-
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 eGriz.com experience today!
MBBALL Great Osobor NIL Pay
- Thread starter GrizWin99
- Start date
Why would they? They have the money, and this gets them in the game for every top player in the country going forward. They are now in the conversation with every top team in NCAA. This isn't about Great (even though I am super happy for him) this is about the next 2-4 years. Sure it's a gamble, but it is very worth it.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Battle should have sat out last season.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
UW's hoops NIL is over $4 million this year.
Wasn't that dummy 3d and Long saying UM just needed a bit of NIL to be a top NCAA hoops tourney team?
Wasn't that dummy 3d and Long saying UM just needed a bit of NIL to be a top NCAA hoops tourney team?
Hoops watcher
Well-known member
I'd bet we ain't seen nuthin' yet with these payrolls......
BIG PICTURE: In 2010, CBS signed a $10.8 billion dollar contract with the NCAA to televise the Big Dance. In 2016, that contract was extended to 2032 for another $8.8 billion. According to Wikipedia, 90% of that money went to the universities. For those of you out there who are innumerate, that sum is equal to19,600 MILLION dollars. In other words, tons of money.
SMALL PICTURE: Let's properly assume UDub is not handing out this money gratuitously. They expect a return on that money in the form of an improved basketball team, which would lead to more butts in seats at home games, more TV exposure, and not only more revenue for each game they win at the NCAA tournament, but the added donations they'd get from their fanatical alums should their team do well.
THUS: We now can put a dollar value on the incredible hypocrisy that has existed at the college level ever since the dawn of big TV money in college athletics. That is, universities, oily "administrators" and college coaches making billions of dollars on the backs of STUDENT ATHLETES, STUDENT ATHLETES, STUDENT ATHLETES (a phrase repeated ad nauseum by those benefitting from this exploitation.)
THE LOCAL ANGLE: We now know what it might take to keep a player who DeCuire has labeled as potentially one of the best ever at the University of Montana, Money Williams. Denny, are you listening?
SMALL PICTURE: Let's properly assume UDub is not handing out this money gratuitously. They expect a return on that money in the form of an improved basketball team, which would lead to more butts in seats at home games, more TV exposure, and not only more revenue for each game they win at the NCAA tournament, but the added donations they'd get from their fanatical alums should their team do well.
THUS: We now can put a dollar value on the incredible hypocrisy that has existed at the college level ever since the dawn of big TV money in college athletics. That is, universities, oily "administrators" and college coaches making billions of dollars on the backs of STUDENT ATHLETES, STUDENT ATHLETES, STUDENT ATHLETES (a phrase repeated ad nauseum by those benefitting from this exploitation.)
THE LOCAL ANGLE: We now know what it might take to keep a player who DeCuire has labeled as potentially one of the best ever at the University of Montana, Money Williams. Denny, are you listening?
sacstateman
Well-known member
The only problem with your theory is the school is NOT doling out the NIL. Groups of alums are donating and spreading the NIL money. NIL is not SUPPOSE to have any connection to the schools or else the players would become school employees which we all know is not what the schools want. Coaches are in close contact with the NIL groups to make sure the money goes where they (coaches) want it to go...Otherwise, the rest of your post is true...players have been used for decades to the benefit of coaches, administrators and various other leeches...
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
I don't think players have been "used". Nobody makes players play sports in college.
However, I never liked that the ncaa prevented players from making money. That always seemed silly to me.
Schools give players a place to play, support them in their playing, hire good coaches for them, give some of them scholarships, give top players a place and opportunity to get better and get professional attention.
In my view, the big NIL money is going to end up hurting sports at some levels, and is going to hurt the so-called lesser sports as there will be less money for those sports at certain schools over time. There is not unlimited money for college athletics and college athletes. Money is being diverted, or will soon be diverted, to top athletes and top attractors of NIL money (see Livvy Dunne), in part at the expense of the lesser sports.
Of the top NIL receivers of money, 98% are football and basketball players.
"[Athletic] Major NIL Donors experiencing Donor Fatigue, see NIL as a temporary stopgap. NIL Collectives are telling AD's to prepare for revenue sharing, because NIL won't last forever. "I think there’s an understanding that donor-led and fan-led model is not equitable and not sustainable."
However, I never liked that the ncaa prevented players from making money. That always seemed silly to me.
Schools give players a place to play, support them in their playing, hire good coaches for them, give some of them scholarships, give top players a place and opportunity to get better and get professional attention.
In my view, the big NIL money is going to end up hurting sports at some levels, and is going to hurt the so-called lesser sports as there will be less money for those sports at certain schools over time. There is not unlimited money for college athletics and college athletes. Money is being diverted, or will soon be diverted, to top athletes and top attractors of NIL money (see Livvy Dunne), in part at the expense of the lesser sports.
Of the top NIL receivers of money, 98% are football and basketball players.
"[Athletic] Major NIL Donors experiencing Donor Fatigue, see NIL as a temporary stopgap. NIL Collectives are telling AD's to prepare for revenue sharing, because NIL won't last forever. "I think there’s an understanding that donor-led and fan-led model is not equitable and not sustainable."
sacstateman
Well-known member
I'm not sure how you define "used" but I think of it as one side reaping the vast majority of any monetary gains over the other side. I guess we will have to disagree on that one. I will always believe when a player can't afford to go out to dinner a couple times a month when the school and NCAA is banking billions of dollars, it's an unfair system.
As far as sustainability is concerned, you are probably on the right track. I'm not so certain that the lesser sports will suffer as much as you do but this system is on a fast track to destruction IMO.
Last edited:
oldrunner
Well-known member
I have heard it mentioned. privately, that many on the inside of things don't believe that the NCAA will survive in it's current form.
Seems like things move slowly, until something bigger happens to force a change.
The fact that Great is from the UK means that Washington and their NIL supporters had to jump through a lot of hoops to get him paid. Non citizens are not legally allowed to be employed in the USA. Those NIL contracts are employment contracts. That makes it necessary for the money to be filtered through a UK corporation. That is the only way it can all be legal.
Seems like things move slowly, until something bigger happens to force a change.
The fact that Great is from the UK means that Washington and their NIL supporters had to jump through a lot of hoops to get him paid. Non citizens are not legally allowed to be employed in the USA. Those NIL contracts are employment contracts. That makes it necessary for the money to be filtered through a UK corporation. That is the only way it can all be legal.
Last edited:
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Very few school athletic programs make met money at all. No school even grosses billions from athletics. The ncaa distributes its money to the schools.
In 2022, Ohio State had the most net revenue from athletics, $26 million. Tennessee and U Wash lost money on athletics.
USA Today releases Top 25 revenue earning college athletic programs for 2022
USA Today has released a database of the total revenue produced by college programs during the 2022-23 athletics year.
Virtually no athletic departments pay any excess funds to the school's general fund.
Billions are paid to college athletics in athletic scholarships.
Why should athletes get extra money for going out to dinner a few times a month? How about the band? The cheer squad? The debate team? The top students?
What’s the last time you paid to watch a band or a cheer squad or attend a debate? It’s the “student athletes” you pay to see. They generate the revenue. And if they generate the revenue, they should get paid commensurate with the revenue they produce. The money always goes to the talent.
Love ya for being old school but you’re up against the basic fundamentals of American capitalism, where a Steph Curry can make a billion playing basketball but school teachers struggle to make ends meet.
Love ya for being old school but you’re up against the basic fundamentals of American capitalism, where a Steph Curry can make a billion playing basketball but school teachers struggle to make ends meet.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
I often pay to take the cheer squad to dinner. Does that count?
The athletes in some sports, and their sports, cost the schools a lot of money. If the sport is a net loss, should the athletes pay their share of the loss?
Even in business, people don't usually get paid for the revenue they generate, if there are big costs and losses for the business.
Is it your thought that schools that generate net revenue from football should give some or most of the net revenue to the players, and then drop the other sports that the schools can't then afford to pay for/subsidize?
Do you think the Montana legislature would continue to subsidize MT college athletics, and increase that amount, if the schools were paying salaries to players, or football players?
Do you believe in Title IX, or would you allow salaries for football players end not to women's sports? Lefties like you think money grows on trees.
Curry doesn't make a billion from basketball. If the Warriors weren't profitable (or had to pay for other low revenue sports or branches), Curry would make less money than he does.
Glad you take the cheer squad to dinner; you've always come across to me as a generous guy.
But it has no bearing whatever on this discussion.
Legislatures should continue to support college athletic programs, both for the character that derives from competitive athletic endeavor, and to support those genuine "student athletes" who will never qualify for NIL money.
Meanwhile, college football and basketball have become big-time businesses, and the star athletes who attract the crowds should share in the revenue they generate, as have so many big-time college coaches who earn more than their school's presidents, and the multitude of oily "administrators" whose salaries run to $500,000 a year.
As a Native American who most surely has felt injustice in your life, how can you be so blind to the incredible injustice that's been going on in college athletics since the rise of that greatest of all cash cows, TV?
As for the personal attack on my being a leftie, so be it. Many on here think I live in the basement of my Mother's house with nothing better to do than tap out messages on egriz.
But if you'd ever like to hear the truth about me, let's meet some time. I seldom get to Missoula anymore but I know you get to New York, where I own a co-op at 83rd and Madison, or, if you get to San Francisco, Nob Hill, where argh! can attest to my modest dumpster.
P.S. Curry did not make a billion playing basketball but he's on his way to a billion because of basketball.
But it has no bearing whatever on this discussion.
Legislatures should continue to support college athletic programs, both for the character that derives from competitive athletic endeavor, and to support those genuine "student athletes" who will never qualify for NIL money.
Meanwhile, college football and basketball have become big-time businesses, and the star athletes who attract the crowds should share in the revenue they generate, as have so many big-time college coaches who earn more than their school's presidents, and the multitude of oily "administrators" whose salaries run to $500,000 a year.
As a Native American who most surely has felt injustice in your life, how can you be so blind to the incredible injustice that's been going on in college athletics since the rise of that greatest of all cash cows, TV?
As for the personal attack on my being a leftie, so be it. Many on here think I live in the basement of my Mother's house with nothing better to do than tap out messages on egriz.
But if you'd ever like to hear the truth about me, let's meet some time. I seldom get to Missoula anymore but I know you get to New York, where I own a co-op at 83rd and Madison, or, if you get to San Francisco, Nob Hill, where argh! can attest to my modest dumpster.
P.S. Curry did not make a billion playing basketball but he's on his way to a billion because of basketball.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Good point on immigration/visa restrictions for foreign athletes. My understanding is that some are using P-1 or O-1 visas, which then allows income in the US. And, NIL income earned outside the US would be okay, as you said. However, I'm not sure how often that could be done legitimately. You seem to know more than I do about this, City.
Foreign athletes usually use an F-1 visa. That doesn't allow US income.
I read that about 5% of US college athletes are foreign.
Interesting question. Osobor's NIL is so huge that obviously lawyers can figure out that one.
Foreign athletes usually use an F-1 visa. That doesn't allow US income.
I read that about 5% of US college athletes are foreign.
Interesting question. Osobor's NIL is so huge that obviously lawyers can figure out that one.
From Sports Business Journal. Theoretically Osobar can do his NIL “work” while he’s home in England without violating his VISA restrictions:
International student athletes have, however, found a workaround — traveling home or elsewhere abroad to engage in NIL activities. Their participation in NIL deals should not run afoul the current F-1 visa rules as long as he conducts his activities while abroad, because only U.S.-based employment activities are regulated under U.S. immigration laws.
International student athletes have, however, found a workaround — traveling home or elsewhere abroad to engage in NIL activities. Their participation in NIL deals should not run afoul the current F-1 visa rules as long as he conducts his activities while abroad, because only U.S.-based employment activities are regulated under U.S. immigration laws.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
$2 million of NIL work when he's home in England? I doubt it. The IRS would call BS on that, is my guess.
grizzlygrumpa
Well-known member
I said this in the football forum and I'll say it here: If you dump the illusory amateurism status for college athletes and you just at look at the nuts and bolts of the mechanisms that fuel those programs, there is nothing amateur about college athletics in the United States.
Having known people who work in athletic departments from NAIA schools all the way to Pac12 schools, over the years the is a lot of surface level performative actions to give the appearance of propriety and in the name of amateurism that goes on at larger colleges. None of those athletic programs are running bake sales to generate funds to send a team to a pre-season softball tournament in Florida. All the newest agreement does is finally pull all that money out of the dark, and into the open. Moves the NCAA from a mall security guard trying to prevent shoplifting at the Mall of America, and into a potential position that would be able to effectively regulate its member institutions without having to spend the time investing their energies into places that was a waste of time. No more sanctions for gifting players a hot dog on a recruiting trip.
Osobor was and is merely a symptom of that lack of regulatory authority the NCAA had once they let the horse out of the barn. If the NCAA gets the anti-trust exemption from Congress, it'll be able to more effectively manage the money members institutions bring in, and spend. More notably they can put hard caps on what percentage can and can't be spent on player salaries, fringe benefits (including college instruction). I think we'll see roster caps and salary ceilings like the NFL and an attempt to create level playing field through the distribution of income across those power 5 schools.
Montana wasn't ever going to be apart of that scene, but for revenue neutral schools in the truest of senses that phrase, it might create different but better opportunities for schools like the UM to take advantage of.
Having known people who work in athletic departments from NAIA schools all the way to Pac12 schools, over the years the is a lot of surface level performative actions to give the appearance of propriety and in the name of amateurism that goes on at larger colleges. None of those athletic programs are running bake sales to generate funds to send a team to a pre-season softball tournament in Florida. All the newest agreement does is finally pull all that money out of the dark, and into the open. Moves the NCAA from a mall security guard trying to prevent shoplifting at the Mall of America, and into a potential position that would be able to effectively regulate its member institutions without having to spend the time investing their energies into places that was a waste of time. No more sanctions for gifting players a hot dog on a recruiting trip.
Osobor was and is merely a symptom of that lack of regulatory authority the NCAA had once they let the horse out of the barn. If the NCAA gets the anti-trust exemption from Congress, it'll be able to more effectively manage the money members institutions bring in, and spend. More notably they can put hard caps on what percentage can and can't be spent on player salaries, fringe benefits (including college instruction). I think we'll see roster caps and salary ceilings like the NFL and an attempt to create level playing field through the distribution of income across those power 5 schools.
Montana wasn't ever going to be apart of that scene, but for revenue neutral schools in the truest of senses that phrase, it might create different but better opportunities for schools like the UM to take advantage of.
