bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Dec 28, 2023 9:14:52 GMT -8
As Lee Corso would say, Not so Fast! Oregon State previously granted its rights to the Pac 12, who in turn sold those rights to media companies who made a profit. The Pac 12 in turn, under the terms of the GOR gave that revenue back to Oregon State less expenses. We don't care what the media company does with their profits and we don't care that the Pac 12 took a cut for expenses. Oregon State has no active GOR. We are starting from scratch. Oregon State can grant its rights to future games to any entity, who can in turn can do whatever OSU specifies. Oregon State can ask that money to go to a foundation, an NIL collective or whatever. Think of licensing relationships where OSU lets apparel companies use our logo in exchange for a percentage of sales. We do not care what the apparel company does with their profits as long as we get our percentage. I understand the argument for keeping all of the media rights and using a conventional arrangement. No debate there. But I will debate the ability of accountants and financial analysts to figure out a way to legally get this money to athletes. Institutions launder money all the time when there is a mismatch between where money comes from, and how public officials want to spend it. When I worked at a local government nothing would stop us from using gas taxes meant for road repairs to pay for cops. We'd charge the road department a boatload of overhead (approved by some accounting firm) and then use that overhead paid by gas taxes to fund the cops. This is all second nature to the bean counters at OSU. If they want to get money to athletes they can do it. The media revenue seems like a logical source to me. You are right about the creative ways the government entities launder money. From the cities, counties, state and federal.
It sounds like you have seen it first hand but that is a whole different topic.
I wonder if a shell company could be set up to pay the media revenue through this company and then to the athletes at OSU? Maybe even hire the athletes thru this company?
I imagine the Pac 12 network has a few associated shell corporations that could do the trick. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Dec 28, 2023 9:25:11 GMT -8
I prefer not to live in fantasyland. Laundering money, shell companies ... seems like that's on the up-and-up. Media rights are needed to pay operating expenses, so the athletic department can even exist in the first place. NIL money, which IMHO is the worst possible destination of my dollars in support of OSU, must come from private sources. I agree the current NIL structure is a mess and the worst place for individual donations. No transparency and for sure a lot of grifting going on. I suspect Oregon has a tight reign on it though because Phil Knight's priority is getting great players. Pretty sure most NILs don't have that type of oversight/motivation. But if we have to cut an assistant associate athletic director or two in order to get players that generate revenue I'm open to that debate. If we don't generate revenue by having a good team the cuts will come to the athletic department eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 28, 2023 13:08:35 GMT -8
Media rights are payments directly to the school in exchange for the right to broadcast games on TV, streaming or radio. The rights to those games are owned by Oregon State University (radio) or the Pac-2 (TV/streaming). They are as institutional as you can get. I'm not sure what other kind of "media deal" you are talking about. But if the grantor of said rights is OSU or the conference, those are institutional funds and may not be used for NIL purposes. As Lee Corso would say, Not so Fast! Oregon State previously granted its rights to the Pac 12, who in turn sold those rights to media companies who made a profit. The Pac 12 in turn, under the terms of the GOR gave that revenue back to Oregon State less expenses. We don't care what the media company does with their profits and we don't care that the Pac 12 took a cut for expenses. Oregon State has no active GOR. We are starting from scratch. Oregon State can grant its rights to future games to any entity, who can in turn can do whatever OSU specifies. Oregon State can ask that money to go to a foundation, an NIL collective or whatever. Think of licensing relationships where OSU lets apparel companies use our logo in exchange for a percentage of sales. We do not care what the apparel company does with their profits as long as we get our percentage. I understand the argument for keeping all of the media rights and using a conventional arrangement. No debate there. But I will debate the ability of accountants and financial analysts to figure out a way to legally get this money to athletes. Institutions launder money all the time when there is a mismatch between where money comes from, and how public officials want to spend it. When I worked at a local government nothing would stop us from using gas taxes meant for road repairs to pay for cops. We'd charge the road department a boatload of overhead (approved by some accounting firm) and then use that overhead paid by gas taxes to fund the cops. This is all second nature to the bean counters at OSU. If they want to get money to athletes they can do it. The media revenue seems like a logical source to me. You are coming at this from several directions, but the bolded part is illegal. It violates Federal law (absolutely) and state law (I can almost guarantee), is probably unconstitutional because of the 11th Amendment and the case law based on the 11th Amendment (there might be some more in the Constitution that would apply, as well), and it imperils Oregon State's ability to remain in the NCAA and probably eliminates (or at least imperils) several legal defenses Oregon State University currently enjoys. Basically open up Oregon State University to several lawsuits, which currently cannot currently be maintained. There are ways that Oregon State can get athletes money, but the Land, Sea, Space, and Sun Grant University, which is Oregon State University cannot give money that it "earns" to an NIL collective. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 28, 2023 14:41:05 GMT -8
I'll make this as short as possible with a terrible analogy. This mayeb fodder for a entirely new thread of thoughts, but...
Why isn't the right of student athletes to earn on the Name, Image, and Likeness based on the entities that TRULY make a fortune off of them... MEDIA companies?! Most university AD make some profit, but only because they are also subsidized in some way... University, State, and other funding. Media deals make up part of it, but all in all many AD run at a deficit. Hence, NIL organizations need to be formed outside of the Universities' purview to meet NIL expectations to try and stay competitive.
The NIL was basically based on the NIL of student athletes being used to profit Universities. Universities that already have a huge financial outlay to student athletes in scholarships, medical, R&B, travel, staffing, etc. My question... Why aren't the media companies the ones responsible for NIL dollars?
Dumb, but quick thought came to me about opioid lawsuits. Physicians were the actual prescribers, but big Pharma was sued. I'm sure certain legal issues made it make more sense, but financially who has the deeper pockets? Who actually made the huge profits?
So, to even the playing field, why are Media companies who make enormous profits from college athletics/athletes not the ones responsible for the NIL dollars to athletes? Media companies can't state that their contracts pay schools enormous amounts, hence they can be used for said dollars. But, they can't. And, even if possible the AD would then be in deeper financial trouble than some already are.
Media contracts are in the high hundreds of Millions, and in the Billions (I believe for the newest B10 contract?). Meaning they are making far more than that. Why not tie media contract numbers to a NIL "account" divided evenly for each member school. Example... if pure media right gives each school $60 Mil/year (excludes all other revenue) then the NIL account would be let's say $6 Mil for all athletes with Title IX implications tied to the money. These accounts would be run by a 3rd party that is overseen by the NCAA and Media partners. Of course the rich still get richer based on TV revenue, but that is going to go away. What happens is that every conference with a Media deal also has a guaranteed NIL account equal to their peers. Maybe future TV contracts are lowered to take this into account, but schools are still funded at levels to sustain the AD.
Since NIL money is now available to all athletes, the NCAA could then control any "exterior" NIL monies that the very very few elite athletes earn with strict contract oversight, guidance, and disclosure center. It would slow down the process some, but athletes would be protected from grift, scams, and poor contracts.
Anyway... it seems that the ones making the HUGE profits off athletes' NIL aren't the ones footing the bill. All this donor NIL money could be better used elsewhere within the AD and university.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 28, 2023 15:23:16 GMT -8
I'll make this as short as possible with a terrible analogy. This mayeb fodder for a entirely new thread of thoughts, but... Why isn't the right of student athletes to earn on the Name, Image, and Likeness based on the entities that TRULY make a fortune off of them... MEDIA companies?! Most university AD make some profit, but only because they are also subsidized in some way... University, State, and other funding. Media deals make up part of it, but all in all many AD run at a deficit. Hence, NIL organizations need to be formed outside of the Universities' purview to meet NIL expectations to try and stay competitive. The NIL was basically based on the NIL of student athletes being used to profit Universities. Universities that already have a huge financial outlay to student athletes in scholarships, medical, R&B, travel, staffing, etc. My question... Why aren't the media companies the ones responsible for NIL dollars? Dumb, but quick thought came to me about opioid lawsuits. Physicians were the actual prescribers, but big Pharma was sued. I'm sure certain legal issues made it make more sense, but financially who has the deeper pockets? Who actually made the huge profits? So, to even the playing field, why are Media companies who make enormous profits from college athletics/athletes not the ones responsible for the NIL dollars to athletes? Media companies can't state that their contracts pay schools enormous amounts, hence they can be used for said dollars. But, they can't. And, even if possible the AD would then be in deeper financial trouble than some already are. Media contracts are in the high hundreds of Millions, and in the Billions (I believe for the newest B10 contract?). Meaning they are making far more than that. Why not tie media contract numbers to a NIL "account" divided evenly for each member school. Example... if pure media right gives each school $60 Mil/year (excludes all other revenue) then the NIL account would be let's say $6 Mil for all athletes with Title IX implications tied to the money. These accounts would be run by a 3rd party that is overseen by the NCAA and Media partners. Of course the rich still get richer based on TV revenue, but that is going to go away. What happens is that every conference with a Media deal also has a guaranteed NIL account equal to their peers. Maybe future TV contracts are lowered to take this into account, but schools are still funded at levels to sustain the AD. Since NIL money is now available to all athletes, the NCAA could then control any "exterior" NIL monies that the very very few elite athletes earn with strict contract oversight, guidance, and disclosure center. It would slow down the process some, but athletes would be protected from grift, scams, and poor contracts. Anyway... it seems that the ones making the HUGE profits off athletes' NIL aren't the ones footing the bill. All this donor NIL money could be better used elsewhere within the AD and university. Basically a cut out the middle-man approach, where the universities are the middle-men. Why doesn't media cut out the MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.? #1 those entities, like the NCAA, have special protections in Federal and State law (including, but not limited to, tax law), which the media entities do not have access to. The media does not want the headaches of starting a brand new revenue distribution model, because there is absolutely no guarantee that they could make as much, and there is absolutely no guarantee that liabilities would not skyrocket. #2 those entities have negotiated with the players for contracts to maneuver around the Sherman Act. The media do not want to have to tear down to studs and rebuild with new contracts. #3 the media wants to appear to be impartial. They want to be the "good guys," who bring you the games but do not actually have to deal with making the sausage. The media does not want to. That's why. A lot more downside risk for an imperceptible gain, if they can realize any gain at all. If the NCAA cannot convince the Federal government to fix the mess that the Federal government created, the NCAA needs to negotiate with the players to put a stop to all of this nonsense. To me, there is no other obvious way to solve the "problem." |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 28, 2023 16:10:57 GMT -8
I'll make this as short as possible with a terrible analogy. This mayeb fodder for a entirely new thread of thoughts, but... Why isn't the right of student athletes to earn on the Name, Image, and Likeness based on the entities that TRULY make a fortune off of them... MEDIA companies?! Most university AD make some profit, but only because they are also subsidized in some way... University, State, and other funding. Media deals make up part of it, but all in all many AD run at a deficit. Hence, NIL organizations need to be formed outside of the Universities' purview to meet NIL expectations to try and stay competitive. The NIL was basically based on the NIL of student athletes being used to profit Universities. Universities that already have a huge financial outlay to student athletes in scholarships, medical, R&B, travel, staffing, etc. My question... Why aren't the media companies the ones responsible for NIL dollars? Dumb, but quick thought came to me about opioid lawsuits. Physicians were the actual prescribers, but big Pharma was sued. I'm sure certain legal issues made it make more sense, but financially who has the deeper pockets? Who actually made the huge profits? So, to even the playing field, why are Media companies who make enormous profits from college athletics/athletes not the ones responsible for the NIL dollars to athletes? Media companies can't state that their contracts pay schools enormous amounts, hence they can be used for said dollars. But, they can't. And, even if possible the AD would then be in deeper financial trouble than some already are. Media contracts are in the high hundreds of Millions, and in the Billions (I believe for the newest B10 contract?). Meaning they are making far more than that. Why not tie media contract numbers to a NIL "account" divided evenly for each member school. Example... if pure media right gives each school $60 Mil/year (excludes all other revenue) then the NIL account would be let's say $6 Mil for all athletes with Title IX implications tied to the money. These accounts would be run by a 3rd party that is overseen by the NCAA and Media partners. Of course the rich still get richer based on TV revenue, but that is going to go away. What happens is that every conference with a Media deal also has a guaranteed NIL account equal to their peers. Maybe future TV contracts are lowered to take this into account, but schools are still funded at levels to sustain the AD. Since NIL money is now available to all athletes, the NCAA could then control any "exterior" NIL monies that the very very few elite athletes earn with strict contract oversight, guidance, and disclosure center. It would slow down the process some, but athletes would be protected from grift, scams, and poor contracts. Anyway... it seems that the ones making the HUGE profits off athletes' NIL aren't the ones footing the bill. All this donor NIL money could be better used elsewhere within the AD and university. Basically a cut out the middle-man approach, where the universities are the middle-men. Why doesn't media cut out the MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.? #1 those entities, like the NCAA, have special protections in Federal and State law, which the media entities do not have access to. The media does not want the headaches of starting a brand new revenue distribution model, because there is absolutely no guarantee that they could make as much, and there is absolutely no guarantee that liabilities would not skyrocket. #2 those entities have negotiated with the players for contracts to maneuver around the Sherman Act. The media do not want to have to tear down to studs and rebuild with new contracts. #3 the media wants to appear to be impartial. They want to be the "good guys," who bring you the games but do not actually have to deal with making the sausage. The media does not want to. That's why. A lot more downside risk for an imperceptible gain, if they can realize any gain at all. If the NCAA cannot convince the Federal government to fix the mess that the Federal government created, the NCAA needs to negotiate with the players to put a stop to all of this nonsense. To me, there is no other obvious way to solve the "problem." rgeorge has a good point. Instead of it being a cut out the middle man type of deal, I'd think maybe it could be set up more like the format another type of media went to at some point around 50+/- years or so ago... royalties. Back to the Steve Miller analogy (long)... when I lived in Hawaii there was a brass band headed up by a trumpeter in Kohala that was a long time studio musician (he played background trumpet on "I will survive" for example). He said early in his career he was paid a flat fee for his part of recording, say 70 bucks a song, and that's it. Most everyone veryone was paid a flat fee, from the writers and performers to the backup musicians and the engineers... and the producers and the record studios got everything else no matter how large the money came in afterwards. This is where Miller comes in- He credited Steve Miller as being one of the artists who really pushed for everyone to get a royalty cut based on each songs performance. Back to "I will survive". He said that was probably his personal best known royalty success. He made 70-80 bucks for playing on the song, then thousands the first year or two, then consistently a few hundred every year since with up to 2 to 3 grand every year a movie or ad campaign came out that featured the song. He said at the time of the interview (he was in his 80's) he had a comfortable living still off all of the little 10-30+ buck royalty checks he was still getting from having played background on thousands of songs over the years. If college football could go to something like the "royalty" route, they could set it up to where the media gets their cut, the schools get their cut, and the players get their cut, of the revenues/profits. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an even cut, but lets say the players deserve a 15-20% as an example, that money could go to a "player's association" to divvy up and keep the schools out of it. It could make for a heckuva accounting headache, and probably some huge battles as to whether each game's revenue/profit are split so the players of specific games earned based on specific games - or if is split among a season's worth of revenue/profit are split amongst everyone so all players earn a share of all games to even it out some so the top viewed teams don't "hog the money". Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 28, 2023 16:29:26 GMT -8
Keeping it shorter... universities aren't the "middleman". Unlike MLB, etc athletes aren't employees (not yet). Hence, the NIL accounts are a separate entity from the universities and overseen by those actually profiting the most from the athletes.
|
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 1, 2024 17:38:57 GMT -8
Keeping it shorter... universities aren't the "middleman". Unlike MLB, etc athletes aren't employees (not yet). Hence, the NIL accounts are a separate entity from the universities and overseen by those actually profiting the most from the athletes. Stretching the idea of cutting out the middleman - what if the media deal was structured to where the ratings of the game (which ostensibly make more money for the media organization broadcasting) were tied to pay to the athletes? Similar to boxers making money off PPV sales, the pay would fluctuate based on how well the game did for viewership, starters get a bonus, player of the game get a bonus, etc. Lots of ways you could structure it to be very inviting to be a star football player in the new and improved PacX. |
|
