Last week, we discussed the status of NIL collectives (Name, Image, and Likeness) and the recent House v. NCAA lawsuit. As you know, NIL speaks to student-athletes rights to profit from their personal brand while maintaining their eligibility to compete in college sports. The recently settled court case changed college athletics by allowing past athletes (up to 2016) to be compensated directly by their universities, bypassing outside NIL collectives.

Traditionally, student-athletes were prohibited from receiving any compensation beyond scholarships, but the NIL policy, which came into effect in July 2021, has changed this landscape. Now, athletes can engage in endorsement deals, sponsorships, social media promotions, and other opportunities to earn money from their name, image, and likeness.

Arizona State University swimmer Grant House saw student musicians gigging in the evening, and inspired him to file the suit, which played a transformational role in shaping the conversation around NIL rights. If you want a quick primer on the suit, read this article. Otherwise, you should know that this landmark case provided two significant legal precedents:

Past athletes are due compensation for revenues they generated as athletes for the university.
Universities can now compensate/revenue share directly, bypassing the NIL completely.

For music teachers, understanding the implications of the NIL policy is important as it parallels the broader discussion on how institutions recognize and compensate those who generate revenue for them.

Just as student-athletes now have the opportunity to profit from their work, students in music can also explore new avenues to monetize their skills and creativity. The changes by NIL reflect a shifting landscape in education and extracurricular activities, where students' contributions should be valued and compensated in ways that extend beyond traditional models. Bottom line, if you generate money, you are owed money.

And, they should start by paying ME!

Setting aside the fact I graduated before 2016 (a component of the lawsuit settlement), I am an eligible recipient for NIL monies as:

I was a Sun Devil Marching Band member from 1987-1990.
I practiced and performed at various events as an ambassador of that university.
As part of my presence, Arizona State University financially financially benefited in some way through ticket sales, concessions, parking fees, corporate sponsorships, publicity, news coverage, and brand enhancement.

Thus, I generated revenue for the university and, based on the settlement terms of House v. NCAA, am eligible for compensation.

SO WHERE'S MY CHECK?

Okay, it's not 1995, I would also accept most major credit cards, Venmo, Paypal, Zelle, and Bitcoin. No NFT's! I draw the line there.

Before sending some Benjamins my way, in addition to my NIL monies, can you please include the following reimbursements:

$500.00 for two years, single credit tuition for my marching band class enrollment ($275 x 2, actual costs in 1989)
$300.00 for parking reimbursement for rehearsal lot fees and game day parking ($150 x 2, actual costs in 1989)
Game day food and drink (unknown)
$140.00 for uniform cleaning ($35 x 2 per year)
$75.00 for gas and mileage for rehearsal and performances
I'm willing to pay for my drumsticks

This is CRAZY. Yes, like many of you, I paid to perform and generate revenue for my university and got nothing in return!

Yes, I know that a tiny sliver of fans come to see the marching band, but it is not an insignificant amount not are the funds those people generate. But, beyond the monies we made, there were additional cost savings to be considered. The band's value is more than creating a great gameday experience; it can be calculated and quantified in monetary ways. I

If the band weren't there, the university would incur significant costs as it tries to fill the void left by the now absent marching band.

What would it cost to provide alternate pre-game, in-game, halftime, and post-game entertainment (stages, lighting, sound, and a tech crew that can be mobile or multiple groups in multiple spots)?
What is the value associated with a fan or a donor hearing their fight song played live by kids draped in school colors two hours before game time?
How would the students respond to a midi-version of the fight song or rally cry?
If the stands were silent, would fewer points be scored and perhaps more games lost?
Would they need to pay licensing rights for the additional music they pump through the sound system absent the band?
Would there be fewer student tickets sold and concessions bought?
Would sponsorship dollars be affected by the lackluster experience?

The band is more than an integral part of the game day experience, it also generates/saves significant revenues. Period!

So Sparky (ASU's mascot), it's time to make it rain! And not just for me, but for you as well.

Let's not stop with the marching band. Shouldn't the cheerleaders, dancers, spirit leaders, baton twirlers, and mascots be compensated as well?

I know, Ralphie the Buffalo (CU's mascot) has no use for money, but could we buy him a nicer trailer, something to spruce up his stall, or a new winter coat? Even Buffaloes get cold.

Am I unreasonable in asking that universities consider ALL performers when allotting these funds?

Why shouldn't I get paid? Everyone else is.

The grounds persons, concessioners, ticket-takers, and parking lot attendants are compensated. Facilities managers, security personnel, and game day salespeople receive a check. And now, the athletes are cashing in. As far as I can tell, the only people not getting paid are the marching band and me.

As silly as this sounds, I am not kidding. My request is rooted in equity, fairness, past legal precedent, and current case law.

Just so you know...

I have read the entirety of the judgment (I won't bore you with it), and as long as you accept these precepts:

The band/spirit squad is a "team" representing their university.
The participants are "athletes" in a competitive environment.
Revenue was generated at events they participated in.

Then, I am justified in my request.

But where will the funds to compensate band members come from? Well, set aside the millions generated at every game. You can start paying us out of the kitty that we have been paying into.

My alma mater (Arizona State) collects $270,000 annually from its marching and pep band members. And that's not even counting ticket sales from family & friends, concessions, and game day parking.

How did I arrive at that number?:

A 300-member marching band paying $561 for a single class credit generates $168,300 annually.
200 rehearsal parking passes (some students walk) at $210 generates $42,000 annually.
FB game day parking for 250 generates $2,500 weekly (again, some members walked), which amounts to $15,000 over a season.
A 65-piece basketball band paying $561 for a pep-band credit generates $36,465.
BB game day parking for 20 cars (some walk)@ $10 per game for fifteen games (men's and women's) generates $6,000 over a basketball season.

So don't play poor with me.

I am willing to let the inflation index and opportunity cost of carrying your debt go, but it's time to pony up and pay your bill.

And If you think that the cost of a marching band exceeds the revenue generated (unlikely), I can build a mathematical model demonstrating that the marching band generates more revenue and costs less to operate than the Grant House's men's swim team (and a host of other non-revenue-generating sports). So, if you pay the swimmers, you should pay the musicians, as House vs. NCAA requires that ALL athletes benefit, not just the profitable ones.

IT'S TIME TO FACE THE MUSIC AND PAY THE BAND!

After all, the band brings down the house. And House brought down the NCAA.

Something to consider.

Scott