OPINION:
Based on “Alabama on top, fans in the stands, stars on the field. So why is everything different?” (Web, Sept. 1), it would seem that the the Supreme Court greatly underestimated both the number of players who would sign NIL deals and the ability of NIL deals to motivate players to transfer.
The amount of movement in just one year shows a destabilization akin to a tremor before an earthquake. We are only at the beginning of its impact affecting recruiting and the expansion to other sports, and at younger ages. As a former college football player, I understand the complaints players had with restricted scholarships and/or low stipends, and if the NCAA had addressed the issue the public perception of players somehow being exploited wouldn’t exist.
The Supreme Court’s attempt to remedy this perception has created a ripple effect that will send college athletics into an uncontrollable position. I have already heard parents declaring to recruiters that NIL money is the new priority. The coaches with whom I’ve spoken are expressing frustration over the new bidding process occurring among schools and conferences. The idea behind the court’s ruling was to let players seek deals with or without schools’ input. But this means athletes will ultimately make agreements with groups that don’t have their best interests at heart.
There needs to be more clarity regarding the relationship with universities, including whether NIL deals will include the financial burdens of tuition and health care.What are the tax implications, both federal and state, and are the deals considered income? This isn’t the first time the Justices have rushed to make rulings for optics’ sake. The 2010 case of United Citizens v. FEC comes to mind. That case injected the matter of campaign contributions and full source disclosure into our election process, causing a ripple effect that now threatens the integrity of election outcomes.
We must press pause on these NIL deals until disclosure rules are strengthened and other matters are straightened out. The Justices seem not to have examined the long-term impacts of this ruling becoming a gateway for groups and individuals wishing to manipulate the industry for personal gain.
GREG RALEIGH
WashingtonÂ
Please read our comment policy before commenting.