NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness

#1
Baltimore, MD
Update- NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/us/ncaa-athletes-compensation/index.html


Here is the article from ESPN, a committee of "top decision makers" in the NCAA is meeting today to discuss. I think a good point made within the article is that the NCAA dragged it's feet so long on this that it's likely too late for them to decide how to implement the rules (oversight/restrictions). The California law passed with no real restrictions or oversight on endorsements, etc. Article also mentioned that dozens of other states are considering legislation similar to that of California and there's a push for a federal law as well. The NCAA really screwed this up by kicking the can down the road for so long and not addressing it, not that surprises anyone. Michael Drake, president of Ohio State University and chairman of the NCAA's board of governors said that the NCAA is willing to evolve, which is laughable considering what it took to get them to even start to "evolve".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#2
you feel me, dog?
Elmhurst
Here is the article from ESPN, a committee of "top decision makers" in the NCAA is meeting today to discuss. I think a good point made within the article is that the NCAA dragged it's feet so long on this that it's likely too late for them to decide how to implement the rules (oversight/restrictions). The California law passed with no real restrictions or oversight on endorsements, etc. Article also mentioned that dozens of other states are considering legislation similar to that of California and there's a push for a federal law as well. The NCAA really screwed this up by kicking the can down the road for so long and not addressing it, not that surprises anyone. Michael Drake, president of Ohio State University and chairman of the NCAA's board of governors said that the NCAA is willing to evolve, which is laughable considering what it took to get them to even start to "evolve".
Willing to evolve: lol.
 
#3
It's about time. I don't think there should be a pay for play, but getting paid for name, image, etc. do for it.
 
#5
Chicago,IL
It's about time. I don't think there should be a pay for play, but getting paid for name, image, etc. do for it.
At the risk of dead horse--pay for play seems to be a better solution. Every athlete "paid" the same amount of money across schools regardless of individual "stature." The free market approach just continues and legitimizes the problems we know exist--the oft-cited hypothetical of the Tuscaloosa car dealership promising top recruits a local ad spot for 100k year after year is now above board, which just further cements blue blood status.

I was at an event with Jay Bilas on a panel and someone in the audience raised that--the Dukes, KUs, Alabamas, OSUs of the world funneling money through these "likeness/image" channels. His response was that [less "storied" school] has the same appeal for the individual athlete, so it's all fair. But that's disingenuous. The idea that this will create a level playing field--5 star Chicago recruit could get paid for his likeness at Illinois...or at Oregon (Nike U)--is crazy.

If we're going to give college athletes money, Blake Hayes should get what Reggie Corbin gets. Otherwise, it gets way too messy and invites the same/more corruption/haves v. have nots into college sports.
 
Likes: jmilt7
#6
Cary, IL
At the risk of dead horse--pay for play seems to be a better solution. Every athlete "paid" the same amount of money across schools regardless of individual "stature." The free market approach just continues and legitimizes the problems we know exist--the oft-cited hypothetical of the Tuscaloosa car dealership promising top recruits a local ad spot for 100k year after year is now above board, which just further cements blue blood status.

I was at an event with Jay Bilas on a panel and someone in the audience raised that--the Dukes, KUs, Alabamas, OSUs of the world funneling money through these "likeness/image" channels. His response was that [less "storied" school] has the same appeal for the individual athlete, so it's all fair. But that's disingenuous. The idea that this will create a level playing field--5 star Chicago recruit could get paid for his likeness at Illinois...or at Oregon (Nike U)--is crazy.

If we're going to give college athletes money, Blake Hayes should get what Reggie Corbin gets. Otherwise, it gets way too messy and invites the same/more corruption/haves v. have nots into college sports.
The problem with this, schools cannot afford to pay players for men's lacrosse or girls golf the same that they could pay for football or men's basketball (women's bball at some schools could pay too). The proposed pay for image, is not paid by the schools. It will come from people cheering for the school, the alums, fans and local businesses. Last I checked, our alums and fans run some pretty big operations. I think we could compete on this level, without being worried about "being big enough to punish to show toughness, but not a sacred cow." Or, maybe I am completely naive....total possibility.
 
Likes: IlliniKat91
#8
Stylin' and Profilin'
Just means athletes will make money above the table, while continuing to make it below. "I'm already making $100k in endorsements, so I don't need that extra $100k (insert blue blood) is offering to funnel me". - said no top recruit, ever. Even in the future.

But, if it's treated as a separate issue, good for the players. It ain't a fix for the illegal and unfair recruiting landscape, I guarantee it.
 
#9
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
pay for play seems to be a better solution. Every athlete "paid" the same amount of money across schools regardless of individual "stature." The free market approach just continues and legitimizes the problems we know exist
I don't think there is any problem with the free market here. The free market dictates what basically all of us make (ignoring completely legitimate debates about wage stagnation due to monopolistic behavior and whatnot). Why should college athletes be any different?

the oft-cited hypothetical of the Tuscaloosa car dealership promising top recruits a local ad spot for 100k year after year is now above board, which just further cements blue blood status.
Maybe this would be a legitimate concern if, you know, Champaign, IL or Bowling Green, OH or any other town didn't also have car dealerships that could do the same thing. The bigger potential problem is that schools located in larger metropolitan areas (think Minnesota, Texas, Arizona State, etc.) will have a much larger local "donor" base to draw from.

I was at an event with Jay Bilas on a panel and someone in the audience raised that--the Dukes, KUs, Alabamas, OSUs of the world funneling money through these "likeness/image" channels. His response was that [less "storied" school] has the same appeal for the individual athlete, so it's all fair. But that's disingenuous. The idea that this will create a level playing field--5 star Chicago recruit could get paid for his likeness at Illinois...or at Oregon (Nike U)--is crazy.
But it's not. Oregon has a large corporate benefactor willing to play the game right now, but once this becomes explicitly allowed, what's to stop Shad Khan or any wealthy Illinois alumnus from doing exactly the same thing now that it isn't such a gray (or outright black) area?

If we're going to give college athletes money, Blake Hayes should get what Reggie Corbin gets. Otherwise, it gets way too messy and invites the same/more corruption/haves v. have nots into college sports.
Should the Lakers play Troy Daniels the same as LeBron James so it doesn't get too messy? Should LeBron not be allowed to take endorsement deals because other players aren't getting those offers? Should Gates Abrams of the National Lacrosse League get paid the same as LeBron James of the NBA?

If anything, the conclusion should be that there needs to be some kind of "salary cap" or "wealth tax" (e.g. MLB) to help keep things level, but the idea that every college athlete should be paid exactly the same is the wrong conclusion.
 
#10
Chicago,IL
People have made some valid and interesting points.

My refrain has always been we need to settle on the problem before we can fix it.

-Do we think athletes are "employees" (I think that's a terrible argument and a clear reach)
-Are we upset about the "poor student athlete" who could barely afford to buy a sandwich
-Are we upset about the non-revenue sports--they work just as hard?
-Are we upset at the exploitation of (mostly) poor athletes who get this opportunity, play in front of sold out crowds, sacrifice their bodies, and all we can give them is a bachelors degree in an "easy" major because of their practice schedule and most will never see a paycheck from professional sports. This is a huge earning potential window for them.
-Are we upset that NCAA generates billions and the athletes get nothing and something about that seems unethical/morally wrong about that (similar to the previous point).

I think it's the last point, and that's what makes this such a hard problem to solve. We feel uneasy looking at the discrepancy between a billion dollar org and the student athletes making (almost) nothing - a free education is worth something to me, but I get it. They aren't labor. The idea of the poor athlete who can't afford a meal is hard to hold up in an era of social media and the facilities arms war.

College sports is different than pro sports. It's different than our day-to-day jobs. It's different than development leagues or an amateur sports league. It's a unique problem.

To me, the best solution I've heard-- to keep parity, which is something I believe makes college sports great--is to break off the piece of the NCAA equally to all schools. Every player gets money placed in a trust account given to them at their departure from the school. For this to work I think you have to let basketball players go to the league. If you really want to make money off your likeness, go to the league. (I know that's more difficult for football). For everyone else, you get the same amount -- let's say 10k/year in a trust. Now when you leave--whether for the NBA, grad school, your first real job-- you have something to show for your dedication to the sport. 40k plus a degree if you choose to start off your post-college life is great. Yes, it doesn't necessarily solve for the illegalities plaguing college sports now. But even with those, you have a product that we all enjoy for the most part.

Start introducing payments to specific talented players, and you just exacerbate the thing we tend not to like about college sports--teams are able to load up even more than they are now. Yes, Illinois has a fan base with money/opportunities just like UNC and Michigan and Alabama do. The difference is, those schools have more than just alumni that want to see them succeed. The people/money supporting UK basketball or USC football is just different than Khan and few other loyal alumni.

(IDK what to do about non-revenue sports)
 
Likes: jmilt7
#11
My biggest concern is that drawing kids to come here will get even tougher. Big bussiness A wants a player to go to OSU because they get more face time. Not saying that isn't already a huge driving force (i.e. exposure), but now it theoretically the difference between 0 dollars and 0 dollars. If an endorsement company says they'll pay you 10x more to play for another team, I don't know many who would turn that down.
 
#12
The whole profiting off your own likeness thing is something I see both sides of the argument to, and I don't think it means the skies falling in college sports.

One move I'd like to see is some sort of retirement package given to every student athlete on scholarship, split evenly per school per level. Maybe it isn't much (~1k per year), and maybe make it something more pension structured (though I'll admit to not knowing details on anything that would resemble something like this), forcing them to do nothing with it until they reach say 60, that money will grow into at least something to show for the time they gave up to make the school/ the NCAA money.

I set the likelihood of that happening at about 0%, but I think it would at least give the NCAA something to hang their hat on, and help the kids out a little.
 
#13
Michigan
College sports is different than pro sports. It's different than our day-to-day jobs. It's different than development leagues or an amateur sports league. It's a unique problem.
Could not disagree more with the above characterization. Sports is simply one form of the entertainment industry. The money that flows into sports has everything to do with the entertainment part, and very little to do with the administrators who try to keep the labor cost free. It's true that the college rivalries add to the entertainment, but it's still about winning in one of the most competitive US sports, and watching the players develop into NBA/pro caliber. The conference commissioners who market and protect their properties make huge sums, as do the coaches who work they way up the winning ladder. Pretty much everything follows free market principles, except the strange legacy of amateurism, that left virtually every sport over the years in that other legacy event, the Olympics.

The NCAA business model needs to change, but will not happen willingly. And the result has been more and more scandals proving it's a free market that can't be stopped, but instead has been covered up for the benefit of a certain few.
 
#14
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
-Do we think athletes are "employees" (I think that's a terrible argument and a clear reach)
...
-Are we upset at the exploitation of (mostly) poor athletes who get this opportunity, play in front of sold out crowds, sacrifice their bodies, and all we can give them is a bachelors degree in an "easy" major because of their practice schedule and most will never see a paycheck from professional sports. This is a huge earning potential window for them.
-Are we upset that NCAA generates billions and the athletes get nothing and something about that seems unethical/morally wrong about that (similar to the previous point).
Personally, I think these three issues are all one and the same.

Whether you consider them employees depends on what you consider to be an employee. Currently, they are not because they are not paid a wage. The debate is over whether they should be considered employees.

Right now, (some) athletic departments, the NCAA, and licensed merchants make an absolute boatload of money off of college athletes and their coaches. Coaches get paid huge money and can do endorsements. Players get "an education," and in many cases that education is worth the paper it is printed on and yet the NCAA does nothing about this to protect their bottom line (see: North Carolina). There is a major discrepancy there.

Meanwhile, you have some absolutely despicable situations like Nick Saban sitting there and extolling the virtues of the amateur athlete, then go and cash his $8.6 million paycheck from Alabama and untold sums of money from his own endorsements for Aflac, Mercedes, and local banks. He's a particularly egregious example (in my opinion), but these issues pop up across the board.

-Are we upset about the non-revenue sports--they work just as hard?
I, for one, am not. I think there is value in the non-revenue sports, but that doesn't mean that they bring the same value back for their stakeholders, so why should they be compensated at the same rate? "Investors" put more money where they think they will get more returns. This true whether the investment is a sports franchise, a Fortune 500 company, a small mom-and-pop shop, or the stock market. In life, people don't all get the same thing.

College sports is different than pro sports. It's different than our day-to-day jobs. It's different than development leagues or an amateur sports league. It's a unique problem.
I think in an idealistic way, perhaps this is true. In a day-to-day, operational sense, this is in no way true. The idea of the amateur athlete sounds wonderful, but in practice, these athletes are generating billions of dollars for the economy and getting (almost) nothing in return.
 
#15
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
This just dropped. It seems the NCAA panel has decided to allow athletes to profit off of their name and likeness. This was the only sensible decision even without the California law. The only question now is whether the horse is too far out of the barn for this to be (hopefully fairly) regulated to maintain competitive fairness. I don't trust the NCAA to regulate things fairly anyway, but maybe this is a step in the right direction for them.

https://apnews.com/70081cee181a447ebe97727441b5e509
 
#16
This just dropped. It seems the NCAA panel has decided to allow athletes to profit off of their name and likeness. This was the only sensible decision even without the California law. The only question now is whether the horse is too far out of the barn for this to be (hopefully fairly) regulated to maintain competitive fairness. I don't trust the NCAA to regulate things fairly anyway, but maybe this is a step in the right direction for them.

https://apnews.com/70081cee181a447ebe97727441b5e509
In my opinion, this just makes what was going on below board above board. The incentive to do things under the table disappears, especially since basically all of that cash was exchanging hands illegally and not being reported. All payments that exist now are probably some form of money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax fraud, etc.

Now people can do it above board and not risk the legal blow back. It might even decrease the amount of money in college sports, since there's taxes and reporting involved now. That might be a little to idealistic, but this move is definitely better than the crimes being committed now.
 
#18
To me, the best solution I've heard-- to keep parity, which is something I believe makes college sports great
What parity? In basketball, 16 of the last 20 championships have been won by teams currently ranked in the top 11 of the AP poll. UConn has 3 of the other 4 and then Syracuse. There are over 350 teams in D1 basketball, 15 of them run the show. In football 15 of the last 20 championships have been won by teams currently ranked in the top 11 of the AP poll. The same teams are at the top all of the time right now.
 
#21
Michigan
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/467993-burr-promises-bill-to-tax-scholarships-of-student-athletes-who-profit-off

I LOL'd when I saw what state he represents :sneaky::unsure::unsure:

2 simple questions for him - do students on academic scholarships have their scholarship taxed if they get an outside job? Why or why not is that fair?
I hate to play the race card, but something about this stance has me concerned about his motives. Regardless of why he's going after the scholarship part, I hope it passes and North Carolina never gets another decent bball player.
 
Likes: FiveStar
#22
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/467993-burr-promises-bill-to-tax-scholarships-of-student-athletes-who-profit-off

I LOL'd when I saw what state he represents :sneaky::unsure::unsure:

2 simple questions for him - do students on academic scholarships have their scholarship taxed if they get an outside job? Why or why not is that fair?
The better solution is to require students who profit in this way to pay back part or all of their scholarships. Equivalently, maybe they just aren't eligible for full rides if they're paid enough through this route. The savings would go into the general tuition account, too, so it would benefit the academic side of the house, which would be nice.

I'm sure it will take some growing pains to find an equilibrium, though.
 
Likes: jagaf22
#23
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
I hate to play the race card, but something about this stance has me concerned about his motives. Regardless of why he's going after the scholarship part, I hope it passes and North Carolina never gets another decent bball player.
He's a US congressman so presumably any bill would be federal tax.
 
#24
I'm sure it will take some growing pains to find an equilibrium, though.
They have a full year to grow into those pains....a year to understand the nuances that need ironed out, and also the understanding that some sort of "cap" should be placed on pay, otherwise the rich just still run the asylum by having more $$$ to throw around legally now.
 
Last edited: