NCAA: student athletes can profit from their likeness
- Thread starter rjtide
- Start date
This is going to be such a train wreck. The NCAA is just caving to California, but the California legislation doesn't allow for any restrictions. There's no way to make all parties happy here.
Edit: "The board directed the three separate divisions of college sports to immediately begin figuring out how to update their rules in a way that maintains a distinction between college and professional sports. The board members said in a release Tuesday that all changes should make sure student-athletes have the same opportunities to make money as all other students, maintain a priority of the education and the collegiate experience, and that rules are "transparent, focused and enforceable" and do not create a competitive imbalance."
So in other words they're going to try to do the impossible. Good luck with that.
Edit: "The board directed the three separate divisions of college sports to immediately begin figuring out how to update their rules in a way that maintains a distinction between college and professional sports. The board members said in a release Tuesday that all changes should make sure student-athletes have the same opportunities to make money as all other students, maintain a priority of the education and the collegiate experience, and that rules are "transparent, focused and enforceable" and do not create a competitive imbalance."
So in other words they're going to try to do the impossible. Good luck with that.
Last edited:
If Gary Danielson is on it I'm turning the commentary off or I'll have to hear about a missed targeting call the whole game.
Get ready for the 5,634 interpretations of "Likeness" -- these are the same people who are currently examining hardship cases....
The Tasmanian Cheetah is about to make out like a bandit......if he stays his senior year.........OR Slade OR perhaps it's Billingsley that will benefit.....
The Tasmanian Cheetah is about to make out like a bandit......if he stays his senior year.........OR Slade OR perhaps it's Billingsley that will benefit.....
The big problem here is people have been fed a lot of disinformation to the point that they think there's money here that really isn't.
Athletic departments are not profitable, they are subsidized. Billions of dollars are being spent, it's going into hundreds of millions in facilities per school, around 100K per student athlete per year, etc... So the underlying finances are misunderstood generally. They schools aren't taking money from the athletes and blowing it on random things, they're taking it from the athletes and spending it on the athletes, and then they are taking money from the boosters and the government and spending it on the athletes as well. The NCAA game settlement produced peanuts, a completely insignificant amount, because the money really wasn't there. Just going back to the XFL thing, these guys are making under 30K base pay, and if they don't get hurt or get cut they're going to get about 55K. Just don't show that to the washed up college football player griping about how little his scholarship was worth...
Aside from inducements to play for teams, there's really not much money to be made. Just look at former Alabama stars, what do they get for the most part? AJ does some local ads for dealerships, he's not getting big money. What we're talking about here is either a way for boosters to buy players for teams, or if it isn't that, it will be almost meaningless for almost every single college athlete. Even in the Tuscaloosa area, who is going to have big money to offer endorsement deals to athletes? Nick Saban's Mercedes dealership?
To give an example, the local college football team here, South Alabama... I don't know a single player by name. Not one. I don't think most people in the city do. Even the coach barely does any commercials, so who is going to be signing their players to legitimate endorsement deals? No one is. The only deals they'd ever be offered was a deal from some overzealous booster or someone wishing to influence the player in some way. So, no matter what deal comes out of this, there's going to be a lot of disappointed South Alabama football players when they realized the rules have changed but nothing improved for them.
A professional player has years to build his brand, to become a household name. Most college football players are unknown to the average household. Heck, my wife found a stack of autographed Senior Bowl cards. I'm a college football fan, they are some of the best college football players in the nation... I still didn't know a lot of their names. Almost all of them are nearly worthless. Unless you're on a Heisman Watch list or something, you would be of very little value for a legitimate endorsement deal.
So, either what we end up with is just an easier way for boosters to buy players, a system to influence the players, or we have something that means nothing for 99% of the athletes. Either way, there's going to be a lot of people unhappy about that. The other option, I guess I might as well address that, would be revenue collected and distributed in such a manner that all it amounts to is a slightly larger stipend. If so many people aren't happy with the stipend now I doubt a little bit more is going to change their minds.
I've said it before, but this endorsements route is one of the worst ways to go about this in my opinion.
Last edited:
Maybe some see it one way but I always thought it was about what is ethical and/or normative under our generally understood rights in classical liberalism.
There may be significant money in it or not but that does not matter much to me. Conceding your rights to personal likeness monetization should never been a part of the bargain to participate in college athletics. It opens up a huge can of worms but the system will just have to cope with it and grow.
There may be significant money in it or not but that does not matter much to me. Conceding your rights to personal likeness monetization should never been a part of the bargain to participate in college athletics. It opens up a huge can of worms but the system will just have to cope with it and grow.
So how many “ former Bama fans” ID tags should I make for members of this site since the NCAA made a rational decision to the CA law *** blue ***
You are missing the voluntary, or should I say voluntarist aspect of this. I do believe in classic liberalism, however in this respect it has to do with being compelled to do something or not. Do they have to play college sports? Is this a choice they are making? It is obviously voluntary, I participated in amateur high school sports and did so willingly. I also worked as a bat boy for free when I was a kid, then later did so professionally. It's ok to not get paid for everything.
It is a perversion of free market ideals to argue that everything has to be for sale. A free market, those principles merely mean that I have the choice as to whether or not I sell something. In this respect, a college athlete has always had that choice. No one ever prevented them from selling their likeness. They only had to choose between doing that and continued participation in college sports. That is all a choice. Ironically the third parties trying to take away the choice are most in violation of classic liberalism.
That's a funny way to say completely capitulated. The NCAA has no leverage now, they just bowed completely to California.
Last edited:
I'm in Mobile, don't know a single South Alabama player....don't even remember the coaches name. They've gotten worse since Joey Jones is gone.
This ruling though...is going to hurt the sport we love to watch. If I understand it right, the players can profit off their merchandise, their name, can get some type of endorsement etc. Are they allowed to do commercials, say nationally or locally? Someone like Tua, everyone knows who he is, I assume he would be able to make a ton of money while being QB at Bama if this rule was in force right now. But someone like the long snapper?....or even another star on the team, say Najee, who doesn't get as much publicity, or an offensive lineman that gets no publicity.....wouldn't this cause internal team strife....cause some stars to phone it in?
Can boosters offer money competing with other schools boosters? It becomes an arms race unlike anything before in what is now not amateur sports. The schools that turn an athletic profit and have huge money from boosters will further distance themselves from unprofitable schools with less interested boosters.
Most schools don't even make a profit in sports...how is this a good thing. Alabama makes a profit because of how massive the football program is.....but does make a profit in basketball as well. This will eventually break NCAA sports into the actual Power 5 and a much lower Group of 5 that just can't dream of competing....and I mean making a new division to include FBS-Group and FBS-Power.
Thanks California
This ruling though...is going to hurt the sport we love to watch. If I understand it right, the players can profit off their merchandise, their name, can get some type of endorsement etc. Are they allowed to do commercials, say nationally or locally? Someone like Tua, everyone knows who he is, I assume he would be able to make a ton of money while being QB at Bama if this rule was in force right now. But someone like the long snapper?....or even another star on the team, say Najee, who doesn't get as much publicity, or an offensive lineman that gets no publicity.....wouldn't this cause internal team strife....cause some stars to phone it in?
Can boosters offer money competing with other schools boosters? It becomes an arms race unlike anything before in what is now not amateur sports. The schools that turn an athletic profit and have huge money from boosters will further distance themselves from unprofitable schools with less interested boosters.
Most schools don't even make a profit in sports...how is this a good thing. Alabama makes a profit because of how massive the football program is.....but does make a profit in basketball as well. This will eventually break NCAA sports into the actual Power 5 and a much lower Group of 5 that just can't dream of competing....and I mean making a new division to include FBS-Group and FBS-Power.
Thanks California
Meh, I heard from many on here that the playoffs would ruin college football... college football has never been better than the last 5 years in the playoff era. Change is necessary to survive.
As the California law is worded, not only can boosters do that, but there's nothing that can be put in place to prevent it.
That's where this was such a huge fail by the NCAA. They took away their ability to play hardball with California and force them into any sort of negotiation. They just said alright, they're pros now, let's write some rules. But, California doesn't have to do anything at all. If they completely approve they might rewrite their law to coincide with those rules. When it the last time you've seen California repeal an intrusive law though?
Just look at what the Republican party did with Obamacare. They ran on repeal and replace, had complete control, and still couldn't get it done. So people who believe California is going to go along with what ever the NCAA has planned are being really, really, really optimistic.
I didn't say it would ruin college football, but what has it helped? College bowl games got damaged, that's for sure. Conference championship games lost importance. Heck, there's an article out right now that says Alabama shouldn't play Tua because a 'Bama loss wouldn't matter. That's the new reality but also a completely different discussion.
This is about the very foundation of college sports. The magnitude is completely different.
Last edited:
I agree, and that's what's going to kill the game.
Think USCw has already been in Bryce Young's ear about the endorsement opportunities in Los Angeles vs. Tuscaloosa?
If you read their statement, it is clear that they capitulated because Congress was going to force their hand. Yes, California went first. But because other states were following CA with their own versions, Congress decided to step in to avoid having different rules from one state to another. Congress was going to require the NCAA to allow this or lose their anti-trust exemption.
So, yes, the NCAA capitulated, but in a way that still allows them to write the rules instead of any particular state or Congress. I'd say that is a win for the NCAA, wouldn't you?
Latest threads
-
Political Meme - Cartoon/Joke Thread...Part XX- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 2
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0