NCAA to Allow Athletes to Cash in on Fame

[Muskie]

AP

ATLANTA (AP) — The Latest on the NCAA task force’s report on the feasibility of allowing athletes to profit from their names and images (all times local):1:30 p.m.The NCAA Board of Governors has taken the first step toward allowing athletes to cash in on their fame. The board voted unanimously on Tuesday to clear the way for the amateur athletes to “benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.”The vote came during a meeting at Emory University in Atlanta.In a news release, board chair Michael V. Drake said the board realized that it “must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes.”

[smileyy]

Hooray for this even being considered!

[xubrew]

They unanimously approve it in "a way that is consistent with the collegiate model." Until they define what that is, then it's hard to say what this really means.

[X-band '01]

It would be like Donald Trump saying that he will finally release his tax returns "in a manner consistent with the bylaws of Trump Corporation (or Properties or whatever the hell he calls his business)."

[GoMuskies]

There's at least one Republican Congressman saying that if athletes cash in on their name/image/likeness, then their scholarships should be taxable income. And, while that's probably a pretty politically toxic stance, from a tax policy standpoint he's probably not wrong. I don't think it will happen, but if it did that would be an absolute killer for schools like Xavier (and the rest of the Big East other than UConn). Our scholarships probably have a list price of $20,000-$30,000/year higher than a bunch of public schools, so you're looking at putting us at a $3k to $4.5k disadvantage (assuming a 15% tax rate) right out of the gate in pursuing top talent.

[xubrew]

There's at least one Republican Congressman saying that if athletes cash in on their name/image/likeness, then their scholarships should be taxable income. And, while that's probably a pretty politically toxic stance, from a tax policy standpoint he's probably not wrong. I don't think it will happen, but if it did that would be an absolute killer for schools like Xavier (and the rest of the Big East other than UConn). Our scholarships probably have a list price of $20,000-$30,000/year higher than a bunch of public schools, so you're looking at putting us at a $3k to $4.5k disadvantage (assuming a 15% tax rate) right out of the gate in pursuing top talent.

As I understand it the current tax code considers all scholarships and all types of tuition assistance to be fringe benefits and not salary or income. In order to tax athletic scholarships, wouldn't they have to change the entire tax code?? And, wouldn't doing that mean taxing all scholarships and tuition assistance for everyone?? I don't see that happening. Richard Burr is an idiot.

[GoMuskies]

As I understand it the current tax code considers all scholarships and all types of tuition assistance to be fringe benefits and not salary or income. In order to tax athletic scholarships, wouldn't they have to change the entire tax code?? And, wouldn't doing that mean taxing all scholarships and tuition assistance for everyone?? I don't see that happening. Richard Burr is an idiot.

Generally scholarships are excepted from income (unless there was an exception they would generally fall within the definition of income). Room and board is actually generally included in income other than for athletic scholarships. But if the situation is changed such that scholarships are being used as a form of compensation (along with name/image/likeness compensation) for athletes, there is definitely some logic in carving athletic scholarships out of that exception to income. The scholarships become more similar to any other type of earned income than to what scholarships have traditionally been.

Again, I don't think it's politically tenable. But it's not bad tax policy.

[xubrew]

I don't know why players having NIL rights would change how scholarships work. Scholarships have never been considered forms of compensation before, and I don't see why they would be now. Maybe (probably) I'm missing something.

I had a full scholarship to grad school that included room and board and it wasn't taxed. If it had been I would probably told them to forget it. I was paid a stipend for my assistantship and that was taxed, but that was considered income and not a fringe benefit.

Just about everyone who ever went to Xavier had some sort of scholarship or tuition assistance. There would have been no way to afford it otherwise. It was never taxed as if it were some sort of income. It really isn't income. If a school writes a check to itself to cover someone's tuition, room, board, or books, which is basically what they do, then how can it be considered someone else's income?

[STL_XUfan]

for athletes, there is definitely some logic in carving athletic scholarships out of that exception to income. The scholarships become more similar to any other type of earned income than to what scholarships have traditionally been.

Again, I don't think it's politically tenable. But it's not bad tax policy.

Could you explain to me the logic in carving out an exception for athletic scholarships as compared to a music scholarship? (honestly asking)

Maybe I am mistaken, but under the proposals I have seen the athletes still wouldn't be "paid" by the school, but instead could be paid by third parties for things like endorsements, youtube channels, or instagram influencer type activity. These are all incomes that are also available to regular scholarship students? Further, any coaching clinic or other activity they are paid for isn't different than someone on a music scholarship providing private lessons to high school students (how I made some extra cash at X).

Wouldn't there also be a concern that if the scholarship is taxable income, they could then be considered employees of the university? What kind of pandora's box of issues would that open up?

[GoMuskies]

Could you explain to me the logic in carving out an exception for athletic scholarships as compared to a music scholarship? (honestly asking)

Because you aren't including a music scholarship as part of a compensation scheme. I'm pretty sure any NCAA N/I/L policy is going to involve the money being funneled through the schools or some NCAA agency. If you start paying the players to play, it begins to look like the scholarship is part of the compensation scheme together with the N/I/L money. In other words, it looks a lot more like what you and I think of as income for services provided than someone being given a music scholarship because it adds to the diversity of the campus experience.