Big dumb question.

[golfingomez]

At this point in time, what is really stopping schools like Ohio St., Bama, SMU and so on from just putting their players under contract? because i know it's definitely not the NCAA... what is their risk as employers?

[Tommy Gadberry]

4 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

At this point in time, what is really stopping schools like Ohio St., Bama, SMU and so on from just putting their players under contract? because i know it's definitely not the NCAA... what is their risk as employers?

It is supposed to work that way starting July 1.

[golfingomez]

2 hours ago, Tommy Gadberry said:

It is supposed to work that way starting July 1.

Not NIL distributions, I mean full employee status

[GMG_Dallas]

6 hours ago, golfingomez said:

At this point in time, what is really stopping schools like Ohio St., Bama, SMU and so on from just putting their players under contract? because i know it's definitely not the NCAA... what is their risk as employers?

Why put players under contract when in the current form, you can just dispose of those who aren't performing every season? Scholarships are currently renewed on a yearly basis. Putting players under contract would mean you'd be looking at deals worth 2+ years. What happens when a guy just isn't working out but you're on the hook for another year so the scholarship can't be used for somebody else? I know you could say with "NIL," you could just give enough to cover tuition and some extra but I doubt the boosters would want to pay that much for an unknown player just because a scholarship is used up on another bad player.

Reality is, coaches hate when players leave after a great season but those same coaches are quick to push guys into the portal if they're not working out. I'd be all for contracts at our level, though. Contracts mean you can include buyouts so if you really hit on a prospect, I'd love for UNT and our NIL to get some money back for developing a good player.

Edited 17 hours ago by GMG_Dallas

[Graddean]

Contracts could be for one+ year(s).  Employee status would bring tax questions into play.  FICA and income taxes would be due .

[Texas Stranger]

2 hours ago, Graddean said:

Contracts could be for one+ year(s).  Employee status would bring tax questions into play.  FICA and income taxes would be due .

Especially the employers' portion of income tax and SS.  Employers typically do not owe or withhold taxes/SS for independent contractors.

[Green Otaku]

Legally I don't think it's possible right now. You would need an exemption granted by Congress like the NFL has, otherwise contracts would not be allowed because of antitrust laws.

From Google
 

Quote

 

NFL player contracts are not against antitrust law because they are protected by labor exemptions and collective bargaining agreements. 

 

Labor exemptions

The Supreme Court created non-statutory labor exemptions in the 1960s and 1970s. These exemptions make it legal for unions to engage in business practices that would otherwise be antitrust violations. 

 

Collective bargaining agreements

The NFLPA is a union that represents NFL players. The NFLPA negotiates compensation and other terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). 

 

Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961

This act exempts professional sports leagues from antitrust laws for the purpose of collectively selling television broadcast rights. 

The Sherman Act prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the act to allow some restrictions that promote competition. 

 

 

[NT80]

They are still classified as student-athletes.  Unless you change their title to employee the context of contracts is limited. 

And as we see with the kid leaving Wisconsin for Miami, ignoring his 2-year NIL contract with Wisconsin, there seems to be no penalty to the player to do so yet.