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."
"fairly compensated" ?! That's a big ol' sick (SIC).
It's the university's job to ensure approximate equality across its athletic teams, not to dip into individuals' money-earning capacity to do that job for them.
Don't nobody no more believe in capitalism?
Capitalism doesn't exist in sports when you're a player. There are too many caps.
That's where things are headed and universities are usually leading the way, though it might not be the right way.
I am sure the athletes in sports that make absolutely no revenue and where there is virtually no interest by anyone to utilize their name to generate revenue, will be demanded money from the athletes and teams that do generate Revenue and claim some kind of Oppression to justify it
That's where things are headed and universities are usually leading the way, though it might not be the right way.
I am sure the athletes in sports that make absolutely no revenue and where there is virtually no interest by anyone to utilize their name to generate revenue, will be demanded money from the athletes and teams that do generate Revenue and claim some kind of Oppression to justify it
The QB who is making all the dollars SHOULD share it with the people who are making it possible for him to be slinging TD's. The O-Line.
The RB who is running through giant holes in the defense should also PAY UP.
How's this gonna work when a few individuals are making all the dollars and the O-Line gets bupkis? There has got to be some profit sharing. Who wants to bust their ass for years and years just to make running lanes for a millionaire? No thanks.
i guess it's been a long week, because this is the third thing on this site today that left me wondering...is this serious, or is it a really, really stupid joke?
No, it's not a joke.
You can't have a few grossly paid players while the rest, who are working just as hard if not harder, get nothing. That's not much of a 'team' sport. This seems obvious to me. Why can't you see that?
If you have an explanation, I am all ears.
This is dumb take. Olineman get drafted probably more than skill position players and end up making millions in the end anyway.
Difference in the Pros though is that the Oline players get paid too. It's millionaire blocking for bigger millionaires as opposed to guys who get nothing blocking for at least 100K-aires. I think that's a significant difference.
Haha, this guy (& Georgia) is like fucking Robinhood.
Wealth distribution.
If you over do it, the wealth producers will quit, and then you'll have nothing.
Just like real life.
I doubt Gov Kemp would be keen to sign other bills that take 75% of people's income/wealth for redistribution.
Further, stuff like this makes it seem as though piecemeal state legislation will be too cumbersome and federal regulation/legislation may have to resolve. Alternatively, if a state like...I dunno Michigan passes less restrictive NLI laws that may give them a leg up over Georgia (not that a bunch of money won't stop flowing under the table)
That could be their idea, which is frankly a good one if it plays out that way. The players that would normally not get that pay day from their recruitment can get some money and the big time players can get what they deserve. But as you said, it'll will all have to be off the books which we know they don't have a problem with.
Kemp and his party HATE income redistribution, unless it's taking the income from young black kids.
8.7.3Ah, yes, "fairly compensated"... at the time and place, and in the manner and at the level, of other people's (University administrators, state legislators) choosing.
This is bullshit. Georgia is the pits. I like the idea of putting $ into a pool for all student-athletes that gets paid out after graduation - but that's what they should be doing now. They should be setting up systems like this for student athletes with the money they already bring in, instead of wasting it on coaches, administrators and facilities. It's unbelievable that the athletes are finally going to make some money off their own NIL and the state wants to take 75% of it. I hope this means recruits will say 'fuck no' when the Bulldogs and Yellow Jackets come calling.
According to the article, the state isn’t taking it but redistributing to other student athletes. I agree it’s stupid that women’s rowing should be making money off of a college football players NIL, but you have to consider we are in the era of equal play equal pay....which also doesn’t make sense in some circumstances. The WNBA is already subsidized by the NBA. Does anyone really think WNBA players should make as much as nba players? The WNBA has no value. Technically these universities are already paying equally by using a scholarship. Once we have NIL reimbursement, it will change this concept and non revenue sport athletes will want equal pay. Should the revenue sports with athletes making money from NIL not subsidize this? This happens in other sports. It doesn’t seem like the school’s responsibility. Just to be clear, I don’t like either of these systems and think NIL is not the solution nor is taking money from NIL to pay other athletes.
Good points made and I've often wondered about non revenue sport athletes getting some slice of the pie out of this. I like the NBA/WNBA case. The WNBA can only make more money id there are more TV sponsors willing to advertise and pay what would be higher ad rates. The simple answer is to that is no.
Non revenue athletes under this plan would get a small compensation fee. Even the football team's scout team members who will never get actual playing time will get something as well.
The next issue is say Power 5 star athletes vs say MAC conference athletes. There will be more separation with Division 1 as a result. The new world will take some adjusting to in the near future.
"According to the article, the state isn’t taking it but redistributing to other student athletes."
This is the same thing - the state takes it, and keeps it; or the state takes it, and redistributes it to others. In either case, the state is arbitrarily deciding to take 75% of an earner's income. What the college's should do is take 75% of the their Athletic Dept income and redistribute it to all students, rather than just to administrators and coaches. The state should do nothing but collect the taxes that would otherwise be levied anyway, for the sole purpose of running the government.
It's also quite ironic that Brian Kemp - one of the most Trumpy Governor's in all the land - is trying to sell us a version of wealth redistribution. Man, bring up 'wealth redistribution' in a Congressional discussion about taxes and the entire GOP will lose it's fucking mind!
Seriously. Imagine calling it an income tax (which it effectively is) and setting it at 75%...
I'm sorry but I'm so tired of hearing this argument. "take 75% of the athletic departments income and redistribute it to all students." That's already what they're doing! There are no athletic teams or programs anywhere in the world operating at a 75% margin or even close to that!
In 2019 Michigan generated $197.7 million in revenue. They also had $196.6 million of expenses. Now take your proposal of 75% of income going back to the students, that's $148.28 million dollars so your expenses are now $344.88 million. How do you propose the program pays $344 million dollars out with $197.7 million dollars available?
I suppose you could say to give the students 75% of net income, which in the case of 2019 was $1.1 million. So now you have $825k distributed between over 900 athletes so each athlete gets cut a check for $916 but even then you've now valued non revenue sports substantially higher than revenue sports because the revenue sports are already paying for the non revenue sports. So do you only give the $825k to players in revenue producing sports or do you do pro rata share? Is it subject to Title IX so you allocate the funds by gender? Do star players get more? What about non scholarship athletes, do they get a higher share because they've contributed to producing revenue but also have paid their own way?
I'm all for finding a way to give these people a little bit more but some of these proposals consist of such low resolution thinking that its almost unbelievable.
It's possible that there would be some adjustment on the expenditure side, no? Plus this is revenue that currently is not included in the $197.7m.
Honestly, without incorporating those rather obvious potential adjustments, your post is just as extreme as some of those that you're targeting.
Thats the problem though. Its tough to find what you could cut to make any meaningful headway and then as soon as you start cutting stuff people go nuts that you're cutting stuff.
Do you understand how a 501(c)(3) works? They generally run at a low surplus, if any at all. Consequently, it's no surprise that the athletic department had $1.1 of net income. They deliberately spend nearly all of their revenue. If they have a banner year, they'll hire more football admin or other staff.
Not sure folks fully grasp the various ways by which the athletic department determines to spend its revenue. So to say that taking 75% of the AD revenue for player revenue share would nearly double the expenses is quite misguided. If it was a requirement for the AD to do so, there would be mass admin/staff layoffs in the AD. Additionally, the runaway salaries would start to normalize.
You're leaving out the part about what they do spend the money on vs. what they should spend it on.
If the main revenue sports were, say, golf and swimming, would Georgia be passing a law to take 75% of their rights money to give to non-revenue basketball players?
I know one law that would not pass in Georgia- take 75% of State Legislators income, including appearance and speaking fees, and give it to the neediest people in the districts they represent.
So all the big names get significantly less than they should so everyone gets a little something? What is defined as a "student athlete" in the state of Georgia? Does a walk-on from lets say Cross Country get put in this pool? I do think its cool that everyone might get something but is it fair to the athlete that is actually getting its likeness used?
I am on the fence really with this. I can see arguments for both sides. Generally speaking I'm a fan of you do the work you get the money... but, that is a bit tricky in this case. Are the CC runners doing less "work" in this case? They still have practices and competitions and are still doing all this for/under the name of X University. They happen to be doing this "work" in a sport that doesn't generate money but it is still "work".
The janitor at Apple's headquarters isn't inventing or designing the new iPhone or doing some other thing that actively generates money for the company but he/she still gets a paycheck. When I consider this from that perspective, the redistribution idea becomes a bit more understandable.
The biggest issue I see with this bill (beyond the fact it's rather clearly designed to absolve the universities from having to compensate athletes for their value) is that other states are likely to pass far less onerous ones and that would put Georgia universities at a competitive disadvantage (or more likely, just lead to more rampant cheating). And considering the state of Georgia changed it's open records laws to make Kirby Smart happy/make it easier for him to recruit, this would seem like a law that would only hurt the Dawgs.
This sort of highlights why we need national/universal legislation on the matter, as 50 states with 50 different laws seems unwieldy.
So what happens when the national legislation doesn't go the way you want?
At least if you keep it on a state by state level you get at least some competitive pressure to balance it towards some sort of consensus. Might take a while and might be pretty confusing, but at least that way it preserves our options. Once a national/universal policy comes out, the options dramatically narrow. Let's give chaos a chance as we figure out how to handle the competing stakeholders.
I mean, there's no actual need to have national legislation at all if the NCAA just loosened their rules.
Your claim that a bunch of different states ultimately leading to a uniform-ish rule is basically the same end result as a universal rule. You can always re-visit and tweak the law as necessary over the years, plus that way every athlete and school knows what they have to deal with from the jump. By comparison, I could see a world where states carve out specific exemptions for some schools and not others (such as private vs. public), enforcement is inconsistent, athletes become confused about applicability across state lines (commerce occurs across state boundaries and depending on how you write certain laws you could see them including punitive measures on athletes from other schools), etc.
Right now we already have chaos, and it's creating dumb laws like this one.
If you believe that the ability to revisit and tweak the law will lead to better and faster changes than if you leave it open to competition then more power to you.
I happen to think a national standard would be incredibly vulnerable to regulatory capture and the moment it could get framed in title IX terms you lose any ability to steer the law towards providing a compensation structure(more money to the athlete's that generate it) that it seems the board would prefer
Other schools will just use this law to recruit against Georgia. With the new transfer rules, this law is an absolute liability. It won't last long.
All it will take is Alabama or Florida or Texas passing their own NIL legislation with language expressly stating that all athletes will keep 100% of their NIL earnings and the Georgia NIL will be quickly amended.
The state of Michigan ought to do exactly that as well.
The Dawg Bagmen will make up the difference. ;-)
Wow. Just wow. The sheer idiocy of this is mind boggling. In what world is taxing these athletes 75% and redistributing that money to others who didn’t earn it an actual conservative policy position. Hell, it’s not even using brackets (like taxing amounts over $1mm). How anyone can see this as anything other than Southern Jim Crow hypocrisy is beyond me. And why any top flight athlete would stick around for that offer is beyond me.
As a leftist I love the idea of wealth redistribution, but in this case the money would be taken from largely poor black basketball and football players to be given to majority white middle class athletes in the sports that make less money.
That’s how redistribution usually works
Haha, "I love wealth redistribution when it's taking money away from white people who make an exorbitant amount of money, but not when it's non-white people who make an exorbitant amount of money." At least try to be consistent in your beliefs.
Why are you straw-manning him? His central point is about wealth rather than race. So if we paraphrase correctly, it's more like "I love wealth redistribution when it's taking money away from rich people, but not when it's poor people." This Georgia NIL bill essentially acts to transfer money away from the football and basketball players who come from predominantly blue-collar backgrounds to the predominantly white-collar squash, tennis, XC, swim, etc. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, this should be abhorrent.
I think the blatant strawman was being used sarcastically to point out the stupidity of the "I love wealth redistribution" guys statement
oh cool you love the idea of legalizing criminal activity (theft of money you didn't earn and isn't rightfully yours) in order to give it to people who did nothing to earn it simply because you feel it's "fair" to some people?
Wealth redistribution, making everyone involved poor except the government since 1792
I can't tell if you're specifically talking about this law or wealth redistribution in general. If it's this law, I would say other players on the team contribute in some way to the star athlete's and the team's performance, and should be compensated in some way. If you're on the practice squad, you contribute. If you're second or third string, you contribute. The star athlete doesn't play in a vacuum. In a better world, the NCAA would be making these rules, not the government. IMO, this isn't in the government's purview.
a) this law is total BS and it is a massive overreach by the government. its a money grab poorly hidden as a way to "fairly distribute money" they otherwise would have never had in order to pad their own pockets and support their already bloated budgets. I've always been weary of NIL because the schools and government will find a way to STILL screw over the players.
b) Let the schools decide how the money is handled, and the players can decide which school to go to based on where they think they can earn the most, in terms of overall dollars earned and how much is put in a kitty for other players/sports.
c) pure wealth redistribution (taking money from people who are randomly deemed to have "too much of it" in order to simply give it to others who are randomly deemed to have "not enough of it" under the guise of "fairness") is criminal and amoral, is against at least two of the 10 commandments (if you're a Christian), and never works in practice. Govt is the entity that takes, and they'll never dole out as much as they take in. Pure wealth redistribution is like socialism or communism. It has never been good for the common man, or society as a whole.
Lemme guess you think "taxation is theft?"
Wealth redistribution, making everyone involved poor except the government since 1792
Progressive tax brackets prevent this, but go off
Well, you guessed completely wrong, which is why it's pretty stupid to ASSume things about an anonymous individual based on a single comment I typed out on the internet.
Progressive taxation, which I don't mind, isn't wealth redistribution.