And if they don’t make the playoff they would probably rather just fly to Vegas for a vacation during winter break.
Revenue Sharing (up to $22M/School/Year) & improved Medical Care: Kevin Warren met w/ Football Players in July 2022 to discuss these Issues
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Excerpts from the AP:
Specifically, the athletic departments will have to figure out how to replace up to $21.5 million they could be paying athletes as part of a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing agreement. This is where payouts from the football playoff and even revenue from an extra marquee regular-season game could come into play, though that won’t fully solve the problem.
“There’s two ways to get there,” Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman said at the Big Ten’s recent basketball media days. “You can either make more money or you can spend your money differently, and we’re working very aggressively on both of those fronts to put ourselves in a position to fully participate in the revenue share when it opens up next year.”
The leaders also have to take educated guesses about how other legal and legislative action could impact them in the future. For instance, if players are deemed to be employees of the schools, it would add another layer of expense for the schools while potentially giving athletes access to school-funded health insurance and other benefits.
One news tidbit that could become a trend: Last month’s announcement that Tennessee was slapping a 10% “talent fee” onto the price of next year’s season tickets to help offset costs associated with the revenue-sharing plan.
apnews.com
Landmark lawsuit settlement
On Monday, a judge approved a plan that sets in motion the system for schools to eventually make direct payments to athletes. It will change the fundamental nature of college sports, and the two biggest conferences will feel as big an impact as anyone.Specifically, the athletic departments will have to figure out how to replace up to $21.5 million they could be paying athletes as part of a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing agreement. This is where payouts from the football playoff and even revenue from an extra marquee regular-season game could come into play, though that won’t fully solve the problem.
“There’s two ways to get there,” Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman said at the Big Ten’s recent basketball media days. “You can either make more money or you can spend your money differently, and we’re working very aggressively on both of those fronts to put ourselves in a position to fully participate in the revenue share when it opens up next year.”
The leaders also have to take educated guesses about how other legal and legislative action could impact them in the future. For instance, if players are deemed to be employees of the schools, it would add another layer of expense for the schools while potentially giving athletes access to school-funded health insurance and other benefits.
One news tidbit that could become a trend: Last month’s announcement that Tennessee was slapping a 10% “talent fee” onto the price of next year’s season tickets to help offset costs associated with the revenue-sharing plan.
SEC, Big Ten leaders mulling future of fast-changing college sports
The Big Ten and SEC already have the upper hand in college football. At meetings this week, their leaders are setting the stage to exact even more control over the sport’s future.
apnews.com
Somehow these players getting paid directly by the schools won't be classified as employees.
The story from ESPN:
www.espn.com
The story from ESPN:
Landmark college settlement gets preliminary OK
A judge granted preliminary approval to the landmark $2.78 billion legal settlement that would transform college sports by allowing schools to pay players.
With the universities paying the players, who gets paid what has to be publicly disclosed, correct?
As an attorney, I would say the nil is the least transparent system I've seen. It's ripe for future litigation.
Like what happened to the UNLV quarterback? Seems like promises were made (according to him) & not fulfilled.
Yup. I'll just say that the general counsel at the ui was pretty poor in the past. Maybe they've addressed that issue.
Good question. Possibly not, if they are not classified as employees.
Similar threads
