The implementation of NIL and the ability to transfer without penalty has created a whirlwind in college basketball. With many pointing the finger at teams using their monetary status to influence transfers; where, if at all, is the line drawn between pay for play and a NIL deal.
The Problem:
NIL has and always will be a prominent discussion point in college athletics. An environment where athletes have previously been compensated with a stipend and free tuition has turned into six figure deals. Making many feel, like college sports is turning into the Wild West.
Speaking strictly from a basketball standpoint, major recruits seem to be walking into NIL deals for their commitment to a Power 5 program “of their choice”, and the price for play continues to rise with a bidding war between boosters. Couple this with the NCAA lifting a one year “sit out” period for transfers and the portal has become a bit more of a free agency period for top tier talent. All of this being said many schools are starting to clamor for a watchful eye and sanctions both going forward and retroactive for tampering schools and boosters. Essentially limiting the value of an athlete by not allowing them to weigh their financial options from school to school because it is being labeled pay for play instead of NIL.
The fact that any player, fan or analyst is complaining about the NIL deals that are circulating in the rumor mill, even before a player commits seems like a complete waste of time. Why after so many years of clamoring for athletes to be compensated outside of the normal scope of tuition are we now complaining that the best of the best are cashing in on their abilities? The only thing that has changed since NIL passed is that paying players isn’t taboo.
Player compensation from school and booster alike, has always happened. Big schools have stepped over small schools and boosters always win the day if their pockets are deep enough. Ed Martin and the Michigan sanctions dated back to the 80’s, Will Wade was just fired by LSU for his tampering, even Seton Hall was being investigated for their recruitment of Isaiah Whitehead (they placed his HS coach on the staff). All three of these are different, all three of them ended in player compensation; but now that the players have control, it’s become a problem?
NCAA rules have never stopped boosters from getting involved and won’t going forward. So why are we going to deny players the ability to choose a school they can get an education from while also getting paid? The public knowledge of paying these players, in my opinion, is what is driving the outrage.
Expanding further, if you were applying to college and were between 3-5 schools wouldn’t you heavily consider the one that is giving you the most scholarship money? Especially if it would make the most financial sense for you and your family? I understand that many feel that there is an ethical principle looming over the idea that college athletes shouldn’t be getting or even asking for NIL deals in the hundreds of thousands. On the contrary, if someone is willing to give it up I don’t believe it is our job to tell them what they should do.
Isaiah Wong of the Miami Hurricanes, was rumored to have seen a recent NIL deal and asked for more money, or he would seek a transfer. If you thought you were getting underpaid at your job would you look for a new employer? I certainly would.
To answer the initial question. My belief is that once NIL was implemented into the NCAA, so you could buy your college sports games again, pay for play was an assumed consequence. There is no going back and the problem at its root starts with the people that would rather see athletes get paid under the table and shockingly suspended, for example James Wiseman, than reap the benefits of their ability.
The People
Since Name, Image & Likeness was passed athletes across the country have been able to cash in on their ability to be fairly compensated for their abilities. While the decision was initially celebrated many people are now frustrated with the leniency that has come with boosters “picking up” transfers and recruits like free agents.
The frustration that is coming from top officials at these schools is because they are getting outbid. Not because they see this as a violation of the integrity of the game. Schools are being publicly outbid, it isn’t a secret anymore what can be offered and athletes get to leverage their ability to get the most out of each school. When a booster or program is outbid they are getting their feelings hurt and throwing their arms up.
Maybe a smaller school can’t afford to give every player that walks into the building a lucrative NIL deal but being able to reel in one star could change your whole program, regardless of what they are ranked. I also think it is important to note that these players aren’t just signing blindly because of money like many want you to think.
While that may be true for a few outliers, many of these athletes are still taking into consideration their roles, location, ability to compete for a national championship and draft history of each program. So many factors go into making a decision on a college but many schools, analysts and boosters want you to think that they are deciding based solely on the money. In my opinion, these people have two angles.
First they are going to try to cap the earnings of each college athlete so they can create an “even playing field” while also promising additional funds off the record, similar to how it used to be. Second, they will limit the negotiating ability of athletes by citing an opinion. For example, as NIL progresses, it would not surprise us to see colleges angling that these players aren’t mature enough to take into consideration all aspects of a decision and should have a designated NCAA or third party representative “guide them” through the process. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to imagine a scenario where higher powers begin to squeeze these athletes under the veil of eliminating pay for play from the recruiting and transfer process.
Going forward the people that have their hand in the pot will have to work within their means. It isn’t the athlete’s fault that some schools have larger budgets than others. As we have already mentioned, universities give academic scholarships that are higher than others but you don’t see anyone clamoring for a scholarship cap.
Being publicly beat out is more about their image than the players, which should end now. The worst case scenario is that a cap or NIL representative is implemented to help even the playing field. While I believe we are far away from either of those scenarios, it is fair to monitor the situation with the impending election of a new NCAA president.
The Players
There isn’t much to say here. Almost every player from D1 to D3 has the opportunity to benefit from NIL. While the monetary value of these contracts or deals may vary based on the skillset and sport of the individual that is generally how the world works anyway. Players now have the opportunity to avoid NCAA violations and bans through NIL which is the most important aspect of these new rules.
Depriving athletes who take money from schools and get caught never seemed like a reasonable punishment because everyone was doing it. NCAA regulations always seemed to be up for interpretation instead of set in stone and instead of trying to do mental gymnastics around them, collecting money from sponsors is pretty straight forward from here on out.
Moving costs? Sign an NIL deal with a moving company. Car problems? I am sure the SEC in particular has a few boosters with auto dealers. Allowing these athletes to go to school is one thing but being able to help provide them additional assets for the money they bring to the school and NCAA feels right.
Isaiah Wong came under fire a few weeks ago after reports surfaced he was asking for more NIL money from Miami after an Elite Eight appearance. A rumored threat of transfer if his value wasn’t met surfaced and Wong denied the reports. However, if he felt his monetary value was less than what he could get in market why wouldn’t he test the waters. If you have a deal to fall back on you should always measure your value against the market which is what Wong did. Our bottom line is that all players should be allowed to maximize their NIL profits.
The Debate to Come
The push and pull of NIL vs. Pay for Play is far from over. As players, rightfully, continue to push the limits of the what they can earn for their commitment and skillset, programs will work to cap payments around the NCAA. Going forward the struggle of what is ethical and fair will continually be brought to the forefront of debate. Even though most universities have operated unethically since college sports became the billion dollar industry it is, they will use the veil of ethics to turn public and private conception of NIL against the athletes who deserve it.
This is only the beginning of what will be an ongoing and extremely public debate however, based on everything we know, NIL at the core is pay for play. Athletes shouldn’t be penalized for reaping the benefits.