Yes, I was just returning to the board to declare my previous post complete NCAA (and AP, too, kinda) bullshit. The assholes running big time college sports haven’t done a concrete thing to advance player rights. They’ve essentially issued a statement that “times are changing as long as nothing substantive actually does.”
Assuming “you” is the NCAA, er, yes, they will let you have at least some control. For example, I don’t see any licensing agreement where the person “paying for the license” gets any sort of benefit from the school as a result will be allowed - otherwise, it smacks of the school paying the player, possibly with money laundering thrown in. Also, I doubt the schools will be allowed to pay the athletes for their rights.
I almost added, “What stops a school from requiring that all licensing income must be turned over to the school as a condition of playing?”, but I answered my own question: two things that I can think of - either (a) another team will mention, “We won’t do this to you!” in its recruiting, or (b) all of the schools have this policy, in which case, it’s a collusion lawsuit waiting to happen.
There’s one thing I haven’t seen mentioned very much. Most of the talk about this involves “third party licensing” (usually in terms of the fine line between that and boosters paying the athletes directly), but will the athletes be allowed to “license themselves”? For example, can somebody set up a table at a show somewhere and sell his own autograph?
My position is that a “full scholarship” should be in place until the recipient completes his or her education. In other words, even when the individual’s collegiate eligibility is exhausted, that person should be allowed a complete free ride until graduation as long as that person is taking 12 or more credits per semester and maintaining a “C” average. This will immensely help the many college athletes who are not good enough to continue as pros and will have to establish careers and earn money in other professions.
So the newest part of the NCAA’s strategy is to take this out of the hands of the states: NCAA: ‘Highly probable’ Congress passes athlete comp rules.
So they are sticking with their business model: engaging in state-sponsored restraint of trade and monopolistic practices and now attempting to solidify that hold by getting the federal government to declare college sports as something special and deserving of it’s status as a cartel which cannot be regulated by anyone but the federal government.
As opposed to what - letting the schools pay their athletes (read: their football and men’s basketball players) whatever they want? What’s next - getting rid of any requirement that the athletes even have to attend the school (which, some people believe, already exists for all intents and purposes for one-and-dones once their fall semester ends)?
I think what Emmert is hoping for is a single set of rules, as opposed to 51 of them which would probably just end up with the best players going to the state with the least restrictive rules, the way corporations flock to Delaware. Would it be that much of a problem if everybody used, say, California’s laws?
As opposed to not engaging in state-sponsored restraint of trade and monopolistic practices AND not further attempting to solidify their position legally and culturally as “approved” exploiters of youth.
NCAA moves toward allowing athletes to be paid sponsors
The part I bolded seems to be problem, IMO. It’s kind of saying “we have to approve your deal” and IMO that’s not gonna fly: the athletes should not be the NCAA’s wage slaves.
The NCAA has every right to make sure that a “sponsorship deal” isn’t some collusion between the sponsor and the school. Anything that smacks of the school paying any of its athletes, especially if it is laundered through a sponsor, should be punished.
What does that have to do with “fair market value”? :dubious:
I mean why quote me if you’re not actually going to reply to the point that I raised?
It took until 1992 for the Olympics to allow pros. Before that they had pros in some sports like track, they just pretended they were amateurs. For Tennis I think it was in the mid 60s when they allowed pros in the major tourneys such as US Open, Wimbledon, etc.
The NCAA trying to police fair market values is nonsensical. Let the schools and the boosters compensate them any way and amount they want. Paying people what they’re worth is the kind of thing that will Make America Great Again.
That’s what I mean: it’s just another way for the NCAA to try and control the players. Besides, the players can decide for themselves what their market value is for any particular endorsement. Maybe they want $1,000,000 from McDonald’s but will do a charity thing for free; that’s their right IMO.
From McDonald’s is one thing. From a McDonald’s franchise owner that “just happens” to get a luxury box in the stadium for free from the athletic department is another. That’s why the NCAA needs to provide at least a slight amount of oversight.
And the school paying the female people the same as the male people if the school receives any federal aid is what Title IX is all about. Expect every women’s basketball player at a school to head to the nearest court of law if any male player gets paid so much as penny one from the school, or even by somebody who receives a benefit from the school. That’s why there has to be a completely clean break between the schools and the money.
IMO, what there really needs to be is a completely clean break between the big money football and men’s basketball teams and the schools - except that the teams can license the school’s colors/logos/nicknames, and rent the campus stadiums/areans for their home games. This has the added advantage of getting rid of academic ineligibility.
I don’t see any compelling argument here, but if I take it you’re invoking Title IX somehow (as you did following this in your post), well, that has nothing to do with the NCAA and is a violation of federal law, so it would be the feds’ business. No reason for the NCAA to have any involvement whatsoever.
Again: this has nothing to do with fair market value, which is what I am talking about.
That part had nothing to do with Title IX.
Define “fair market value.” It is not “whatever the sponsor is willing to pay in exchange for a benefit of some sort from the school.” However, without NCAA oversight, that is exactly what it becomes. “I paid her what I thought her name was worth! Is it my fault that the school ‘just happened to’ give me volleyball season tickets on the center line?”
Then I find it a less-than-compelling argument.
“Fair market value” for the athlete is “whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc.”
That’s it. That’s the only thing that matters as far as fair market value is concerned, just as with any other athlete or celebrity or actor, etc. And the NCAA has no business “overseeing” that: it’s the business of the athlete and whoever is paying them.
“Whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc.” paid for out of their own pocket? I agree - and I think the NCAA does as well.
“Whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc. with any sort of assistance or benefit from the school” is not - this is inflated value - and that is what the NCAA wants to oversee. At least, it better be - you’re right in that the NCAA shouldn’t be allowed to set a cap on this sort of thing.
If the schools agree among themselves that they want strict limits on direct compensation, that’s one thing. They do not have the right to regulate commercial relationships between their athletes and third parties.
NCAA board supports name, image and likeness compensation
Are they?
Here’s the press release from the NCAA.
The way I read that last bit, a school could not say to a recruit “come play at Hypothetical University like Fictional Player did”. Am I wrong?
Oh, and there’s still this pesky bit of controlling behavior:
I didn’t see this in the NCAA press release. The only “guardrails” I see are:
[ul]
[li]No name, image and likeness activities that would be considered pay for play;[/li][li]No school or conference involvement;[/li][li]No use of name, image and likeness for recruiting by schools or boosters;[/li][li]Regulation of agents and advisors.[/li][/ul]
Noticeably missing: any mention of the NCAA setting limits on how much someone can make.
You do bring up a good point; if the athlete owns their name rights, can the school use it in recruiting? I seriously doubt the NCAA would ever allow an athlete to get away with, “If you want to mention my name in recruiting, you have to pay for the rights - say, $100,000/season?”
For that matter, if a school shows a photo of an athlete in uniform in a game on its website, or in recruiting brochures, is that illegal use of the athlete’s image (the rules would require that there be no identification of the athlete’s school in any use of his name/image/likeness)?