NCAA Name, Image, Likeness Rule

#1
M tipping over
Pdx
#2
Funny how all it took was a threat from the G-League for the NCAA to make new rules. It’s almost like they are only motivated to take actions to protect themselves rather than to benefit the players. Fortunately, this should ultimately be good for those players who deserve payment (assuming no fine print). It will be interesting to see how quickly schools start assigning “sponsorship directors” to connect students to inflated sponsorship deals. I am glad that they will get the money above the table. Hopefully it doesn’t increase the power gap between blue bloods and the rest of the pack.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: BoJack Underwoo, haasi and illini2019
#3
M tipping over
Pdx
Funny how all it took was a threat from the G-League for the NCAA to make new rules. It’s almost like they are only motivated to take actions to protect themselves rather than to benefit the players. Fortunately, this should ultimately be good for those players who deserve payment (assuming no fine print). It will be interesting to see how quickly schools start assigning “sponsorship directors” to connect students to inflated sponsorship deals. I am glad that they will get the money above the table. Hopefully it doesn’t increase the power gap between blue bloods and the rest of the pack.
Schools won't be able to get involved with this directly (see article below), but I'll be curious what shape this takes.

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...ering-your-ncaa-name-image-likeness-questions
 
#4
Funny how all it took was a threat from the G-League for the NCAA to make new rules. It’s almost like they are only motivated to take actions to protect themselves rather than to benefit the players. Fortunately, this should ultimately be good for those players who deserve payment (assuming no fine print). It will be interesting to see how quickly schools start assigning “sponsorship directors” to connect students to inflated sponsorship deals. I am glad that they will get the money above the table. Hopefully it doesn’t increase the power gap between blue bloods and the rest of the pack.

It was honestly more likely the threat form California's new law and the similar ones under consideration nationwide that ultimately put the heat on them. California's law would have effectively chopped all California schools out of the NCAA if the students couldn't profit from name and likeness. That's a lot of TV sets. As a result, the NCAA is now going to pass this rule and also lobby Congress to pass something nationwide that supersedes state rules so that the NCAA doesn't have to deal with multiple jurisdictions.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: chrisRunner7, haasi and WINT
#5
It would seem to me that the rules allowing players to make money from endorsements would change the equation for going pro. Someone like Ayo would have opportunity as a result of his popularity to make money in college that would not compete for a first round draft choice but might exceed a D league contract. Same would be true for Kofi.
 
#6
The A
Cue automobile dealerships in campustowns across the country.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Cairo, Jaspertucky, AustinIllini and 2 others
#8
So there are some players who are going to be rolling in cash, while the average player continues under the same system???????
Yeah...some people are better than others at things such as basketball. Usually when someone is better at something they either get more pay, bonuses, more recognition.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: sacraig, pvaughn8 and IlliniTwig89
#9
Can’t believe Giorgi wouldn’t be an absolutely great rep in ads in Illinois. Dee would have made a ton.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Flight#33
#10
Can’t believe Giorgi wouldn’t be an absolutely great rep in ads in Illinois. Dee would have made a ton.

At a program like Illinois, I could easily see 5 or more kids a year being able to make some kind of money. Obviously it's going to be heavily weighted at the top but just from last year's team.. Ayo, Kofi, Giorgi, Trent, Feliz, Monte...

I think especially locally, and then in Chicago for Ayo and Peoria for Monte
 
#11
At a program like Illinois, I could easily see 5 or more kids a year being able to make some kind of money. Obviously it's going to be heavily weighted at the top but just from last year's team.. Ayo, Kofi, Giorgi, Trent, Feliz, Monte...

I think especially locally, and then in Chicago for Ayo and Peoria for Monte
It would also serve as advertising for the basketball program
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: AustinIllini
#12
Funny how all it took was a threat from the G-League for the NCAA to make new rules. It’s almost like they are only motivated to take actions to protect themselves rather than to benefit the players. Fortunately, this should ultimately be good for those players who deserve payment (assuming no fine print). It will be interesting to see how quickly schools start assigning “sponsorship directors” to connect students to inflated sponsorship deals. I am glad that they will get the money above the table. Hopefully it doesn’t increase the power gap between blue bloods and the rest of the pack.

I won't believe it's good for the athletes until I see it. The NCAA has been losing in court for a while, and this looks like an attempt to stop the losses and hit back HARD. Look at the list of "Key Restrictions"

Key restrictions
  • Athletes or third parties cannot use a intellectual property (logos, trademarks) from school or conferences in endorsements
  • Schools or conferences cannot make endorsement payments themselves
  • Schools or conferences cannot facilitate or help athletes locate or arrange endorsements
  • Schools cannot use -- or allow boosters to use -- endorsements as a means of paying for enrollment or participation in athletics
I would expect that the best photos are taken in games and practice, for example. How are athletes going to market themselves exclusive of their team? And that last one is a bunch of bs. How are you going to distinguish what boosters are doing? Make a rule and stick with it --intent of the buyer is big ole can of worms. If anything, this is the NCAA stopping reform in it's tracks, with the schools putting their logos on everything to PREVENT the player from having a chance at some revenue. There may be some endorsement deals at the very top end, but it wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA inserts itself into that too.

The NCAA will split the pie with the athletes when hell freezes over and the executives have their heads on a pike. As was famously said when Elvis died, "this changes nothing".
 
#13
Chicago,IL
Yeah...some people are better than others at things such as basketball. Usually when someone is better at something they either get more pay, bonuses, more recognition.

Ah the false equivalency between college sports and real jobs.

The thing they are “better” at is basketball. The reward for that is getting recruited by major college basketball programs, playing time, and maybe getting drafted to play professionally (here or elsewhere in the world).

I am just skeptical about the idea of “stars” being able to make more money in college sports. Let them go the league if their star meter is so high that they can sign ad deals.

I’d be fine with, for example, NCAA video games paying all the athletes used in their games some chunk of money to use their likeness.

But In order to inject money into this, the only way it works to me is that Ayo has to make what Tyler Underwood makes, who has to make what Cole Anthony makes. Otherwise, I just see way too much opportunity for funny business—and if you think Illinois becomes a destination because of the Chicago or Peoria markets...
The blue bloods will become even more enticing to an Ayo or Kofi because their likeness is worth more, they have bigger fan bases more connections in the world of celebrities and star athletes.

One of the examples I saw was the ability to make money from a music album the athlete makes. Calapari has Drake’s number in his phone.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Bucktown
#14
Cary, IL
Ah the false equivalency between college sports and real jobs.

The thing they are “better” at is basketball. The reward for that is getting recruited by major college basketball programs, playing time, and maybe getting drafted to play professionally (here or elsewhere in the world).

I am just skeptical about the idea of “stars” being able to make more money in college sports. Let them go the league if their star meter is so high that they can sign ad deals.

I’d be fine with, for example, NCAA video games paying all the athletes used in their games some chunk of money to use their likeness.

But In order to inject money into this, the only way it works to me is that Ayo has to make what Tyler Underwood makes, who has to make what Cole Anthony makes. Otherwise, I just see way too much opportunity for funny business—and if you think Illinois becomes a destination because of the Chicago or Peoria markets...
The blue bloods will become even more enticing to an Ayo or Kofi because their likeness is worth more, they have bigger fan bases more connections in the world of celebrities and star athletes.

One of the examples I saw was the ability to make money from a music album the athlete makes. Calapari has Drake’s number in his phone.
Devil's advocate, Ayo and Kofi would not be featured the same way at the blue bloods, as they are at UI. I think Illinois is in a good lane, if you are future NBA type, you get plenty of air time, a chance to shine, the Chicago market and a rabid fan base. Just a thought.
 
#15
This seems like a logical solution to me in that if you pay some athletes I believe you would have to pay all athletes in all sports. This allows the stars to be earners in relation to their publicity value rather than the monies going to the NCAA. Don’t believe 6th man at Kentucky will have more value than a star at UI. Am sure there will be negative unforeseen circumstances but the basic idea seems logical to me. Paying everyone the same probably won’t work in a Capitalist society.
 
#16
I think this move could do nothing but help the U of I sports programs, especially men's basketball. The Illini sports programs have a great loyal following with a huge city just north of C-U. It's time for the players to benefit. It just may keep our star players to delay going pro, particularly if there are not yet in line to sign high paying pro contracts.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Ga65
#17
Ah the false equivalency between college sports and real jobs.

The thing they are “better” at is basketball. The reward for that is getting recruited by major college basketball programs, playing time, and maybe getting drafted to play professionally (here or elsewhere in the world).

I am just skeptical about the idea of “stars” being able to make more money in college sports. Let them go the league if their star meter is so high that they can sign ad deals.

I’d be fine with, for example, NCAA video games paying all the athletes used in their games some chunk of money to use their likeness.

But In order to inject money into this, the only way it works to me is that Ayo has to make what Tyler Underwood makes, who has to make what Cole Anthony makes. Otherwise, I just see way too much opportunity for funny business—and if you think Illinois becomes a destination because of the Chicago or Peoria markets...
The blue bloods will become even more enticing to an Ayo or Kofi because their likeness is worth more, they have bigger fan bases more connections in the world of celebrities and star athletes.

One of the examples I saw was the ability to make money from a music album the athlete makes. Calapari has Drake’s number in his phone.

Currently, any student at a university can start a YouTube channel and monetize it... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can monetize their Instagram feed... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can get paid to do advertising... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can start a business of their own and make money... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can get paid for selling the rights to their name and likeness... except athletes.

Currently, any student trying to do any of these things will succeed or fail on their own merits. Why should we apply a different standard to athletes?

Also, how do you define funny business? If this is legal, it is no longer funny business, right?

Example of how ridiculous the current system is: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...be-videos-ncaa-again-plays-villain/530965001/
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: IlliniTarHeel, AustinIllini, Bogey99 and 3 others
#18
Chicago,IL
Currently, any student at a university can start a YouTube channel and monetize it... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can monetize their Instagram feed... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can get paid to do advertising... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can start a business of their own and make money... except athletes.
Currently, any student at a university can get paid for selling the rights to their name and likeness... except athletes.

Currently, any student trying to do any of these things will succeed or fail on their own merits. Why should we apply a different standard to athletes?

Also, how do you define funny business? If this is legal, it is no longer funny business, right?

Example of how ridiculous the current system is: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...be-videos-ncaa-again-plays-villain/530965001/

Because student athletes ARE different. They are competing in intercollegiate sports -- it's not crazy that conference and NCAA rules would apply to/constrain them in a way that Joe Schmoe engineering major doesn't have to worry about.

I know making the NCAA the villain is the "right" view to have, but as that article pointed out, there is a reason for these rules--even if the outcomes can be ridiculous sometimes. The NCAA is certainly deserving of criticism-- and obviously we've been on the receiving end of some seemingly random and ridiculous NCAA decisions. But that doesn't mean they should not at least attempt to have rules to keep schools (frankly, like us) from falling even further behind in the arms race for talent.

And as for funny business--as someone pointed out, the NCAA wants to say "no boosters" - how are you going to police that. And while it may be legal--mobilizing a fan base to buy widgets or music from a recruit/student athlete feels...like funny business. The idea that this will be purely on their own merit will be difficult to achieve. People already complain that they can't have jobs because school and sports is 100 hours a week. Now they have time to run profitable instagram pages and create compelling youtube content that people pay for? No.

I'm not saying student athletes should not receive some sort money--but a system where stars are able to make more than others just seems to be a difficult one to regulate and against the spirit of college athletics. Again, if an athlete's profile is so big that advertisers are willing to pay to use their likeness, they should be able to go pro.
 
#19
. Again, if an athlete's profile is so big that advertisers are willing to pay to use their likeness, they should be able to go pro.
I don’t agree with this as personality can have a larger influence than NBA capability. Dee and Giorgi would be great examples of this. Their popularity has more to do with their personality than their basketball ability.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: IlliniKat91 and Illini0114
#20
Because student athletes ARE different. They are competing in intercollegiate sports -- it's not crazy that conference and NCAA rules would apply to/constrain them in a way that Joe Schmoe engineering major doesn't have to worry about.

I know making the NCAA the villain is the "right" view to have, but as that article pointed out, there is a reason for these rules--even if the outcomes can be ridiculous sometimes. The NCAA is certainly deserving of criticism-- and obviously we've been on the receiving end of some seemingly random and ridiculous NCAA decisions. But that doesn't mean they should not at least attempt to have rules to keep schools (frankly, like us) from falling even further behind in the arms race for talent.

And as for funny business--as someone pointed out, the NCAA wants to say "no boosters" - how are you going to police that. And while it may be legal--mobilizing a fan base to buy widgets or music from a recruit/student athlete feels...like funny business. The idea that this will be purely on their own merit will be difficult to achieve. People already complain that they can't have jobs because school and sports is 100 hours a week. Now they have time to run profitable instagram pages and create compelling youtube content that people pay for? No.

I'm not saying student athletes should not receive some sort money--but a system where stars are able to make more than others just seems to be a difficult one to regulate and against the spirit of college athletics. Again, if an athlete's profile is so big that advertisers are willing to pay to use their likeness, they should be able to go pro.

But why should rules to constrain them include the inability to profit of of their own name and likeness or their own entrepreneurial efforts? I agree that the idea of schools paying athletes is a thorny issue, but taking away a person's right to profit off of their own name and likeness just because they happen to play a sport makes zero sense to me. I've yet to see a compelling reason why this should be the case.

Stars should be able to make more than others. They do in the NBA. They do in the G League. They do in Europe. They do when playing competitive video games. They do when developing software. They do when cooking food. People with higher talent get paid more, regardless of whether they are still in college or not. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: eczerwonka, AustinIllini, Bogey99 and 2 others
#21
Because we all know about the seedy underbelly to college sports (basketball and football). And, no, I don't necessarily think making that stuff that's already going "legal" is necessarily a way to solve the problem.

The classic example is the Alabama booster who is promising to way above market for recruit to play football at Alabama to do an. $100,000 to do one ad where that's clearly not the going rate. This isn't as simple as Zion picking where he goes to college and then setting up a youtube page and hoping for the best.

College basketball isn't the NBA or the G-League or Europe or a software company. If that's the case, then we should just allow schools to pay players outright. You want Ayo, you need to outbid Duke and Kentucky for his services. Oh Kofi blew up his freshman year--the price just went up and now Kansas offering more money. Stars should be able to make more than others--what's the difference?

This paying for likeness thing is essentially one step below that. In a vacuum (or when discussing the "normal" student), it makes all the sense in the world. Let them profit off their likeness--of course. And in an ideal world it would work. Papa Del's wants to use a few of the basketball guys in an ad and pays them for it. Seems simple.

But the resistance to it is because we know it isn't going to work like that...especially for the recruits and athletes that we aspire to have wear the O&B. Letting them profit is certainly more compelling case when you think about Giorgi. But I'm thinking of the Adam Millers of the world--when you start throwing the ability to get cash into certain players' hands under the auspices paying them for their likeness, I think it in all likelihood becomes less wholesome than the Giorgi example.

And as far as it being "good for the program," I'm not so sure. Duke bball has 2.2 million followers on twitter. Illinois basketball has 120k. We're already usually fighting an uphill battle recruiting against them. Now add to the exposure deficit the fact that Duke's exposure could earn you more money than if you go to Champaign.

Should Giorgi suffer because teams might funnel money to Miller through his instagram account? Doesn't seem fair. That's why I think if college players are going to make money, it has to be even across teams and across schools. And the one year rule has to be abolished in basketball. Let those few players that really drive the "pay players" convo make their money right away. Everyone else who generates revenue for the universities and NCAA gets some piece of the pie, and money (or # of wealthy donors, or strength of local economy (the ad rate in Chicago vs Iowa City, for example), or size of fan base) doesn't become a driving factor in where kids choose to go to school.

It's not seedy if it is legal. The reason it is seedy now is because it has to all happen under the table. You are committing a slippery slope fallacy by implying this is one step away from schools outright paying students. We actually don't have any indication that this is one step below schools paying for players. This would be such a sea change in what is allowed that it is hard to make an honest prediction.

Bringing all of this out into the open where all can see makes things more equitable (among high major programs), not less. Even the Duke and Kansas boosters can only afford so many endorsement deals with players. They can't just hand out $100,000 like candy when it doesn't pay for itself (and shilling for cars is a lot less lucrative than Nike sneakers). If a player wants to be paid, there is an argument to be made that they should go somewhere where they can shine to get those deals, not where they will be the 7th man. It makes no difference how many Twitter followers a school has. That's ludicrous.

I don't agree that this is somehow different than any other business. If they want to sell their services (any services) to someone else to make some money, they should be allowed to do so just like any other person as long as that service is not basketball. Their basketball services are already committed to their school. But if they want to sell their face, their humor, or whatever else to make a buck off their name, I still see no compelling reason to disallow that. They're people first, and people should have a right to their own name and likeness.

Meanwhile, how on Earth did you make the jump to this somehow being bad for Giorgi? If Giorgi wants to try to get endorsement deals, be my guest. Everyone should be entitled to go out and earn what the market will bear based on their talent or entertainment value or whatever else the person paying them values.
 
#22
Schools or conferences cannot facilitate or help athletes locate or arrange endorsements

The NCAA pretty much looks the other way at money going to athletes now, certainly for the blue bloods. While Ayo, Kofi, Giorgi or whoever could not be wearing an Illini uniform in ads, he would likely be decked out in orange and blue. This may even the playing field for large schools to some degree. Payments will be above the table, not sure whether recruits could get some sort of advertising gig. Can this expand to recruiting?

Certainly some coach will point out that player X at KU got a 50K endorsement deal. You could be that player next year when you play here. Certainly there will some slush fund providers at most high revenue schools. Not to bring up a sore topic.
 
#23
Ah the false equivalency between college sports and real jobs.

The thing they are “better” at is basketball. The reward for that is getting recruited by major college basketball programs, playing time, and maybe getting drafted to play professionally (here or elsewhere in the world).

I am just skeptical about the idea of “stars” being able to make more money in college sports. Let them go the league if their star meter is so high that they can sign ad deals.

I’d be fine with, for example, NCAA video games paying all the athletes used in their games some chunk of money to use their likeness.

But In order to inject money into this, the only way it works to me is that Ayo has to make what Tyler Underwood makes, who has to make what Cole Anthony makes. Otherwise, I just see way too much opportunity for funny business—and if you think Illinois becomes a destination because of the Chicago or Peoria markets...
The blue bloods will become even more enticing to an Ayo or Kofi because their likeness is worth more, they have bigger fan bases more connections in the world of celebrities and star athletes.

One of the examples I saw was the ability to make money from a music album the athlete makes. Calapari has Drake’s number in his phone.

This thinking is, IMHO, so antiquated that it doesn't deserve a response. It reads like someone believes that the 1900s views on amatuerism should apply to the multi-billion dollar industry of college sports of 2020, and that exploiting that amateur labor is the God given right of those bastions of integrity, the NCAA.
 
        Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Sizzler22, DReq, IlliniKat91 and 3 others
#24
I'm not saying student athletes should not receive some sort money--but a system where stars are able to make more than others just seems to be a difficult one to regulate and against the spirit of college athletics. Again, if an athlete's profile is so big that advertisers are willing to pay to use their likeness, they should be able to go pro.

I am leaning toward agreement here Perhaps split the revenue between all a team's players? The NCAA can not currently enforce its own rules, and now a new set of rules to govern personal branding? Would individual players have contracts with the wide range of vendors who engage in athletic branding???
 
#25
Didn’t this name/likeness thing originate with the $$$ being generated by the video game industry? Now the discussion seems to have turned to endorsement deals of various sorts. While I can see the continued validity of the former, I’m not sure I see it for the latter (except for maybe those few talents that seem to pop up every few years or so). Guess we’ll see, eh?

Also wondering about the ability of the player to benefit from the school logo (uniform) they might be wearing. Don’t the schools still own the rights to that aspect (and thus, any revenue that accrues from its use)?