Blame NCAA for NIL getting out of hand
Mark Zeigler’s recent column (April 23, “NIL shoves college sports off cliff of payola, elitism”) identified a serious problem — phony big-dollar name, image and likeness (NIL) deals used by colleges to recruit athletes — but blamed the wrong party.
State legislatures played a role here, but the NCAA initially created this problem by grossly restricting athletes’ rights, and after state legislation passed allowing NIL, but with limits, the NCAA fled the scene, allowing its member schools to bastardize NIL into a recruiting tool involving unlimited money unrelated to NIL.
The story of college athlete NIL is best understood as a three-act play. In Act I, the NCAA interpreted and enforced its “amateurism” rules with a vengeance. A golfer at Williams College (Div. III) was ineligible because he had written a book about golf. A draft-eligible pitcher at Oklahoma State was ineligible because his agent spoke to an MLB team. A Colorado freshman was ineligible for football because he had apparel contracts from his days as a teenage skier. College athletes couldn’t engage in activities like summer instructional camps for kids. These rules applied to scholarship and non-scholarship athletes alike, leaving many of the latter without money for living expenses.
In Act II, after decades of this situation, most commentators and the public turned against the NCAA on this issue, and state legislatures did what they are supposed to — followed the will of the people, allowing NIL for athletes in their states. The NCAA pushed back, but when two dozen states followed California, they gave up and issued draft NIL regulations.
Importantly, almost all the state laws contained limitations
on NIL, as did the NCAA’s draft regulations. NIL money couldn’t come from the schools, and couldn’t be used for recruiting. This “third party NIL” money was supposed to come from businesses that actually wanted the athletes’ endorsements, and would pay a fair price for an endorsement. Stars would get a lot, less famous athletes a little.
The problems Mark complains of come in Act III, when the NCAA decides not to issue NIL regulations, and watches quietly as its member schools and their “boosters” (considered one and the same by the NCAA) start experimenting with aggressive NIL programs that are inconsistent with the state laws and the NCAA’s now-abandoned regulations. The deals have no relationship to the value of the players’ NIL; they are simply a recruiting tool — a bribe, or a salary if you prefer. Don’t get me wrong, I favor athletes’ rights, but I also favor clear rules, enforced equally, and there
has instead been chaos for months.
As the NCAA slept, more schools pushed the boundaries further. Miami basketball player Isaiah Wong announced he would transfer to another school “if his name, image and likeness compensation isn’t increased.” His agent bragged of getting Nigel Pack an $800,000 deal from Miami to entice him to transfer there, and wanted similar compensation for Wong. He openly referred to Pack’s “deal with Miami,” and asked it to make a similar “deal” with Wong. This is not what California and the other states legislated, it is not what the NCAA intended, and it is not anything blessed by any Supreme Court ruling. It is only a bit different than the bags of cash that used to change hands during recruiting season, which put some folks in jail.
So I agree with Mark, NIL is not working as planned, and is verging out of control. But let’s put the principal blame where it belongs. The NCAA
created the public pressure for NIL reform in the first place, and when it came (with limits), the NCAA refused to enforce those limits for months, creating this Wild West atmosphere. None of the two dozen states that passed bills can be blamed for that.
The NCAA, the organization with control and enforcement powers over these schools, has fumbled the ball, and maybe it should try to recover it before it’s too late.
(Author’s note: As I finalized this article, it was reported the NCAA has opened an investigation of NIL deals, so maybe they can put the toothpaste back in the tube. But they are months late and their track record is not good.)