|
Post by bulkey on Apr 24, 2021 10:20:59 GMT -5
Along with the ability to play immediately after transferring, this is the most important change in "amateur" athletics in a long time: www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31086019/everything-need-know-ncaa-nil-debateStates are rushing to pass laws allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). At the bottom of the article is a list of states with actual or impending legislation. CT is not among them. Will that be a consideration for potential UConn recruits? Or will CT hustle to catch up? We're also waiting for the Supreme Court decision in the next 6-8 weeks that might prevent, limit, or increase NIL. Early speculation is that the SC will not rule in the NCAA's favor to grant the NCAA right to regulate NIL. Meaning, that it will maintain the status quo ante, and it will be up to each state to determine NIL for athletes in its own state. Again, that puts pressure on CT to follow their lead quickly.
|
|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on Apr 24, 2021 11:31:55 GMT -5
Another revenue source to tax. I'd think CT would be all over it. And, yes, CT would put UConn at a huge, neigh crippling disadvantage if it does not swing into action.
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Apr 24, 2021 11:50:06 GMT -5
Another revenue source to tax. I'd think CT would be all over it. And, yes, CT would put UConn at a huge, neigh crippling disadvantage if it does not swing into action. Really great point, Rocky. When universities profit from NIL, it's not taxable. But when athletes do, it is.
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Apr 24, 2021 19:05:35 GMT -5
Why do I feel like the NCAA is just interested in kicking the can down the line. No matter what they say.
|
|
|
Post by l3800 on Apr 24, 2021 20:43:25 GMT -5
It's good to see this issue finally getting some real steam. It's been years in coming. There is something inherently wrong when the university can profit from the athlete but the athlete is prevented from doing so themselves.
|
|