David A. Fahrenthold, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, delves into the shady financial underbelly of college football. He discusses how wealthy donors are reshaping the sport, making it more similar to professional leagues. The conversation covers the transformative impact of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals on player lives and recruitment, while exposing financial inequalities and the risks of unregulated athletic collectives. Fahrenthold also addresses the evolving challenges of maintaining amateurism in college athletics amidst this shifting landscape.
The use of collectives by secretive donor groups has disrupted the traditional amateurism of college football, reshaping the power dynamics and rules of the sport.
The lack of transparency in the collectives' payment system creates an unregulated labor market, leaving players vulnerable to exploitation and creating gender disparities in payments.
Deep dives
The Shadowy Industry Upending College Football
The podcast episode focuses on secretive groups of donors who are exerting significant influence over college football. These donors are using cash to pay athletes and attract them to their schools. The payments are made through collectives, which pool money from rich donors and pay athletes for their name, image, and likeness rights. This new system has overturned the traditional notions of amateurism in college sports and has reshaped the power dynamics and rules of college football. While there are potential benefits for players, such as access to life-changing sums of money, there are also downsides, including the exposure of players in an unregulated labor market and the lack of transparency in the payment system. The NCAA is proposing a change that would allow schools to pay players directly, but without treating them as employees. However, this proposal could lead to a disparity between schools and a potential loss of the amateurism that has traditionally defined college sports.
The Impact of Collectives on Player Recruitment
The collectives, which operate as independent groups not officially affiliated with universities, are changing the landscape of college sports recruitment. They are offering significant payments to attract players to specific schools, bypassing previous restrictions on paying players. These payments are often made through tax-exempt charities and are nominally meant for charitable activities, like charity work or social media promotion, but are often disproportionate to the actual value of the endorsements. This recruitment strategy has proven successful in bringing in talented players who may have committed to other schools. However, it also creates an unregulated black market for labor, leaving players vulnerable to exploitation and lacking protections if they are injured or if the collective fails to fulfill its promises.
The Lack of Transparency and Equity Issues
One of the major issues arising from the system of collectives is the lack of transparency. Players have no way of knowing their true worth or comparing their payments with those of other players. The secrecy surrounding these payments also extends to the universities themselves, as they often refuse to disclose details about what their collectives are paying their students. Furthermore, the payment system has revealed significant gender disparities, as female athletes receive significantly lower payments compared to their male counterparts. While college sports are subject to Title IX, which mandates equal opportunity for gender in sports, the collectives operate outside of this regulation. Additionally, there are concerns that these collectives, operating as tax-exempt charities, may be violating regulations and laws regarding the use of funds for the public good.
The NCAA's Response and Proposed Change
The NCAA has responded weakly to the emergence of collectives and the changing landscape of college sports. There have been minimal punishments for violations of regulations around paying players and with limited enforcement mechanisms, many collectives continue to operate. The NCAA has proposed a significant overhaul to the system, suggesting that schools themselves should pay players directly, thereby eliminating the need for collectives. However, this proposal is still in the early stages and faces challenges, including the financial capacity of schools to pay their athletes and concerns about diminishing the amateurism and college spirit that defines college sports. The proposal aims to strike a balance between allowing payments and avoiding the designation of players as employees, thereby maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports.
Tonight, millions of Americans are expected to tune in to watch one of the biggest sports events of the year, college football’s national championship game. On the field, the game will be determined by the skill of the players and coaches, but behind the scenes, secretive groups of donors are wielding enormous influence over what fans will see.
David A. Fahrenthold, an investigative reporter for The Times, discusses the shadowy industry upending college football, and how it has brought amateur athletics even closer to the world of professional sports.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
