NCAA President Charlie Baker has recommended that Division I schools pay their athletes directly through licensing deals, potentially requiring the wealthiest schools to pay half of their athletes at least $30,000 per year. This proposal would change the landscape for the current collectives, which facilitate name, image, and likeness opportunities for college athletes through donor-funded initiatives. Although some experts believe the collectives could be absorbed into athletic departments, others argue that fund-raising by outside collectives would be unnecessary if athlete-targeted donations were allowed to be made directly to the school.
The NCAA passing an interim policy on name, image, and likeness deals, which would allow players to make extra cash, hints at a potential shift in the environment for collectives. Opendorse CEO Blake Lawrence believes there will be a place for collectives in the proposed environment by Baker, stating that third-party compensation for NIL activities that are not controlled by the institution will continue to exist. However, this could raise issues of liability and Title IX implications, as schools would be responsible for ensuring equitable opportunities for male and female athletes in NIL deals.
Kassandra Ramsey, a sports attorney specializing in NIL issues, emphasized the importance of equal opportunities for making money through NIL deals, stating that the opportunity to make money has to be the same for male and female athletes, even if the actual amount of money differs. Other experts, such as Lawrence, believe it would be nearly impossible to ensure equal NIL pay for men and women given the individualized nature of each athlete’s value. This debate over how to balance NIL opportunities and payments based on gender and athletic performance is likely to continue as changes in the NCAA’s payment rules are considered.
Source
Photo credit www.nbcnewyork.com
