bill to be introduced Thursday that would re-define

amateur athletics. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this.

from the article:

Rep. Mark Walker (R., N.C.) will introduce a bill Thursday—likely through the Ways and Means committee—that would amend the definition of a qualified amateur sports organization in the U.S. tax code. In the new definition, a body seeking to be defined as a qualified amateur sports organization would be banned from “prohibiting or substantially restricting the use of an athlete’s name, image and likeness.”

-------

He also wants to make one thing clear. He is not suggesting schools pay players. He is merely proposing a removal of the barriers that keep others from paying players*. This is similar to what happened to Olympic sports between 1968 and 1992, when rules were gradually changed by various international federations until pro athletes were allowed to compete in the games. In 1955, then-IOC president Avery Brundage said, “We can only rely on the support of those who believe in the principles of fair play and sportsmanship embodied in the amateur code in our efforts to prevent the games from being used by individuals, organizations or nations for ulterior motives.” This is very similar to what NCAA leaders said in their defense in O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. The rules, the NCAA officials and conference commissioners have said, exist to protect the athletes from being exploited.

-----------

Walker, by the way, does not want to force the schools and the NCAA to completely open this market. He’d prefer if they did, but he’d be fine with progress. If they want to establish trusts that athletes can tap when they leave school, he would understand. If they want to establish some limits, he’d understand. “I’m not telling you how you need to resolve it,” he says, “but what I am telling you is that you can’t violate these young adults’ rights any longer.”

Click here for link at https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/03/11/mark-walker-n

I've changed my mind on this

I think players should be able to "profit" from their likeness. But everyone should realize that some players might make the maximum if there is a cap, and some might make zero.

Athletes will also get a head start on how the IRS treats significant income.

The biggest downside to this is the recruiting advantage that the power programs have will probably get bigger.

I'm totally against this

This is just a way for schools to funnel money to kids. They'll find them autograph shows, commercials, endorsements - whatever in order to get them paid.

Either you're an amateur or you're not.

Schools already funnel money to players and their families

Via boosters. Who cares at this point.

somehow that doesn't happen in the NFL

I wonder why?

I'm 100% for it.

The athletes aren't amateurs and haven't been for a long time. They are employees of the universities and should be entitled to whatever compensation they can get.

The problem is you are talking about a select few.

I think that is where people get lost on this. What are you really talking about maybe a 100 kids that are gonna benefit. You gonna pay the qb from eastern Michigan anything? I sure wouldn't.

how is that a problem?

I think that you can't see the forest through the trees.

That's not the problem, that's the benefit--the market will determine who gets the endorsement deals and there isn't going to be some shady bagman willing to pay the 5th string center 50k for an autograph.

The bagman stuff you mentioned wont stop anyway .

Now they just say hey we're gonna pay you above board and under the table! You can hear them now in the SEC, okay guys, we can stop cheating now. Good try though.

perhaps, but for the schools like ND and Northwestern

and places where they are serious about academics the kids won't have to completely go without and I would argue that the qb/star player at ND would have even more demand as a pitchman than most other schools.

Surely any school that can find $400M+ to add club seats

and has long lines at their bookstore every gameday, will have opportunities for some of their athletes to profit from their likenesses if that becomes allowed by the NCAA.

anything for the lads! *

You make a lot of good points. I just get worried

That it could get out of hand I guess.

I would imagine that the ability for everyone to get paid

will likely mean that very few actually will.

It's not already out of hand? *

That was my thought as well. $50k to put the starting QB

on a banner around campus! sounds like a fair price to me. 100K at Bama! Schools will now have sales teams selling sponsorships to pay the players. sounds like a great idea!

actually, that does kind of sound like a fair price

if someone wanted to pay you 50k to put your image and likeness on a banner somewhere would you turn it down?

I will also note that you guys didn't make it to the end of the article (or the end of my post) where they discuss being able to find limits for this.

Bill who? *

S. Preston, Esq. *

Friends of Bill W. *

I'll drink to them. *

Does this mean my kids may get to play NCAA Football

on their Playstation? Well, and maybe me too. ;)

Yes, but

the ND offense only allows WR screens and slow-ass hand-offs. And the defense must play at least 80 plays a game. Enjoy!

The first thing done in any dynasty is firing Kelly *

My first thought as well... asking for a friend of course. *