ADVERTISEMENT

I had no idea there was a website which is all NIL news all the time - part of sports illustrated -

Eurocat

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
9,780
1,567
113
Numbers for the Big Ten overall (no USC or NU info because they (we) are private schools).



As covered in our previous alert, House v. NCAA consolidated two cases filed by Division I college athletes (at Arizona State University, the University of Oregon, and the University of Illinois, respectively), alleging that the current NCAA rules are anti-competitive and violate antitrust laws. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the NCAA and its Power Five conferences conspired to exploit student-athlete behavior and that the NCAA’s restrictions on name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments and control of TV markets prevent student-athletes from realizing their true market value.

In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs sought backpay to compensate them for these alleged lost NIL revenues. The potential losses included lost broadcast revenue, lost video game revenue, and third-party NIL deals that have occurred since 2016. On September 5, 2024, Judge Wilken initially rejected the preliminary approval of the proposed settlement citing concerns over the settlement’s proposed restrictions third-party NIL agreements and the definitions of “booster” and “pay for play.” The parties submitted a revised settlement on September 26, 2024, and Judge Wilken granted preliminary approval of the revised settlement on October 7, 2024.

Under the preliminarily approved settlement agreement, which would also resolve the Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA cases, the NCAA and the Power Five conference schools will pay $2.78 billion in damages to multiple categories of student-athletes as “back pay” as a result of the NCAA depriving these athletes of NIL opportunities and revenue sharing. The largest class in the settlement consists of Division I athletes who played sports from June 15, 2016, (due to the statute of limitations) through the present. However, the $2.78 billion will not be equally distributed. Approximately 75% is expected to go to football players, with 20% going to men’s and women’s basketball players and 5% for other athletes. The expected average damages award for a Power Five football or men’s basketball player is approximately $135,000 in payments over 10 years. Although the 27 non-Power Five conferences and their member schools were not defendants in the House lawsuit, these conferences and their schools are expected to bear about $990 million in costs. Power Five schools, by contrast, are expected to pay approximately $664 million, with the remainder paid by the NCAA.

SNIP

Additionally, the preliminarily approved settlement establishes a 10-year revenue-sharing plan, allowing NCAA conferences and their member schools to share 22% of annual revenue with student-athletes. This revenue-sharing plan is permissive, not required. Most importantly, schools can also opt into an athlete pay model of sports revenue, which is capped at $22 million annually for each school (for all athletes in a given school’s athletic program, at the school’s discretion). This salary cap is the next step in moving college sports closer and closer to “pro-style” sports, with schools under this model now having to choose where and how to distribute that $22 million figure. The revenue-sharing figure is expected to grow up to $32.9 million by the end of the 10-year revenue-sharing agreement.

Other key pieces of the settlement agreement include required reporting of all third-party NIL deals valued at $600 or more, a removal of scholarship limits (although scholarships will still count towards the $22 million “salary cap” figure, up to $2.5 million), and provisions for NCAA regulatory oversight.
 
Other key pieces of the settlement agreement include required reporting of all third-party NIL deals valued at $600 or more, a removal of scholarship limits (although scholarships will still count towards the $22 million “salary cap” figure, up to $2.5 million), and provisions for NCAA regulatory oversight.
[/QUOTE]
Scholarships count as NIL payments!
 
Other key pieces of the settlement agreement include required reporting of all third-party NIL deals valued at $600 or more, a removal of scholarship limits (although scholarships will still count towards the $22 million “salary cap” figure, up to $2.5 million), and provisions for NCAA regulatory oversight.
Scholarships count as NIL payments!
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't scholarships counting as NIL payments, put private schools at a significant disadvantage and increase the incentive for large state schools to recruit in-state kids because in-state scholarships cost less? Am I missing something obvious?
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't scholarships counting as NIL payments, put private schools at a significant disadvantage and increase the incentive for large state schools to recruit in-state kids because in-state scholarships cost less? Am I missing something obvious?

The actual cost of a football player is the same, regardless of where a player is from.

NU allocates seats for athletes, and not revenues. There is no “revenue” loss due to lack of tuition.
 
The actual cost of a football player is the same, regardless of where a player is from.

NU allocates seats for athletes, and not revenues. There is no “revenue” loss due to lack of tuition.

Are you sure about that? This seems to contradict what I’ve heard about the disadvantages private schools have had over the years. Is cost of tuition not a true budgetary item for college athletic departments?
 
Are you sure about that? This seems to contradict what I’ve heard about the disadvantages private schools have had over the years. Is cost of tuition not a true budgetary item for college athletic departments?
Of course I’m not sure about that! I’m a guy on the internet!

NU financial aid never evaluates athletes for their actual tuition rate. Athletes are flagged for full rides, and rubber stamped by admissions. Financial aid is not involved.

It would be a tremendous waste of resources to evaluate what the student would pay if the student were not an athlete, and then charge the athletic department for that rate.

I sincerely doubt the athletic department has a ‘tuition’ line item, but I’m usually wrong. If there is, it’s a flat annual cost and not something they consider in recruiting.

(If NU considered tuition cost in recruiting and if there was managerial pressure to reduce that tuition number while also using all scholarships, then NU would more actively recruit poor areas to reduce tuition costs. NU does not prioritize poor urban or rural areas in recruiting, we know.)
 
Is cost of tuition not a true budgetary item for college athletic departments?

School charges the athletic department to re-imburse financial aid to athletes.
This website shows line items per school (all public universities)
Boise State Athletic Student Aid $10 mil
Arizona $17 mil.
Michigan $32 mil.

 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
School charges the athletic department to re-imburse financial aid to athletes.
This website shows line items per school (all public universities)
Boise State Athletic Student Aid $10 mil
Arizona $17 mil.
Michigan $32 mil.

This is how it works everywhere that I’m aware of
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
That’s always been my understanding as well. Puts schools like NU, Stanford, Duke, Miami, etc at a disadvantage.

So @NUCat320 is full of shit?
It’s all internal transfer. It’s all money on paper. It is to schools’ advantage — especially in the age of “athletic departments are actually an expense” — to overstate the cost.

But NU is not forgoing revenue by putting athletes on scholarship. It’s all part of the plan.

If it was truly a cost, perhaps they’d appeal to the Uihlein family to foot some of the bill.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT