[CTcard]

  There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid.  For example, would you consider little leaguers employees?  What about Texas high school football players?  

As far as I know high school athletic associations prohibit athletes from being compensated for any activity connected to their sport (i.e. they can't sell a photograph of themselves in their school uniform). 

That will probably change along with college rules in the not-so-distant future.  Catholic and private high schools would probably be the biggest benefactor for attracting elite athletes.

BC seems to be conflating the issue of whether college athletes are really employees or not with that of ownership of NIL rights.

There are inherent questions about when and if some organization can simply no longer be allowed to be an amateur athletics league. Though even there, the issue isn't whether the NCAA should be paying athletes but whether the NCAA can prohibit member institutions from doing so. I guess there would theoretically be nothing to stop, say Vandy, from choosing to field an amateur football team and still have games against Alabama with all players earning individually negotiated, $1 million plus salaries - it would just be an even stupider game than it is now.

On NIL, as far as I know, Little League doesn't prevent players from earning income in ways unconnected to playing in Little League. I think that the universities, through the NCAA, were always on shaky ground on that front.
Universities would have to allow their uniforms to be used for endorsements; there would be some reasons to do so but probably many to not do so. Besides, 90% of the NIL agreements will only nominally be endorsement deals, they will really be wealthy alums paying kids to play for their dear old school.

Issues I wonder about:
- to the extent universities run marketing operations to help athletes get NIL deals (which many are doing now), will they then be responsible for Title IX equity issues? Or other discrimination issues?
- will universities allow their uniforms to be used in player marketing deals? if they get a cut? It would be a boon to recruiting but may also increase their legal responsibilities.
- if random players from Alabama are already earning >$1 million, what will that do to NFL rookie contracts? will more players use up their eligibility to avoid a pay cut? 
- can "advertisers" be restricted from encouraging transfers?
- if athletes in the high profile sports are making plenty of money, will this raise or lower pressure to increase scholarship benefits? (which will likely have a bigger effect on lower-profile sport athletes than NIL agreements) 
- at what degree of un-level playing field will the sports lose fan interest?
At the moment, Alabama fans don't seem to mind paying up to watch their team shellack the likes Mercer, New Mexico State. Southern Miss and Vandy (the first three are on their schedule this year). Is there a limit? 


Finally, at what level does Stanford have enough ethical concerns to pull out?
I think Stanford stays in the game almost no matter what, most likely just with football and basketball teams that are less competitive. Firstly, Stanford has a brobdingnagian investment already sunk into big time athletics - both in concrete facility terms and in self-identification. Secondly, they saw the firestorm that erupted when they attempted to drop some minor sports and can anticipate how that would scale up if it were football and basketball.

[CTcard]

  There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid.  For example, would you consider little leaguers employees?  What about Texas high school football players?  

As far as I know high school athletic associations prohibit athletes from being compensated for any activity connected to their sport (i.e. they can't sell a photograph of themselves in their school uniform). 

That will probably change along with college rules in the not-so-distant future.  Catholic and private high schools would probably be the biggest benefactor for attracting elite athletes.

BC seems to be conflating the issue of whether college athletes are really employees or not with that of ownership of NIL rights.

There are inherent questions about when and if some organization can simply no longer be allowed to be an amateur athletics league. Though even there, the issue isn't whether the NCAA should be paying athletes but whether the NCAA can prohibit member institutions from doing so. I guess there would theoretically be nothing to stop, say Vandy, from choosing to field an amateur football team and still have games against Alabama with all players earning individually negotiated, $1 million plus salaries - it would just be an even stupider game than it is now.

On NIL, as far as I know, Little League doesn't prevent players from earning income in ways unconnected to playing in Little League. I think that the universities, through the NCAA, were always on shaky ground on that front.
Universities would have to allow their uniforms to be used for endorsements; there would be some reasons to do so but probably many to not do so. Besides, 90% of the NIL agreements will only nominally be endorsement deals, they will really be wealthy alums paying kids to play for their dear old school.

Issues I wonder about:
- to the extent universities run marketing operations to help athletes get NIL deals (which many are doing now), will they then be responsible for Title IX equity issues? Or other discrimination issues?
- will universities allow their uniforms to be used in player marketing deals? if they get a cut? It would be a boon to recruiting but may also increase their legal responsibilities.
- if random players from Alabama are already earning >$1 million, what will that do to NFL rookie contracts? will more players use up their eligibility to avoid a pay cut? 
- can "advertisers" be restricted from encouraging transfers?
- if athletes in the high profile sports are making plenty of money, will this raise or lower pressure to increase scholarship benefits? (which will likely have a bigger effect on lower-profile sport athletes than NIL agreements) 
- at what degree of un-level playing field will the sports lose fan interest?
At the moment, Alabama fans don't seem to mind paying up to watch their team shellack the likes Mercer, New Mexico State. Southern Miss and Vandy (the first three are on their schedule this year). Is there a limit? 


Finally, at what level does Stanford have enough ethical concerns to pull out?
I think Stanford stays in the game almost no matter what, most likely just with football and basketball teams that are less competitive. Firstly, Stanford has a brobdingnagian investment already sunk into big time athletics - both in concrete facility terms and in self-identification. Secondly, they saw the firestorm that erupted when they attempted to drop some minor sports and can anticipate how that would scale up if it were football and basketball.