Revenue Sharing is capped at 22% of revenue. "They took three of the four most significant revenue streams in an athletic department — TV contracts, ticket sales and sponsorships (donations were not included) — to generate an average for the 69 power schools."
IIRC, Tech's revenue minus donations was about 85M or so. That's 18.7M. However, the article makes it sound like every school has to distribute $20M a year as the cap. The cap increases 4% per year for first 3 years then is re-evaluated. New TV deals and other new revenue will increase the cap. So UT has to pay 20M and Tech has to pay 20M. So does UH.
What about Title IX?
"
But there are perhaps ways to circumvent or, at the very least, attempt to bend the Title IX rules by skewing more cash to football and men’s basketball players.
The first involves the classification of the revenue-sharing deals that schools strike with athletes. Though left up to the schools’ discretion, many of the deals are expected to be classified as agreements to purchase the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). NIL deals are widely based on the value an athlete brings to a team or school. The more valuable, the more money.
This is a potential way for schools to defend a plan to pay male athletes more than female athletes. Some officials are even discussing the use of a “Q-Score,” which is a measurement of a person’s brand appeal. Others are seeking data on “fair market value.”
“What if you are buying NIL rights from players and those rights have different market values for men and women?” asked one power conference administrator.
There is, of course, a second way around Title IX: Have an outside third-party entity share revenues with your athletes.
Such as, a currently existing booster-backed NIL collective."
What about NIL Collectives?
Can still exist. Will be used to add more money to those athletes that are worth it. Unclear on how it will be regulated.
"
There are other ways the settlement could police this issue. The document includes:
- A reporting mechanism that will require athletes to report their third-party NIL deals — possibly a mandatory measure tied to a player’s revenue-share pay from the school and their eligibility.
- A requirement that third-party NIL deals must be what is termed “true NIL,” according to settlement documents.
- A definition of “True NIL” as based on to-be-developed “fair market value” data, said two people with knowledge of the concept. In the simplest terms, true NIL is real marketing NIL-based contracts with a corporation or business — not a booster.
- If an outside NIL deal is struck with a booster — a business owner, perhaps — the burden is on the school and/or athlete to prove that it is “true NIL,” with significant risks (eligibility maybe) if the deal is not."
What about FB roster limits?
"In a plan socialized with coaches and administrators this month, football rosters could be set as low as 85, which is the NCAA maximum for scholarship positions. Such a move would eliminate all walk-on spots. This was met with pushback, enough pushback that conversations are continuing about how to create either more spots (possibly 90 or 95?) or create a non-scholarship practice squad."
What about Transfer Portal limits?
"The portal is not addressed in the settlement. However, the new revenue-sharing model gives schools the opportunity to sign athletes to potentially binding, multi-year contracts. Most athletic administrators who spoke to Yahoo Sports believe this will decrease player movement."
"Officials are discussing a range of possibilities for athlete contracts, including implementing buyout clauses that are often found in coaching contracts. There is a possibility as well to tie academic performance to contracts.
As part of the settlement, a school is expected to have the ability to purchase a player’s exclusive NIL rights — a significant and possibly binding deal and one that would eliminate all third-party payment as well."
sports.yahoo.com
