I just heard on the Radio that... | The Boneyard

I just heard on the Radio that...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,412
Reaction Score
6,516
While driving, I changed from one news station to another, and I just caught the tail end of the story, but from what I gathered, I could swear the reporter said that a Federal judge ruled against the NCAA and the big $$$ stipends they're permitting the Power 5 schools (and any other schools who might possibly afford them).

I can't find confirmation on the internet, but if I heard correctly, and I think I did, well that's certainly a good thing for collegiate athletics and the non-football factories. Hopefully I got the little bit I managed to hear correct.
 

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,884
Reaction Score
95,782
Nope and yes. The appeals court ruled that the NCAA could not block compensation to athletes, but the report I heard also said something about the lower court Okaying $5000 deferred compensation was in error. These early reports have a way of being confused. I would expect the whole ruling to be up in a hour or so.

Hit this for a search that gives you plenty of reporting sources.

http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web?q=NCAA compensation appeals court ruling&o=15527&prt=NS&chn=retail&geo=US&ver=22&locale=en_US&tpr=111

Here is USA today on the subject, which is still confusing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...peals-court-ncaa-violates-antitrust/73079962/

It suggests that colleges and universities can enter into bidding wars for athletes and the plaintiffs will press hard on that!
 
Last edited:

CocoHusky

1,000,001 BY points
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
17,208
Reaction Score
73,885
All this legal mumbo jumbo has got my head spinning. Simple question for someone in the know. The Women's FF used a big poster of Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell to promote the FF in Tampa this year, under this ruling would Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell be entitled to compensation from the use of thier likeness to promote the event?
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
All this legal mumbo jumbo has got my head spinning. Simple question for someone in the know. The Women's FF used a big poster of Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell to promote the FF in Tampa this year, under this ruling would Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell be entitled to compensation from the use of thier likeness to promote the event?
I don't think so. But even if they were awarded a % of the profits, isn't the women's FF a money-losing event?
 

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,884
Reaction Score
95,782
All this legal mumbo jumbo has got my head spinning. Simple question for someone in the know. The Women's FF used a big poster of Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell to promote the FF in Tampa this year, under this ruling would Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell be entitled to compensation from the use of thier likeness to promote the event?

Shrewd question Coco. I want to see the wording of the ruling itself, but it would suggest that the student's college or university could compensate the athlete for such things, which others could compensate the college so it would be in a position to do so. BUT, that begs the bigger question, which is why can't the athlete, going in, control the use of his or her likeness by the institution or the Association. "Johnny Football" anyone??
 

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,884
Reaction Score
95,782
I don't think so. But even if they were awarded a % of the profits, isn't the women's FF a money-losing event?

Apples and Oranges. If somebody loses money exploiting your image, that doesn't mean they don't have to pay you along with the soda concessionaire.
 

CocoHusky

1,000,001 BY points
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
17,208
Reaction Score
73,885
I don't think so. But even if they were awarded a % of the profits, isn't the women's FF a money-losing event?
I'm not sure FF losing money should/would factor into this. It is strickly a sunk promotion/advertising cost. Think of it this way FF might lose more money if they did not spend some money promoting the event.
 

CocoHusky

1,000,001 BY points
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
17,208
Reaction Score
73,885
All of this is a big boom for agents and lawyers IMO because signing a college scholarship just got a whole lot more complicated.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
I'm not sure FF losing money should/would factor into this. It is strickly a sunk promotion/advertising cost. Think of it this way FF might lose more money if they did not spend some money promoting the event.
Some promotional fee arrangements are straight fees and some - especially involving celebrities - are results-based. In any case I don't think the ruling allows NCAA athletes to claim fees for the use of their images - especially to promote NCAA events. O'Bannon's case was more focused on the use of the images and names for pure profit, such as video games, jersey sales, etc. My point on the women's FF is they were promoting basically a non-profit venture - not attempting to leverage the images for financial gain.
 

CocoHusky

1,000,001 BY points
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
17,208
Reaction Score
73,885
USCTampaFans_tg0034.jpg
All this legal mumbo jumbo has got my head spinning. Simple question for someone in the know. The Women's FF used a big poster of Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell to promote the FF in Tampa this year, under this ruling would Breanna Stewart & Tiffany Mitchell be entitled to compensation from the use of thier likeness to promote the event?
The is a picture of what I was talking about and I forgot to mention that Lexie Brown's and Jewell Loyd's images were also on display.
 

CocoHusky

1,000,001 BY points
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
17,208
Reaction Score
73,885
Some promotional fee arrangements are straight fees and some - especially involving celebrities - are results-based. In any case I don't think the ruling allows NCAA athletes to claim fees for the use of their images - especially to promote NCAA events. O'Bannon's case was more focused on the use of the images and names for pure profit, such as video games, jersey sales, etc. My point on the women's FF is they were promoting basically a non-profit venture - not attempting to leverage the images for financial gain.
The O' Bannon ruling went well beyond video games and Jerseys, specifically it covered use of the images during live broadcast and replays. Trying do a live broadcast of a game without the images of players! It is not a tenable position for the NCAA to claim Women's FF is a "Non-profit venture" because the losses from Women's FF & the entire NCAA operating budget is more than covered by a $1B dollar property called the Men's tournament. That would be like General Electric saying we lost money from the appliance division this year so we are non- profit despite $300M we made from the jet engine division.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
The O' Bannon ruling went well beyond video games and Jerseys, specifically it covered use of the images during live broadcast and replays. Trying do a live broadcast of a game without the images of players! It is not a tenable position for the NCAA to claim Women's FF is a "Non-profit venture" because the losses from Women's FF & the entire NCAA operating budget is more than covered by a $1B dollar property called the Men's tournament. That would be like General Electric saying we lost money from the appliance division this year so we are non- profit despite $300M we made from the jet engine division.
GE definitely thinks of it that way. And they are trying to sell off their appliance division.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
1,694
Reaction Score
1,378
The NCAA is a scam and a joke.........Student athletes my A__..........All they want is $$$$$.........Poor students suffer...Players always get screwed for things that their coaches, Admin did or a Booster........NCAA is ruining the Golden egg.......
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
473
Reaction Score
1,344
The ruling today affirmed the previous ruling that the ncaa is subject to anti trust laws, and that they can't hold compensation below cost of attendance. It overruled the part of the last ruling regarding compensation above cost of attendance. and will allow the ncaa to deny compensation above cost of attendance and continue profiting off the backs of unpaid workers.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
The NCAA is a scam and a joke....Student athletes my A__.....All they want is $$$$$....Poor students suffer...Players always get screwed for things that their coaches, Admin did or a Booster...NCAA is ruining the Golden egg..
I don't know if I'd go as far as calling the NCAA a SCAM--but they don't appear to be in the business of helping Students or Colleges. I believe that since the NIT early days combining sports all under one umbrella (NCAA) is way too big and like all huge businesses the reason for being is lost and individual sports are swallowed up by the Mass of sports. I'd rather a Football Tzar, Basketball Tzar, etc maybe combining small fan participation sports. Univesities/colleges can divvy up the collective funding received to be fluid under all the "Titles" (like Title 9). Dump the NCAA too many rules -- no real overseeing and vindictive selective punishments---Be fair, be open, spread income openly and honestly or dump them.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
The ruling today affirmed the previous ruling that the ncaa is subject to anti trust laws, and that they can't hold compensation below cost of attendance. It overruled the part of the last ruling regarding compensation above cost of attendance. and will allow the ncaa to deny compensation above cost of attendance and continue profiting off the backs of unpaid workers.

While I'm all for providing scholarship players with the costs that now lie outside their scholarships, the other side of the coin is that if players are to be considered some form of employee then wouldn't the value of the scholarship be taxable as compensation? If a parent pays to send his child to school he does it with after-tax money. Why should a scholarship player be treated any different? I wonder how a parent would feel when after their child gets a Stanford full ride they find that the 60K/year is taxed federally at 28% plus whatever the State of California gets.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
While I'm all for providing scholarship players with the costs that now lie outside their scholarships, the other side of the coin is that if players are to be considered some form of employee then wouldn't the value of the scholarship be taxable as compensation? If a parent pays to send his child to school he does it with after-tax money. Why should a scholarship player be treated any different? I wonder how a parent would feel when after their child gets a Stanford full ride they find that the 60K/year is taxed federally at 28% plus whatever the State of California gets.
I think I understand what you are saying--I too want kids who play to not have to work after school, after practice, after travel to be equal to non sport playing students.
Athletes ARE DIFFERENT--make no mistake about that they more than earn their way.
It does not matter if the school makes money on them or not, they advertise the school they give it time on TV prospective students would not know of them otherwise, maybe.
Even our stupid government wouldn't be stupid enough to tax the parent of a college athlete for the kids education or stipends--ever kid would be brought home by Columbus day to attend a community college walking distance from home. Or it may be cheaper just to pay for the now free ride and can the taxes--just so they can play (maybe) for the Wnba. (poor kids would still get scholarships).
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
The O' Bannon ruling went well beyond video games and Jerseys, specifically it covered use of the images during live broadcast and replays. Trying do a live broadcast of a game without the images of players! It is not a tenable position for the NCAA to claim Women's FF is a "Non-profit venture" because the losses from Women's FF & the entire NCAA operating budget is more than covered by a $1B dollar property called the Men's tournament. That would be like General Electric saying we lost money from the appliance division this year so we are non- profit despite $300M we made from the jet engine division.

It can be shown that Women's Basketball even at podunk U benefits the schools in way that "profits" the schools in other than direct funds from that venture.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
473
Reaction Score
1,344
While I'm all for providing scholarship players with the costs that now lie outside their scholarships, the other side of the coin is that if players are to be considered some form of employee then wouldn't the value of the scholarship be taxable as compensation? If a parent pays to send his child to school he does it with after-tax money. Why should a scholarship player be treated any different? I wonder how a parent would feel when after their child gets a Stanford full ride they find that the 60K/year is taxed federally at 28% plus whatever the State of California gets.

You can blame the NCAA for a lot but the tax code isn't one of them. Its been a little while since i've looked, but I thought most scholarships for full time students, applied to school costs aren't taxed. And anyway no students at Stanford are paying any tuition unless their parents make more than 130K per year. Even if athletes end up getting paid and taxed above the scholarship amount, that still gives them more money than not being paid at all.

EDIT: Why would the parent get the students scholarship? if it is treated as income it would be the students not the parents, and any tax bill on it is lower than the amount of the scholarship. plus the 28% rate doesn't kick in below 90k, and tax rates are marginal only applying to values over the threshold. 60K would have the amount over 37K taxed at 25%
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
I think I understand what you are saying--I too want kids who play to not have to work after school, after practice, after travel to be equal to non sport playing students.
Athletes ARE DIFFERENT--make no mistake about that they more than earn their way.
It does not matter if the school makes money on them or not, they advertise the school they give it time on TV prospective students would not know of them otherwise, maybe.
Even our stupid government wouldn't be stupid enough to tax the parent of a college athlete for the kids education or stipends--ever kid would be brought home by Columbus day to attend a community college walking distance from home. Or it may be cheaper just to pay for the now free ride and can the taxes--just so they can play (maybe) for the Wnba. (poor kids would still get scholarships).

Isn't that exactly what they do to parents of non-scholarship students?

If, like some contend, scholarship athletes should be treated like employees, then schools would have to pay them enough to not only cover the cost of the education, but also the taxes due on that "salary". If a company gives an employee a car to drive back and forth to work the value of that vehicle to the employee is taxed as ordinary income. The tax is surely less than than the value of having the car.

What I am in favor of is some sort of lifetime health insurance for football players (and other athletes) to cover them for the later life illnesses that they have been shown to suffer from as a result of their sport. I would have it written so that it would not have to be proven that football was the cause of the injury. Right now there are thousands who are suffering from brain diseases caused by repetitive trauma to the head. Like the tobacco industry before them the football profiteers are trying the same tactic of denying that there is any proven link between football and these injuries/diseases. Right now the focus is on the NFL but it would seem that the NCAA and the colleges (and probably high schools) have a role in this also.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
You can blame the NCAA for a lot but the tax code isn't one of them. Its been a little while since i've looked, but I thought most scholarships for full time students, applied to school costs aren't taxed. And anyway no students at Stanford are paying any tuition unless their parents make more than 130K per year. Even if athletes end up getting paid and taxed above the scholarship amount, that still gives them more money than not being paid at all.

EDIT: Why would the parent get the students scholarship? if it is treated as income it would be the students not the parents, and any tax bill on it is lower than the amount of the scholarship. plus the 28% rate doesn't kick in below 90k, and tax rates are marginal only applying to values over the threshold. 60K would have the amount over 37K taxed at 25%

No, scholarships are not taxable as far as I know, but why not? Why should a parent have pay tax on the income that goes to pay for his/her child's education while a scholarship athlete's parent has no tax obligation. The fair thing is to tax both or else make the cost of college tax deductible.

If a student had to pay income tax on the value of their scholarship, most would be tax delinquents. So as a matter of practicality let's agree that any tax would be paid by their parents. And yes, the value of the scholarship is a lot more than the tax on it and many parents would still be happy with a scholarship. But what about a poor family? How do they come up with the tax payment?
My point is simply that those who want to see college athletes treated like employees are opening up a huge can of worms.

And as far as Stanford not charging tuition to many of the students, the fact that they do charge tuition makes any reduction a "gift" in my opinion and as such should be taxable for any amount over, I believe, 13K/yr. Of course the IRS doesn't see it that way but that is merely a political decision. If someone gave me 50K/yr as a gift in order to attend college, most of that gift would be taxable. It's only when the gift comes from the politically powerful higher education system that it becomes tax free.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,346
Reaction Score
6,036
It can be shown that Women's Basketball even at podunk U benefits the schools in way that "profits" the schools in other than direct funds from that venture.


No matter what benefits you want to attribute to women's basketball - and most other teams - at smaller colleges, the fact is that they are big money-losers, even after every possible benefit is put into the equation. If it was merely a matter of profit/loss, most of these teams would be disbanded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
538
Guests online
3,849
Total visitors
4,387

Forum statistics

Threads
155,777
Messages
4,031,332
Members
9,864
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom