The payment of student-athletes at colleges has been a hot button issue recently. With the lack of regulation surrounding NIL, the NCAA has multiple lawsuits against them looking to solve the same issue: how student-athletes should be compensated. The most prominent of the suits is Daniel House v. NCAA. The settlement, which will take effect on July 1, outlines three key changes to athlete revenue distribution: institutions sharing revenue with athletes, paying back former players and roster limits.
To gain greater understanding of the topic, the Technique sat down with junior Sabina Mrzyglod who is the vice-president of the Georgia Tech Student-Athlete Advisory Board (GTSAAB) and a former member of the swim and dive team. As a member of GTSAAB, Mrzyglod has been an active member of the Tech student athlete community and interacted with other institutions in discussing the future of college sports.
“I applied to GTSAAB at the end of my freshman year and got picked to represent the swim team. … I ended up running for Vice President and got picked to go to Atlantic Coastal Conference Student-Athlete Advisory Council (ACCSAAC) conferences,” Mrzyglod said of her GTSAAB experience.
Prior to the House v. NCAA lawsuit, the only way that student-athletes could get paid was through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals. These NIL deals were the first above-board way that student-athletes could use their athletic success in order to help pay their bills which, at first, was seen as a good thing.
“NIL was so students could get money for their name, image and likeness, which I think is a great thing. For revenue generating sports like football or basketball, they bring in a lot of money for the school, so they should 100% be compensated for that,” Mrzyglod said.
Although NIL was at first seen as a positive, the lack of regulation surrounding the payment led both the student-athletes and the institutions wanting more guidance to navigate the new landscape. House v. NCAA looks to adequately compensate student-athletes and former student-athletes. The first part of the lawsuit pertains to the sharing of revenue from the actual institutions. Before the conclusion of the settlement, colleges were generally not allowed to pay players directly, but this will change when the settlement gets finalized. Schools will be able to distribute up to 22% of athletic revenue to athletes; the sources of revenue includes media deals, sponsorships and gameday ticket sales. Alongside the 22% of cash, institutions will offer services which were not previously offered such as mental health resources, nutrition support, life skills development and medical coverage post college.
The extra services are estimated to cost 28% of the athletic revenue meaning in theory, schools will be paying 50% of their athletic revenue back to the athletes — a figure that matches professional sports leagues. With the schools paying directly, the student-athletes can better trust the existence of the funding and could lead to more transparency.
Even with the addition of direct institution payment, NIL will be getting some regulation. Every NIL deal worth over $600 will have to be reported and the NCAA will determine whether the valuation is “fair.” The idea of evaluating the fairness of NIL deals has led to some athletes, including LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, to question the process of evaluating one’s worth.
The settlement also looks to address paying back $2.8 billion to former student-athletes for their prior use of NIL. The NCAA will pay back the amount in installments and lead to compensation for student-athletes that competed in the past.
The payment of student athletes has also raised the question of whether they should be employees . The topic has been hotly debated; the head football coach of the University of South Carolina Shane Beamer stated that they should not be considered employees. On the other hand, the Dartmouth men’s basketball team considered themselves employees and then proceeded to unionize.
“I think it defeats the whole purpose of being a student athlete. You are a student and then an athlete. The whole point of being a student-athlete was to get to school, get an education, get a scholarship, all the while doing a sport that you love and are talented at. I think it defeats the whole purpose. If you’re an employee you’re a professional athlete. How will you distinguish between being a student-athlete and a professional athlete?” Mrzyglod said on the importance of classifying student-athletes.
The most controversial part of the settlement is surrounding roster constraints. Previously, the NCAA implemented scholarship caps, limiting the amount of scholarships institutions are allowed to give out, but with the settlement the NCAA will implement hard roster limits. With the roster limits being implemented immediately once the House v. NCAA settlement has been made official, many student-athletes could lose their spot on the team instantaneously.
“I think it is the roster limit. I understand why they wanted to do revenue sharing. Unfortunately, I think that there were a lot of ways to do that, especially with grandfathering in seniors or allowing whoever is on the team to be grandfathered automatically and a slow progression of decreasing roster sizes to give more money to the revenue generating sports. So I think that was probably my biggest concern about [the House v. NCAA lawsuit],” Mrzyglod said.
One potential benefit of the roster limits could be the rise in quality of the smaller programs around collegiate sports. With the top programs being limited to a certain number of players, eventually the talent will trickle down collegiate sports.
“I think that a trickle down effect could happen. People like me, who used to be able to commit to division one schools but were on the cusp, as in those who were good but not the best, might start going down to mid-major or maybe even division two. The division 2 swimmers are going down to division 3. I think it could have a trickle down effect,” Mrzyglod said.
Roster limits will play a key role in commitments in the future and make people think twice about the security of their scholarship and roster spot. With the ongoing changes, some athletes in hindsight may have looked to attend a different school.
“I think everyone has been impacted differently by this situation. But personally, I would have committed to a smaller school where I could have been a major player on the team instead of towards the bottom. I think I would have a little bit more security as a member of the team and knowing that they’re not going to get impacted by these kinds of things. At a smaller school, they can’t pay everybody full-rides anyways. So they’re going to opt out of all this [revenue sharing],” Mrzyglod said.
House v. NCAA will determine the future of college athletics. With both student-athletes and institutions uncertain with what the future holds, people can only hope that the settlement will benefit college sports in the long run.
“It’s definitely going to be a big change. We’re going to see over the next few years in college sports. I think it’s going to change really fast and I’m sure we’re going to keep seeing new legislation pass for it. I hope that college sports can still have that experience and that student-athletes can still have it, but I definitely think it’s going to be different,” Mrzyglod said on what the future holds.
The post House v. NCAA lawsuit reshapes college sports appeared first on Technique.