Today’s college athletes are in a remarkable position, enjoying lucrative deals related to their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Many football and basketball players featured on TV are raking in six to seven-figure sums, and soon, even less prominent athletes will benefit from revenue sharing. Additionally, these players have the freedom to switch schools with minimal restrictions if they find a better offer.

In Georgia, where I reside, there may soon be an added benefit on the table: Tax breaks!

A newly proposed bill in the Georgia legislature seeks to abolish the state’s 5.49% income tax that college athletes would normally pay on their NIL earnings. For example, a Georgia Bulldogs quarterback earning $1 million annually would retain an additional $55,000. If a football team collectively generates $20 million via NIL, the state stands to lose around $1 million in tax revenue, which contributes to essentials like healthcare, education, and transportation, which citizens like us will still have to fund.

As a sports columnist, I find this idea intriguing. The discussion about college sports and taxation is bound to stir the pot, and it’s a proven way to spark public outrage. Several administrators have remarked since this bill surfaced earlier this week that there could not be a better strategy to fuel public resentment towards college athletes.

From a sports commentary perspective, I’m all in favor of this debate. However, as a concerned citizen, resident, and taxpayer?

I have to pass.

On Wednesday, I reached out to Brandon Beach, a Republican state senator from Alpharetta, located near Atlanta. He’s the originator of this proposal, and I asked him a straightforward question: Why should addressing the tax exemption for wealthy college students be a leading priority for Georgia lawmakers?

“Well, I see it as a priority,” he replied. “College sports bring in millions of dollars for our universities and local businesses, significantly boosting our state’s economy. A successful program enhances economic activity. To stay competitive, we need this.”

“We’re only looking at the time these athletes are under NIL agreements, not for a lifetime commitment. It’s just for a few years at most, and it’s essential for us to attract top talent,” he added, referring to Georgia’s football coach, Kirby Smart.

Honestly, much of this sounds absurd to me. I doubt that a single win for any Georgia team—whether it’s Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, or others—is determined by whether a player’s NIL income is subject to state taxes.

Yet, I understand the eagerness of politicians to address any perceived competitive disadvantage, no matter how minor, particularly amidst SEC rivalries.

I do give Beach some credit; he admits that the bill is intended solely to help Georgia maintain its competitive edge against other states rather than for any broader purpose.

“It assists us in competing with Texas, Florida, and Tennessee,” he explained. “Athletes have agents who might tell them, ‘Texas can pay you a million while you can only earn $750,000 in Georgia, and remember, you won’t have to pay state income tax there.’

“For instance, look at Carson Beck. He secured a $4 million deal at Miami, while Florida has no state income tax. If he had the same deal in Athens, he’d owe around $200,000 in taxes.”

It’s tough to argue against that logic. In an ideal scenario where all NIL agreements are equal across programs, a few athletes might base significant career decisions on a 5% tax difference.

However, I question whether that ideal scenario truly exists, and if the political appeal of this proposal is as sound as Beach envisions.

Yes, removing the state tax on NIL will benefit numerous athletes across Georgia who receive smaller deals. But make no mistake: The primary aim of this proposition is to ensure that Georgia’s football program doesn’t miss out on lucrative recruitment opportunities that are enriching many talented young athletes nationwide.

And there’s absolutely no issue with that. I supported such changes before they gained traction because I recognize the vital role college athletes play in driving the success of a multibillion-dollar industry. Yet, even I find it disconcerting to alter laws to exempt college athletes—a specific group—from the civic duties shared by the rest of us.

Do we really need to go this far to attract recruits to Georgia’s football program? If this initiative holds substantial weight, shouldn’t similar measures also apply to the Atlanta Falcons, Atlanta Braves, and Atlanta Hawks, assisting them in securing more free agents? Don’t they also contribute to the state’s economy?

“One of my colleagues mentioned, ‘Why are we rewarding these athletes when they are already making money?’” Beach recalled. “But the reality is, to attract the best talent available, we need to level the playing field with those three states that boast strong football programs.”

After I concluded my conversation with Beach—which coincidentally fell on National Signing Day—I checked prominent recruiting platforms to assess how the teams in Georgia were faring regarding talent acquisition.

Interestingly, they appeared to be doing rather well. At Rivals, Georgia’s recruiting class ranked No. 2, with Georgia Tech at No. 23. Similarly, 247 also indicated comparable rankings—with Georgia State and Georgia Southern leading the Sun Belt chart. If any Georgia institutions are struggling to recruit due to state taxes on NIL, it certainly isn’t evident in the current talent acquisition metrics.

So, let’s be frank: Georgia doesn’t require any additional assistance. Neither does Coach Smart, earning $13 million a year, thanks to his longstanding success in recruiting top talent in college football.

But if we want to speculate on whether this bill will pass, looking at southern state legislatures striving to outdo each other over SEC football seems like a pretty reliable forecast—especially when it entails a tax cut for individuals who arguably don’t need it.

Just one lingering question: When does my relief come?

Beach responded, “That’s ultimately what we aim to achieve—eliminating the state income tax entirely. That’s our long-term goal. But until that’s feasible, I believe this serves as a helpful tool—especially for recruiting purposes.”

After all, what could possibly hold greater significance?