The University of Kentucky is paying 22 million for its roster this year. This article does a nice job discussing where the money is coming from and so forth, but does not break down the salaries player by player. I have heard Reece Potter is likely redshirting this year, and he is being virtually nothing. But here is how I view Potter’s decision. He is from Lexington and playing for the “Big Blue” was probably a lifetime dream, so I in no way begrudge him that opportunity and say he played for UK. I wish him well.
I’m really curious what this looks like in 5-10 years as programs start to build up “NIL Endowments” and really pumping in cash. Stanford football just got a 50m dollar gift for football NIL.
Every school has rich guys, some more than others, that really love their teams and are willing to pump money into it to win. Unlike professional sports, there’s no salary cap. No UEFA style fair play regulations tying spending to realistic revenue. If Larry Ellison decides he wants to start spending a billion a year on Michigan, he literally financially and legally could do it. Pablo Torres reported today that Lombardi took a fundraising trip to SAUDI ARABIA for UNC. We’ve seen their spending in golf, tennis, boxing, soccer. Is NCAA next?
Is there a world in the not far future where players have to take a paycut to move from the Big Ten/SEC to the NBA/NFL? This is gonna start a spending war with no ceiling.
The 22nd pick in the NBA draft makes $3m in their rookie year as dictated by the CBA. Depending on how that $22m at Kentucky is allocated and how the top prospects (most paid) shake out this year as far as draft placement, we may already have crossed that Rubicon where a player will be taking a pay cut when they get drafted.
That ship sailed last year. One of the reasons Tyrese Proctor came back to Duke was that he could earn more in NIL than in his projected draft slot. Hunter Dickinson reportedly was in the same situation at Kansas.
On the one hand, having a pro college league is something I want to rail against, but when you look at the money that ESPN and Fox Sports make on showing athletic contests from college kids working for free, that makes me kinda more pissed.
What I want to see is the rip-off-the-Band-Aid approach: Get a LIV-Sports/EPL super conference of the Top 24 college programs, pay these damn kids as much as they can get, and leave every other non-superconference team out of the arms race. Have Georgia take on Michigan one week and then take on Clemson the next. Ohio State plays Notre Dame. Oregon plays Texas.
I think where it gets super interesting is when the four years of college eligibility rule goes down. Why can’t a kid play 8 years of “college” basketball? Why can’t you play 7 years of “college” football. I know, because the NCAA says so. But for how long? And who cares what the NCAA says anyway?
There’s already work to go to 5 years of eligibility. Seems like once that path is taken, why not keep going? And then how will the NFL, specifically, react to this competition for talent?
It would be wild if the NCAA (or the successor Big Ten/SEC super league) eliminated eligibility and basically ran a direct competitor to the NFL and NBA with no salary cap, no spending limits, etc.
Would players leave college for the NFL if they could play for 10+ years and make more money with no cap? How would the pro owners who actually are interested in revenue vs expenses respond to competition from “boosters”/”donors” who are just pouring money into their play thing. Could be an interesting time for professional sports in America.
If I’m an Ohio State or Alabama and I can keep all the tv/ticket/merchandising revenue but basically foist all the expenses of paying the players millions onto wealthy alumni, why wouldn’t I want to keep pushing that model?
They’re not working “for free.” I’ve said this before.
The scholarship they’re getting is really quite valuable. Miami’s “cost to attend” for instate is about $36,000 and out of state is $59,000.
Look at it as if the total value of scholarship and benefits they’re getting (they also get a monthly check for misc. expenses) is the “pay’ they get for their time spent as an athlete.
If you’re paying 35% of your take home pay in taxes-bet most of us are paying more than that-it would take about $55,400 for in state and $90,800 out of state in pre tax income to pay for school.
According to the Federal Reserve Bank St Louis the average personal median income in the US is about $42,200.
Consider this, for parents with kids on full scholarships the real value of the full ride; $55k/$91K, is worth more than what most people in this country are making. I’d bet most folks on this site would be real, real, real happy if they didn’t have to pay for their kids college education.
For the 98.4% of NCAA student athletes that are not going to play in the NFL, the scholarship and what it can do for their lifetime earning (if they take advantage of it) is a great deal. A nice pay off for their hard work.
Do you have to be enrolled and taking classes? And if so, what if the university has a policy that says you have to take “x” number of hours or classes a semester to be considered a full time student or enrolled? And what if the university has a policy that you have only “x” number of years or semesters to get your degree or be considered a full time student? And do you have to be a full time or part time student at all to play athletics? Or can you simply show up and say I don’t want to take any classes at all, I’m just here to play football? Just a few thoughts in 30 seconds it took me to type this on my phone as my wife hurtles us at speed limit breaking speeds towards Oxford! While I listen to No Shoes Radio on Sirius! Don’t know the answers just spitballing so don’t shoot the sheriff!
Sticker prices on college tuition are largely a polite fiction for non-international students, but beyond that, I agree for the vast majority of student-athletes it’s a great deal. For a sizeable percentage, their fair market value is an order of magnitude higher or more though, and they shouldn’t have to forfeit that just because others are getting a good deal.
I don’t know specifics, I’m just musing as well. And I’d assume if anything is going to help the schools they’ll figure out a way to make it work with their broader policies.
My larger point is the NCAA is completely feckless now. And that’s where the current 4-year eligibility rule begins, I think. So what happens if schools want to do away with it (as they’re doing now)? Too, I think the issue impacts football particularly, as the NBA is a global game and doesn’t need college talent to the same degree that the NFL does.
