NIL rules are already in place throughout college athletics. However, in those states where legislation has been passed, state law trumps the NCAA rules. The state of California is planning to implement legislation that would apply only to this state by September 1st.

59bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

59bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Nice job NCAA. Nice job

---

LOL! It was the state legislature of California that started the ball rolling. Later other states joined the party. In the meantime, every court level in the Federal system ruled against the NCAA despite their best efforts to fight NIL compensation.

The decisions made by the states and courts was correct. Players should be paid for the use of their NIL. I applaud Bryce Young for taking full advantage of his opportunity to be fairly compensated for his NIL.

---

A conundrum...what's good for the individual athlete may not be good for the sport as a whole.

---

IMO, what is good for the individual athlete is good for the sport.

As I said in a post a while back, in a couple of years, we will look back and wonder what all the anxiety was about. This is not a big deal. It is just the first step on a journey that will see significant changes to college athletics. Quite frankly, these changes are long overdue. I look forward to seeing where we end up.

---

The peril I see is that a handful of elite programs may use NIL and "free agency" to widen the gap between themselves and the rest of the pack. The pro leagues have collective bargaining agreements that allow salary caps and a common draft to help maintain competitive balance. Will anything like that ever exist at the collegiate level? The much maligned NCAA has played a role, however imperfectly, to maintain some degree of competitive balance through scholarship limitations and limiting outright payment for services. Absent those constraints, are we not likely to see a further concentration of assets in the top dozen or so programs?

---

I wrote the same thing. the rich get richer, and then where does it leave Cal?

without any whimper of competitive balance does it even matter?

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Is it's morally right that. Pro basketball player can earn $5M/year while a top doctor earns only a fraction of that?

What we have here is marketing power in the new age

The HS junior will make a huge NIL haul with sponsorships and share of ad revenues because he has 5M followers

That represents a big draw to advertisers and even to the social media company (Instagram, TikTok, etc)

We are not talking about Toyota of Berkeley

Social media is a game changer. Many don't understand it and it's impact

touchdownbears43 said:

---

There isn't a moral or objective argument worth any salt that a college QB who has yet to play deserves or needs a million dollars based solely on his "likeness." The whole NIL idea is terrible.

---

---

I have to admit, people I'm around (including youngings) don't have that much time to spend on social media. While there will be a few athletes that make big numbers, when the initial reaction dies down, most college athletes are predicted to not make much money on this. More like a fringe benefit, and '71 provided a perfect the example of the kind of money involved (query if news outlets will be required to provide money for likeness?). , a NLI probably is not as offensive concept if given an opportunity to play out.. But if the courts follow the honorable Justice Kavanaugh, we eventually are talking about paying college athletes, and that is a very different level of money with competitive, social and legal consequences that could dramatically change the college sports landscape.

---

I've got a question....

If players can earn from their NIL, and that makes their use of NIL in video games against the law ...

then how can colleges post pictures, videos, ads, magazines/programs without paying them?

and how can ESPN, FOX, ABC show games with these players without paying them?