Georgia’s NIL Bill Allows Universities to Take 75% of Athlete’s Income to Give to Other Athletes
However, the law includes a provision that allows schools to take up to 75% of a student-athlete's income from the use of their name, image, and likeness. That share would be placed in a pool for all student-athletes at the school and paid out after graduation.
"It sets Georgia on the path to accomplish something that, quite honestly, should have been done a long time ago," Kemp said Thursday, according to Chip Towers of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Simply put, college athletes in Georgia should be fairly compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness."
To point 1), I think it's not just tennis vs. football/basketball, but also men vs. women for Title IX purposes. Taxing the earnings of the popular athletes which will be predominantly men in order to spread it out among the less popular (on average) women will head off some complaints that any NLI system is inherently sexist, as it reflects the sexism of society.
It's not hard to imagine a court case where a women's sport, say basketball, points to a disparity between the NLI income of it's players compared to the men's team, and argues that the women are being denied benefits in violation of Title IX. It's also not hard to imagine a court siding with the women and requiring the school to more fairly balance the cash earned by the athletes - and coming up with a distribution scheme similar to the one allowed by this law. Is it likely? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure Congress anticipated or intended the quotas, elimination of so many mens programs, and complicated enforcement tests when they drafted the original Title IX 50 years ago, but here we are.
Point 2) is a great one as well. 75% is obviously too much but I think there is a reasonable basis to say that the star QB wearing a Georgia Bulldog helmet on the car dealership commercial is not only leveraging his personal brand, but that of the school and the entire team, so it's fair for the school to capture and redistribute some portion of the gross income.
75%, that's socialism at its finest.
The irony of a Republican governor advocating for this...while at the same time decrying "socialism"...is I'm sure lost on him.
Or he has a son on the fencing team
Huh? So this is how the South would've done indentured servitude I guess.
We know exactly how the South did indentured servitude.
The sharing is BS. I'm a fan of a number of non revenue sports, but if you're a student athlete in those sports you should just be happy with your scholarship. If it was not for revenue sports, non-revenue athletes would be a drain on the university budget and require higher tuition from the students "only" going to university for an education.
The redistribution makes as much as sense to me as going after any social media revenue a regular student makes as giving 75% of it to the rest of the student body.
In what world does taking 75% of an athlete's hard-earned revenue and giving it away to others who didn't do a darn thing to earn it constitute "fairly compensated"??
What boneheads added this provision into the bill and then passed the stupid thing?
So it's not socialism when you take the money from predominantly black and profitable sports and give it to the predominantly white and unprofitable sports? Got it.
Aren’t you describing Title IX?
Literally not at all. NIL money and Title IX funding are not the same
this is what you wrote:
take the money from predominantly black and profitable sports and give it to the predominantly white and unprofitable sports
whether it’s NIL “tax” or title IX the mechanism is the same as you describe above. One sport earns it, another benefits from it. The sports that earn it are, as you describe, predominately black.
Should probably read the law before posting this because the law simply allows players to AGREE to pool revenue from contracts, it does not require it or allow schools to enter into agreements with players.
As I understood it, individual schools can require students to sign contracts as part of their scholarship, requiring that they give up to 75% to the pool, but the school does not have to. I don't see big time programs shooting themselves in the foot like this.
As I understood it, individual schools can require students to sign contracts as part of their scholarship, requiring that they give up to 75% to the pool, but the school does not have to. I don't see big time programs shooting themselves in the foot like this.
Thank you for posting. Everyone should download and read the law. It's not that hard, it's less than 6 pages. The law is far more about making the usual restrictions placed on athletes illegal. Right now athletes are barred from receiving compensation for selling their NIL rights, and also from getting professional representation, with the penalty for both being ineligibilty from participating in intercollegiate sports. The law says the schools and conferences cannot do these things anymore.
Again, the 75% thing is a limit on how much a university can take, but like a speed limit, not a requirement. It protects the student athletes from being forced to sell 100% of their NIL rights into a pool arrangement. Everyone is reading it as if it's a tax imposed by the Georgia legislature, which is not at all what it is.
Seems like this will become a recruiting thing---come to our school and we give you 100% of your naming rights.
Schools that are good at marketing (Michigan is one of the best) should be PLASTERING the market with player-specific stuff. Jerseys, photos etc.etc.
I believe the school will still get a cut of the sale, but the athletes involved will now get a cut too. Places like Michigan who know how to sell stuff can market that to players (especially basketball). "We will make you money off your name/image license."
Three fifths wasn't good enough for Georgia. Now they're aiming for three quarters.
I agree the athletes should be able to make money off of their name. I don’t agree with taking that money and distributing it, I’m sure the beneficiaries will already be taxed handsomely on their earnings. I also wonder how much the university brand will play into recruiting now that money will be involved.
Sounds constitutional.
Lol imagine living in a state run by Brian Kemp.
I'm surprised it took as long on this thread as it did for anybody to point out this will put Georgia at a disadvantage in recruiting 4 and 5 star football and basketball players. Once that gets pointed out, there won't be many Georgia politicians who want to get re-elected supporting the bill.
Socialism.....I thought this is what the youth of America wanted.
Sounds like Socialism to me. Since it's failed everywhere it's ever been tried...it's bound to work this time...right...s/
Ugh.
Everyone is misrepresenting the law. Currently, the NCAA rules limit an athlete's share of NIL revenue to 0%. The law requires that the University let the player keep at minimum 25%, with the rest going into a pool to be distributed among all athletes. However, that 75% is a maximum, the actual amount is up to the discretion of the University. I imagine the market demand from other schools, as similar laws take effect across the country, will push the university to lower the "tip-out" percentage close to zero. I would bet $5 that Georgia and Georgia Tech decide to take 0 by the time NIL is fully legal across the SEC. There is no way they risk losing a player to Alabama or Ole Miss because they keep 100% of their NIL income at another school, and less than 100% at Georgia.
At smaller schools, I can see the logic of the university withholding some of the NIL for more equitable distribution across all student athletes. If you believe that Georgia is structurally racist then it stands to reason that their boosters, a bunch of rich white guys, will support white athletes and sports disproportionately. If that's the case, this at least allows the universities to step in and correct any bias in the market. I acknowledge of course, that this assumes the athletic department administrators are better equipped to make these allocation decisions than the boosters in the free market. Maybe it's true, maybe not.
“We have no plans to provide for a pool arrangement,” UGA depute athletic director Will Lawler said, per the Athens Banner-Herald.
Further, Lawler told The Athletic, “UGA student-athletes would not have to wait a year after they leave school to receive NIL compensation.”
Lots of people here simply reading the headline and commenting, which is just what many people do nowadays.
A stupid idea is a stupid idea, regardless of whatever provisions they have devised to make it seem reasonable.
Your missing the point. “We have no plans ...”. “Plans” can (and do) change quite often. If your naive enough to think the big U’s won’t take a nice cut once this gets going your fool in’ yourself.
I don’t know if they will or not, but I would think with the competitive nature of their conference, it would be in their best interests to leave the cut alone.
25% is better than 0%
I recently joined a very large medical entity and performs both research and clinical activities. If I were to discover a drug to treat some disease that made Bank while employed for this organization I would get 40% of the profits. Another 40% would go towards funding research outside my scope and control, and 20% towards the bottom line. And this 40% personal profit is considered quite generous now days; In my graduate school years the investigator would make coffee money. If I go on a lecture circuit I need approval from them company, and I cannot use the organization’s identity to promote me.
This idea that any sharing of any money is dangerous Left-wing socialism ignores reality. In corporate America there is little reward for money-generating ideas. Profits from an idea or hard work go to the top of the company where they are distributed very unevenly, with the largest shares going to the top officers. Maybe the money generating employee would get table scraps, or if he/she is lucky a promotion with a raise that is. Still dwarfed by the money made. Now if I had a great idea and left the company to start my own company those profits would stay with me as Capitalism dictates. If you are a great college quarterback then leave your current team to start your own team and see what money you can bring in.
How the state or university distributes those funds is another issue altogether.
These players aren't employess tho
Excellent.
Back in the USSR.......
I’m curious who pays the taxes on it. You can’t assign your income to someone else to avoid taxation, but can you avoid taxation if an authority takes your income and gives it to others?
It's an interesting question, but I think it can be easily worked out in the language of the endorsement contract. Let's say the Georgia Tech starting running back gets an offer from an Atlanta strip club to put his face on their ads in the back pages of the local magazines. Before he signs, the university has to agree to it and tell the strip club to put in writing that they will pay GT the percentage that they agreed to with the player as part of their agreement to come on campus and participate in the pool. So if the agreement is 50/50, and the club is paying 20k total, then the player would get 10k cash and pay tax on that, while the remaining 10k would go into the pool. Presumaby they would figure out some structure so it's taxed when paid out to the athletes after graduation or whenever.
The more I think about it, the pool idea seems like a huge administrative hassle that is probably not worth it for the school to do. The pool of players to pay out after graduation is constantly changing as players come and go, so for every deal where money comes in, someone has to track who it's due to and when. Almost like a private equity fund with hundreds of investors coming in and out, and since they're students, not super sophisticated. I'm trying to envision the model - not quite a partnership, kinda like a mutual fund, with some aspects of insurance. It's basically a whole new thing that the university will have to invent on the fly if they want to do it. I imagine many will not even try, or if they do, limit it team-by-team just for simplicity.
Maybe if the pool gets large enough it will attract grade transfers? Imaging getting a bigger pay check for graduating from one school over another school.
I haven't thought it out but it seems the student athletes should get the money for the next term if they are still in school. Shouldn't the money go toward furthering their education or paying for food and rent?
Based on subparagraph (B) of the law, which is the part concerning the pool arrangement, the student athlete is only eligible to be paid out of the escrow upon graduation or withdrawal from school for more than 12 months. So it seems like it won't be paid while the student is still in school. Probably so that it functions as an incentive to graduate. The same section says that it will be paid pro-rata based on the number of months the individual was a student-athlete. So I don't think you can come in and get a big paycheck out of the escrow by doing one year as a grad transfer.
Between this and the efforts to limiting voting rights in Georgia (and other states) I really wish black athletes would take a stand and boycott that state. If they transferred out of UGA and recruits stopped going there the government would change its tune in a hurry.
People are delusional. There is not going to be near enough NIL money to feed all the birdies' open mouths.
It's a math problem.
And if you try to take too much - like 75% - those athletes are not going to stick around, which was the original intent of NIL. Then you have nothing but a bunch of un-fillable promises.
I don't think the talent on the football and basketball team (who many times come from hardscrabble circumstances, if you catch my drift here) should be subsidizing Madison's field hockey or Chase's lax scholarship when we all know her or his parents either can pony up or they can go get a fine education elsewhere without a free ride or just spend a half a lifetime like the rest of us in the student loan jail. That ain't right.
I don't have an answer to this self-made conundrum other than I'd like to see football, basketball, and any other revenue-generating players get their rightful-enough share within the university system we have now and support, and screw the free-riders in what should just be club sports. They can fend for themselves like I did, working 30 hr/week in that One-Eyed Moose's smoker section!
Are they trying to just let Florida win? The universities should be bank rolling that all-athlete fund already with the TV money they raise through recognition of the university itself.
What happens when the producers stop producing?
Atlas Shrugged