LaffyTaffy13
Registered User
- May 10, 2022
- 1,844
- 3,185
OT: What would stop rangers fans from starting a “collective” to pay players like colleges are doing now?
- Thread starter LaffyTaffy13
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
They're already getting paid.
The thing about college athletes is that colleges, networks, and advertisers make a mint off their games and they get precisely dick for it.
Why we would pay players on the Rangers when they're already getting paid *checks notes* by the Rangers?
The thing about college athletes is that colleges, networks, and advertisers make a mint off their games and they get precisely dick for it.
Why we would pay players on the Rangers when they're already getting paid *checks notes* by the Rangers?
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,765
- 27,707
Prior to the advent of social media and global marketing, players would make this calculation. "St. Louis would pay me more to play for them, but my star will shine brighter in Los Angeles and lead to more lucrative endorsement deals." It's less of a consideration now thanks to digital media, the internet, and everything else that enables fans today to see every player every night regardless of where they play.
As far as whether fans can pay NHL players directly or through NIL collectives, I don't know. I would be curious if there is language in the NHLPA charter or standard player contract, which the players agree to sign, that prohibits this. I wouldn't be surprised. The Supreme Court decision was narrowly tailored to non-unionized college athletes and the definition of "education-related benefits" so a whole new case would have to address this issue should the players argue that a prohibition violates antitrust law.
As far as whether fans can pay NHL players directly or through NIL collectives, I don't know. I would be curious if there is language in the NHLPA charter or standard player contract, which the players agree to sign, that prohibits this. I wouldn't be surprised. The Supreme Court decision was narrowly tailored to non-unionized college athletes and the definition of "education-related benefits" so a whole new case would have to address this issue should the players argue that a prohibition violates antitrust law.
Last edited:
1Knee1T
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2008
- 3,410
- 139
Is this the new method of conspiring a way to get Motte to the Rangers? Hopefully Steve Cohen is a Ranger fan.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Not compared to the billions of dollars those athletes are generating and the risk that comes with it, especially in football.
They weren't even asking to get salaried, they were asking to be able to seek their own endorsements like anybody else, which seems fair given that ESPN and Dr. Pepper will use their name and likeness to set profit records.
OP - Pro athletes have been able to do what college athletes are currently doing since pretty much the beginning of time. You can't try to leverage a collective in pro sports because these athletes are already being paid by their teams. Up until now, Universities (or those affiliated with them) could not pay their athletes, at least legally (the under the table stuff has been a thing forever, especially down south. A "fan" collective is just the same practice as a booster handing a kid a bag full of 100's and not having to be hush hush about it) - This is going to end up being a problem for some schools because they're not operating within the intention of what NIL is supposed to be (Hello A&M, Tennessee and Miami!) But thats really not a conversation for this place. Btw, some of these kids are getting paid WAY more than 1 mil and honestly, good for them.
tl;dr, this is blatant cap circumvention. No team would ever be able to get away with it.
It does, but the athletes rarely see it that way. Call it what ever you want but most people who go to college on athletic scholarship are going because they want to go pro and grab a bag in what ever sport they're competing in, not because they want to pursue a career in economics.
tl;dr, this is blatant cap circumvention. No team would ever be able to get away with it.
It does, but the athletes rarely see it that way. Call it what ever you want but most people who go to college on athletic scholarship are going because they want to go pro and grab a bag in what ever sport they're competing in, not because they want to pursue a career in economics.
The total value of scholarships provided by college athletics is about $3.5 billion.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,925
- 22,847
Not every player is on a scholarship though.
NHL players sign contracts and are governed by the CBA, collectively bargained by the NHL and NHLPA. The court ruling for the NCAA has no impact on that. Players are already free to sign their own endorsements, provided they adhere to the stipulations detailed in Article 25 of the CBA.
So even before the ruling, fans could have collected money to pay a player outside of the salary cap. If that actually happened, though, the league would slam whichever team was involved, as it would be a clear attempt to circumvent the salary cap. You could argue that it isn't the team doing it, it's the fans, but the team is complicit in signing the player.
So in short, it will never happen.
LaffyTaffy13
Registered User
- May 10, 2022
- 1,844
- 3,185
1) people come for the name on the front, not the name on the back in college
2) overwhelming majority of schools operate at a loss
3) college athletes have a GREAT deal pre-NIL. Free education, housing, good, training, medical and stipend
Regarding the first part of your post. SCOTUS rules that regardless of whether schools pay them or not, institutions/leagues cannot limit NIL money
With all that said, collectives are brand new and nobody has ever tried them prior to about a year ago. My question is, what would stop fans of a pro team from starting one? I believe the answer is nothing
The vast majority of student athletes will not receive any endorsements at least not anything meaningful. They should have been able to get real jobs like any other scholarship student. The only reason they couldn't is because boosters would be expected to give them no-show jobs. Not something a player from Wisconsin's hockey team would have to worry about.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,925
- 22,847
Nothing would stop fans from starting one, but it will never get to the point where a player is getting paid by both the club, under the salary cap, and by the fans outside the salary cap. I doubt any team would be so stupid as to allow it, but if they did, the NHL would deal with it harshly.
LaffyTaffy13
Registered User
- May 10, 2022
- 1,844
- 3,185
Due to SCOTUS ruling
1) much like the ncaa, teams could not be the ones who arrange the compensation but if fans want to pay for the benefit of ones “name image and likeness”, they cannot be limited.
2) NHL due to SCOTUS ruling wouldnt be able to do anything about it
3) again, I dont think theres anything that could stop this if fans of a team wanted to put together a collective and pay hypothetically $500K per autograph session and they only need to do 2 per year. Aka a loophole to paying players an extra $1,000,000/yr. Texas A&M is doing exactly this
Doesn't this already happen? Players get endorsement deals and they don't count against the cap.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,925
- 22,847
The bolded is entirely wrong. NHL can't stop the fans from doing it, but they can punish the shit out of the teams that benefit from it.
LaffyTaffy13
Registered User
- May 10, 2022
- 1,844
- 3,185
Correct but its always been with legitimate companies. Now in college theres new things called “collectives” and all they are is fans pooling money to pay players to come to their school. They hide behind saying its for public appearances and autograph signings. So again, nothing would stop us from doing it too hypothetically
No they cant. They legally cannot. If they could then years ago prior to social media they couldve punished big market teams for pitching FA’s to sign with them because of the endorsement opportunities. The teams would have NOTHING to do with these collectives. In fact, the teams could PUBLICLY condemn them and guess what? It wouldnt do dick. Its for endorsement money
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I know he donated the money, yet I am not sure if he had to.
If he did not have to, then what's to stop crowd funding in order to lower cap hits, even if it is veiled under some other premise?
nhl.nbcsports.com
If he did not have to, then what's to stop crowd funding in order to lower cap hits, even if it is veiled under some other premise?
Ryan Hartman donating fans' 'fine fund' to Minnesota children's hospital
The NHL fined Hartman $4,250 for showing Evander Kane the middle finger.
nhl.nbcsports.com
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,999
- 6,372
To answer the actual question: From the point of view of the law or the league, NOTHING. As long as the team was not involved in it in any way. Not sure of the laws in Canada, so I'm only commenting on the States.
The big hurdles are actually funding, managing and distributing such a collective. Sounds like a nightmare.
The big hurdles are actually funding, managing and distributing such a collective. Sounds like a nightmare.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,925
- 22,847
It's not a matter of law. The law isn't stopping the Rangers from giving players money outside their contract. The NHL is doing that. If the NHL deems that it is cap circumvention, they can punish the team however they see fit. The law doesn't supersede the NHL's rules.
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,765
- 27,707
If Liam Neeson and Justin Tuck are willing to pay Tyler Motte $2 million to stay in New York, I'm all for it.
That said, where in the Alston decision does SCOTUS say the NHL cannot prohibit its players from benefiting from fan collectives? If I were the NHL's lawyer, I would advise them that Alston does not govern the issue. Pro athletes vs. amateur athletes. Unionized athletes vs. non-unionized athletes. Completely different facts and circumstances.
Not saying the players wouldn't have an antitrust argument against the NHL, but the NHL is not bound by the Alston decision.
Last edited:
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,765
- 27,707
Section 26.3(b) of the CBA ("Circumventions"):
No Player or Player Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if the Player knows or reasonably should have known (measured by the objective standard of the "reasonable Player under the circumstances") that either (i) or (ii) is intended to and has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the Team Payroll Range, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.
There is an express carve-back for sponsorship deals. However the NHL "shall have the right to challenge before the System Arbitrator, through an expedited arbitration proceeding pursuant to the third sentence of Section 26.13(a) below, the bona fides of any such national sponsorship or endorsement arrangement on the grounds that it was actually provided for the benefit of a particular Club."
A fan collective would likely violate Section 26.3(b) and not fall within the carve-back for sponsorships. Even if it could be characterized as a sponsorship, the NHL maintains the right to challenge it "on the grounds that it was actually provided for the benefit of a particular Club."
No Player or Player Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if the Player knows or reasonably should have known (measured by the objective standard of the "reasonable Player under the circumstances") that either (i) or (ii) is intended to and has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the Team Payroll Range, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.
There is an express carve-back for sponsorship deals. However the NHL "shall have the right to challenge before the System Arbitrator, through an expedited arbitration proceeding pursuant to the third sentence of Section 26.13(a) below, the bona fides of any such national sponsorship or endorsement arrangement on the grounds that it was actually provided for the benefit of a particular Club."
A fan collective would likely violate Section 26.3(b) and not fall within the carve-back for sponsorships. Even if it could be characterized as a sponsorship, the NHL maintains the right to challenge it "on the grounds that it was actually provided for the benefit of a particular Club."
pld459666
Registered User
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I'm not paying for Tyler Motte out of my own pocket. This is getting out of hand.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
- Sep 20, 2007
- 8,380
- 13,378
