Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

No, it doesn't have the force of law. But it sure as hell ain't going to slow down lawsuits aimed at the NCAA and his quote will be in every single brief before lower courts.

True. Although I think the majority opinion itself will be plenty capable of spurring on the lawsuits. 

I appreciate the restraint in the majority opinion,  let legislatures legislate.   doesn't mean I think Kavanaugh was wrong or necessarily over the top to write that  concurrence.   Often concurrence opinions and even dissents can influence the future.    It is a very good opinion (both) to read if one wants a fresh read on amateur athletics.     I've been deadheading roses this evening but plan to go back to reading this again. 

One has to wonder how this will affect the athletic departments as a whole.  Will they still build ever more lavish facilities?  Will they still pay coaches ever increasing salaries (I think we're touching that $10 million mark now for the upper guys).  I mean if the players are really going to be paid, (and I think we all know it's coming that they will be getting money directly from the university in the next 2-5 years) will it mean less money for coaches etc?  And what about the other sports? 

And if you really think about it does Alabama really have deeper pockets than say an A&M or Texas?  Could some "lesser" schools potentially outbid the premier helmet programs for certain players services?  I would say that there have to be some really deep pockets associated with schools like Michigan, Stanford, USC.  Heck maybe even TCU and Baylor could outbid some of the big boys, SMU already did it once before.  All it would take would be a really involved billionaire of the Phil Knight stature to prop up a program.  Imagine if Boone Pickens could have done this 20+ years ago.  Heck maybe his trust and estate is already set up to do it. 

I can totally see the major market programs in large metropolitan areas easily having an advantage.  Just because someone has bought into a players NIL doesn't mean they can own the whole enchilada.  For example, how many brands does Peyton Manning pimp?  One player can have multiple endorsements with multiple businesses.  Car dealerships, restaurants, the list is endless and not necessarily exclusive. 

Exclusivity can be written into the contract, and I thoroughly expect it will be, in many cases.  If I'm Joe Billionaire Booster I'm not paying $500,000 for that 5* QB, and not get sole control of him.

Some players will probably trade the certainty of an exclusive contract, for the potential earnings of multiple contracts, but that's a risk/reward decision and I think over time, the free market for paying college players, will sort itself out.

high school seniors are going to need agents

The good ones already have them.

They call them "trainers" or "7-on-7 coaches" or "Uncle Joe" or whatever, but they all, already have them.

The good ones already have them.

They call them "trainers" or "7-on-7 coaches" or "Uncle Joe" or whatever, but they all, already have them.

uncle joe will be phased out by some real agents looking for bigger money

Everyone's already said it, but this decision and the concurrence are a BFD. The concurrence is also correct that the issue is more complicated than simply figuring out a market rate for major college football and men's basketball salaries. But figuring out that market rate, and how it fits into the various other laws governing colleges that receive federal funding (e.g., all of them that participate at the high levels of the NCAA), is coming--and fast.

I know this will hit some nerves, but one of the more interesting aspects of this is how revenue vs. non-revenue sports function. One of the big issues in women's sports right now is the argument that with similar promotion to the men's side, women's sports are perfectly capable of generating the same kind of revenue as men's sports. There is a lot of chatter right now on the finance side that there is a lot more growth available in women's sports, and that adequate marketing is one of the keys to making that happen.

How that plays under Title IX, and what it means as between the various "non-revenue" sports (many of which are revenue sports at certain schools). To be clear, this isn't just a gender issue. How much better would college baseball or tennis--or everyone's favorite sad-sack underdog: wrestling--do if they were robustly marketed?

Also, how does it implicate market drivers, like the media actors who control much of the marketing (I'm looking at you, Disney/ABC/ESPN)? It's not hard to imagine lawsuits against the networks for their failure to promote the traditionally non-revenue sports (women's or men's).

The Supreme Court's point about what constitutes amateurism is also a fascinating question--and one that I'm sure will be litigated to death in the near future. All sports have a tribal component to them. That's why even in EUFA club competition, they still talk about Spanish, English, French, and German (etc., etc.) nationals playing for the individual club teams. The University of Wisconsin athletic department owes a great deal of its financial success to being the premier state university for the state of Wisconsin. So people in Wisconsin, who have no affiliation with the university other than paying taxes and living in the state, rabidly support the school's athletics. Not as much as the Packers, Brewers, or Bucks--but they still do.

Also, there is tons of evidence that successful athletics programs raise the profile of a university and help it attract better academic talent. Notre Dame, Michigan, and even Wisconsin, all provide pretty good case stories. So the athletics and the academics are intertwined, but how, exactly, is going to be difficult to parse out into how to pay student-athletes.

How these tribal affiliations--including the status of the athletes as students--impact the marketing and financial success of collegiate sports is a fascinating, and undoubtedly complicated subject.

Finally (at least for now, from me), what is the tertiary impact on the sports themselves of a changing collegiate landscape. Unquestionably, the lure of a college scholarship has impacted who plays what sports as kids, and has helped built a youth sports industrial complex. How will the availability of college-level paychecks--and the potential disparity in paychecks between the sports--impact the development of youth sports? 

All fascinating things to consider. Too bad I still have a day job and a mortgage to pay.

marketing dollars will be spent the same way any business operates

best bang for your buck

if a female soccer player wants move marketing to enhance her value, she should talk to her agent