Cunningham outlines UNC's revenue sharing plan
Dear Tar Heels, June 6 marked a historic day for college athletics, as Judge Claudia Wilken officially approved
Cunningham outlines UNC's revenue sharing plan
- Thread starter andrew jones
- Start date
OK, so to kinda square this up a bit...
NIL as we have come to know it is now gone, at least will be come 7/1. Income for players will now come from 2 sources, Rev share (the $20.5mil) and 3rd party deals that can not be considered pay for play, that must pass thru the clearing house for anything over $600, and must be signed off by the clearing house as fair market value. You can have all the private NIL groups you want but their money will have to play in to the $20.5 mil cap or pass as a 3rd party deal thru the clearing house (which they will fail if that is tried, they are all pay for play and pay for play is capped at the $20.5mil number).
I suspect many will be wondering, UNC has just spent $14 mil on basketball players NIL yet come 7/1 you can only spend $20.5mil on NIL on ALL of your sports programs, does that mean we can spend no more than $6.5mil on football, none on any other UNC sports team? No, not really, that $14mil number that has been throw around so much is deceptive, a part of that money was from NIL but another part of it is from those 3rd party deals that must now pass thru the clearing house moving forward. I don't know if this applies to deals already agreed on or all deals already agreed on are good but from 7/1 on the Clearing house has the final word. As one example the money to pay Drake had he come back was from what I understand ALL a 3rd party, none of it would have come from the NIL collective (and not likely to be approved by the clearing house because it was pay for play).
Several of the power programs have spent well more than we have for players this NIL cycle, I would bet duke for example has come in close to $30mil with the vast majority of that moving forward would not be able to pass thru the clearing house.
Some may question if the cost of fielding a team is included in the $20.5mil cap number, no it is not, the cap is strictly for what we now know as NIL, direct pay for play to players.
I have many questions that are not clear to me right now but one just pops to mind with Bubba's letter. The part about payment to players going back to 2017 that were not allowed to receive NIL money. It appears this will all be paid by money withheld from Rev share, with held from the schools, meaning the schools actually pay for it all? What about the NCAA itself, not the schools but the organizational body headed out of Indy? Well known, the NCAA (the body not the schools) receive the vast majority of the proceeds from March Maddness, UNC wasn't sued the NCAA was and yet this settlement has the schools paying the damages and the NCAA nothing? What does the NCAA actually do any more to earn those huge profits, outside of paying themselves HUGE salaries? Net profits off the NCAAT, give the figure heads in Indy maybe 10% and pass the rest to the schools that actually played in the NCAAT, after all, they are the ones that earned it.
NIL as we have come to know it is now gone, at least will be come 7/1. Income for players will now come from 2 sources, Rev share (the $20.5mil) and 3rd party deals that can not be considered pay for play, that must pass thru the clearing house for anything over $600, and must be signed off by the clearing house as fair market value. You can have all the private NIL groups you want but their money will have to play in to the $20.5 mil cap or pass as a 3rd party deal thru the clearing house (which they will fail if that is tried, they are all pay for play and pay for play is capped at the $20.5mil number).
I suspect many will be wondering, UNC has just spent $14 mil on basketball players NIL yet come 7/1 you can only spend $20.5mil on NIL on ALL of your sports programs, does that mean we can spend no more than $6.5mil on football, none on any other UNC sports team? No, not really, that $14mil number that has been throw around so much is deceptive, a part of that money was from NIL but another part of it is from those 3rd party deals that must now pass thru the clearing house moving forward. I don't know if this applies to deals already agreed on or all deals already agreed on are good but from 7/1 on the Clearing house has the final word. As one example the money to pay Drake had he come back was from what I understand ALL a 3rd party, none of it would have come from the NIL collective (and not likely to be approved by the clearing house because it was pay for play).
Several of the power programs have spent well more than we have for players this NIL cycle, I would bet duke for example has come in close to $30mil with the vast majority of that moving forward would not be able to pass thru the clearing house.
Some may question if the cost of fielding a team is included in the $20.5mil cap number, no it is not, the cap is strictly for what we now know as NIL, direct pay for play to players.
I have many questions that are not clear to me right now but one just pops to mind with Bubba's letter. The part about payment to players going back to 2017 that were not allowed to receive NIL money. It appears this will all be paid by money withheld from Rev share, with held from the schools, meaning the schools actually pay for it all? What about the NCAA itself, not the schools but the organizational body headed out of Indy? Well known, the NCAA (the body not the schools) receive the vast majority of the proceeds from March Maddness, UNC wasn't sued the NCAA was and yet this settlement has the schools paying the damages and the NCAA nothing? What does the NCAA actually do any more to earn those huge profits, outside of paying themselves HUGE salaries? Net profits off the NCAAT, give the figure heads in Indy maybe 10% and pass the rest to the schools that actually played in the NCAAT, after all, they are the ones that earned it.
I can't wait for uniforms to start looking like this. Replace the UNC name and logo so people aren't confused about who they are playing for - they're playing for the names on the jersey.
Will players be allowed to have ads on their jersey that are different from those on other teammates' jerseys? Seems only fair.
Maybe devote half the jersey space to the companies UNC sells out to and the other half to companies the player has direct deals with.
Will players be allowed to have ads on their jersey that are different from those on other teammates' jerseys? Seems only fair.
Maybe devote half the jersey space to the companies UNC sells out to and the other half to companies the player has direct deals with.
Boy do I hope that turns out to be a joke! A patch or two that do not interfere with the name of the U (sleeve only) would be acceptable, but we cannot turn into race car drivers or soccer players!
Will this even the playing field or simply drive peeps back to cheating?
Nice how when the NCAA looks like it finally has some backbone.......they still weasel it up!
Will this even the playing field or simply drive peeps back to cheating?
Nice how when the NCAA looks like it finally has some backbone.......they still weasel it up!
If the NCAA passes rules, the same old schools will just go back to paying players under the table.
NBA Unis are not too bad. The patches are relatively small; are on the strap of the tank; and don't seem to interfere with the team name! Most seem to have no more than two logos. (1 is Jumpman so I like it, lol)
It is unfortunate that they are trying now to regulate the industry. It must be like regulating a waterfall at this point! Cheaters are going to cheat, but at least there will be structure!
Give it time.
I don't really expect it to happen at that level. Simply because of the speed of the game. If you are spending big bucks to make your brand visible, you want a "billboard" that can be read.
But the NASCAR example - dare I say - is emblematic of the problem of grotesque commercialization.
Will that turn fans off? We'll find out. I'm guessing it won't. At least not enough to outweigh the additional revenue.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a sad thing for the sport as we knew and loved it not that long ago.
Similar threads
