Supreme court rules for college athletes

[sh724]

Incorrect.

The average TV ad costs $115,000 for a 30-second commercial on a national network.

Akron's athletics budget is $34.9 million. Which is 303.478 30-second commercials, aka 151.7 minutes of National TV time.

Their football team had three games on national TV (9 hours), their men's basketball team five (10 hours). Buying 19 hours worth of ads would cost about $262 million.

Chances are universities would not be running national commercials. They would look at their student base see where they have large populations and build a marketing plan from there.

I went to Missouri State University. The largest demographic of students were from St. Louis, then Kansas City, then Springfield (where the school is). MSU would accomplish little to nothing by advertising in California, or New York, or Florida, etc.

The Women's basketball team made it to the Sweet 16 this year and had multiple games on national TV. How many high school students from the east or west coasts saw those games and thought how great it would be to go to MSU? I would bet the number is pretty close to 0. How many high school students within a few hours of the school saw those games and it increased their interest in MSU? I would bet more than 0.

The mens soccer team was ranked top 10 for most of the season and had multiple games on national TV. The same is true here as with the above.

The national marketing only benefits maybe 5% of all D1 schools. Those are the teams that are always on national TV and do well in many sports every year. Students see those big name schools and want the "coolness" of being at a school with good athletic programs. The vast majority of students do not care how good the sports teams are, they are far more worried about costs and other much more pertinent concerns.

When i was looking at college I requested info at all those big schools that i saw on TV all the time and came to the conclusion it made little to no sense for me to attend one of those schools. I was more concerned with costs, distance from home, accreditation, etc.

Akron, like MSU, would be much better served buying local targeted ads on social media and shows they know potential students are watching. That could easily be accomplished with the $34.9MM figure you cited. Although it would be better to look at the net income/loss than the total budget.

I am all for universities having athletic departments but those departments need to be able to stand on their own and not take funds away from the educational purpose of universities.

 

[KevFu]

Everything you just said though is exactly why schools fund athletics departments...

Universities wouldn't run national TV ads... therefore ATHLETICS gives them exposure they can't afford on their own.

Missouri State was good in basketball when I was in college. That's why I've heard of your alma mater. I'm sure Basketball is the only reason you've heard of my alma mater, if you have: St. Bonaventure.

I guarantee you applications to (then Southwest) Missouri State went up significantly after you beat Wisconsin, Tennessee and played Duke in the Sweet 16 in 1999. Gonzaga has raised admissions standards massively in the last 20 years, Basketball put them on the map. Butler, Gonzaga, George Mason, VCU, UMBC... huge exposure from basketball.



Athletics actually don't take away any funds from the education side of things. The Big Boys and "basketball leagues" are self sufficient. The one-bid league schools usually aren't self sufficient, but the subsidies come from student fees, not diverting money from education. That's why students usually aren't charged admission to athletics events.

When you factor in the savings athletics provides to your advertising budget, AND the ridiculous practice of "making athletics reimburse the school for the cost of scholarships" it's the OPPOSITE. The University gets more from athletics than athletics costs them.

In fact, there have been tons of studies done on schools who dropped football and seen the overall university donations PLUMMET. Case in point, your fellow Missouri Valley Conference member Evansville.

Sports are part of the college experience that is overwhelmingly positive. That's not to say there aren't flaws, but the biggest flaws everyone points out is that "The big schools are operating like a pro sports league, which isn't what college sports SAYS it's supposed to be about!"


The solution to that is to REIGN IN that stuff, not formalize it as legal fact.

 

[joelef]

Everything you just said though is exactly why schools fund athletics departments...

Universities wouldn't run national TV ads... therefore ATHLETICS gives them exposure they can't afford on their own.

Missouri State was good in basketball when I was in college. That's why I've heard of your alma mater. I'm sure Basketball is the only reason you've heard of my alma mater, if you have: St. Bonaventure.

I guarantee you applications to (then Southwest) Missouri State went up significantly after you beat Wisconsin, Tennessee and played Duke in the Sweet 16 in 1999. Gonzaga has raised admissions standards massively in the last 20 years, Basketball put them on the map. Butler, Gonzaga, George Mason, VCU, UMBC... huge exposure from basketball.



Athletics actually don't take away any funds from the education side of things. The Big Boys and "basketball leagues" are self sufficient. The one-bid league schools usually aren't self sufficient, but the subsidies come from student fees, not diverting money from education. That's why students usually aren't charged admission to athletics events.

When you factor in the savings athletics provides to your advertising budget, AND the ridiculous practice of "making athletics reimburse the school for the cost of scholarships" it's the OPPOSITE. The University gets more from athletics than athletics costs them.

In fact, there have been tons of studies done on schools who dropped football and seen the overall university donations PLUMMET. Case in point, your fellow Missouri Valley Conference member Evansville.

Sports are part of the college experience that is overwhelmingly positive. That's not to say there aren't flaws, but the biggest flaws everyone points out is that "The big schools are operating like a pro sports league, which isn't what college sports SAYS it's supposed to be about!"


The solution to that is to REIGN IN that stuff, not formalize it as legal fact.

How is it a good thing that kids are choosing college based on sports? This is why china kicking out butt in education because they dont send to kids to college because of sports but an actual occupation. Also we need LESS kids going to college .

 

[KevFu]

How is it a good thing that kids are choosing college based on sports? This is why china kicking out butt in education because they dont send to kids to college because of sports but an actual occupation. Also we need LESS kids going to college .

It's not. And I agree with all you just said.

But that's also not what I meant. The Gonzaga example is perfect: They made one NCAA Tournament their entire history and then in their second trip, made a Cinderella run to the Elite 8. Then the next year, THEY DID IT AGAIN. And their assistant coach (now head coach) used that to bring in some great recruits and they became an awesome program that's kind of like a mini-Duke now.

No high school non-athlete saw that happen and said "I want to go to Gonzaga now so I can watch this basketball team!"

But plenty of people looking for a college thought "Gonzaga? Oh, I've heard of them" instead of "Who?" and looked closer at them as a college choice. And there's probably something to the logic of "there might be something special about this school if a place no one has heard of knows how to compete with the big boys of the NCAA."

TMI below, feel free to skip to bold.

I didn't pick St. Bonaventure because of sports, but it did play a big role in how I ended up there. I wanted to a be a writer/journalist (insert your own joke about "You're certainly great at the volume of words you write") and looked up those kinds of schools. Guess what? You can get a degree at a thousand of them! It all comes down to what's the best fit for you as a person. The academics and financial aid/COST being the top priorities, but geography/location, size, culture, etc are all factors. It all boils down to: "What would it be like to be there, and would I like that?"

I appreciated that St. Bonaventure is nuts about their basketball team. They play in a pretty high-level conference, and weren't that good in it when I was looking at schools, but all the ranked teams like #1 UMass respected how tough it was to play there.

I am a massive sports junkie. And the funny thing is, basketball was by far my least favorite out of hockey, baseball, football, soccer and basketball. I never met my guidance councilor or went into that office once in high school. But my PTA mom was nagging me to go see a different one, who went to St. Bonaventure. One day, I'm sitting in class and that dude knocks on the door, pulls me out of class by telling my teacher St. Bonaventure wants to talk to me. Walks me to the empty cafeteria, pulls a remote out of his back pocket, turns on the TV to the A-10 tournament game and says "St. Bonaventure is talking to you." And just stands there in front of the TV rooting for the Bonnies, ignoring me until commercials.

I didn't pick St. Bonaventure because of sports. I picked St. Bonaventure because that was the school high on my list of good schools, that offered significant financial aid. And out of the remaining schools on my list based on every other factor, it's where I knew I'd fit in the best and felt right.


EVERY SINGLE COLLEGE COACH will say "the hardest thing about recruiting is getting the kids to visit campus. Once they set foot on campus, it's easy." Division I Athletics is a way that schools get students to visit their university campus.

People don't say "Gonzaga is good at basketball, I'm going to go there." They actually LOOK at everything Gonzaga has to offer because they HEARD OF THEM through basketball, and once they look, they see all the things that makes it a great place to go to school.

It's like picking a movie to watch... if you've never heard of the movie, you're probably not checking it out. College sports is like a movie trailer.

 

[PCSPounder]

I keep trying to write something big, but it keeps boiling down to one important factor.

Kids that are working their posteriors off to pay for school are tired of paying for some administrator’s dream of athletic glory. That’s usually at the tune of hundreds of dollars per term.

College athletics are on the clock simply for this fact.

 

[mac nylander]

One thing most people aren't considering as well is the tax implications for the student athletes.

In the blink of an eye, all that scholarship money/room and board/meal plan/travel/training becomes taxable income/benefits in the eyes of the government. Now you'll have thousands of student athletes on the hook for some hefty tax bills without having any actual income to pay it, or the colleges get the bill if its considered employee benefits

Hmm, not sure about this one.

My wife is a travel nurse that receives a weekly food and housing stipend which is non-taxable.
I would assume it varies from state to state and professions, though.

 

[golfortennis]

Hmm, not sure about this one.

My wife is a travel nurse that receives a weekly food and housing stipend which is non-taxable.
I would assume it varies from state to state and professions, though.

I'm not sure which school convinced them, but Georgia's lawmakers passed the law allowing NIL for athletes, but with the caveat the school could keep up to 75% of it to distribute to other athletes. Laughable, but politicians are going to politician.

The point is that there will be enough congresscritters who want to "support our boys" that they will make scholarships/other school provided benefits non-taxable.

 

[golfortennis]

I keep trying to write something big, but it keeps boiling down to one important factor.

Kids that are working their posteriors off to pay for school are tired of paying for some administrator’s dream of athletic glory. That’s usually at the tune of hundreds of dollars per term.

College athletics are on the clock simply for this fact.

It is unreal how many schools have been in positions where student fees are funding athletics, yet a number of them continue to look to jump up to D1. As you say, an administrator's dream. Ad in the fact the students are paying for facilities they will rarely ever get access to, unless they are part of the special few.

 

[StreetHawk]

I'm not sure which school convinced them, but Georgia's lawmakers passed the law allowing NIL for athletes, but with the caveat the school could keep up to 75% of it to distribute to other athletes. Laughable, but politicians are going to politician.

The point is that there will be enough congresscritters who want to "support our boys" that they will make scholarships/other school provided benefits non-taxable.

Could keep up to probably being the key part here. Georgia Bulldogs would be at a big disadvantage amongst the SEC if high end guys have to give up 3/4 of their NIL earnings to the school.

NIL is going to cause a lot more work for college basketball and football programs in making sure that their players are not just focused on the game but keep their grades up to remain academically eligible if they spend more time managing their NIL brand. Add in the recently immediate eligibility of transferring and football programs especially are going to be working non stop to re convince their backups to remain with the program.

but NIL would seem to help solve an issue with the ncaa in paying their athletes. They don’t have to setup a wage scale between the money making programs and those that cost money.

you get to make what your NIL is worth regardless of the sport you play. Be it football, hockey, basketball, rowing, fencing, swimming, etc.

 

[PCSPounder]

It is unreal how many schools have been in positions where student fees are funding athletics, yet a number of them continue to look to jump up to D1. As you say, an administrator's dream. Ad in the fact the students are paying for facilities they will rarely ever get access to, unless they are part of the special few.

Or, even “better,” trying to move ahead, take advantage of realignment from FCS to FBS, or hope against hope that a P5 conference will invite you (or, in a case or two, hope against hope that the P5 will accept your conference as the 6th). The schools I’ve looked at on this matter are already D-1.

Of course, when I went to school, I started at a school that had moved down to D-2 not many years before and, more than 10 years later, managed their way back up and almost immediately tried to shoot for FBS. I ended up at a school that helped redefine the “athletics arms race.”

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

TMI below, feel free to skip to bold.

*Heartwarming Bona story*

EVERY SINGLE COLLEGE COACH will say "the hardest thing about recruiting is getting the kids to visit campus. Once they set foot on campus, it's easy." Division I Athletics is a way that schools get students to visit their university campus.

People don't say "Gonzaga is good at basketball, I'm going to go there." They actually LOOK at everything Gonzaga has to offer because they HEARD OF THEM through basketball, and once they look, they see all the things that makes it a great place to go to school.

It's like picking a movie to watch... if you've never heard of the movie, you're probably not checking it out. College sports is like a movie trailer.

Your quote from the college coaches makes sense. They're competing for a limited supply of elite talent. Most Colleges aren't really worried about getting enough non-student applications; they're turning down more prospective students than they let in. Upping the prestige level only works for a select group of high end private schools. The costs for public schools are already set.

TLDR: Colleges don't need a movie trailer, they already sell out their slots

What they're doing is laundering student activity fees to get donations based upon sports boosters to increase their endowments.

 

[joelef]

Your quote from the college coaches makes sense. They're competing for a limited supply of elite talent. Most Colleges aren't really worried about getting enough non-student applications; they're turning down more prospective students than they let in. Upping the prestige level only works for a select group of high end private schools. The costs for public schools are already set.

TLDR: Colleges don't need a movie trailer, they already sell out their slots

What they're doing is laundering student activity fees to get donations based upon sports boosters to increase their endowments.

yep thats why all sports should move to club level

 

[KevFu]

You guys see that a Miami gym is planning on allocating $500 a month for every Miami football player?


This is exactly what I'm talking about: these aren't PLAYERS EARNING endorsements because of their talent or brand. It's just a recruiting budget for the Hurricanes to buy players with. That's the opposite of what NIL was supposed to be, and it took like, a week.

 

[PCSPounder]

So when I went to Portland State for two years, the number of people who really talked about PSU athletics was way close to zero.

My daughter spent 4 years there, and her crowd all but talked in terms of simply and silently boycotting athletics. This even went to the point of ridiculing me for going to a handful of games.

If you want to consider that a small sample size, just go to the games to find out that the students who do attend are friends of the athletes, or even fellow athletes, and that’s D-1 in comparison to when I was attending in the D-2 days. IOW, not many students… and not too many other fans, either.

The transfer portal is already the axe in the back of smaller programs anyway. I don’t know anyone who thinks NIL would be any different. But the truth is that it’s not the mission of most schools to really dive into the athletic arms race, nor can they, nor should they.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

I wonder how the legalization of paying players will affect future conference realignments.

We're due for another major cycle of realignment. The American is bound to lose lots of its current membership to P5 leagues, especially the Big 12 (with Cincinnati going to the ACC).

 

[PCSPounder]

I wonder how the legalization of paying players will affect future conference realignments.

We're due for another major cycle of realignment. The American is bound to lose lots of its current membership to P5 leagues, especially the Big 12 (with Cincinnati going to the ACC).

What schools will actually increase the per-school take of a P5 conference that isn’t already in one?

The answer is Notre Dame, which means it’s a trick question of sorts, since only Notre Dame football is theoretically independent. Otherwise, more schools would have been added by now.

The Big 12 has been through this “we’re considering expanding” more than once in the past decade, and not pulled the trigger.

(FYI- when the Pac-10 became the Pac-12, they named their minimum conditions… which happened to be a state at least as big as Colorado. This while they were reportedly close to landing Texas. Utah ended up being the pairing school that the Pac likes to have.)

 

[KevFu]

What schools will actually increase the per-school take of a P5 conference that isn’t already in one?

The answer is Notre Dame, which means it’s a trick question of sorts, since only Notre Dame football is theoretically independent. Otherwise, more schools would have been added by now.

The Big 12 has been through this “we’re considering expanding” more than once in the past decade, and not pulled the trigger.

(FYI- when the Pac-10 became the Pac-12, they named their minimum conditions… which happened to be a state at least as big as Colorado. This while they were reportedly close to landing Texas. Utah ended up being the pairing school that the Pac likes to have.)

The only school I could see having a significant impact of NIL as it pertains to conference realignment would be Memphis.

I'm sure everyone's going to do their best to buy players, but Memphis offered the Big 12 a massive sponsorship contract for the Big 12 Football and Basketball (and other sports) championships if Memphis was invited the last time the Big 12 kicked the tires on expansion.

Well, now FedEx can bankroll their recruiting bribes to bring in talent that will make Memphis attractive enough for Big 12 expansion.

 

[golfortennis]

The only school I could see having a significant impact of NIL as it pertains to conference realignment would be Memphis.

I'm sure everyone's going to do their best to buy players, but Memphis offered the Big 12 a massive sponsorship contract for the Big 12 Football and Basketball (and other sports) championships if Memphis was invited the last time the Big 12 kicked the tires on expansion.

Well, now FedEx can bankroll their recruiting bribes to bring in talent that will make Memphis attractive enough for Big 12 expansion.

BUt here's the thing: guys can sign with the g league(at least in hoops) and not have to worry about any of that silly school stuff, even if it is for only a semester.

I guess the question I would have is, why is it such a bad thing for the schools to "buy" their players, but there is nothing wrong with the fact they do exactly that with the coaches? Considering everything else players have to deal with, why shouldn't they get an offer commensurate to what they bring to the table? Why is it ok for coaches to listen to these offers, and search for a better situation, but heaven forbid a player gets paid?

 

[KevFu]

I guess the question I would have is, why is it such a bad thing for the schools to "buy" their players

Short answer: Because there's no revenue sharing. Every single league with a payroll has some kind of revenue sharing to keep competitive balance (the pro leagues on this continent have a draft).

but there is nothing wrong with the fact they do exactly that with the coaches?

Why is it ok for coaches to listen to these offers, and search for a better situation, but heaven forbid a player gets paid?

Because coaches are grown adults with college degrees to fall back on and thousands of opportunities in their field, so it's not "exploitation" to fire them during their contracts for not performing. They are expected to perform. College athletes were NOT expected to do anything but keep their GPA up and participate. Nothing was performance related. In fact, it specifically WASN'T.

It is morally reprehensible to "fire" a kid for lack of athletics performance, which is going to start happening A LOT when donors aren't getting their money's worth.

A kid getting kicked off scholarship for being an underachieving player rarely ever happens at schools outside the BCS. (Kids are told they won't play, so if they WANT to transfer... and they always have the option of staying in school but not playing on the team anymore with athletics covering their scholarships. But ADs hate doing that, so it rarely happens and tends to cost coaches their jobs).

NIL is the worst possible way to go because it's the recruiting wild west. The schools aren't paying the players, the Donors are. SMU got the Death Penalty for that in the 80s, now it's legal. So when a sponsor cuts their endorsement because the player sucks, the player has zero recourse, feels like they were lied to.

The players will be exploited far more now than they were. There's no union, no CBA. And the money is coming from outside the school, so it's going to be the schools and donors blaming the other for the kid not getting what he signed up for.

The whole "At least it's honest" argument from earlier in the thread? Yeah. It's about to be a million times shadier.

 

[PCSPounder]

Scholarships are one-year commitments with up to 3 out-year one-year commitments. Kids were already getting fired.

 

[joelef]

Short answer: Because there's no revenue sharing. Every single league with a payroll has some kind of revenue sharing to keep competitive balance (the pro leagues on this continent have a draft).





Because coaches are grown adults with college degrees to fall back on and thousands of opportunities in their field, so it's not "exploitation" to fire them during their contracts for not performing. They are expected to perform. College athletes were NOT expected to do anything but keep their GPA up and participate. Nothing was performance related. In fact, it specifically WASN'T.

It is morally reprehensible to "fire" a kid for lack of athletics performance, which is going to start happening A LOT when donors aren't getting their money's worth.

A kid getting kicked off scholarship for being an underachieving player rarely ever happens at schools outside the BCS. (Kids are told they won't play, so if they WANT to transfer... and they always have the option of staying in school but not playing on the team anymore with athletics covering their scholarships. But ADs hate doing that, so it rarely happens and tends to cost coaches their jobs).

NIL is the worst possible way to go because it's the recruiting wild west. The schools aren't paying the players, the Donors are. SMU got the Death Penalty for that in the 80s, now it's legal. So when a sponsor cuts their endorsement because the player sucks, the player has zero recourse, feels like they were lied to.

The players will be exploited far more now than they were. There's no union, no CBA. And the money is coming from outside the school, so it's going to be the schools and donors blaming the other for the kid not getting what he signed up for.

The whole "At least it's honest" argument from earlier in the thread? Yeah. It's about to be a million times shadier.

college students are also grown adults

 

[KevFu]

Scholarships are one-year commitments with up to 3 out-year one-year commitments. Kids were already getting fired.

They really are not. I'm sure you can find cases at the BCS level, like when Syracuse got hit with a scholarship reduction and Boeheim ran some guys off to go recruiting. But even then, those kids were "invited to transfer" and not having their scholarship pulled. And if they wanted to stay and get a Syracuse education, they would have had it paid for. It just wouldn't be listed as a "basketball scholarship" anymore.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of players who leave a team transfer to seek more playing time. The vast majority of ADs don't let their coaches yank a scholarship for performance reasons. That one-year renewable part of scholarships is just CYA legalese. ADs treat it like the coaches treat their assistants getting a technical foul: You get one. Second one, you're gone.

Most coaches aren't like the average message board fan saying "This guy sucks, get him out of here!" because they spent years recruiting the kid, getting to know them and their family.


And I've being naive because all my time in college athletics has been non-BCS schools, and BCS schools act that way all the time, that's even more of a reason to reign in the BCS instead of making every school have to act like the BCS to try and keep up.

 

[KevFu]

college students are also grown adults

So you're saying firing them is okay? I don't think it is.

There's a reason they're not allowed to rent cars.

 

[golfortennis]

They really are not. I'm sure you can find cases at the BCS level, like when Syracuse got hit with a scholarship reduction and Boeheim ran some guys off to go recruiting. But even then, those kids were "invited to transfer" and not having their scholarship pulled. And if they wanted to stay and get a Syracuse education, they would have had it paid for. It just wouldn't be listed as a "basketball scholarship" anymore.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of players who leave a team transfer to seek more playing time. The vast majority of ADs don't let their coaches yank a scholarship for performance reasons. That one-year renewable part of scholarships is just CYA legalese. ADs treat it like the coaches treat their assistants getting a technical foul: You get one. Second one, you're gone.

Most coaches aren't like the average message board fan saying "This guy sucks, get him out of here!" because they spent years recruiting the kid, getting to know them and their family.


And I've being naive because all my time in college athletics has been non-BCS schools, and BCS schools act that way all the time, that's even more of a reason to reign in the BCS instead of making every school have to act like the BCS to try and keep up.

You need to read up on the practice of "overbooking."

And if it was so honorable as you say, why did this need to be brought in? You are being redirected...

Hell, I know of a girl whose DIII coach forced her off the golf team because she tore up her ankle and wasn't recovering quick enough. DIII Golf, FFS.

Look at the recent Wisconsin basketball revelation. The players basically reached a point where they felt they were playing for the coach's legacy as opposed to anything else.

 

[golfortennis]

Short answer: Because there's no revenue sharing. Every single league with a payroll has some kind of revenue sharing to keep competitive balance (the pro leagues on this continent have a draft).





Because coaches are grown adults with college degrees to fall back on and thousands of opportunities in their field, so it's not "exploitation" to fire them during their contracts for not performing. They are expected to perform. College athletes were NOT expected to do anything but keep their GPA up and participate. Nothing was performance related. In fact, it specifically WASN'T.

It is morally reprehensible to "fire" a kid for lack of athletics performance, which is going to start happening A LOT when donors aren't getting their money's worth.

A kid getting kicked off scholarship for being an underachieving player rarely ever happens at schools outside the BCS. (Kids are told they won't play, so if they WANT to transfer... and they always have the option of staying in school but not playing on the team anymore with athletics covering their scholarships. But ADs hate doing that, so it rarely happens and tends to cost coaches their jobs).

NIL is the worst possible way to go because it's the recruiting wild west. The schools aren't paying the players, the Donors are. SMU got the Death Penalty for that in the 80s, now it's legal. So when a sponsor cuts their endorsement because the player sucks, the player has zero recourse, feels like they were lied to.

The players will be exploited far more now than they were. There's no union, no CBA. And the money is coming from outside the school, so it's going to be the schools and donors blaming the other for the kid not getting what he signed up for.

The whole "At least it's honest" argument from earlier in the thread? Yeah. It's about to be a million times shadier.

A)There is no competitive balance as it is, and B)considering there really never has been competitive balance, why do we care all of a sudden?

Who said the coaches were being exploited? They are being paid ungodly amounts to do their job. The good ones go to the schools that can afford them. But players can't be paid?

As to the wild, wild west, you seem to think that hasn't been happening all along. The players will be exploited because they will be paid? DeAndre Ayton was exploited for getting the $100,000 to go to Arizona? How did Lance Thomas, who played at Duke a decade ago, end up where a jeweler sues him for over $100,000 of unpaid product from when he was at Duke?

The NCAA(and member schools) has cashed in mightily over the years by the fairy tale of "Students who happen to play sports for the love of the game and bringing glory to their school". It was a thin veneer, however, and it is being completely destroyed.

The G league is honest. We want you to play for us, so we can make money. We will pay you for it.