NIL

[npope]

I agree that it is pay to play if it is not regulated, and without being regulated it is a disaster.  However, I totally disagree with your take that youtube, podcasts, camps or shirts sales is not equivalent to a job landscaping or working fast food.  Thats like saying my job as an engineer is not equivalent to being an educator or vise versa.

Again if regulated I have no problem, but I don't see how it can be at the HS level.

Just to be clear, you are saying that allowing someone to, for example, use your image on T-shirts they sell and pay you for that usage-right, is equivalent to the athlete having a job as a landscaper? Am I correct in my understanding of your position?

No see strike through above and yes I am.

If a HS U17 kid makes the world team they should be able to sell shirts of themself, logo they created, or saying they came up with in order to pay their expenses.

I am also saying that earning money from youtube, twitter or any other form of social media is equivalent to flipping burgers at Culvers on a Sunday afternoon.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if it is the individual themselves who are doing the product-creation and marketing then it is okay (please confirm)? As soon as a third-party inserts themselves into the (financial) equation, e.g. a third party marketer, then it is no longer okay? Correct? The issue at point is WHO is doing the production and promotion? Athlete okay? Third-party not so much? What would be the moral difference in who is doing the marketing?

Also, can we agree that the athlete in question here is making money based on their athletic exploits, as opposed to being paid solely for their efforts in bringing this product to the marketplace? In short, they are capitalizing on their image as opposed to capitalizing on their product production labor? They could be just as easily be hawking t-shirts with images of famous rockers at concerts if the actual image isn't the issue.

And please know that I am not attempting to "set a trap here" but rather, just trying to define exactly what we are talking about. While this delineation has long-been an issue in collegiate sports (but NIL has recently seemed to have obliterated the issue), it has previously never been an issue in high school sports - this is a new frontier. So, what now is the difference between a pro and an amateur? Should pros be competing in HS athletics along side novice competitors?

So, dynamics are changing - it would seem to be a good time to move slowly and deliberately as opposed to allowing some to make a "money grab" before all of the positives and negatives have been fully considered. There were reasons for preventing young people from grabbing cash based on their amateur exploits - are we ready to abandon those principles?

I am not sure myself, but the pros and cons are worthy of some deliberate thought before we let the genie out, IMO.

[hornbuckleb]

I agree that it is pay to play if it is not regulated, and without being regulated it is a disaster.  However, I totally disagree with your take that youtube, podcasts, camps or shirts sales is not equivalent to a job landscaping or working fast food.  Thats like saying my job as an engineer is not equivalent to being an educator or vise versa.

Again if regulated I have no problem, but I don't see how it can be at the HS level.

Just to be clear, you are saying that allowing someone to, for example, use your image on T-shirts they sell and pay you for that usage-right, is equivalent to the athlete having a job as a landscaper? Am I correct in my understanding of your position?

No see strike through above and yes I am.

If a HS U17 kid makes the world team they should be able to sell shirts of themself, logo they created, or saying they came up with in order to pay their expenses.

I am also saying that earning money from youtube, twitter or any other form of social media is equivalent to flipping burgers at Culvers on a Sunday afternoon.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if it is the individual themselves who are doing the product-creation and marketing then it is okay (please confirm)? As soon as a third-party inserts themselves into the (financial) equation, e.g. a third party marketer, then it is no longer okay? Correct? The issue at point is WHO is doing the production and promotion? Athlete okay? Third-party not so much? What would be the moral difference in who is doing the marketing?

Also, can we agree that the athlete in question here is making money based on their athletic exploits, as opposed to being paid solely for their efforts in bringing this product to the marketplace? In short, they are capitalizing on their image as opposed to capitalizing on their product production labor? They could be just as easily be hawking t-shirts with images of famous rockers at concerts if the actual image isn't the issue.

And please know that I am not attempting to "set a trap here" but rather, just trying to define exactly what we are talking about. While this delineation has long-been an issue in collegiate sports (but NIL has recently seemed to have obliterated the issue), it has previously never been an issue in high school sports - this is a new frontier. So, what now is the difference between a pro and an amateur? Should pros be competing in HS athletics along side novice competitors?

So, dynamics are changing - it would seem to be a good time to move slowly and deliberately as opposed to allowing some to make a "money grab" before all of the positives and negatives have been fully considered. There were reasons for preventing young people from grabbing cash based on their amateur exploits - are we ready to abandon those principles?

I am not sure myself, but the pros and cons are worthy of some deliberate thought before we let the genie out, IMO.

There are definitely some twists in the deliberations regarding NIL.  Maybe that is why the NCAA just threw their hands up and said "you want it you got it."

Genie in the bottle is a great analogy.  Have to be careful what we wish for..

So what about this scenario.  A high school kids makes the U20 world team, wins a world championship, has a huge social media following and is approached by a company like Rudis.  Rudis would like to make a shoe deal with this HS kid.  He or she gets to help design the shoe.  The HS kid will be compensated on a percentage of shoe sales if the kid promotes the product on the mat and on their social media platform.

[MNbadger]

I agree that it is pay to play if it is not regulated, and without being regulated it is a disaster.  However, I totally disagree with your take that youtube, podcasts, camps or shirts sales is not equivalent to a job landscaping or working fast food.  Thats like saying my job as an engineer is not equivalent to being an educator or vise versa.

Again if regulated I have no problem, but I don't see how it can be at the HS level.

Just to be clear, you are saying that allowing someone to, for example, use your image on T-shirts they sell and pay you for that usage-right, is equivalent to the athlete having a job as a landscaper? Am I correct in my understanding of your position?

No see strike through above and yes I am.

If a HS U17 kid makes the world team they should be able to sell shirts of themself, logo they created, or saying they came up with in order to pay their expenses.

I am also saying that earning money from youtube, twitter or any other form of social media is equivalent to flipping burgers at Culvers on a Sunday afternoon.

In my humble opinion, if they are making income tied to their wrestling, it is pay for play. 

[DocWrestling]

NIL in college was supposed to be a legit way for kids to earn money but truth is there is no way to regulate it at any level.

One player might be paid $1 million dollars just to send out an instagram that he likes a certain dealership.  The work/service no where meets market value so it is pay for play.

Say at the high school level I own a huge car dealership and I support the local school.  Maybe I just start giving cars to kids to use during their high school years so they come to the school I want them to.  Dealership puts a logo on the car or uses the kid in one ad and he can write off all the expenses.

So many ways a wealthy individual could really influence a high school athletic dept or certain sport.  My only hope is that these wealthy people do not want to get involved.  But just like college sports it will really only negatively affect basketball and football with luring to certain schools. 

To me the real money will be luring kids to schools as 8th and 9th graders.  Nobody is going to pay juniors and seniors because they cannot transfer without penalty

NIL can benefit a few individuals in the "olympic" sports that have great success and might find some niche money.

[3]

Tons of booster clubs give scholarships for academics, community work, etc. and then the kids can use that for camps.  Legal if it is an open application process with one of the qualifications being you have to be a wrestler.  At least the way it was years ago

As you stated it, that does not conform with current WIAA regulations. As such this needs to be fixed if local clubs are doing that across the state.

How dare clubs help kids and their families financially who can't afford it

[3]

I agree that it is pay to play if it is not regulated, and without being regulated it is a disaster.  However, I totally disagree with your take that youtube, podcasts, camps or shirts sales is not equivalent to a job landscaping or working fast food.  Thats like saying my job as an engineer is not equivalent to being an educator or vise versa.

Again if regulated I have no problem, but I don't see how it can be at the HS level.

Sounds like the kid now meets the definition of a pro (pay for play). If we are all willing to allow pros to play among amateurs then we are on the right track by letting NIL in. But if a person doesn't see a problem with that then by all means, let's get on that NIL bandwagon.

I think some have this cozy notion of turning on the spigot a little and allowing top level HS athletes to get their way paid to camps and that would be the end of it. But paying (or paying for) young athletes to receive special treatment is a Pandora's Box that once opened, can't be closed. If you can envision the worst outcome associated with pay for play then you should assume that is where we will be in the very near term - there is absolutely no reason to think that the system will somehow perceive the problem and step into mitigate it. The collegiate system is currently experiencing the conundrum and is floundering. Once you let the genie out...
Just to be clear, you are saying that allowing someone to, for example, use your image on T-shirts they sell and pay you for that usage-right, is equivalent to the athlete having a job as a landscaper? Am I correct in my understanding of your position?

No see strike through above and yes I am.

If a HS U17 kid makes the world team they should be able to sell shirts of themself, logo they created, or saying they came up with in order to pay their expenses.

I am also saying that earning money from youtube, twitter or any other form of social media is equivalent to flipping burgers at Culvers on a Sunday afternoon.
[/quote]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if it is the individual themselves who are doing the product-creation and marketing then it is okay (please confirm)? As soon as a third-party inserts themselves into the (financial) equation, e.g. a third party marketer, then it is no longer okay? Correct? The issue at point is WHO is doing the production and promotion? Athlete okay? Third-party not so much? What would be the moral difference in who is doing the marketing?

Also, can we agree that the athlete in question here is making money based on their athletic exploits, as opposed to being paid solely for their efforts in bringing this product to the marketplace? In short, they are capitalizing on their image as opposed to capitalizing on their product production labor? They could be just as easily be hawking t-shirts with images of famous rockers at concerts if the actual image isn't the issue.

And please know that I am not attempting to "set a trap here" but rather, just trying to define exactly what we are talking about. While this delineation has long-been an issue in collegiate sports (but NIL has recently seemed to have obliterated the issue), it has previously never been an issue in high school sports - this is a new frontier. So, what now is the difference between a pro and an amateur? Should pros be competing in HS athletics along side novice competitors?

So, dynamics are changing - it would seem to be a good time to move slowly and deliberately as opposed to allowing some to make a "money grab" before all of the positives and negatives have been fully considered. There were reasons for preventing young people from grabbing cash based on their amateur exploits - are we ready to abandon those principles?

I am not sure myself, but the pros and cons are worthy of some deliberate thought before we let the genie out, IMO.

[/quote]

There are definitely some twists in the deliberations regarding NIL.  Maybe that is why the NCAA just threw their hands up and said "you want it you got it."

Genie in the bottle is a great analogy.  Have to be careful what we wish for..

So what about this scenario.  A high school kids makes the U20 world team, wins a world championship, has a huge social media following and is approached by a company like Rudis.  Rudis would like to make a shoe deal with this HS kid.  He or she gets to help design the shoe.  The HS kid will be compensated on a percentage of shoe sales if the kid promotes the product on the mat and on their social media platform.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Your scenario is an awesome one!  And, yes they should get money from the shoe deal.  100%.  This scenario is something we should all be in favor of.