Bill Overview
Title: Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act
Description: This bill denies a tax deduction for contributions (except contributions made directly to certain institutions of higher education) used to compensate one or more secondary or post-secondary school athletes for the use of their names, images, or likenesses by reason of their status as athletes.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Secondary and post-secondary school athletes and relevant donors
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill affects contributions directed towards compensating athletes for their names, images, or likenesses, influencing those athletes directly.
- Secondary and post-secondary school athletes are directly impacted, as it pertains to their potential revenue streams.
- Institutions that facilitate such compensations, or donors supporting athletes' name, image, and likeness opportunities at secondary and post-secondary levels, are stakeholders too.
- Higher education institutions directly compensating athletes are excluded, focusing the impact on donations or contributions by third parties.
- This policy could indirectly affect families of these athletes due to potential changes in athletes' income.
Reasoning
- The policy applies to both secondary and post-secondary school athletes who receive compensation related to their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
- The primary impact of this policy will fall on athletes who are receiving or expect to receive compensation through contributions from third-parties, as these contributions will no longer be tax-deductible.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy is likely aimed at larger donors rather than athletes themselves, focusing on discouraging third-party contributions by removing their tax benefits rather than directly affecting athlete contracts or agreements.
- The impact might not be felt uniformly across all athletes. Those at the peak of their sports or with strong brand potential may feel a larger effect, whereas those who are not leveraging their NIL may see little to no impact.
- Families of athletes who depend on this income might experience financial stress, affecting their overall wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Collegiate Student-Athlete (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- NIL deals are a vital part of my collegiate experience financially.
- This policy makes it harder for small donors to contribute to athlete sponsors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
High School Student-Athlete (Dallas, TX)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will not impact me directly, as I'm not earning through NIL yet. But, it can affect future opportunities if donations drop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Private Donor and Sports Enthusiast (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I reconsidered my donations. Without tax perks, my affordability to support athlete programs lessened drastically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Administrative Staff at University (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might see a reduction in donor contributions impacting team resources, even if my role doesn't change broadly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Professional Athlete (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Moving into professional space, but partnered college athletes might lose some benefits. This act could stymie forthcoming players' opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
High School Athlete (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My main focus is obtaining a scholarship. NIL hasn't been a part of my strategy so far. The policy feels distant currently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Sports Marketer (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Definitely a dampener on prospects for future client contracts. Tax incentives drove many collaborations between athletes and brands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
High School Athletics Coach (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might limit what coaches can leverage for student-athlete development. But it's more of a broader ecosystem issue than immediate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired, Former College Athlete (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support athletes getting compensated, but removing tax incentives seems an odd approach. It might hurt more than help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Tax Consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation complicates advising clients on tax-efficient ways to support college athletes. Adjusting strategies will be needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Key Considerations
- Focus is on reforming tax deductions linked to athletes' name, image, and likeness compensations.
- Shifts potential tax revenues to be slightly higher at the federal level due to fewer deductions perceived as prone to exploitation.