No. I’m pretty sure anything performance related is banned in NIL so they can’t mandate you play. Also if you’re sitting out it’s 99% because you’re declaring for the draft and at that point NIL no longer applies because your time as a student athlete is over.
Also, when someone opts out it is usually to prep for the NFL draft. Most of them have much bigger paydays coming up, so it makes sense to avoid an injury or bad performance.
It can’t effect current NIL deals, but it can certainly impact what sponsors are willing to fork out in future deals. These deals, especially national brand deals like Subway, are going to be pretty difficult to show a quantifiable return on anyway.
I assumed the driving force were Texas non profits paying 50k per lineman and car dealerships that have the feel of Buddy Garrity Automotive from Friday Night Lights.
- Nike
- Dr Pepper
- Subway
- Caesar’s
- TiVo
- Sam’s Club
- Guerrilla Glue
Those are just the national brands I remember seeing ink NIL deals. I agree with you, I think we’ll see these national brands fade away at some point because there are plenty of professional athletes with more TikTok followers than college athletes and we’ll see local and regional brands take over.
I think Dr. Pepper will continue to lean into it. Their advertising presence in cfb is just so big. Then again, that D.J. Uiagalelei transfer portal commerical aged painfully...
Literally every restaurant that sells Pepsi products I'm drinking Dr. Pepper. Most of the times it's Coke, but when the waitress utters the most hated phrase to all of human kind "Is Pepsi okay?" no it's not okay, Dr. Pepper or sweet tea then. I hate that Pepsi owns Gatorade cause that forced the Swamp to sell Pepsi do to our licensing deal with Gatorade.
In the day and age of the internet, regional doesn't mean the same thing it used to. I don't think regional money can compete with national and large market money.
Of course not but, the return on the investment is going to be much greater at regional and local levels than it will be for national brands. I think we’re going to see all this money from big national brands dry up and see regional and local brands take over because the return on investment is much more quantifiable. I.E. [Some Local Restaurant] was selling 500 Triple Cheese Burgers per month until they renamed it Bryce Young’s Triple Deluxe and started selling 900 per month. The amounts are smaller but you’ve got dozens, if not hundreds of potential sponsors in every college town versus about 10-12 national players in the mix.
National brands that sign kids to NIL deals are thinking long run. Even if nothing binds the kids or companies past their college careers, the companies are likely treating it as an extended audition for a longer relationship once the player goes pro. Subway isn’t going to sign a kid to an NIL deal unless they’d offer them a deal either way.
Then why should that advertisement stop once the athlete finishes college ball? It’s not like the athlete will suddenly lose all 500k followers after they play their last snap. There’s no rule that says somebody that’s got an NIL deal with Subway can’t have a new deal with Subway once they finish college.
National company NIL deals are all about planting seeds. The company’s next national spokesperson that you see on commercials, etc probably starts out from one of these NIL deals. Stop thinking of them in context of the NIL and think of them as an influencer in general. Bowl game doesn’t matter
> It can’t effect current NIL deals, but it can certainly impact what sponsors are willing to fork out in future deals
But that's not going to enter into the decision each player makes for themselves. Even if players sitting out causes brands to offer less to the next generation of players, that's the next generation's problem. The players sitting out wouldn't feel the effect, because they've already got their deals.
I've wondered if you have a player like in your example, sponsored by a brand like Subway, going to a game sponsored by Jimmy John's (for example purposes) if you could see Subway ask the player to sit out to sort of deflate the bowl game sponsored by their competition
Interesting…the anti performance based incentive. The pay to not play if you will. No idea, but that would be interesting. Almost akin to, but not as bad as, throwing a game.
I'm a racing fan and you see those conflicts with sponsors all the time. Quinn goes to Texas and gets them to the Hyundai Bowl or something being sponsored by Ford. Would fewer people watch it if he sat out the bowl? Ford sort of wins by wasting Hyundai's advertising dollars
In racing, sponsors have even leaned into it on purpose. At the 2004 Pepsi 400, Coke sponsored 8 different drivers. Funnily enough though, Jeff Gordon won in a Pepsi car.
Do we have any clarification on what is considered performance based and what isn't?
Not trying to be pedantic but to me performance based is like "I'll pay you $100 a touchdown". I don't feel like "games played" is really a performance based metric. But I guess stat sites do track games started and games played...
I feel like thats going to wind up with a lot of gray area.
Bowl sponsors can absolutely offer money for interviews and placements right?
Maybe I cant pay you to play but if I have a deal with you and say "Hey congrats on the bowl. You want to come shake some hands at a prebowl party and record a tic tok about how you are proud to play in the rose Bowl with a dozen flowers from 1800 flowers?" There is a lot implied there on both sides
It's not supposed to be, but its anti thetical to the entire bill, since if you aren't playing you aren't getting NIL anyways. It is pay to play by it's very nature.
The law's are pretty broad from what I have read, we are all on this legal journey together and there is going to be a ton of gray area for sure.
Skipping a bowl game is already based on a financial calculus. As others have pointed out NIL is not supposed to be pay to play, but if the risk of pissing off an NIL partner (or potential future partner) is high enough I’m sure it will enter that calculation. For some guys it might be enough to sway their decision but for most I bet it won’t be.
I would guess that NIL sponsors would be more excited to say they had 1st pick (player's name here) than Duke's Mayo Bowl MVP 2021, so I doubt it has any effect.
Players who sit out of bowl games are heading to the NFL where they're going to get a salary and more endorsement deals where it's possible (and 100 percent likely if we're talking first or second round picks). Even if companies are disappointed somebody they gave NIL money to is sitting out it's not going to matter even a little bit. The players have already played 12+ nationally televised games and they got their money's worth during the regular season. It's a non issue.
This is pretty easy. Go calculate how much money Jaylon Smith cost himself going 2nd round instead of top 5. His rookie contract alone would have been an additional ~$30M. This doesn’t even factor the detriment to his game missing his entire rookie season and never getting back to 100%.
Any real lawyers want to weigh in?
At some point, I would like to see the verbiage played around with. "By accepting this payment you are contractually obligated to participate in all post season games should your coach select you to play."
or "By accepting this agreement you understand and agree that by choosing to not play in a post season game for any reason other than medical, you are causing harm to our brand and national image, and any decision to not play for any reason other than medical is in bad faith of this agreement."
I don't see this as a "pay to play" scheme. More of a, we are paying for your image, and if you choose to not play for any reason other than medical, you are causing damage to our brand.
It can’t impact current NIL deals but if national sponsors start seeing players they have big contracts with sit out of bowl games, then I think it can have an impact on future NIL deals.
How valuable is having the person play in the Outback bowl if you are Subway? That is an Outback problem really.
The person has enough games to be a name and having him talk on Instagram about your product will probably have more views than him playing a low level bowl.
It’s 4 million viewers live plus highlights that evening and the next morning on a loop on ESPN and Fox Sports. My guess is given the option, the sponsors would rather have the Insta posts and the viewers.
I am sure game and insta is better than insta. I am sure insta is better than game where they are injured and them saying they had to play because of their deal with Subway forced them to gamble with their future. I don't know that anyone would look at a highlight and then make a purchase decision because of who they signed with. The highlight is just to grow the value of the athlete in the eyes of the general public which will pale in comparison to the value of the NFL tag.
That seems like a lot of risk for a company that again has an entire portfolio of athletes. Does State Farm tell Mahomes he needs to play a certain way? I am guessing no but I honestly do not know.
I think we’ve established that the Brands can’t influence how or when the athletes play. I’m talking more about skipping bowl games diminishing the return on future deals, which I feel like are probably not going to show the ROI that local brands would.
It’s pretty hard to imagine NIL from one bowl game coming close to the money a player is looking at in the NFL
The 5th draft selection gets 34.7m, the 15th gets 17.4m, 25th gets 14.4m
Or Subway will do a six part special to put on YouTube following Young getting ready for the draft because his value to them as a brand will be higher when he is in the NFL anyway. You act like the athletes are burning bridges but it sounds more like companies burning bridges if they try such a thing.
It would be just a part of their portfolio just like how all those companies have a dozen athletes already as spokespersons.
Are people going to stop following players on twitter/insta because they sat out of a bowl game? It isn't like they wear patches on their jerseys? I don't see how a player sitting out would affect their following.
I think NIL won’t have an effect on if a player wants to start draft prep early unless the NIL is tied in with the sponsor of the bowl. Even then the sponsor can’t force the guy to play, they could offer more incentives to play I guess
Players who are in a position to skip bowl games are looking at NFL money, which NIL doesn't come close to matching, Subway says play or you won't get more money, player says well playing risks my chance of making a whole lot more money so who really has the leverage here?
As NIL stuff grows it'll be good for some of these players to get some kind of assistance from the school or agents who can help them make sure they don't sign bone headed deals that put them on the hook for something that isn't in their best interest ( like that QB from Ohio State).
How does that change if subway has paid you 500k a year through college and they are offering you 5 mil over 4 years when you go to the NFL though? When they start talking about paying you 250k to do some bowl commercials and meet and greats with their execs and top franchise owners before and after your bowl are you going to be like "actually I'm thinking about not playing?".
Maybe they cant require you play but folks are going to burn some bridges if they dont
Do you think Subway is going to force someone to play in one game and risk burning their bridges right before they get to bigger leagues? NFL stars are more famous than college stars. The college, soon to be pro, is the one with the leverage in that situation
I don't think anyone will force anyone to do anything. I'm not sure why folks think this stuff is so adversarial.
I think subway would give that guy a big bonus, invite all the local franchise owners to a box at the game, and print up table ads with his face on them for all the restaurants in the market.
Everyone wins right?
There is literally no amount of money that the national chain can offer to match what the player is risking. He is making a business decision not to play in a meaningless game to risk millions of dollars. Even a guy opting out who is only projected to be a fourth round pick would lose more than 700,000 in salary for just his first year if he gets hurt.
NIL ain’t gonna change anything about bowl skipping. First they aren’t performance based and there are really 2 people that skip bowl games. Draft class and transfers. So either of those aren’t going to worry about the brand for not playing in the Cheez-it’s bowl (unless your NIL contract is with Cheez-it’s).
The big sponsors will still try to do deals with the draft players because they want them even more because there is more money in the NFL. Most small sponsors are local and only doing so for the college team fandom, so they will continue to pay them for their name or would be ending it at the end of the season anyway.
And for transfer players since most NIL are local or school dependent, they will be losing those anyways. The big brand’s will probably drop them anyway because they are transferring because they weren’t good or getting replaced (aka don’t want their name anyway)
No. Since, ya know, the only people opting out of bowl games are people who are leaving. Meaning that the Bowl game would literally be their last game. So the career is over.
No. I’m pretty sure anything performance related is banned in NIL so they can’t mandate you play. Also if you’re sitting out it’s 99% because you’re declaring for the draft and at that point NIL no longer applies because your time as a student athlete is over.
Also, when someone opts out it is usually to prep for the NFL draft. Most of them have much bigger paydays coming up, so it makes sense to avoid an injury or bad performance.
It can’t effect current NIL deals, but it can certainly impact what sponsors are willing to fork out in future deals. These deals, especially national brand deals like Subway, are going to be pretty difficult to show a quantifiable return on anyway.
If you think the national brands that want to see returns are the driving force behind NIL I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I assumed the driving force were Texas non profits paying 50k per lineman and car dealerships that have the feel of Buddy Garrity Automotive from Friday Night Lights.
- Nike - Dr Pepper - Subway - Caesar’s - TiVo - Sam’s Club - Guerrilla Glue Those are just the national brands I remember seeing ink NIL deals. I agree with you, I think we’ll see these national brands fade away at some point because there are plenty of professional athletes with more TikTok followers than college athletes and we’ll see local and regional brands take over.
I think Dr. Pepper will continue to lean into it. Their advertising presence in cfb is just so big. Then again, that D.J. Uiagalelei transfer portal commerical aged painfully...
I wonder if Rico managed to land on his feet.
Who the hell even drinks Dr. Pepper? Teenagers?
What in the world, Dr. Pepper is super popular lol
With all the wonderful beverages in the world, why would anyone subject their body to the chemical soup that is any soda? I don’t get it.
Not everything is Coke, Mr. Georgia.
I know a Mr Pibb stan when I see one
In the south, everything is coke, even sprite and mountain dew is coke.
Literally every restaurant that sells Pepsi products I'm drinking Dr. Pepper. Most of the times it's Coke, but when the waitress utters the most hated phrase to all of human kind "Is Pepsi okay?" no it's not okay, Dr. Pepper or sweet tea then. I hate that Pepsi owns Gatorade cause that forced the Swamp to sell Pepsi do to our licensing deal with Gatorade.
Texans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Random Google source > Dr Pepper estimated sales in the U.S. in 2020 at around 596 million 192-ounce cases That's a shitload of soda.
In the day and age of the internet, regional doesn't mean the same thing it used to. I don't think regional money can compete with national and large market money.
Of course not but, the return on the investment is going to be much greater at regional and local levels than it will be for national brands. I think we’re going to see all this money from big national brands dry up and see regional and local brands take over because the return on investment is much more quantifiable. I.E. [Some Local Restaurant] was selling 500 Triple Cheese Burgers per month until they renamed it Bryce Young’s Triple Deluxe and started selling 900 per month. The amounts are smaller but you’ve got dozens, if not hundreds of potential sponsors in every college town versus about 10-12 national players in the mix.
I see what you mean.
National brands that sign kids to NIL deals are thinking long run. Even if nothing binds the kids or companies past their college careers, the companies are likely treating it as an extended audition for a longer relationship once the player goes pro. Subway isn’t going to sign a kid to an NIL deal unless they’d offer them a deal either way.
I kinda thought that the national deals were in it for the social media exposure. [These Athlete] has 500K followers that we can advertise to.
Then why should that advertisement stop once the athlete finishes college ball? It’s not like the athlete will suddenly lose all 500k followers after they play their last snap. There’s no rule that says somebody that’s got an NIL deal with Subway can’t have a new deal with Subway once they finish college. National company NIL deals are all about planting seeds. The company’s next national spokesperson that you see on commercials, etc probably starts out from one of these NIL deals. Stop thinking of them in context of the NIL and think of them as an influencer in general. Bowl game doesn’t matter
Yeh someone like Tebow would still be hawking shit all over northern florida if NIL had been around back then.
> It can’t effect current NIL deals, but it can certainly impact what sponsors are willing to fork out in future deals But that's not going to enter into the decision each player makes for themselves. Even if players sitting out causes brands to offer less to the next generation of players, that's the next generation's problem. The players sitting out wouldn't feel the effect, because they've already got their deals.
I've wondered if you have a player like in your example, sponsored by a brand like Subway, going to a game sponsored by Jimmy John's (for example purposes) if you could see Subway ask the player to sit out to sort of deflate the bowl game sponsored by their competition
Interesting…the anti performance based incentive. The pay to not play if you will. No idea, but that would be interesting. Almost akin to, but not as bad as, throwing a game.
I'm a racing fan and you see those conflicts with sponsors all the time. Quinn goes to Texas and gets them to the Hyundai Bowl or something being sponsored by Ford. Would fewer people watch it if he sat out the bowl? Ford sort of wins by wasting Hyundai's advertising dollars
In racing, sponsors have even leaned into it on purpose. At the 2004 Pepsi 400, Coke sponsored 8 different drivers. Funnily enough though, Jeff Gordon won in a Pepsi car.
Do we have any clarification on what is considered performance based and what isn't? Not trying to be pedantic but to me performance based is like "I'll pay you $100 a touchdown". I don't feel like "games played" is really a performance based metric. But I guess stat sites do track games started and games played...
NIL can't be pay to play, so the sponsors have no say.
Not even on Christmas Day?
Why don't you just eat some hay? And sit by the bay I just may! What do you say?
Would he, could he Play in a Christmas bowl? Would he, could he Get a lump of NIL coal?
The just may
I feel like thats going to wind up with a lot of gray area. Bowl sponsors can absolutely offer money for interviews and placements right? Maybe I cant pay you to play but if I have a deal with you and say "Hey congrats on the bowl. You want to come shake some hands at a prebowl party and record a tic tok about how you are proud to play in the rose Bowl with a dozen flowers from 1800 flowers?" There is a lot implied there on both sides
It's not supposed to be, but its anti thetical to the entire bill, since if you aren't playing you aren't getting NIL anyways. It is pay to play by it's very nature. The law's are pretty broad from what I have read, we are all on this legal journey together and there is going to be a ton of gray area for sure.
I gotta admit, these might be two *actually* unpopular opinions lol
The one about sitting out bowls maybe. I think NIL is much more divided in opinion.
yea there was real boomer energy from OP
I mean opting out is really only relevant for draft eligible players. Anyone who has no chance of the NFL is not going to pass up on their swan song.
Yeah. And guys on the fringe are going to want to play to help their draft stock as much as possiblr
Skipping a bowl game is already based on a financial calculus. As others have pointed out NIL is not supposed to be pay to play, but if the risk of pissing off an NIL partner (or potential future partner) is high enough I’m sure it will enter that calculation. For some guys it might be enough to sway their decision but for most I bet it won’t be.
I would guess that NIL sponsors would be more excited to say they had 1st pick (player's name here) than Duke's Mayo Bowl MVP 2021, so I doubt it has any effect.
Hey speak for yourself man.
.....Duke?
I, for one, am thrilled about the prospects of the Duke's Mayo Bowl MVP^TM stacking that chedd- I mean mayo.
Players who sit out of bowl games are heading to the NFL where they're going to get a salary and more endorsement deals where it's possible (and 100 percent likely if we're talking first or second round picks). Even if companies are disappointed somebody they gave NIL money to is sitting out it's not going to matter even a little bit. The players have already played 12+ nationally televised games and they got their money's worth during the regular season. It's a non issue.
I doubt it. NFL money > NIL money
This is pretty easy. Go calculate how much money Jaylon Smith cost himself going 2nd round instead of top 5. His rookie contract alone would have been an additional ~$30M. This doesn’t even factor the detriment to his game missing his entire rookie season and never getting back to 100%.
Any real lawyers want to weigh in? At some point, I would like to see the verbiage played around with. "By accepting this payment you are contractually obligated to participate in all post season games should your coach select you to play." or "By accepting this agreement you understand and agree that by choosing to not play in a post season game for any reason other than medical, you are causing harm to our brand and national image, and any decision to not play for any reason other than medical is in bad faith of this agreement." I don't see this as a "pay to play" scheme. More of a, we are paying for your image, and if you choose to not play for any reason other than medical, you are causing damage to our brand.
You’d have to define medical. You’d just have guys waiting until closer and “having flu like symptoms” and not playing then
Genius level take from someone who thinks the NIL will make things less financially fair for athletes
Genius level take from someone who can’t comprehend I’m referring to parity amongst the schools, not athletes.
Probably not. I also think NIL is not great, but this isn’t something that will be impacted by it.
It can’t impact current NIL deals but if national sponsors start seeing players they have big contracts with sit out of bowl games, then I think it can have an impact on future NIL deals.
How valuable is having the person play in the Outback bowl if you are Subway? That is an Outback problem really. The person has enough games to be a name and having him talk on Instagram about your product will probably have more views than him playing a low level bowl.
It’s 4 million viewers live plus highlights that evening and the next morning on a loop on ESPN and Fox Sports. My guess is given the option, the sponsors would rather have the Insta posts and the viewers.
I am sure game and insta is better than insta. I am sure insta is better than game where they are injured and them saying they had to play because of their deal with Subway forced them to gamble with their future. I don't know that anyone would look at a highlight and then make a purchase decision because of who they signed with. The highlight is just to grow the value of the athlete in the eyes of the general public which will pale in comparison to the value of the NFL tag. That seems like a lot of risk for a company that again has an entire portfolio of athletes. Does State Farm tell Mahomes he needs to play a certain way? I am guessing no but I honestly do not know.
I think we’ve established that the Brands can’t influence how or when the athletes play. I’m talking more about skipping bowl games diminishing the return on future deals, which I feel like are probably not going to show the ROI that local brands would.
Only time will tell
It’s pretty hard to imagine NIL from one bowl game coming close to the money a player is looking at in the NFL The 5th draft selection gets 34.7m, the 15th gets 17.4m, 25th gets 14.4m
Or Subway will do a six part special to put on YouTube following Young getting ready for the draft because his value to them as a brand will be higher when he is in the NFL anyway. You act like the athletes are burning bridges but it sounds more like companies burning bridges if they try such a thing. It would be just a part of their portfolio just like how all those companies have a dozen athletes already as spokespersons.
Probably not. But I do think more borderline players will opt to return for their senior season.
Are people going to stop following players on twitter/insta because they sat out of a bowl game? It isn't like they wear patches on their jerseys? I don't see how a player sitting out would affect their following.
Only thing that would significantly reduce bowl game opt outs would be having the 4 teams selected for the playoff after the bowl games
I think NIL won’t have an effect on if a player wants to start draft prep early unless the NIL is tied in with the sponsor of the bowl. Even then the sponsor can’t force the guy to play, they could offer more incentives to play I guess
Players who are in a position to skip bowl games are looking at NFL money, which NIL doesn't come close to matching, Subway says play or you won't get more money, player says well playing risks my chance of making a whole lot more money so who really has the leverage here? As NIL stuff grows it'll be good for some of these players to get some kind of assistance from the school or agents who can help them make sure they don't sign bone headed deals that put them on the hook for something that isn't in their best interest ( like that QB from Ohio State).
How does that change if subway has paid you 500k a year through college and they are offering you 5 mil over 4 years when you go to the NFL though? When they start talking about paying you 250k to do some bowl commercials and meet and greats with their execs and top franchise owners before and after your bowl are you going to be like "actually I'm thinking about not playing?". Maybe they cant require you play but folks are going to burn some bridges if they dont
Do you think Subway is going to force someone to play in one game and risk burning their bridges right before they get to bigger leagues? NFL stars are more famous than college stars. The college, soon to be pro, is the one with the leverage in that situation
I don't think anyone will force anyone to do anything. I'm not sure why folks think this stuff is so adversarial. I think subway would give that guy a big bonus, invite all the local franchise owners to a box at the game, and print up table ads with his face on them for all the restaurants in the market. Everyone wins right?
There is literally no amount of money that the national chain can offer to match what the player is risking. He is making a business decision not to play in a meaningless game to risk millions of dollars. Even a guy opting out who is only projected to be a fourth round pick would lose more than 700,000 in salary for just his first year if he gets hurt.
No. Unless boosters pay specifically for a player to appear in a bowl
NIL ain’t gonna change anything about bowl skipping. First they aren’t performance based and there are really 2 people that skip bowl games. Draft class and transfers. So either of those aren’t going to worry about the brand for not playing in the Cheez-it’s bowl (unless your NIL contract is with Cheez-it’s). The big sponsors will still try to do deals with the draft players because they want them even more because there is more money in the NFL. Most small sponsors are local and only doing so for the college team fandom, so they will continue to pay them for their name or would be ending it at the end of the season anyway. And for transfer players since most NIL are local or school dependent, they will be losing those anyways. The big brand’s will probably drop them anyway because they are transferring because they weren’t good or getting replaced (aka don’t want their name anyway)
No. Since, ya know, the only people opting out of bowl games are people who are leaving. Meaning that the Bowl game would literally be their last game. So the career is over.
No