Business
Column: The blockade of Build Back Better means millions more children condemned to poverty
![Column: The blockade of Build Back Better means millions more children condemned to poverty Column: The blockade of Build Back Better means millions more children condemned to poverty](https://newspub.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/manchin-child-tax-credit-61798.jpg)
In terms of anti-poverty packages, the U.S. appears to have developed the distinctive talent of slicing off advantages simply as they’ve proven their worth.
The most recent instance is the Little one Tax Credit score. A part of the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9-trillion pandemic reduction bundle signed by President Biden final March, the credit score had the capability to really rework the economics of household life in America.
This system was designed to ship $3,000 per youngster ($3,600 for kids 5 and underneath) to the overwhelming majority of households over the next 12 months. Half the quantity was paid in month-to-month installments from July by December on the fee of as much as $250 per youngster ages 6 to 17 and as much as $300 per youngster underneath age 6.
In its first six months, the expanded Little one Tax Credit score has shored up household funds amidst the persevering with disaster, lowered youngster poverty and meals insufficiency, [and] elevated households’ potential to fulfill their primary wants.
Columbia College
The credit score is absolutely refundable, which means that households are entitled to it even when they owe no federal revenue tax. The credit score phases out for high-income households.
The funds reached greater than 61 million kids in additional than 36 million households, in response to calculations by Columbia College’s Heart on Poverty and Social Coverage. The steadiness of the credit score is to be paid as tax refunds when households file their federal revenue tax returns between now and April 18.
E-newsletter
Get the most recent from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and extra from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Chances are you’ll often obtain promotional content material from the Los Angeles Instances.
The funds had a fast and materials impact on the kid poverty fee, which fell from about 16% in June to about 12% in December. Then the month-to-month funds ceased, and the kid poverty fee rebounded to 17% in January, its highest mark since January 2020.
That improve interprets to three.7 million kids added to the poverty rolls in only a single month.
“The burden of the proof is obvious,” the Columbia researchers noticed in a December roundup of pandemic anti-poverty measures: “In its first six months, the expanded Little one Tax Credit score has shored up household funds amidst the persevering with disaster, lowered youngster poverty and meals insufficiency, elevated households’ potential to fulfill their primary wants, and has had no discernible adverse results on parental employment.”
As I reported final July, your complete rescue plan, which included enhanced meals stamp advantages and different safety-net options, was projected to assist lower the kid poverty fee within the U.S. almost in half, to 7.5% from 13.6%, in response to an evaluation by Columbia College. The Little one Tax Credit score was its greatest part.
The Biden administration has been attempting to transform the one-year Little one Tax Credit score right into a everlasting program, however that objective has been thwarted by Congress — particularly, by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.).
Manchin has bizarrely drawn a line within the sand in opposition to the kid credit score, regardless that his state is a number one member of the kid poverty corridor of disgrace: In 2018, West Virginia boasted the fourth-worst fee of kid poverty within the nation and fifth worst in excessive youngster poverty.
(The rankings apply to kids underneath 16; the poverty line is outlined as family revenue of about $26,500 for a household of 4; “excessive” poverty units in at half that quantity.)
A failure to reenact the plan’s Little one Tax Credit score wouldn’t cut back it to zero; it will merely revert to the $2,000 credit score per youngster in place earlier than 2021. In contrast to the rescue plan credit score, nonetheless, the outdated profit was not absolutely refundable.
Manchin isn’t the one skinflint in American politics. The Republican Social gathering has made stinginess a governing precept. Take into account the “Rescue America” agenda provided the opposite day by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a member of the Senate GOP’s management caucus.
Buried inside its red-meat culture-warrior factors (all schoolchildren required to say the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag, “males are males, ladies are ladies,” no to a “politically right… new faith of wokeness,” and so forth., and so forth.), the Scott plan known as for all People to “pay some revenue tax to have pores and skin within the recreation.”
Scott in his agenda groused that half of all People pay no revenue tax, although he additionally advocated slicing the IRS funds in half, so it’s unclear how he would implement the rule.
The issue is that the poorest 50% of People have a adverse federal tax invoice, due to refundable packages such because the Little one Tax Credit score and Earned Earnings Tax Credit score, that are paid out to households even when the advantages come to greater than their taxes.
In different phrases, Scott, whose internet value of about $220 million makes him one of many richest senators, known as for a tax improve on poor households of as a lot as $2,500 a 12 months.
By the way in which, simply to show how ignorant Scott is about federal taxes, nearly everybody pays them; the lowest-income 50%, who pay no federal revenue taxes or have adverse revenue tax payments, are billed for federal payroll taxes to fund Social Safety and a part of Medicare.
In truth, the lowest-income 50%, whose federal revenue tax payments have been adverse $128 billion, paid out $178.9 billion in payroll taxes, in response to the IRS. In different phrases, their whole internet federal tax invoice truly got here to about $50 billion.
Scott’s tax agenda is so politically embarrassing that it earned an express rebuke from Senate Minority Chief Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who might not relish attempting to revive his get together’s Senate majority by elevating taxes on poor individuals and slicing them for wealthy individuals.
Even Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who is typically thought to be a reasonable Republican, says he would lengthen the kid tax credit score solely with one situation — the imposition of a piece requirement.
That’s a cynical folly. Work necessities for Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for indigent People, have been a well-liked Republican coverage initiative in the course of the Trump years, regardless that they have been repeatedly proven to price more cash than they saved and failed completely to position extra People in jobs. The packages accredited by Trump’s healthcare officers are all being canceled underneath Biden.
By making use of work necessities to the Little one Tax Credit score, Romney’s proposal would render stay-at-home caregivers ineligible, harming the households most in want. (Romney’s internet value of about $250 million makes him the richest senator.)
The Little one Tax Credit score isn’t the one aspect of the American Rescue Plan destined to show its worth by its impending expiration. The plan additionally restructured premium subsidies provided to patrons of well being plans within the Inexpensive Care Act market by rising the credit and making thousands and thousands extra People eligible.
The rescue plan elevated subsidies throughout the board. Maybe extra necessary, it eradicated the “subsidy cliff” that lower off the premium help fully for these whose family revenue exceeded 400% of the federal poverty restrict.
That system capped ACA premiums at 9.83% of revenue — however just for these incomes lower than the ceiling ($111,000 for a household of 4 this 12 months); earn even a dime greater than the ceiling, and the subsidy dropped to zero. Underneath the brand new system, no patrons must pay greater than 8.5% of their revenue for a benchmark silver plan, no matter their revenue.
The brand new construction helped drive ACA plan enrollments to their highest degree ever within the present 12 months — 14.5 million People enrolled or renewed protection for 2022, a rise of greater than 20% over the 12 million enrollment for 2021. California, like many different states, additionally skilled file sign-ups, to 1.78 million for this 12 months from 1.62 million in 2021.
Thanks to higher subsidies, enrollment in Inexpensive Care Act well being plans in California and nationwide rose sharply in 2022.
(Lined California)
Due to the upper subsidies and an influx of youthful, more healthy enrollees, common premiums (after subsidies) fell by 23% nationwide and 20% in California, in response to Lined California, the state’s ACA market.
If the subsidy construction isn’t renewed this 12 months, premiums will soar, as Lined California Govt Director Peter V. Lee outlined throughout a webcast Wednesday.
“Fourteen million People will expertise premium shock,” Lee mentioned in his final public look because the change’s boss earlier than he steps down this month. Two million shoppers may drop protection due to its greater price.
“The affect can be ongoing,” Lee added, as a result of the chance profile of the ACA enrollment pool would deteriorate. “If you worth individuals out of protection, the individuals who drop protection first are wholesome individuals…. Everybody’s going to pay the worth for that.”
Lined California estimated that if the subsidies are returned to their earlier ranges, premiums for lower-income patrons would rise to $74 a month from zero. A middle-income couple of their early 60s “would lose all assist and pay $1,720 extra every month,” probably an insurmountable impediment to sustaining protection.
Failure to keep up the present subsidy construction can be simply one other instance of policy-makers ignoring the proof in entrance of their eyes that these authorities packages work.
Usually talking, America’s strategy to the pandemic disaster introduced the U.S. a stronger restoration than every other developed nation. That was principally as a result of it was probably the most beneficiant as a proportion of gross home product within the developed world — a record-shattering 25% of GDP, in response to Moody’s Analytics.
However the job isn’t completed. The Little one Tax Credit score lifted thousands and thousands of youngsters out of poverty. The ACA subsidies introduced well being protection to thousands and thousands extra. Anti-poverty packages meet their objectives. Why can’t America’s political leaders study these easy classes?
![](https://newspub.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/np-logo.png)
Business
Money Talk: A parent had life insurance, but the companies are gone. What to do?
![Money Talk: A parent had life insurance, but the companies are gone. What to do? Money Talk: A parent had life insurance, but the companies are gone. What to do?](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/af9f99f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/840x441+0+59/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fb4%2Fbf%2F7e8acd534124a6fdc05a2491a89b%2Ftaxes-image.jpg)
Dear Liz: My mother died last year. I discovered she had two old life insurance policies written by companies that no longer exist. How can I determine which modern insurance company is responsible for policies written by these old companies? How can I submit a claim? My mother was born in 1932. The first policy began 1939 for $350. The second began in 1943 for $600.
Answer: It’s not a given that a modern insurer still has these policies, but it’s possible. You can start by entering the old companies’ names in an internet search engine to see whether new owners are mentioned in the results. If that doesn’t work, contact the insurance department in the state where the old company was headquartered because it will have records of mergers or other changes.
If the company went bankrupt, you’ll need to consult the guaranty association in the state where your mother lived. State guaranty associations protect policyholders when an insurer defaults or becomes insolvent. The National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Assns. has a search tool you can use to find the correct association.
Another option is to check the life insurance policy locator service offered by the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners at https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome. You’ll need to input your mother’s Social Security number as well as her dates of birth and death.
Also check the unclaimed property offices of any states where she lived. You’ll find links at unclaimed.org.
Beware the insurance salesperson in financial planner’s clothing
Dear Liz: Do you have any general advice for choosing a tax preparer? My financial advisor has recommended switching my 403(b) contributions over to Roth 403(b) with the same investment plan. I am worried that this could put us at risk for a higher tax bracket currently.
Answer: Ideally, a financial advisor wouldn’t recommend switching to a Roth option without knowing a fair amount about your current and future tax situations. Otherwise, the advisor wouldn’t be qualified to determine whether giving up the current tax break is likely to pay off later.
Unfortunately, not all financial advisors are truly qualified to give the advice they do. Some, particularly those advising people about 403(b) investments, are insurance salespeople rather than fiduciary financial planners.
You can get referrals to tax pros from the National Assn. of Enrolled Agents and your state’s chapter of certified public accountants. (The American Institute of CPAs has compiled a list of those at its website.) Both enrolled agents and CPAs are fiduciaries who promise to put your best interests first.
For broader financial advice, consider getting referrals from one of the organizations representing fee-only fiduciary planners such as the Garrett Planning Network, the XY Planning Network, the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors and the Alliance of Comprehensive Planners.
Also, teachers should consider spending some time on the nonprofit 403bwise website, which grades school districts’ retirement plans and seeks to educate teachers about the costs of trusting the wrong people.
After her husband died, a widow’s credit limit plummeted
Dear Liz: You’ve mentioned how important it is for spouses to each have credit cards on which they are the primary account holder. My husband died last year. We had a credit card with statements that showed the charges we each had made on our separately numbered credit cards. I found the account was in his name only. I had to get a new credit card in my own name, and the credit limit dropped from $75,000 to $7,000. Hope this warns others.
Answer: It bears repeating that most credit cards these days are not joint accounts. If two of you are using a card, one is probably the primary account holder and the other the authorized user.
After a primary account holder dies, credit card companies are often willing to work with surviving spouses who were authorized users to establish new accounts. But as you experienced, the credit limits for these new accounts may be much lower than those of the original.
Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.
Business
Opinion: Silicon Valley is maximizing profit at everyone's expense. It doesn't have to be this way
![Opinion: Silicon Valley is maximizing profit at everyone's expense. It doesn't have to be this way Opinion: Silicon Valley is maximizing profit at everyone's expense. It doesn't have to be this way](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/3f8cff1/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4612x2421+0+327/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F7c%2F79%2Fe091ba5e42cc8270d287103130a3%2Felection-2024-trump-65546.jpg)
A public battle has broken out among the titans of Silicon Valley. One side, led by Elon Musk, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, is backing Donald Trump for president. The other, led by LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, is behind Kamala Harris.
We should not make the mistake of thinking this is a battle over ideology or policy. It’s a battle to maximize Silicon Valley’s profits regardless of the consequences for society.
On this objective, both sides agree. Andreessen Horowitz is one of the largest investors in cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, and Trump has signaled that he would keep the government out of its business. Meanwhile, soon after donating $7 million to a Harris super PAC, Hoffman called for her to oust Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan, who has brought antitrust cases against Big Tech and introduced rules to protect workers.
Silicon Valley, a longtime engine of human achievement, has become a significant source of human harm. Aware of the gathering backlash, its leaders have dived into the political fray to protect their wealth.
Two Silicon Valley obsessions threaten the most damage: creating human addiction to increase profits and eliminating humans altogether to decrease costs.
Social media platforms, which started out by bringing old friends together and giving voice to the otherwise powerless, have become “social slot machines” compelling excessive use. Gaming companies have a similar objective. Teenagers today spend more than eight hours a day on screens, fueling digital advertising revenues that reached $225 billion last year.
Meanwhile, the artificial intelligence revolution promises to cut labor costs. A recent study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu found that 50% to 70% of the growth in inequality between more and less educated workers can be attributed to automation. Poverty rates in Silicon Valley’s home state are rising even as AI makes Big Tech richer.
The broader prospects are equally concerning. AI is enabling killer robots, autonomous weapons and massively destructive misinformation.
The root of the problem is that the United States and Silicon Valley in particular are dominated by what we call an “investor monoculture.” Modern corporations are designed to serve investors and no one else. About 80% of public company stock in the United States is owned by institutional investors, most of which have one objective: to maximize profits, largely in the short term and without regard to the costs for society. In 1980, their share of stocks was just 29%.
Venture capital firms, the biggest funders of Silicon Valley startups, have grown from under $400 billion in assets in 2010 to nearly $4 trillion today. Their performance is measured by “multiples on invested capital,” or “MOIC,” as insiders call it.
Suicide rates among young people are up more than 60% since 2007, and U.S. democracy is in danger. But these are not investors’ concerns.
Regulation and advocacy can certainly make a difference. But Big Tech is cash-rich, lawyered up and capable of running circles around regulators.
It’s time for a different approach. When businesses are owned and governed by employees, customers, suppliers or communities, they become less predatory and more benign. And as it turns out, corporations have been designed in such ways across time and cultures. Capitalism comes in many forms.
Farmers, employees or customers own and govern some of the world’s most respected companies, including Ocean Spray, Publix Super Markets, Organic Valley, New York Life Insurance Co. and Vanguard. Corporations such as Patagonia, Rolex, Novo Nordisk and Ikea are owned or controlled by nonprofits, trusts or foundations, which have no investors and thus face less pressure to boost profits.
Silicon Valley has examples too. Mozilla, which operates the web browser Firefox, is owned by a nonprofit. It has no incentive to maximize profits, which explains why it does not sell user data to advertisers. Wikipedia, among the world’s most visited websites, is also run by a nonprofit, which shows that scale and impact don’t always depend on investor capital.
A nonprofit owns a majority of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, a design it chose to “ensure that artificial intelligence benefits all of humanity.” But its minority investors, such as Microsoft, are profit-driven, which has led to concerns that it’s releasing products at an irresponsible pace.
Many technology companies would be more benign if they were owned and governed by their users. Users have the most to lose from tech-driven addiction and automation, and their data generate most of the companies’ value. User-owners would share in this value and have an incentive to keep companies from causing harm.
How might users come together to start and run more technology companies? Bringing together a disparate and dispersed group of people is difficult; economists call this the collective action problem.
Influential nonprofits such as the Center for Humane Technology and Project Liberty can play an organizing role, incubating a new generation of user-owned social media businesses. While it’s a competitive field with entrenched players, social media technology is not complex, and there is a real hunger for more benign versions.
Existing firms can also be redesigned. Instead of raising capital from profit-seeking corporations, OpenAI could seek funding from users and give them representation on its board. And with users on the board, the company might take more care to launch products safely and dedicate resources to maintaining employment. Most important, more of the financial gains of the AI revolution would flow to the people creating the value.
If Keith Gill, also known as Roaring Kitty, could organize retail investors to drive up the market value of GameStop by $10 billion, could a similar approach have been employed to acquire Twitter for users in 2022? Given the millions of defections from the platform since Musk purchased it, it may not be too late.
The government can also help if it’s not headed off by Big Tech political contributions. The Small Business Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation should encourage user ownership of the companies they fund.
The venture capitalists of Sand Hill Road will of course scream that this is socialism, but they will be wrong. It’s just business.
Hans Taparia is a clinical professor and Bruce Buchanan is a professor of business ethics and marketing at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Business
In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go
![In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/08/22/multimedia/2024-05-15-nil-compensation-index/2024-05-15-nil-compensation-index-facebookJumbo.png)
What wins college football championships? A potent defense? An explosive offense? In the era of name, image and likeness, it is money.
Lots of it.
It can cost as much as $10.5 million for a title-contending starting offense and defense in the new Power Four conferences. The big-ticket item, of course, lines up behind the center.
A blue-chip quarterback in a Power Four conference — schools like Alabama, Michigan and Washington — can expect to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through name, image and likeness, or N.I.L., deals. A quarterback in the Southeastern Conference can bring in more than $1 million, on average.
Expected annual compensation for starting players in the Power Four conferences by position Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.
Note: To be included in the calculations players’ earnings must rank in the top 25 at their position. Specialist ($60,000) and Tight End ($140,000) positions are not labeled.
How much top-earning football players make in a year
And that is merely an average. Ask the Texas Longhorns.
Quinn Ewers
$1.7 million
Texas
Their starter, Quinn Ewers, has N.I.L. deals worth nearly $2 million annually, according to the website On3, which tracks deals for college athletes.
Arch Manning
$3.1 million
Texas
Arch Manning, his backup who hails from one of football’s royal families, has deals worth more than $3 million.
Carson Beck
$1.4 million
Georgia
Georgia’s quarterback, Carson Beck, brings in enough that he recently bought a Lamborghini that retails for $270,000.
Between the cash pouring into athletic programs via collectives — a fancy name for boosters who funnel much of the N.I.L. money to players — and more lenient transfer rules, a sort of eBay to buy athletes has been created, transforming how powerhouse teams are built.
“It’s whoever wants to pay, the most money raised, the most money to buy the most players, is going to have the best opportunity to win,” Nick Saban, the recently retired football coach at the University of Alabama, told Congress in March.
But how do athletes, coaches and administrators determine the going rates? Many consult the Black Book, a kind of Zillow for college sports, which details an athlete’s expected annual earnings, and, in the case of sports like football and men’s and women’s basketball, even breaking them down by position and conference.
A series of three proportional area charts related to the N.I.L market. The first square shows the overall size of the N.I.L. market, the second shows that 80 percent of the market is made up by donor groups known as collectives and the third shows that only 30 percent of the market is publicly disclosed.
Opendorse, the company behind the Black Book, projects around $1.7 billion in transactions in the N.I.L. market this year.
Of that, 80 percent will come through collectives like Texas’ Team One Foundation and the Classic City Collective at the University of Georgia. But even that is an incomplete picture of a rapidly changing N.I.L. frontier awash with money.
There is no universal requirement for athletes to disclose how much they are being paid. Less than a third of the money that student athletes are making is publicly known, according to Opendorse.
Still, the Black Book is a must have for university collectives and collegiate athletic officials, as well as the lawyers involved in House v. N.C.A.A., an antitrust case in which the Black Book and all Opendorse data from 2016 through 2022 were subpoenaed. The sides recently agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement.
If a federal judge approves it, schools will be allowed to set aside around $20 million per year, beginning in the fall of 2025, to pay athletes. (The proposal also calls for a program by which athletes’ N.I.L. deals could be reviewed.)
The Black Book, copies of which were obtained by The New York Times, shows that, even as football remains the dominant sport financially, sports like women’s basketball have become increasingly lucrative. In her final season at the University of Iowa, Caitlin Clark sold out arenas, increased television ratings and had sponsorship deals valued at $3 million.
Clark may have been the sport’s unicorn, but title-contending programs are expected to spend more than $730,000 on their starting five, with guards being the most valued at $225,000.
The N.I.L. era has also created a new generation of entrepreneurs and given them a more concrete sense of their earning potential. For instance, Alex Glover, a star volleyball player who recently concluded her career at Southern Methodist University, made more than $100,000 from sponsors who wanted to be associated with her Instagram video series, called “Day-In-The-Life of a D1 Volleyballer.”
Livvy Dunne
$3.9 million
L.S.U.
Olivia Dunne, a gymnast at Louisiana State University, has become something of a celebrity in recent years. Dunne, who goes by Livvy, has leveraged a large social media following — she has over five million followers on Instagram — to notch deals with major brands like Nautica and Vuori.
Paige Bueckers
$1.4 million
Connecticut
Paige Bueckers, a standout basketball star at the University of Connecticut, similarly has millions of followers on social media and has signed N.I.L. deals with Nike, Gatorade and Verizon.
The top N.I.L. earners in women’s gymnastics usually make around $20,000 annually, about 10 times as much as their male counterparts, according to data from Opendorse. Besides the major men’s sports — football, basketball and baseball — collegiate female athletes typically earn more than male athletes in the same sport.
Expected annual compensation in select Olympic sports
Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.
Note: To be included in the calculations, players’ expected annual earnings must rank in at least the top 50 at their position. The Track/Cross Country category includes athletes in track and field.How men’s and women’s annual earnings compare in smaller sports
“By nature, athletes are disciplined and purpose-driven,” said Blake Lawrence, the co-founder of Opendorse. “What has been really cool to see is how many athletes on our platform, especially the women, lean into the opportunities to be creative and build a brand. They don’t want to get paid just for going to practice and games.”
Lawrence, a former starting linebacker at the University of Nebraska, began Opendorse in 2012 to help his former teammate Prince Amukamara monetize his brand after he entered the N.F.L. as a first-round draft pick with the New York Giants. Lawrence understood the commitment required of college athletes and anticipated that the pay-to-play model was coming sooner rather than later. More than a decade on, some 150,000 athletes have used his platform to grow their name, image and likeness revenues.
The company compiles its numbers based on previous N.I.L. marketing deals signed by a large cross section of football and basketball players and competitors in the so-called nonrevenue Olympic sports. Clients that pay for the information include university athletic departments, their collectives and athlete agencies.
“I know what it takes to be an athlete and wanted to create something like Expedia or Zillow that took the mystery out of getting good value and putting that power in the hands of athletes,” said Lawrence, who offers tutorials on topics like marketing and pay benchmarks on his Instagram feed. “This is all new to them. I see six contracts a second and want them armed with information to make what could be life-changing decisions.”
Like the American economy, college sports have a hierarchy, and its “1 percenters” are the so-called Power conferences like the SEC and the Big Ten.
Expected annual compensation for starting players in each conference by position
Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.
Note: To be included in the calculations players’ earnings must rank in the top 10 at their position.How the Power Four conferences compare
The expected annual N.I.L. compensation for a top-10-earning football player at any position is $216,000 for the Big Ten and $565,000 in the SEC, which is more than three times the annual earnings of $159,000 in the Big 12.
The SEC’s stature is even more pronounced this year. The former Big 12 powerhouses Texas and Oklahoma have joined the conference, which is made up of state universities that have long taken football seriously and invested heavily in athletics. The top-10-earning SEC players at every position — except for tight ends and specialists — earn more annually on average than players in any other Power Four conference. A running back in the SEC can now expect to make about half a million dollars, almost as much as a Big 12 quarterback. Offensive and defensive linemen in the SEC do even better, tallying upward of $700,000.
For the smaller, so-called Group of Five conferences, which include Conference USA and the Mountain West, the new N.I.L. environment puts football championships even further out of reach. The average value of top 25 players at any position at schools such as Liberty (part of Conference USA) or Boise State (in the Mountain West) is just under $50,000.
The money is lucrative in the top tier of men’s and women’s basketball, as well: A starting five of top-25-earning men’s basketball players costs about $3.3 million, with forwards on the top of the pay scale making around $750,000. And while women’s basketball earnings are comparatively much lower, top-level women’s players have had substantial growth since last year, with pay across all positions up by $30,000.
How much top-earning basketball players make
Expected annual compensation for players, on average, by position
Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.
Note: To be included in the calculations players’ earnings must rank in the top 25 at their position.
Even better for basketball stars? With their faces and personalities in full view during games, it is easier for them to enhance revenues beyond collective money through sponsorship partnerships with national brands.
This new market allowed Armando Bacot, who played at the University of North Carolina, to remain in college last season and begin work on a master’s degree in business. His partnerships with the Opendorse clients Dunkin and Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, as well as others with regional and local companies, have made him a multimillionaire.
Many star players like Bacot are now forgoing the ritual of leaving school after just a year or two to enter the N.B.A. Instead of jumping (ready or not) into the draft in search of riches, more players are choosing the ample N.I.L. pay and more time to work on their games and degrees. (Bacot went undrafted and signed with the Utah Jazz this summer.)
“With more and more veteran guys staying in school longer, it’s going to be harder and harder for freshmen to get big minutes, because coaches would rather have veterans,” said Daniel Hennes, the chief executive of Engage, which represents college basketball stars like Bacot in N.I.L. deals. “So, underclassmen will stay in school longer, and the draft will get older and older. In a lot of ways, that’s good for everyone.”
Mike Boynton is among the many college coaches who are not so sure. He brought the future N.B.A. star Cade Cunningham to Oklahoma State with four years of shoe leather. He outworked more accomplished rivals with national titles on their résumés with the promise of doing right by the young star.
“I can’t work that hard anymore,” said Boynton, now an assistant at the University of Michigan. “Not when you can say, ‘Hey, here’s $500,000 to come spend nine months over here.’”
Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.
Note: To be included in the calculations, players’ expected annual earnings must rank in the top 25 at their position. The Track/Cross Country category includes athletes in track and field.Big sports still pay big money …
… but athletes in the so-called nonrevenue sports are finding increased earnings, too.
For many athletes — those who aren’t top stars in the marquee sports — the N.I.L. era is different, though no less exciting. Zoe Ledet, a 19-year-old sprinter at West Virginia State University, joined TikTok in 2020, at the height of Covid-era teenage boredom. She said she quickly amassed a following for “funny skits, hair care, you know, relatable stuff” and now has 1.7 million followers on the platform and nearly 300,000 on Instagram. Still, Ledet never thought brands would be interested in working with her as an athlete.
“I knew that big track athletes like Sha’Carri could get deals with Nike, but I didn’t know there were smaller deals to be had,” said Ledet, referring to the Olympic sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson.
West Virginia State
Last year, during her freshman season, Ledet was approached by B.E. Collective+, an organization that supports student athletes from historically Black colleges and universities in the N.I.L. market. She signed with the group and had N.I.L. deals worth about $3,500 in her first year.Zoe Ledet
$3,500
For Ledet, those earnings aren’t life-changing money, but she has been able to use platforms like the BE Collective+ and Opendorse to gain a better sense of her value in the new marketplace. Her followers now ask her to post more about track and to share videos from meets, content that she hopes will in turn lead to more N.I.L. deals.
“There are a lot of athletes bigger than me, of course, but N.I.L. has allowed athletes like me to widen our platform and get more recognition, too,” she said.
Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.
Note: To be included in the calculations, players’ expected annual earnings must rank in at least the top 50 at their position. The Track/Cross Country category includes athletes in track and field.
Look up expected annual N.I.L. earnings by sport
Sport
Position
Div.
Expected annual earnings
Football Football
Quarterback
SEC
$1,043,252
Football Football
Quarterback
Power 4
$819,020
Football Football
Offensive line
SEC
$779,288
Football Football
Defensive line
SEC
$756,497
M. Basketball Men’s basketball
Forward
NCAA DI
$749,201
Football Football
Wide receiver
SEC
$705,554
M. Basketball Men’s basketball
Guard
NCAA DI
$636,472
M. Basketball Men’s basketball
All
NCAA DI
$630,796
Football Football
Wide receiver
Power 4
$614,561
Football Football
Linebacker
SEC
$584,629
-
Connecticut1 week ago
Oxford church provides sanctuary during Sunday's damaging storm
-
Politics1 week ago
2024 showdown: What happens next in the Kamala Harris-Donald Trump face-off
-
News1 week ago
Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?
-
Politics1 week ago
Vivek Ramaswamy sounds off on potential RFK Jr. role in a Trump administration
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taunted over speculated RFK Jr endorsement: 'Weird as hell'
-
World7 days ago
Portugal coast hit by 5.3 magnitude earthquake
-
Politics1 week ago
With 13 days until voting starts, 'election season' kicks off sooner than you think
-
Politics7 days ago
Why won't Pennsylvania voters have results on Election Night?