Recent frustrations over Bryce Davis’s swap to Duke have resurrected the NIL and “pay-to-play” debate. I’ve been loosely involved with @okclem and a few others. Legit dialogue happening in some cases.
Here’s my broader take on NIL. Yes, I do think there are moral implications to it, but that’s because the NIL framework and intent of college athletics are incompatible, yet the NCAA tries to make the two co-exist.
But this is business, and if we see it through that lens, then the following conditions would need to be in place for this to be practical (amongst others):
- College football must be re-designated as semi-pro football. For legacy reasons and name recognition, semi-pro teams could have college affiliations. (There would be a semi-pro team known as the Tigers, who are affiliated / sponsored by Clemson University.)
- Players would not be students. They’d be employees of the program, perhaps of the sponsoring university. Playing semi-pro ball is their full-time job.
- Because they wouldn’t be students, they wouldn’t take classes, nor would they be expected to. They could get a degree on their own time — paying tuition with their own money (at any university) — as long as they fulfill all other requirements of their contract. (They wouldn’t live on campus or have any association with Vickery.)
- They’d be signed to contracts and would be subject to all aspects of legal employment — replete with consequences and termination of employment at any time.
- Contracts would be binding, with the potential for clauses that allow for application for consideration to play pro ball (meaning termination of employment to apply for the NFL). A player could sign a single or multi-year contract … one, two, four, six, etc. years.
- Employers could offer bonuses for certain performance and milestones … all the standard aspects.
Nothing profound, really, but either the NCAA moves this direction with college athletics or reigns in the chaos of the NIL and preserves the fundamental premise of what it means to be a student athlete.
Here’s my broader take on NIL. Yes, I do think there are moral implications to it, but that’s because the NIL framework and intent of college athletics are incompatible, yet the NCAA tries to make the two co-exist.
But this is business, and if we see it through that lens, then the following conditions would need to be in place for this to be practical (amongst others):
- College football must be re-designated as semi-pro football. For legacy reasons and name recognition, semi-pro teams could have college affiliations. (There would be a semi-pro team known as the Tigers, who are affiliated / sponsored by Clemson University.)
- Players would not be students. They’d be employees of the program, perhaps of the sponsoring university. Playing semi-pro ball is their full-time job.
- Because they wouldn’t be students, they wouldn’t take classes, nor would they be expected to. They could get a degree on their own time — paying tuition with their own money (at any university) — as long as they fulfill all other requirements of their contract. (They wouldn’t live on campus or have any association with Vickery.)
- They’d be signed to contracts and would be subject to all aspects of legal employment — replete with consequences and termination of employment at any time.
- Contracts would be binding, with the potential for clauses that allow for application for consideration to play pro ball (meaning termination of employment to apply for the NFL). A player could sign a single or multi-year contract … one, two, four, six, etc. years.
- Employers could offer bonuses for certain performance and milestones … all the standard aspects.
Nothing profound, really, but either the NCAA moves this direction with college athletics or reigns in the chaos of the NIL and preserves the fundamental premise of what it means to be a student athlete.
