheddar sandwich). It’s not hard. It’s obvious! (14/15)
I cannot find 15-15 for some reason lol
I've already prattled on way too much about NIL issues today, but there's another big one about the way it's being covered that's really been bothering me, and I wanted to explain. A on terminology vs. substance and why sports media is failing on this issue...
Amateurism and the rules of college sports are NOT being subverted by NIL. They're being subverted by a black market pay-for-play that everyone is just calling NIL. There is a big difference & it's a distinction the media needs to take seriously (myself included).
NIL deals should have 2 central tenets that probably seemed obvious before last summer: 1.) The value stems from a player's name, image and likeness (i.e. NIL) and 2.) a deliverable provided in exchange for that money (i.e. a "deal"). Yet this is being mostly ignored. (3/15)
1st, the NIL portion. The value is supposed to be derived from the name on the back of the jersey, not the front — your name has similar value in Texas & NY. So any deal that says "you get paid this IF you play for School X" is not NIL. It's employment under another name. (4/15)
2nd, the deliverable. If your name, image or likeness has value, you must then showcase that value with a return on investment - ads, social media, etc. So when a company pays scholarship for ALL walk-ons at a school, it's just a handout under another name. (5/15)
Now, we can (and should!) have real discussions about whether players are employees, what their fair market value for that employment should be, and who should pay it. We can say that if a fan wants to chip in for a handout to a player, its akin to tipping your barista. (6/15)
But that's not what we're doing. We're putting all these deals under the umbrella of NIL, because the NCAA decided not to define what NIL was, and now it's the backdoor through which pay-for-play is happening. But it's not NIL! We’re calling an apple an orange. (7/15)
You may say: Who cares? The distinction doesn't matter. Players are getting paid. End of story. But that's bad policy because there are A LOT of athletes making real money off real NIL with real effort and real deliverables & it stalls real talk on real employment issues. (8/15)
@D_Rench_
’s podcast is great & he worked his ass off creating a brand to sell. Olivia Dunne was a friggin' star and can finally be paid accordingly. When a gymnast goes viral, that celebrity has real value now. These are HUGE success stories & should be applauded. (9/15)
But by talking about collectives paying $500K any O-lineman who goes to State U as NIL, we're muddying the waters -- putting athletes who earned legitimate revenue through work & marketing next to athletes who (perhaps justifiably) are being paid just to be athletes. (10/15)
When a company like Opendorse talks about NIL success stories, those are real & are particularly impactful for women, who’d sacrificed their most marketable years to amateurism before. But they’re lumped in with pay-for-play when we call it all NIL. (11/15)
When boosters pay part of a coach’s salary, it’s employment. When a car company pays him for an ad, it’s NIL. Yet we don’t use that logic at all for the actual athletes. Why? We’re covering for the NCAA here, like mindlessly adopting “student-athlete" (12/15)
Again, this is entirely the fault of the NCAA & its membership for failing to create any meaningful distinction (and shocking that once again it adversely affects women's sports more because of course it does). But media don’t need to oblige this obfuscation. (13/15)
If congress passed a bill called the "Eat at Arby’s Law" bill that legalized clubbing baby seals, any honest observer would understand the name was not at all related to the action (except for the Market Fresh Baby Seal 'N' Cheddar sandwich). It’s not hard. It’s obvious! (14/15)
I cannot find 15-15 for some reason lol
