forums

2025 revenue sharing and Title IX

AtlAtty said:
Exactly. She paid income tax and did not receive any money in her pocket because she still had “income”.

@TheOriginalCane can do a much better job of explaining the definition of income than I can, but whether we receive money or goods/services, we are receiving income and we are taxed on it. Even a scholarship that covers tuition is technically income in that the student or family does not have to spend their own money for tuition. The term my federal income tax professor used was any “accession to wealth” is income.

I would have no problem with Alabama deciding it does not want to collect state income tax from everyone, but to exempt NIL money while making everyone else in the state pay income tax can only happen in a “special” place. The kind of “special” that rides the short bus to school. Which begs the question, can an entire state ride a short bus?
Click to expand...
Yep and I had no problem with paying the taxes because the "income" was of much more value. And, yes, the state of AL can all ride the short bus.
 

Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
Exactly. She paid income tax and did not receive any money in her pocket because she still had “income”.

@TheOriginalCane can do a much better job of explaining the definition of income than I can, but whether we receive money or goods/services, we are receiving income and we are taxed on it. Even a scholarship that covers tuition is technically income in that the student or family does not have to spend their own money for tuition. The term my federal income tax professor used was any “accession to wealth” is income.

I would have no problem with Alabama deciding it does not want to collect state income tax from everyone, but to exempt NIL money while making everyone else in the state pay income tax can only happen in a “special” place. The kind of “special” that rides the short bus to school. Which begs the question, can an entire state ride a short bus?
Click to expand...
Georgia Senate already introduced a bill as well. I believe they did theirs prior to Alabama’s.
 
Advertisement
Da Jumbo Mutombo said:
From a UM perspective or nationwide?

I get WBball at UM is good and our baseball team is ***. But like, how does that work at a school where both teams are even talent.

LSU?
Click to expand...
The Womens March Madness tournament was $65M vs $9M for the College World Series from the NCAA TV deal.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
ssvir said:
The Womens March Madness tournament was $65M vs $9M for the College World Series from the NCAA TV deal.
Click to expand...
Thats crazy lol. Who the **** is watching women's bball? And why is wnba so trash then?

I'm not asking you to dig more research but I have to imagine those numbers are more based on Caitlin Clark than the just being the norm the last decade.

Either way, I'm very surprised to hear those numbers. Thanks for correcting me.
 
Since most sports are not profitable, I think we'll see schools offering fewer sports as a result of revenue sharing.

For example, Stanford is considered the gold standard of athletic departments. Miami offers 18 men's and women's sports. Stanford offers 36.

Using Georgia's distribution model as an example, 5% would go to athletes in 15 sports at Miami, vs 33 sports at Stanford.

There's no way Stanford can make that work. Any distribution model that shifts money away from football would put the money maker at a disadvantage. But if they stick with 5% for 33 sports, those 33 will be at a disadvantage because the schools with fewer sports can pay their athletes more.

Just wait until private equity gets involved. This will eventually turn athletic depts into ghost towns.
 
SCarolina Ibis said:
Since most sports are not profitable, I think we'll see schools offering fewer sports as a result of revenue sharing.

For example, Stanford is considered the gold standard of athletic departments. Miami offers 18 men's and women's sports. Stanford offers 36.

Using Georgia's distribution model as an example, 5% would go to athletes in 15 sports at Miami, vs 33 sports at Stanford.

There's no way Stanford can make that work. Any distribution model that shifts money away from football would put the money maker at a disadvantage. But if they stick with 5% for 33 sports, those 33 will be at a disadvantage because the schools with fewer sports can pay their athletes more.

Just wait until private equity gets involved. This will eventually turn athletic depts into ghost towns.
Click to expand...
Schools will need to pick and chose what sports they want to succeed in. Going to need to pick 3-4.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top