Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

[MHettel]

Let me ask a question. Clearly there is some component I'm missing that makes this scenario untenable. I belong to a country club. My membership is voluntary. As a member I must comply with certain rules. I have to wear a collared shirt when I play golf. I can't wear a baseball style cap in the clubhouse. My wife can't wear a string bikini at the pool (thank God that rule is in place).........and on and on.

Why can't Xavier and Butler and Georgetown and ND and UK etc voluntarily join a "club" and in doing so agree to comply with the rules that "club" has established? The "club" has rules regarding eligibility, transfers, compliance, player compensation, etc. If a athlete chooses to attend one of the member schools they do so knowing full well what the rules entail. How and why and by whom would this scenario be challenged?

Maybe that would work. By why would any player choose to go to one of those schools when they can choose a different school that lacks the restrictions?

[A Fan]

Let me ask a question. Clearly there is some component I'm missing that makes this scenario untenable. I belong to a country club. My membership is voluntary. As a member I must comply with certain rules. I have to wear a collared shirt when I play golf. I can't wear a baseball style cap in the clubhouse. My wife can't wear a string bikini at the pool (thank God that rule is in place).........and on and on.

Why can't Xavier and Butler and Georgetown and ND and UK etc voluntarily join a "club" and in doing so agree to comply with the rules that "club" has established? The "club" has rules regarding eligibility, transfers, compliance, player compensation, etc. If an athlete chooses to attend one of the member schools they do so knowing full well what the rules entail. How and why and by whom would this scenario be challenged?

The key difference between your “country club” analogy and college athletics lies in the restrictions on economic freedoms and the application of antitrust law. A country club doesn’t regulate how much money its members can make, nor does it prevent them from joining other clubs. In contrast, a college athletics “club” that restricts NIL opportunities or limits transfers directly interferes with the free flow of goods and services (in this case, the athletes’ labor and earning potential) and therefore risks violating antitrust laws.

The NCAA is essentially a “club” without an antitrust exemption. While it may try to create scenarios to remain relevant, without such an exemption, no system of restrictions on athlete compensation or mobility will ultimately hold up under legal scrutiny. If athletes are classified as employees and unionize, they could collectively negotiate rules with schools or conferences, avoiding antitrust violations. However, unionization comes with significant challenges, including the introduction of work rules—limiting the number of games, practice times, playing time, and other conditions of employment.

This is why, while many view the current “chaos model” as frustrating, others believe it may be the best solution available absent an antitrust exemption.

[JTG]

Is it possible that at some point, the 2 big college sports have teams "representing" the University with no academic requirement attached to the players?

You mean like Kansas or UK?

[A Fan]

You mean like Kansas or UK?

Some see a future where a coach like Sean Miller essentially operates a men’s basketball franchise under the Xavier banner. In this model, Miller could assemble a team, pay the players directly, secure free use of facilities like Cintas Center, and cover tuition for those players who want to pursue academics. Revenue would come from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships, and media rights, with the team representing Xavier in name only, rather than as an integrated part of the academic institution.

Leagues could easily form around this model, with schools essentially licensing their brand to independent franchises. This would remove academic requirements for players, allowing teams to focus solely on athletics while preserving the university affiliation for marketing purposes. It’s not far-fetched—professional-style leagues tied to universities could emerge as a logical evolution of the current system, especially as NIL and athlete compensation reshape the landscape.

[Xville]

Some see a future where a coach like Sean Miller essentially operates a men’s basketball franchise under the Xavier banner. In this model, Miller could assemble a team, pay the players directly, secure free use of facilities like Cintas Center, and cover tuition for those players who want to pursue academics. Revenue would come from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships, and media rights, with the team representing Xavier in name only, rather than as an integrated part of the academic institution.

Leagues could easily form around this model, with schools essentially licensing their brand to independent franchises. This would remove academic requirements for players, allowing teams to focus solely on athletics while preserving the university affiliation for marketing purposes. It’s not far-fetched—professional-style leagues tied to universities could emerge as a logical evolution of the current system, especially as NIL and athlete compensation reshape the landscape.

Yeah I have heard that idea and honestly if things don’t change in regards to nil/portal etc I’d be all for it. I think it’s the only logistical way of most schools being able to keep the non-revenue sports. Unless certain things change from a legislative standpoint.