Beset on all sides by NIL reform, the NCAA has begun to understand its fight
By Nicole Auerbach 3h ago
58
ANAHEIM, Calif. — The ballroom was dark, with just the stage and the man on it bathed in the spotlight. Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, stood in the center and spoke of what he termed a “hard truth.”
“Many people — too many people — believe that there’s something fundamentally unfair right now about college sports,” Emmert told a room filled with college administrators from Divisions I, II and III. “I know for me, and I’m sure for most all of you, that’s really frustrating.”
Emmert’s state of the union-style speech on Thursday maintained such a theme throughout — that he and the audience in the room are the people who support and care most about college athletes, and that they were under attack from people who don’t pay close attention to the advancements they’ve made in recent years regarding the health, safety and academic development of their players.
“When critics say, ‘Gee, I’m not sure that this is fair, I’m not sure students are getting all that they should in this process,’ it’s really easy for us to just kind of say, ‘Really? Are you kidding me? Have you been paying attention?’ ” Emmert said. “But it’s important that we just don’t wring our hands. It’s important that we don’t just say, ‘They don’t get us, they’re not paying attention, they’re lazy, they don’t understand.’
“No, I think rather than that, we’ve got to stop and think and ask ourselves: What’s leading them to that conclusion?”
The answer is pretty obvious. It’s the multi-million-dollar coaching salaries, the billion-dollar business that is March Madness, the sponsored stadiums and the endless stream of Dr. Pepper commercials. It’s all the money that flows to coaches, athletic directors and university leaders but not directly to the athletes competing in the games. They receive scholarships, and some receive cost-of-attendance stipends to complement them.
And now they’ll be able to get more. Somehow. Some way. Eventually.
With a plethora of state legislators rushing to introduce bills regarding college athletes’ ability to profit from their own name, image or likeness (NIL) over the past year, the NCAA has finally acknowledged it will have to change its fundamental format. In recent interviews and speaking engagements, Emmert has noticeably stopped speaking about “amateurism” and more about the “collegiate model.” This week at the governing body’s annual convention, the NCAA even offered a 90-minute panel on the NIL issue — a first.
But, as is often the case with any topic the NCAA decides to tackle, things are moving slowly. Yes, there’s pressure from state laws (some set to take effect as early as this summer) forcing those involved to speed up their timetable, which could very well lead to the NCAA filing a motion to stay execution of the judgment as the organization seeks federal help on the topic to keep the rules uniform and national. The NCAA has multiple working groups looking at various aspects of the issue, and the timeline appears to be as follows: The Board of Governors has asked all three Divisions to submit proposals in April, which they can also take to Congress, with the full membership voting taking place next January at next year’s NCAA convention, “unless that process gets accelerated,” Emmert said.
Said Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey, in a conversation with The Athletic, “There is, relative to how we consider change, a discomfort associated with the volume and the pace. That’s not wrong. We should be uncomfortable because we’re looking at change that is certainly generational, if not historic throughout all of college athletics.”
In the meantime, Emmert described a “narrowing down” of ideas that could realistically be implemented. He said that has been the biggest development in recent months as administrators have better wrapped their arms around the issue.
“There’s a narrowing of the options available, and people are having a better idea of, what would an NIL policy look like across all three divisions,” he said. “What are the things that would really be problematic? Most folks are worried about whether or not you can have such a system and maintain integrity in your recruitment model. How do you handle this? A lot of people say, ‘Well, we ought to do group licensing models.’ Well, there’s a lot of legal challenges around doing that.”
“Because there are the most unanswered questions as to how all of that would work at the end of the day,” said Penn athletic director Dr. M. Grace Calhoun, the chairwoman of the NCAA Division I Council. “When we look at the principles we’ve established, we won’t cross the line from them being students to turning into employees. So, when you start looking at a group acting together, keeping the line as a student becomes a little more complex.”
Easier problems to solve involve athletes who are also involved in other areas, which Emmert called “a work product.” An example would be a student who has created a product, an athlete who also plays piano, or someone who has written a book. They’re being compensated for something that doesn’t have to do with their athletic talent; these situations are technically against the rules right now and require waivers, which are often granted. A fashion influencer who has built up a following before college doesn’t have to turn down sponsorships when she gets to college simply because she’s also a rower, for example.
A larger, unresolved concern deals with athletes who might use their athletic expertise to receive compensation: a soccer goalie providing lessons, or a basketball player posting a workout on Instagram sponsored by the clothing brand he’s wearing.
“There’s (another) big category that is … How do you determine what the real marketplace is?” Emmert told a small group of reporters after his speech on Thursday. “If someone’s going to do some sponsorship deal if they’re going in that direction? What’s the real marketplace for that versus what a booster is (willing) to be doing in that case (who might have) created an artificial market, if you will. How do you manage that? How do you police that?”
And who is the one who would be doing the policing? Emmert said that’s a big topic of conversation, whether that’s the NCAA’s national office or a third party. It’d have to be a body that member institutions as well as the athletes (and recruitable athletes) themselves could trust.
“We’ve talked about, how do you ensure a true market, and the one thing we keep going back to is we really have to control pre-enrollment activity,” Calhoun said. “What’s unique about college athletics is the recruitment. In most other markets you don’t have this sense of potential manipulation of free choice.
“Is there transparency, reporting? What other controls could be put in place to ensure that happens?”
And if a level of transparency and control can be reached, can college athletics exist in a middle ground in which there are opportunities for athlete compensation without technically overlapping with professional sports?
“I absolutely think that it can,” Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren told The Athletic. “I mean, we’ve been able to send people to the moon. We’ve been able to find cures for diseases. Human beings are talented individuals.
“I’m confident that so long as we make sure our student-athletes and their best interest — their health and wellness — is at the center of it, that will figure out a way to make it work going forward.”
Someone has to. State legislators think they can. Representatives from the U.S. Congress believe they can, too.
“This leads to a bigger question that I’ve also heard … ‘Who is looking out for the students’ best interest today?’ ” Emmert said. “The hard news is, some people say it’s not us. They think someone else has the answers and that we’re conflicted, that we’re not necessarily focused on the students’ best interests. Well, nearly 115 years ago, this association was created for the express purpose of looking out for the interest of student-athletes. And now, fast forward to the 21st century, that still better be our job and our purpose. It still better be the thing that animates what we do.”
A key theme throughout conversations with college administrators in Anaheim this week was that the schools themselves need to take a leadership role in the development of the NIL system. Georgetown president Jack DeGioia referred to it as “holding together the collegiate model.” Damean College president Gary Olson called it “staying with our values, not letting pay-for-play exist.” He then asked, “What is the line we can draw between allowing reasonable compensation for any number of things but not compensation for performance on the court?”
Schools want to be the ones to draw that line, with an assist from the federal government.
“Some would describe this as a crisis,” Springfield College president Mary-Beth Cooper said. “I would describe it as an unknown. As leaders of colleges and athletic programs, I’d rather be a part of designing our path forward than letting it happen to us.”
Olson, too, urged NCAA members to get behind whatever model is ultimately proposed in the coming months. He, like Emmert, seems to believe that the smart people in the room will propose a smart national way to modernize the system.
“We really need to get the membership behind it,” Olson said. “If it fails, it’s really just going to be red meat for a lot of these states that can’t wait for us to fail.”
(Photo: Jamie Schwaberow / NCAA Photos via Getty Images)
By Nicole Auerbach 3h ago
ANAHEIM, Calif. — The ballroom was dark, with just the stage and the man on it bathed in the spotlight. Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, stood in the center and spoke of what he termed a “hard truth.”
“Many people — too many people — believe that there’s something fundamentally unfair right now about college sports,” Emmert told a room filled with college administrators from Divisions I, II and III. “I know for me, and I’m sure for most all of you, that’s really frustrating.”
Emmert’s state of the union-style speech on Thursday maintained such a theme throughout — that he and the audience in the room are the people who support and care most about college athletes, and that they were under attack from people who don’t pay close attention to the advancements they’ve made in recent years regarding the health, safety and academic development of their players.
“When critics say, ‘Gee, I’m not sure that this is fair, I’m not sure students are getting all that they should in this process,’ it’s really easy for us to just kind of say, ‘Really? Are you kidding me? Have you been paying attention?’ ” Emmert said. “But it’s important that we just don’t wring our hands. It’s important that we don’t just say, ‘They don’t get us, they’re not paying attention, they’re lazy, they don’t understand.’
“No, I think rather than that, we’ve got to stop and think and ask ourselves: What’s leading them to that conclusion?”
The answer is pretty obvious. It’s the multi-million-dollar coaching salaries, the billion-dollar business that is March Madness, the sponsored stadiums and the endless stream of Dr. Pepper commercials. It’s all the money that flows to coaches, athletic directors and university leaders but not directly to the athletes competing in the games. They receive scholarships, and some receive cost-of-attendance stipends to complement them.
And now they’ll be able to get more. Somehow. Some way. Eventually.
With a plethora of state legislators rushing to introduce bills regarding college athletes’ ability to profit from their own name, image or likeness (NIL) over the past year, the NCAA has finally acknowledged it will have to change its fundamental format. In recent interviews and speaking engagements, Emmert has noticeably stopped speaking about “amateurism” and more about the “collegiate model.” This week at the governing body’s annual convention, the NCAA even offered a 90-minute panel on the NIL issue — a first.
But, as is often the case with any topic the NCAA decides to tackle, things are moving slowly. Yes, there’s pressure from state laws (some set to take effect as early as this summer) forcing those involved to speed up their timetable, which could very well lead to the NCAA filing a motion to stay execution of the judgment as the organization seeks federal help on the topic to keep the rules uniform and national. The NCAA has multiple working groups looking at various aspects of the issue, and the timeline appears to be as follows: The Board of Governors has asked all three Divisions to submit proposals in April, which they can also take to Congress, with the full membership voting taking place next January at next year’s NCAA convention, “unless that process gets accelerated,” Emmert said.
Said Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey, in a conversation with The Athletic, “There is, relative to how we consider change, a discomfort associated with the volume and the pace. That’s not wrong. We should be uncomfortable because we’re looking at change that is certainly generational, if not historic throughout all of college athletics.”
In the meantime, Emmert described a “narrowing down” of ideas that could realistically be implemented. He said that has been the biggest development in recent months as administrators have better wrapped their arms around the issue.
“There’s a narrowing of the options available, and people are having a better idea of, what would an NIL policy look like across all three divisions,” he said. “What are the things that would really be problematic? Most folks are worried about whether or not you can have such a system and maintain integrity in your recruitment model. How do you handle this? A lot of people say, ‘Well, we ought to do group licensing models.’ Well, there’s a lot of legal challenges around doing that.”
“Because there are the most unanswered questions as to how all of that would work at the end of the day,” said Penn athletic director Dr. M. Grace Calhoun, the chairwoman of the NCAA Division I Council. “When we look at the principles we’ve established, we won’t cross the line from them being students to turning into employees. So, when you start looking at a group acting together, keeping the line as a student becomes a little more complex.”
Easier problems to solve involve athletes who are also involved in other areas, which Emmert called “a work product.” An example would be a student who has created a product, an athlete who also plays piano, or someone who has written a book. They’re being compensated for something that doesn’t have to do with their athletic talent; these situations are technically against the rules right now and require waivers, which are often granted. A fashion influencer who has built up a following before college doesn’t have to turn down sponsorships when she gets to college simply because she’s also a rower, for example.
A larger, unresolved concern deals with athletes who might use their athletic expertise to receive compensation: a soccer goalie providing lessons, or a basketball player posting a workout on Instagram sponsored by the clothing brand he’s wearing.
“There’s (another) big category that is … How do you determine what the real marketplace is?” Emmert told a small group of reporters after his speech on Thursday. “If someone’s going to do some sponsorship deal if they’re going in that direction? What’s the real marketplace for that versus what a booster is (willing) to be doing in that case (who might have) created an artificial market, if you will. How do you manage that? How do you police that?”
And who is the one who would be doing the policing? Emmert said that’s a big topic of conversation, whether that’s the NCAA’s national office or a third party. It’d have to be a body that member institutions as well as the athletes (and recruitable athletes) themselves could trust.
“We’ve talked about, how do you ensure a true market, and the one thing we keep going back to is we really have to control pre-enrollment activity,” Calhoun said. “What’s unique about college athletics is the recruitment. In most other markets you don’t have this sense of potential manipulation of free choice.
“Is there transparency, reporting? What other controls could be put in place to ensure that happens?”
And if a level of transparency and control can be reached, can college athletics exist in a middle ground in which there are opportunities for athlete compensation without technically overlapping with professional sports?
“I absolutely think that it can,” Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren told The Athletic. “I mean, we’ve been able to send people to the moon. We’ve been able to find cures for diseases. Human beings are talented individuals.
“I’m confident that so long as we make sure our student-athletes and their best interest — their health and wellness — is at the center of it, that will figure out a way to make it work going forward.”
Someone has to. State legislators think they can. Representatives from the U.S. Congress believe they can, too.
“This leads to a bigger question that I’ve also heard … ‘Who is looking out for the students’ best interest today?’ ” Emmert said. “The hard news is, some people say it’s not us. They think someone else has the answers and that we’re conflicted, that we’re not necessarily focused on the students’ best interests. Well, nearly 115 years ago, this association was created for the express purpose of looking out for the interest of student-athletes. And now, fast forward to the 21st century, that still better be our job and our purpose. It still better be the thing that animates what we do.”
A key theme throughout conversations with college administrators in Anaheim this week was that the schools themselves need to take a leadership role in the development of the NIL system. Georgetown president Jack DeGioia referred to it as “holding together the collegiate model.” Damean College president Gary Olson called it “staying with our values, not letting pay-for-play exist.” He then asked, “What is the line we can draw between allowing reasonable compensation for any number of things but not compensation for performance on the court?”
Schools want to be the ones to draw that line, with an assist from the federal government.
“Some would describe this as a crisis,” Springfield College president Mary-Beth Cooper said. “I would describe it as an unknown. As leaders of colleges and athletic programs, I’d rather be a part of designing our path forward than letting it happen to us.”
Olson, too, urged NCAA members to get behind whatever model is ultimately proposed in the coming months. He, like Emmert, seems to believe that the smart people in the room will propose a smart national way to modernize the system.
“We really need to get the membership behind it,” Olson said. “If it fails, it’s really just going to be red meat for a lot of these states that can’t wait for us to fail.”
(Photo: Jamie Schwaberow / NCAA Photos via Getty Images)
