but His mother does.
especially now that under the table payments to athletes is a Federal crime.
How would it work if athlete A signs a deal with Nike in HS. I would assume there would be issues with them attending a non Nike school like ND down the road.
Who gets priority, the player or the schools when it comes to that stuff?
If it goes the players, our decision to hitch our wagon to UA will get colossally worse (if that was even possible).
We might do decent in basketball, but we'd be well and truly fooked with football recruits, especially when they look at the NFL and see Nike everywhere and top players ditching UA
them to. If it's a UA school, the player is going to wear Under Armour. The same will happen with the Nike and Addidas schools. It won't really be a problem.
A University isn't going to make a deal with a company and get paid big dough, and not make the athletes wear the product.
And go to school where the shoe companies say they can go.
1. Title IX effectively makes paying the athletes outright a non-starter. Only a handful of university athletic programs (~20 - 30) have enough income to pay all athletes an equal salary that is more than a token stipend.
2. Third party likeness agreements are one way out of that sticky problem, but they are really going to have to monitor it closely. I'd like to see how they approach things like caps, who can actually sponsor the athletes, and so forth. I worry that Jim Bob's Chevy Dealership in Daphne, Alabama and Doug's Night Club in Houston are going to, effectively, make Alabama and A&M real professional sports franchises where they can afford to pay their back-up DE $100,000/year. There are three major potential issues with this:
A. It would wildly exacerbate an already obscene level of inequality in the major sports.
B. It would siphon off a fairly large chunk of marginal income that the university already gets above-board in donations, ticket fees, etc. This would have pretty serious effects on non-revenue sports.
C. Related to (A), the value and potential income for the mid-level and low-level programs (think mid-level P5 down to high-level G5) would take a serious hit. Fans might think they have a long shot in football or basketball right now, but if they knew with certainty that it would never happen no matter what because of what are effectively salaries, then those programs are going to seriously hurt.
3. Most of the value in these sports is tied up in the brand itself and not the athlete. With very, very few exceptions (Manziel, Newton, etc.), fans care much more about the brand than the athlete - on a scale of 0 to 100, the value tied up in the brand is probably 90+ and the player less than 10. Contrast that with, for example, the NBA or EPL. College football, in particular, is a brand-loyal sport and not an athlete-loyal sport.
If you could get rid of Title IX or somehow separate revenue-generating sports from non-revenue generating sports in that equation, it might help a bit. If you could ensure caps or have a standardized and approved list of sponsors, that would again help. They are opening a big ass can of worms here that is going to result in a difficult beast to tame.
the country roads with a case of Schlitz in the family Rambler.
The obscene level of talent inequality in CFB (see: Alabama, Clemson, and what they've done to pretty much everyone in their path since 2015) can't possibly get much more obscene anyway.
And playing time is still finite. Even if Joe Blow's Dealership in Tuscaloosa or Baton Rouge decided to bankroll every backup for some reason (and I'm not sure they would; money is still money), kids want to play, and that reality will probably still keep such things from happening to any great degree.
It would make the equivalent of a college football Gini coefficient go from 0.5 to 1.0.
The inequality problem isn't with the Alabama's and Clemson's (who doesn't even recruit anywhere near the level at which Bama does and only a bit better than ND does). It's calcifying the top 10 to 15 programs to a level that would be absurd even compared to now. There is still a pretty good amount of flux in that 5 to 40 range year-over-year in college football. That would pretty much disappear.
Namely: compensating athletes who make the colleges and NCAA billions. Random stars getting promotional deals side-steps the larger problem. The kid who snaps the ball to the super-marketable QB works just as hard, and makes the University just as much money, yet this NCAA study does nothing to acknowledge the issue. Memo to the NCAA: Winter is Coming.
when he describes one are more marketable than the other.
Which makes his assertion all the stranger.
When you're talking video game likenesses or jersey sales with a particular kid's number, I can see the argument. But a lot of the money made in the industry (ticket sales, TV contracts, etc) is going to be made regardless of any particular player. Do you think Oklahoma football ticket sales or TV viewership is going to decline now that Kyler Murray has left?
I've always been on the "amateur athlete" side of this debate but I'd probably be open to some compensation (particularly the ability to sign a contract with an apparel company). But let's not act like the kids are the one producing all of the value in the industry here. The Universities are the entities that provide the stadium, coaching staff, fans, and TV exposure (in addition to education), all of which provides the platform which makes the player's likeness valuable in the first place.
I think all of this would be a lot less of a problem if kids could go to the NFL whenever they felt they were ready. And as much as I think that's what they should be allowed to do, I hope it never happens because college football is worth saving.
that scholarship does have a value to the player. I do not believe that the school owes that player anything more from a compensation standpoint.
Now, as pointed out elsewhere, if the players can profit off of image and likeness I would expect that the schools would get out in front of that and set up relationships, etc. that would enable to players to maximize their image and likeness value. A school like Notre Dame that has such exposure already as well as a "40 year" education value would stand to be in a very good position in such an environment.
has value.
For those who want the athletes to be paid and say the scholarship has no value, why don't we take away their scholarships? That would be true free market. Hey kid...you can come here, and we will pay you $40K per year base plus a performance-based bonus, but if you don't display demonstrated financial need, you had better be prepared to pay your tuition/room/board when every other student pays it, which as a freshman, would be before you start.
is to pay the players, make them employees of the Ath Dept.
Then like in all pro sports they negotiate their salaries. In the NFL the centers, for example Nick Martin, works just as hard as Deshaun Watson but he's never going to make what Watson makes. So it will be if colleges start compensating kids out of the money the Ath Dept brings in as a result of ticket sales, merchandise sales, their share of TV contracts, etc.
If that is what you want we might as well kill college football.
by that. Most people think that only means the revenue producing sports - football and men's basketball. But, as soon as you pay them, you also have to pay your scholarship non-revenue sport's players the same amount. This why about 5 years ago the NCAA was said they were thinking about it but ran the numbers. Just not going to happen.
I can get behind a likeness revenue type of model but, as someone said, the school should get a cut of whatever a player generates e.g. does the ND player wearing no 3 get someone to pay for his autograph because he is good or that number 3 is a big number in ND lore. My guess is that it is a little of both.
I.e. football and basketball not part of the NCAA...hence skirt that issue
Revenue sports cover attempt to cover the non revenue sports. If they have to start paying the the players on the $$ producing sports, they won't take long to decide to drop the others
and enough women's sports to cover Title IX.
agreements (I believe ND is separate and everyone else is through their conference and/or the NCAA but I might be wrong).
Therefore, if someone buys a #3 jersey so that Arnaz Battle (or whomever) might autograph it, ND gets the money from the sale of the jersey and AB would get the money from the autograph.
however, I think it is very dangerous and would likely kill the sport at most institutions unless the NFL could get on board and fund (unlikely, IMO. They'll wait until the last minute before starting funding on a minor league and would likely want more control over player's time than the NCAA would be comfortable with).
The image and likeness benefits everyone; if a kid can profit off of his name and his popularity, more power to him. The school can give him a scholarship and he can also get an education and training in his preferred fields (athletic and otherwise).
much coaches really do care about their players. A very quick search showed an article from this past Fall that reported Dabo received a condo valued in the 250-300k range and a 100k donation to his charity as part of an endorsement deal for a hotel that he did with a real estate developer. If the rules were changed how much of a deal like this would he be willing to cut his players in on?
parties, is the only way to maintain college football. Schools will compete on how much marketing they do for the players and how strong the school's name is in the market.
Paying players as employees would be the end of it all. Then you have to start talking about salary caps, the players will have to pay taxes, surely agents will be involved, yada yada yada mini-NFL puke.
I really believe that we need to totally do away with the whole amateur standing deal. I think that a kid should be able to get paid/accept money at any age. If a shoe company thinks my 6th grader is a future star and wants me to have him sign with them, to wear their gear then that's fine. If somebody wants to use him in a video or print ad endorsing my company or product, then they should be able to do without the State HS assoc declaring him/her ineligible, same for the NCAA.
Nobody tells my math prodigy kid that he can't take money from some gaming company to promote them even if he's on the school Math Olympics team or Local Theatre that hires my kid to be in a play doesn't eliminate him/her from being in the school play.
I would be OK if my kid signs with Nike to promote their products and Nike includes in the contract language that means they have to go to a school that is a Nike School.
Let it be the wild west, let'em make money, let boosters throw their money at them. Still make them abide by academic standards of the NCAA and the school they attend and be governed by what ever drug rules they have. Pro's have to do that, just having a Nike shoe contract doesn't mean you are immune to getting fined/suspended by whatever league you play.
Obviously some kids will make a ton, it might even ruin them getting so much money so early. Companies will make mistakes in giving kids their money, so be it.
Open it up totally. Just don't make them employees of the school.
I think that this whole thing started because we didn't want schools going out and hiring ringers/professionals but it has morphed into something different where the players are basically professionals without any sort of compensation outside of their scholarship.
The schools can continue to give scholarships/provide the opportunity to play and the players are on their own to see what sort of money (if any) they can generate off of their image and likeness.
saying that olympic sports kids should be able to enter events that have money attached or appearance money, or transportation/lodging compensation.
The whole amateur thing just needs to go away. College golfer who qualifies for the US Open should be able to keep the money if he finishes in the money and not lose his NCAA eligibility.
Basketball player who hits the 1/2 court shot at a Pro game for 10K should get to keep it.
expectation be that many programs would place a high priority on setting up a system to help players maximize these type of opportunities, even for those where there is little to no market for it?
just like ND has the "40 year decision."
I think the players should be allowed to get something. But just be prepared that some will get nothing. Also be prepared for the idea that a power 5 2nd and third stringer might get more than an All Conference MAC player.
that some will get nothing; in fact, I would change "some" to "most."
I doubt many athletes are deluded on the level of which they could make money if likeness rights were granted, but very few would make game-changing money. In exchange, the vast majority of the controversy around college sports pretty much evaporates.* Fair trade if you ask me.
* There are probably always going to be people that think college athletes are getting screwed unless they're directly being paid every cent of TV money the conferences pull in, but they would represent a tiny minority.
Most people I have heard on the subject seem to think everyone is going to get a bunch of money.
because it is pretty unlikely
I think the 15 - 20 powerhouse programs would have enough influence and would be able to arrange solid income for just about everyone on the two deep if not the entire roster. The next 15 - 20 would be able to get their very good and star players nice deals. Everyone else after that would be SoL unless the kid was getting national notoriety week after week (i.e., Andy Isabella or Khalil Mack).
deals at smaller places, but not the big major national endorsements aside from the select few kids.
Is that too much to ask?
Every player in CFB got about a grand out of the suit.
Not nearly 10-100k they could get under the
table from unscrupulous boosters.
It was the only video game I really played.
That goes against the fundamentals of unaccountable organizations