• Guest, do want an ad free experience on WyoNation.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!

    Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > Wyo Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month

    Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!
  • Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Off-season: collective bargaining

ragtimejoe1

Well-known member
Any of you law gurus know what a collective bargaining/revenue sharing might look like in the mwc or pac14 or mwc - some + some or???

It probably is the only way to get framework to control nil/transfer. However, if the profits are very small like at our level, there wouldn't be much to share. If they calculate playoff and all other cfb revenue then divide among all athletes, the amount would be pretty small for the athletes. Will athletes agree to anything that isn't big money in their pocket?

For those that follow this stuff, have you seen anything proposed that seems logical? I've only seen the idea of collective bargaining/revenue sharing floated around but nothing proposing exactly how it might work.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Any of you law gurus know what a collective bargaining/revenue sharing might look like in the mwc or pac14 or mwc - some + some or???

It probably is the only way to get framework to control nil/transfer. However, if the profits are very small like at our level, there wouldn't be much to share. If they calculate playoff and all other cfb revenue then divide among all athletes, the amount would be pretty small for the athletes. Will athletes agree to anything that isn't big money in their pocket?

For those that follow this stuff, have you seen anything proposed that seems logical? I've only seen the idea of collective bargaining/revenue sharing floated around but nothing proposing exactly how it might work.

If you’re referring to some structure to limit NIL - It would be a clear Sherman Antitrust Act violation to agree with another conference or amongst conference members themselves to agree to NIL caps or something to that effect outside of the players becoming an employees and forming some recognized union. That’s a collusive agreement to restrict the market.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Any of you law gurus know what a collective bargaining/revenue sharing might look like in the mwc or pac14 or mwc - some + some or???

It probably is the only way to get framework to control nil/transfer. However, if the profits are very small like at our level, there wouldn't be much to share. If they calculate playoff and all other cfb revenue then divide among all athletes, the amount would be pretty small for the athletes. Will athletes agree to anything that isn't big money in their pocket?

For those that follow this stuff, have you seen anything proposed that seems logical? I've only seen the idea of collective bargaining/revenue sharing floated around but nothing proposing exactly how it might work.

If you’re referring to some structure to limit NIL - It would be a clear Sherman Antitrust Act violation to agree with another conference or amongst conference members themselves to agree to NIL caps or something to that effect outside of the players becoming an employees and forming some recognized union. That’s a collusive agreement to restrict the market.

No. Collective bargaining and revenue sharing similar to pro leagues. If the players agree to nil limitations, there is no violation. There would undoubtedly be a players' union like the nfl.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
If you’re referring to some structure to limit NIL - It would be a clear Sherman Antitrust Act violation to agree with another conference or amongst conference members themselves to agree to NIL caps or something to that effect outside of the players becoming an employees and forming some recognized union. That’s a collusive agreement to restrict the market.

No. Collective bargaining and revenue sharing similar to pro leagues. If the players agree to nil limitations, there is no violation. There would undoubtedly be a players' union like the nfl.

That’s the problem. They have to be considered ‘employees’ for union recognition and the labor law antitrust exemption. And with employee designation comes a whole host of additional issues including title ix obligations.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
No. Collective bargaining and revenue sharing similar to pro leagues. If the players agree to nil limitations, there is no violation. There would undoubtedly be a players' union like the nfl.

That’s the problem. They have to be considered ‘employees’ for union recognition and the labor law antitrust exemption. And with employee designation comes a whole host of additional issues including title ix obligations.

Or private contractors. The employee part also may exempt title ix. The job is football open to all genders. It's a job not an educational program or activity.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
That’s the problem. They have to be considered ‘employees’ for union recognition and the labor law antitrust exemption. And with employee designation comes a whole host of additional issues including title ix obligations.

Or private contractors. The employee part also may exempt title ix. The job is football open to all genders. It's a job not an educational program or activity.
I’m not sure where your information comes from but every decision I’m aware of holds that title ix applies equally to students and ‘employees’ at universities which receive federal funding.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Or private contractors. The employee part also may exempt title ix. The job is football open to all genders. It's a job not an educational program or activity.
I’m not sure where your information comes from but every decision I’m aware of holds that title ix applies equally to students and ‘employees’ at universities which receive federal funding.
Are you suggesting that there is a university database tracking gender of hires and that there must be equal gender representation for all hires, student, faculty, or staff?

If so, you aren't even correct for students.

In this case, all genders are welcome to apply. If you're a female high school senior that's 6'7" 300 lbs and pushing around defensive tackles, then you'll get a job.

Revenue sharing extends to all sports. You share revenue in the sport you participate in. If your sport doesn't make revenue then there's nothing to share.

Besides, nil is less important if transfer and signings are regulated (draft?).
 
Weird, just heard a radio show discussing this. Prediction was revenue sharing will happen because pending lawsuits will ultimately force it. Assuming congress does nothing to title nine, then college athletics will likely shrink to 4-6 total sponsored sports. Men's bball + football then however many women's sports to offset that. Revenue shared among all sports.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Weird, just heard a radio show discussing this. Prediction was revenue sharing will happen because pending lawsuits will ultimately force it. Assuming congress does nothing to title nine, then college athletics will likely shrink to 4-6 total sponsored sports. Men's bball + football then however many women's sports to offset that. Revenue shared among all sports.

Not sure what radio show but this is basically my prediction as well absent congressional legislation. Football and basketball will basically become the only men’s college sports at many schools and players will become paid employees. Due to title ix, women’s sports such as volleyball, softball, soccer and basketball will thrive with players being paid quite a bit of money to avoid pay disparity.

I see collegiate Olympic sports such as swimming, track and field, etc. being virtually eliminated.

None of this will be ‘good’ for the overall college athlete IMO as countless athletic opportunities will simply go away. For the few elite football and basketball players, yes they will make their money at the expense of the countless other athletes losing opportunities.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Weird, just heard a radio show discussing this. Prediction was revenue sharing will happen because pending lawsuits will ultimately force it. Assuming congress does nothing to title nine, then college athletics will likely shrink to 4-6 total sponsored sports. Men's bball + football then however many women's sports to offset that. Revenue shared among all sports.

Not sure what radio show but this is basically my prediction as well absent congressional legislation. Football and basketball will basically become the only men’s college sports at many schools and players will become paid employees. Due to title ix, women’s sports such as volleyball, softball, soccer and basketball will thrive with players being paid quite a bit of money to avoid pay disparity.

I see collegiate Olympic sports such as swimming, track and field, etc. being virtually eliminated.

None of this will be ‘good’ for the overall college athlete IMO as countless athletic opportunities will simply go away. For the few elite football and basketball players, yes they will make their money at the expense of the countless other athletes losing opportunities.

Which is most appropriate based on university administrator's actions to chase money and alumni/booster interest. Monet talks, I suppose.
 
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-big-ten-developing-plan-to-share-revenue-with-players-in-potential-landmark-change-to-college-athletics/

I'm sure everyone saw this but if not, revenue sharing is happening.

My guess is p4 split and g5 shares go to players. They'll have to come up with more but I'll bet that's where they start.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-big-ten-developing-plan-to-share-revenue-with-players-in-potential-landmark-change-to-college-athletics/

I'm sure everyone saw this but if not, revenue sharing is happening.

My guess is p4 split and g5 shares go to players. They'll have to come up with more but I'll bet that's where they start.

Schools paying athletes is preferable to NIL imo.

Interesting question that just popped in my head. What’s preventing nfl teams circumventing salary cap via some kind of NIL shit? I know players can sign endorsements but what’s preventing companies aligned with certain franchises/cities from rolling in and saying to a player, who doesn’t have many endorsements or any, “if you sign for $3.5 million instead of $7million, we’ll give you $4million guaranteed? Just a thought.
 
laxwyo said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-big-ten-developing-plan-to-share-revenue-with-players-in-potential-landmark-change-to-college-athletics/

I'm sure everyone saw this but if not, revenue sharing is happening.

My guess is p4 split and g5 shares go to players. They'll have to come up with more but I'll bet that's where they start.

Schools paying athletes is preferable to NIL imo.

Interesting question that just popped in my head. What’s preventing nfl teams circumventing salary cap via some kind of NIL poop? I know players can sign endorsements but what’s preventing companies aligned with certain franchises/cities from rolling in and saying to a player, who doesn’t have many endorsements or any, “if you sign for $3.5 million instead of $7million, we’ll give you $4million guaranteed? Just a thought.

I've wondered the same damn thing?? Id be curious if anyone has a good answer
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
laxwyo said:
Schools paying athletes is preferable to NIL imo.

Interesting question that just popped in my head. What’s preventing nfl teams circumventing salary cap via some kind of NIL poop? I know players can sign endorsements but what’s preventing companies aligned with certain franchises/cities from rolling in and saying to a player, who doesn’t have many endorsements or any, “if you sign for $3.5 million instead of $7million, we’ll give you $4million guaranteed? Just a thought.

I've wondered the same damn thing?? Id be curious if anyone has a good answer
The only way to know would be to talk to the agents for players who sign with teams whose owners also own some other entities who could pay for endorsements. It may already be happening.
 
laxwyo said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-big-ten-developing-plan-to-share-revenue-with-players-in-potential-landmark-change-to-college-athletics/

I'm sure everyone saw this but if not, revenue sharing is happening.

My guess is p4 split and g5 shares go to players. They'll have to come up with more but I'll bet that's where they start.

Schools paying athletes is preferable to NIL imo.

Interesting question that just popped in my head. What’s preventing nfl teams circumventing salary cap via some kind of NIL poop? I know players can sign endorsements but what’s preventing companies aligned with certain franchises/cities from rolling in and saying to a player, who doesn’t have many endorsements or any, “if you sign for $3.5 million instead of $7million, we’ll give you $4million guaranteed? Just a thought.

It all depends on if the NFL catches wind of these deals or not. If the NFL investigates and determines these kind of deals were made to circumvent the salary cap, the team would face disciplinary actions. The NFL explicitly forbids alternate pay arrangements aimed at skirting the salary cap.

But like most things, there is a major gray area with these sorts of rules. I don't know if anyone remembers when the NFL investigated Tom Brady and his TB12 brand's relationship with the Patriots. Brady had a TB12 physical therapy office right next to Gillette Stadium and all of the Patriot's players were sent there for any PT needs they had. TB12 billed the Patriots for these services at a rate of $200/hr for each player spending time at the TB12 facilities. The NFL investigated that relationship and found "no wrong doing".

So...these things already do happen.
 
TheRealUW said:
laxwyo said:
Schools paying athletes is preferable to NIL imo.

Interesting question that just popped in my head. What’s preventing nfl teams circumventing salary cap via some kind of NIL poop? I know players can sign endorsements but what’s preventing companies aligned with certain franchises/cities from rolling in and saying to a player, who doesn’t have many endorsements or any, “if you sign for $3.5 million instead of $7million, we’ll give you $4million guaranteed? Just a thought.

It all depends on if the NFL catches wind of these deals or not. If the NFL investigates and determines these kind of deals were made to circumvent the salary cap, the team would face disciplinary actions. The NFL explicitly forbids alternate pay arrangements aimed at skirting the salary cap.

But like most things, there is a major gray area with these sorts of rules. I don't know if anyone remembers when the NFL investigated Tom Brady and his TB12 brand's relationship with the Patriots. Brady had a TB12 physical therapy office right next to Gillette Stadium and all of the Patriot's players were sent there for any PT needs they had. TB12 billed the Patriots for these services at a rate of $200/hr for each player spending time at the TB12 facilities. The NFL investigated that relationship and found "no wrong doing".

So...these things already do happen.

To me it’d be akin to enforcing tampering rules. Yes, I know, falcons and some other team are getting hit with investigation but you know it happens a ton.

I just don’t see how you can enforce an owner of a company sitting down at dinner with a player and negotiating some kind of deal. I’m sure the big boys have their fingers in it as well. Have to imagine they want their players on relevant teams that compete. Mike trout comes to mind. Imagine that dudes branding if he played on a good team
 
laxwyo said:
TheRealUW said:
It all depends on if the NFL catches wind of these deals or not. If the NFL investigates and determines these kind of deals were made to circumvent the salary cap, the team would face disciplinary actions. The NFL explicitly forbids alternate pay arrangements aimed at skirting the salary cap.

But like most things, there is a major gray area with these sorts of rules. I don't know if anyone remembers when the NFL investigated Tom Brady and his TB12 brand's relationship with the Patriots. Brady had a TB12 physical therapy office right next to Gillette Stadium and all of the Patriot's players were sent there for any PT needs they had. TB12 billed the Patriots for these services at a rate of $200/hr for each player spending time at the TB12 facilities. The NFL investigated that relationship and found "no wrong doing".

So...these things already do happen.

To me it’d be akin to enforcing tampering rules. Yes, I know, falcons and some other team are getting hit with investigation but you know it happens a ton.

I just don’t see how you can enforce an owner of a company sitting down at dinner with a player and negotiating some kind of deal. I’m sure the big boys have their fingers in it as well. Have to imagine they want their players on relevant teams that compete. Mike trout comes to mind. Imagine that dudes branding if he played on a good team

Las Vegas Aces of WNBA will put this theory to the test. Every player on the team ‘negotiated’ an additional $100,000 in NIL/endorsement money to promote the city of Las Vegas. The league is now ‘investigating’ whether this violates the salary cap.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/wnba-investigating-las-vegas-aces-020932186.html
 
Relative to House lawsuit, Ncaa paying billions to athletes in next decade.
Big12 just approved that 20 mill revenue share starting on 2025. This is basically direct pay from AD to student athletes. So many questions.

This is getting interesting in a terrible way.
 
Whoa. Revenue sharing and unlimited scholarships!? Why is the scholarship limit on the chopping block?

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-athletes-on-brink-of-getting-2-8-billion-revenue-sharing-model-in-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Whoa. Revenue sharing and unlimited scholarships!? Why is the scholarship limit on the chopping block?

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-athletes-on-brink-of-getting-2-8-billion-revenue-sharing-model-in-house-v-ncaa-settlement/

What good does a scholarship limit have in an environment of NIL and universities directly paying players? The university and donors could simply to choose to pay walk-ons reaching the same result. We’ve actually already seen this. Walk-ons at some P4s are making more than scholly players in the G5s.
 
Back
Top