Is a NIL "salary cap" a viable option
- Thread starter olelion
- Start date
I don't distinguish between NIL and "salaries" in college football. They are one in the same unlike the NFL. That doesn't mean there won't have to be limits put in place.
If there is one paid hour spent by a University employee looking after, or engaging in NIL, it's a salary.
Before that a-hole UCLA bball player came along, if you'd have asked me my thoughts about NIL, I'd have said great!
Dickie Maginis advertising Armenara Lanes on tv - perfect! Micah Hancock's ad for the nail salon downtown - perfect!
That's not what any of this is. Not even close.
Dickie Maginis advertising Armenara Lanes on tv - perfect! Micah Hancock's ad for the nail salon downtown - perfect!
That's not what any of this is. Not even close.
Only if the NCAA would actually enforce it and you would have to hope the SEC/tOSU/Oregon don't blow right on by that knowing the NCAA has no teeth as it stands. So probably not if we're being honest.
cant happen without a union and the cap being collectively bargined.
Impossible to police. Payments from boosters to players would just go back to being made “under the table”. Like in the old days (in the SEC)
They're not though...college football will be paying guys salaries then NIL also exists.
Do you believe the courts would ever allow NIL to be limited? It's clear that isn't going to happen IMO.
I get what you want and don't disagree but legally it's impossible
The Universities are acting towards NIL as the NFL acts towards CFB. The Universities don't want the players to be employees of the school, and the NFL doesn't want the responsibility of running a farm system.
"I got nothing to do with this. I'm just here to reap the benefits - IF there are any."
"I got nothing to do with this. I'm just here to reap the benefits - IF there are any."
NIL shouldn't be limited but it also shouldn't be affiliated with the school; let the kids hire agents and work on their behalf to secure deals. Having 'in house' NIL just allows for payments without meeting true NIL requirements per the clearing house established by the settlement. Will teams get around this? Probably - for a while. But I don't see programs lining up to continue to pay over market value for bad products/players (and that is what we have now):
Not allowed:
- Pay for Play
- Above Market Pay
- Money for No Real Business or Deliverable
NIL Deal Checker — Will Your Deal Clear the Clearinghouse? | HDBND
Answer a few questions about a proposed NIL deal and get an instant read on whether it's likely to clear the NIL clearinghouse's fair-market-value review — plus concrete fixes. Free.
hdbnd.com
I understand your point but if someone came up to me, not a politician, and said “here’s $1000 a week, spend it in good health, no quid pro quo,” as long as I pay taxes on it it’s legal, amirite?NIL shouldn't be limited but it also shouldn't be affiliated with the school; let the kids hire agents and work on their behalf to secure deals. Having 'in house' NIL just allows for payments without meeting true NIL requirements per the clearing house established by the settlement. Will teams get around this? Probably - for a while. But I don't see programs lining up to continue to pay over market value for bad products/players (and that is what we have now):
Not allowed:
- Pay for Play
- Above Market Pay
- Money for No Real Business or Deliverable
NIL Deal Checker — Will Your Deal Clear the Clearinghouse? | HDBND
Answer a few questions about a proposed NIL deal and get an instant read on whether it's likely to clear the NIL clearinghouse's fair-market-value review — plus concrete fixes. Free.
Last edited:
Something like that is a gift imo. No need or explanation as to why you should pay taxes on it. As are all tips (but I digress).
Are you a participating college football player at a school who has accepted the rules established by the court settlement? If ‘yes’ - then I’m not sure.
So I believe they'd argue it isn't pay or play and anyone can pay a player whatever they deem appropriate and can tie it to the program.NIL shouldn't be limited but it also shouldn't be affiliated with the school; let the kids hire agents and work on their behalf to secure deals. Having 'in house' NIL just allows for payments without meeting true NIL requirements per the clearing house established by the settlement. Will teams get around this? Probably - for a while. But I don't see programs lining up to continue to pay over market value for bad products/players (and that is what we have now):
Not allowed:
- Pay for Play
- Above Market Pay
- Money for No Real Business or Deliverable
NIL Deal Checker — Will Your Deal Clear the Clearinghouse? | HDBND
Answer a few questions about a proposed NIL deal and get an instant read on whether it's likely to clear the NIL clearinghouse's fair-market-value review — plus concrete fixes. Free.
I fully understand what you're saying. I just firmly believe the courts would never allow any restrictions.
You are probably correct and therein lies the problem. The courts run the show and so anything goes.
Every time I see Arch Manning in a Warby Parker commercial I think if only NIL was actually what it was intended to be.
Who was the greedy one that somehow made NIL pay to play? Now college football has morphed into something that is only recognizable when you compare it to the NFL.
I would have no issue with players getting paid for their name, image or likeness. Do 1,000 commercials if you can get it. What we now have is terrible.
Who was the greedy one that somehow made NIL pay to play? Now college football has morphed into something that is only recognizable when you compare it to the NFL.
I would have no issue with players getting paid for their name, image or likeness. Do 1,000 commercials if you can get it. What we now have is terrible.
No disagreement..definitely a problem
College football (the NCAA) could have controlled all of this had they just paid players when they should have. It always goes back to that. Their greed created this.
Wait--maybe I'm confused--how do you see that playing out?
How would NIL restrictions be "part of a court ordered settlement"?
I don't understand who you think is involved in a settlement either as no union exists
The landmark House v. NCAA antitrust class-action settlement ($2.8 billion total fund) received final approval from Judge Claudia Wilken and took effect on July 1, 2025. [1, 2]
Key Settlement Details
Key Settlement Details
- Back-Damage Payouts: A $2.8 billion fund ($2.576 billion for House damages and $200 million for the Hubbard fund) compensates current and former Division I student-athletes dating back to 2016 for lost name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities. [1, 2]
- Direct Revenue Sharing: Division I universities are permitted (though not required) to share up to 22% of average Power Four conference revenues directly with athletes, starting at roughly $20.5 million per school annually for 2025–26 (with caps scaling up over time). [1, 2]
- Roster & Scholarship Changes: Traditional rigid scholarship limits have been replaced by new roster size caps across sports. [1, 2]
- NIL Oversight & Reporting: Third-party NIL deals and collective payments must reflect fair market value for a valid business purpose. All third-party NIL agreements exceeding $600 must be reported to the NIL Go clearinghouse (managed by Deloitte) and monitored by the College Sports Commission. [1]
- Eligibility & Claims: Full-scholarship football, men's basketball, and women's basketball players from the Power 5 (2016–2024) and eligible Division I athletes from 2016 to the present can check individual allocation estimates through the College Athlete Compensation Portal. [1, 2]
Limits? No - I never said that. I said it was going to be subject to a clearing house for legitimacy. And it is. Does handing a player an envelope with a thousand dollars every week meet the criteria in the settlement? Unlikely, unless there is actual work related to it and the price is determined to be reasonable. Seems pretty clearly laid out in my post above.
Rejection Metrics
- Total Rejections: The CSC has rejected over $90 million across more than 1,800 third-party NIL agreements since the clearinghouse launched. [1]
Examples of Scrutiny
- Arbitration: Disputed or rejected contracts can go through an arbitration process, such as a notable ruling won by Nebraska against the clearinghouse regarding specific football NIL evaluations. [1]
Absolutely cannot do that. It’s granted as a right by the courts. NIL collectives can only be eliminated via collective-bargaining or if the NCAA is given antitrust protections by Congress via the protect college sports act. With the election on Tuesday, it appears that act is possibly dead in the water per this article or will have to be heavily rewritten in the future. Nothing is changing anytime soon and we will continue to be way behind the top spenders.
It would be nice if people would just stop using the silly acronym of "NIL" for something that has NOTHING to do with the value of a ballplayers "Name Image and Likeness" - because it doesn't.
The number of college football players who have a "Name Image and Likeness" value of more than a couple bucks is just about zero.
How much is Cooper Cousins' (a very good football player) "Name Image and Likeness" worth - maybe $1,000 to some downtown business? Rocco Becht? Audavion Collins?
None have any "beyond rounding error" level of value for their NIL.
But they do get paid a lot of money to play ball.
Anyway it is what it is - ballplayers being paid to play football at a particular program, by a particular program.
Period.
Even the densest nitwit knows that (I would hope)
Anyone who "gives $ for a program X's "NIL" fund" is kind of a nitwit, IMO (but, of course, to each their own, including the right to write out a check, or be a nitwit)
Fans, of course, are already paying for it, one way or another - in the form of buying tickets, making $ contributions to the school/program, and even by watching the games on TV.
And even more of the fans' money will be going towards it - if the Big Ten and SEC have their way, through either the PCSA (which is probably on life support right now) and agreements similar to the one the Big Ten is currently floating (and the SEC will mimic).
The Big Ten and SEC powers-that-be think they can sustain that (They won't. Not without major changes to the fundamental structures of what "college sports" was supposed to be - congratulations to them
). But the key driver is that they feel no one in other conferences (for the most part) will be able to compete in (which is why the Big Ten and SEC want it so badly).
The number of college football players who have a "Name Image and Likeness" value of more than a couple bucks is just about zero.
How much is Cooper Cousins' (a very good football player) "Name Image and Likeness" worth - maybe $1,000 to some downtown business? Rocco Becht? Audavion Collins?
None have any "beyond rounding error" level of value for their NIL.
But they do get paid a lot of money to play ball.
Anyway it is what it is - ballplayers being paid to play football at a particular program, by a particular program.
Period.
Even the densest nitwit knows that (I would hope)
Anyone who "gives $ for a program X's "NIL" fund" is kind of a nitwit, IMO (but, of course, to each their own, including the right to write out a check, or be a nitwit)
Fans, of course, are already paying for it, one way or another - in the form of buying tickets, making $ contributions to the school/program, and even by watching the games on TV.
And even more of the fans' money will be going towards it - if the Big Ten and SEC have their way, through either the PCSA (which is probably on life support right now) and agreements similar to the one the Big Ten is currently floating (and the SEC will mimic).
The Big Ten and SEC powers-that-be think they can sustain that (They won't. Not without major changes to the fundamental structures of what "college sports" was supposed to be - congratulations to them
). But the key driver is that they feel no one in other conferences (for the most part) will be able to compete in (which is why the Big Ten and SEC want it so badly).
Last edited:
Precisely. The courts said you can’t prevent college athletes from making money through genuine business opportunities such as Livvy Dunne doing commercials for Vuori. The whole thing has been bastardized into paying what is essentially salaries to players.
"NIL collectives can only be eliminated via collective-bargaining or if the NCAA is given antitrust protections by Congress via the protect college sports act"
Nonsense.
"NIL collectives" have NOTHING to do with a ballplayers' ability to make $ based on his Name Image and Likeness value - and there is no law that prevents a school/program from not engaging in vast overwhelming stupidity of "NIL Collectives".
If some kid goes and lines up a deal with a local business, to make $5,000 to be a spokesperson for their business? Yes, the program can't prohibit them from engaging in that free trade action - but "NIL collectives" are an entirely different construct (and NO school/program should have ever gotten involved in them - but they are all (mostly) run by idiots, who can't see the future beyond the end of their nose - and are driven by ego, self-interests, and generally low IQ).
Jesus. Look at what we’re talking about. Cash money, collective bargaining, unions, salaries. For f*ck’s sake this sucks.
I couldn't argue with sentence 1.The whole sport is in the sh*tter and it's getting full. Fans are tired of it.
I would think, at least eventually, sentence 2 will be largely accurate - but I don't know, and I certainly don't know if it is there yet.
Nationwide, a vary large swath of "college football fans" are no different than "NFL fans", or "NBA fans" or whatever. They just want to drink, watch the games, and brag on "their team" winning.
What is the percentage of the market made up of those folks? IDK, but I would bet a fairly healthy majority.
That said, I do absolutely agree that a portion of the fanbase/target market has - ABSOLUTELY - had just about enough to make them turn away. But I am not sure how significant that portion is, and it will vary from place to place.
Certainly, a not insignificant portion of the PSU fan base has.
But how many? Will they be replaced by the "Natty Lite" crowd (as I call them)? Will any losses be "made up for" by college sports raking in more money from the gambling industry? (or somewhere else?).
Who knows? It will be interesting to see. I do think any reasonable person would conclude that it would cetainly be better if "college sports" did not completely alientate the portion of the fan base that is NOT the "Natty Lite" crowd, but that horse may already be out of the barn. And the whole damn thing is a killer to the basic tenets that college sports was supposed to be.
But how many? How big will the $$ "hit" be? Time will tell.
the gambling influence is real. Notably CFB injury reports using the terms "probable", "questionable", and "doubtful". Terms that just have me shaking my head but they certainly do affect the Vegas spread
You know it's gone too far when players have to decide to get rich playing college football or going to the NFL and taking a pay cut.The whole sport is in the sh*tter and it's getting full. Fans are tired of it.
Wrt a "salary cap" (not talking about the collectives or other aspects of NIL), I don't see how they can implement a salary cap that would hold up in court without it being bargained and under contract. I'm open to being wrong on that, maybe I just don't understand that aspect of it fully.
Note: The OP of the thread asked about establishing a cap; it seems that evolved into the NIL as a whole.
Latest
-
01
BWI Football
5 bold predictions for Penn State-Washington: Two first-year receivers will make big plays, a call on the final score, and more
-
02
BWI Basketball
Penn State holds off Chattanooga's furious comeback for 97-93 win
-
03
BWI Football
A new Penn State receiver is questionable for Washington; see both team's full Thursday injury reports here
-
04
BWI Basketball
Roko Prkačin's Penn State debut offers glimpse of what Nittany Lions can expect
-
05
BWI Football
Penn State vs. Washington Preview: Why the Defense Has a Big Matchup Advantage