Bills would allow Montana college athletes to profit from name and likeness, allow colleges to serve alcohol at games

[IdaGriz01]

Never had a problem with athletes being able to make money from "name and likeness" (N&L) sales. I had hopes that something might happen for college sports way back when the Olympics moved away from their hard-over "amateur" definition. But ... it didn't.

The problem will always be, IMO: How do you equitably share that revenue for team sports like football and basketball? Your star QB may be major draw (and usually is in terms of publicity, at least), but he's obviously nothing without his teammates. And how about the school, which provides the "platform" for him (or her ... think women's Bball) to strut his/her stuff? The athlete should get the biggest cut, I would say, but it would hardly be fair for him/her to get all of it.

So...if the Chevy dealer wants the QB to sell some trucks in a commercial...then, the QB should give some of that earned money to the long snapper?

Yep ... in theory. Never said it would be easy to figure out a sharing formula.

And you bring up an interesting point. Right now, the discussions do include payment for personal appearances (in a commercial, as in your example). I suspect that, in the long run, they may choose to make a distinction between revenue from those events versus that from passive products – posters, jerseys, printed endorsement, etc. In the case of a personal appearance – which might simply be a paid "meet and greet" event – the athlete is actually performing a service. That's quite a bit different from having stores sell fan gear. (You're way out of the loop if you think athletes sit down and personally sign all those "autographed" posters.)

 

[alabamagrizzly]

So...if the Chevy dealer wants the QB to sell some trucks in a commercial...then, the QB should give some of that earned money to the long snapper?

Yep ... in theory. Never said it would be easy to figure out a sharing formula.

And you bring up an interesting point. Right now, the discussions do include payment for personal appearances (in a commercial, as in your example). I suspect that, in the long run, they may choose to make a distinction between revenue from those events versus that from passive products – posters, jerseys, printed endorsement, etc. In the case of a personal appearance – which might simply be a paid "meet and greet" event – the athlete is actually performing a service. That's quite a bit different from having stores sell fan gear. (You're way out of the loop if you think athletes sit down and personally sign all those "autographed" posters.)

If there are no names on jerseys, do the kids still get paid? I’d guess they don’t. Also, differentiating between individual likeness and team likeness shouldn’t be very complicated.

 

[kemajic]

I guess I didn’t realize UM needed the state senate to make a law permitting UM to sell beer in the stadium. Interesting. Either way, even if allowed, we know it simply can’t be done because there are not enough bathrooms, and the blue hairs can’t possibly park elsewhere to make room for portable bathrooms. It is known. We can’t change a thing. Impossible.

Yeah, currently, the loaded halftime tailgaters never use the bathrooms on the way back in.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Yep ... in theory. Never said it would be easy to figure out a sharing formula.

And you bring up an interesting point. Right now, the discussions do include payment for personal appearances (in a commercial, as in your example). I suspect that, in the long run, they may choose to make a distinction between revenue from those events versus that from passive products – posters, jerseys, printed endorsement, etc. In the case of a personal appearance – which might simply be a paid "meet and greet" event – the athlete is actually performing a service. That's quite a bit different from having stores sell fan gear. (You're way out of the loop if you think athletes sit down and personally sign all those "autographed" posters.)

If there are no names on jerseys, do the kids still get paid? I’d guess they don’t. Also, differentiating between individual likeness and team likeness shouldn’t be very complicated.

Agreed. Which #37 gets a cut for the sale of a blank-named #37 jersey? I’m thinking none of them. Put a name on it, and it’s a name and likeness. Further, even if someone else forged (with consent) a signature of a player poster for the purpose of making a profit, it’s still using his name and likeness for profit.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

If there are no names on jerseys, do the kids still get paid? I’d guess they don’t. Also, differentiating between individual likeness and team likeness shouldn’t be very complicated.

Agreed. Which #37 gets a cut for the sale of a blank-named #37 jersey? I’m thinking none of them. Put a name on it, and it’s a name and likeness. Further, even if someone else forged (with consent) a signature of a player poster for the purpose of making a profit, it’s still using his name and likeness for profit.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Not sure why there would be complications and issues with it.

 

[SoldierGriz]

So...if the Chevy dealer wants the QB to sell some trucks in a commercial...then, the QB should give some of that earned money to the long snapper?

Yep ... in theory. Never said it would be easy to figure out a sharing formula.

And you bring up an interesting point. Right now, the discussions do include payment for personal appearances (in a commercial, as in your example). I suspect that, in the long run, they may choose to make a distinction between revenue from those events versus that from passive products – posters, jerseys, printed endorsement, etc. In the case of a personal appearance – which might simply be a paid "meet and greet" event – the athlete is actually performing a service. That's quite a bit different from having stores sell fan gear. (You're way out of the loop if you think athletes sit down and personally sign all those "autographed" posters.)

Shit, why stop there? How about the coaches, I mean they are calling plays and coaching their asses off; they should get a cut. What about the team nutrition staff; they should get a cut. Player's girlfriends? Roomates? Parents? Groundskeepers? Janitors? QBs high school coach. What about the tennis team? They get a cut? Seems they all earned a cut somehow?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Yep ... in theory. Never said it would be easy to figure out a sharing formula.

And you bring up an interesting point. Right now, the discussions do include payment for personal appearances (in a commercial, as in your example). I suspect that, in the long run, they may choose to make a distinction between revenue from those events versus that from passive products – posters, jerseys, printed endorsement, etc. In the case of a personal appearance – which might simply be a paid "meet and greet" event – the athlete is actually performing a service. That's quite a bit different from having stores sell fan gear. (You're way out of the loop if you think athletes sit down and personally sign all those "autographed" posters.)

Shit, why stop there? How about the coaches, I mean they are calling plays and coaching their asses off; they should get a cut. What about the team nutrition staff; they should get a cut. Player's girlfriends? Roomates? Parents? Groundskeepers? Janitors? QBs high school coach. What about the tennis team? They get a cut? Seems they all earned a cut somehow?

Maybe the players should get a cut of the coaches’ salaries. After all, the coaches are nothing without the players.

 

[MikeyGriz]

I don't think the student income is going to be a major factor for Montana student athletes. In fact, it might be a disincentive in recruiting if they consider potential income at other institutions.

I think I’m not understanding what you’re saying. The way I’m understanding it, you’re saying that montana kids won’t go to out of state because the other states pay their student-athletes? Please correct me if I’m wrong, which I often am.

I'm saying the potential revenue for most Montana student athletes will be neglible. I also worry that other schools will pitch the increased income potential as an incentive to choose their school over us.

 

[MikeyGriz]

Shit, why stop there? How about the coaches, I mean they are calling plays and coaching their asses off; they should get a cut. What about the team nutrition staff; they should get a cut. Player's girlfriends? Roomates? Parents? Groundskeepers? Janitors? QBs high school coach. What about the tennis team? They get a cut? Seems they all earned a cut somehow?

Maybe the players should get a cut of the coaches’ salaries. After all, the coaches are nothing without the players.

On some teams, they are nothing with the players! :lol:

 

[zengriz]

...the current legislature...
...problibly won’t allow beer...
...they’ll let you bring your gun...

... :shock: ...

 

[alabamagrizzly]

I think I’m not understanding what you’re saying. The way I’m understanding it, you’re saying that montana kids won’t go to out of state because the other states pay their student-athletes? Please correct me if I’m wrong, which I often am.

I'm saying the potential revenue for most Montana student athletes will be neglible. I also worry that other schools will pitch the increased income potential as an incentive to choose their school over us.

That’s already the case. Other states do already allow this. Some schools like NDSU and UND even give player stipends. Are you saying we shouldn’t do it just cus it’s gonna be a minimal amount? Something is better then nothing.

 

[GrizFB Fandom]

I wrote this earlier. The issue of players receiving pay for use of their names and likeness is much bigger than the local Chevrolet dealership commercial and which athletes gets a cut. The immediate attention is around EA Sports announcing they are bringing the game NCAA Football back. They are considering including FCS teams and players too. So a for instance in the game Madden Football, the NFL team, players and coaches receive compensation for using their names and likeness. But in the game NCAA Football they have been able to make billions of dollars off of only needing a licensing agreement with the college or university. The players and coaches never receive a dime in compensation for both their name and likeness being used. So the million (or billion) dollar question is, is it fair that the NFL players receive compensation and not the NCAA football players? This is what is driving this issue.

 

[MikeyGriz]

I'm saying the potential revenue for most Montana student athletes will be neglible. I also worry that other schools will pitch the increased income potential as an incentive to choose their school over us.

That’s already the case. Other states do already allow this. Some schools like NDSU and UND even give player stipends. Are you saying we shouldn’t do it just cus it’s gonna be a minimal amount? Something is better then nothing.

Nope, not at all. Just saying I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal for most of our student athletes.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I wrote this earlier. The issue of players receiving pay for use of their names and likeness is much bigger than the local Chevrolet dealership commercial and which athletes gets a cut. The immediate attention is around EA Sports announcing they are bringing the game NCAA Football back. They are considering including FCS teams and players too. So a for instance in the game Madden Football, the NFL team, players and coaches receive compensation for using their names and likeness. But in the game NCAA Football they have been able to make billions of dollars off of only needing a licensing agreement with the college or university. The players and coaches never receive a dime in compensation for both their name and likeness being used. So the million (or billion) dollar question is, is it fair that the NFL players receive compensation and not the NCAA football players? This is what is driving this issue.

You’re not wrong. I read it the first time, and I think (hope) most people understand the issues with the most trailing zeroes involved drive the decision making with this. That’s not interesting to me. The fringe issues are interesting to me. Local ads. Radio appearances. Chili-con-carnivals. The rub is in the fringe, so to speak. Or, uh—where is Mrs. CDA anyway?

 

[alabamagrizzly]

That’s already the case. Other states do already allow this. Some schools like NDSU and UND even give player stipends. Are you saying we shouldn’t do it just cus it’s gonna be a minimal amount? Something is better then nothing.

Nope, not at all. Just saying I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal for most of our student athletes.

Most, sure, but some definitely will see it as a deal breaker. Why alienate those few who possibly could be game changers for us? Recruits choose their school for numerous reasons and now extra money in their pockets has become one of those reasons. What are the cons to passing the bill? The only con I see is who’s pocket that money might come out of. If it’s the schools, then yes, that directly affects our schools economic uncertainties but if it’s a minimal amount as you say, then that’s not a big deal either. Like Fandom has pointed out, the biggest loser in this will be EA sports so let them pay up. Please enlighten me why you’re so against it.

 

[MikeyGriz]

Nope, not at all. Just saying I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal for most of our student athletes.

Most, sure, but some definitely will see it as a deal breaker. Why alienate those few who possibly could be game changers for us? Recruits choose their school for numerous reasons and now extra money in their pockets has become one of those reasons. What are the cons to passing the bill? The only con I see is who’s pocket that money might come out of. If it’s the schools, then yes, that directly affects our schools economic uncertainties but if it’s a minimal amount as you say, then that’s not a big deal either. Like Fandom has pointed out, the biggest loser in this will be EA sports so let them pay up. Please enlighten me why you’re so against it.

I think you have read something into my post that isn't there. I'm not against this at all. I just think for our student athletes it's going to be a big "meh" burger. I also think that it will be a detriment to our recruiting efforts vs. other non-bsc teams.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Most, sure, but some definitely will see it as a deal breaker. Why alienate those few who possibly could be game changers for us? Recruits choose their school for numerous reasons and now extra money in their pockets has become one of those reasons. What are the cons to passing the bill? The only con I see is who’s pocket that money might come out of. If it’s the schools, then yes, that directly affects our schools economic uncertainties but if it’s a minimal amount as you say, then that’s not a big deal either. Like Fandom has pointed out, the biggest loser in this will be EA sports so let them pay up. Please enlighten me why you’re so against it.

I think you have read something into my post that isn't there. I'm not against this at all. I just think for our student athletes it's going to be a big "meh" burger.I also think that it will be a detriment to our recruiting efforts vs. other non-bsc teams.

This is the point I can't follow. It won't make a difference for our athletes, but it will also hurt recruiting? Help me out connecting the dots here.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

I think you have read something into my post that isn't there. I'm not against this at all. I just think for our student athletes it's going to be a big "meh" burger.I also think that it will be a detriment to our recruiting efforts vs. other non-bsc teams.

This is the point I can't follow. It won't make a difference for our athletes, but it will also hurt recruiting? Help me out connecting the dots here.

Mikey, maybe you grew up a little better off then most kids. I can only assume that since you assume most kids will be like “meh” to extra money in the pockets. I on the other hand, like a lot of kids trying to use football as a way to help make money for themselves and their families, grew up dirt poor and have never once been like “meh” to any amount of extra money in my pocket. I also, like CDA, do not understand how you think that offering extra money will hurt our recruiting vs other schools that don’t offer. Once again, please enlighten us.

 

[MikeyGriz]

This is the point I can't follow. It won't make a difference for our athletes, but it will also hurt recruiting? Help me out connecting the dots here.

Mikey, maybe you grew up a little better off then most kids. I can only assume that since you assume most kids will be like “meh” to extra money in the pockets. I on the other hand, like a lot of kids trying to use football as a way to help make money for themselves and their families, grew up dirt poor and have never once been like “meh” to any amount of extra money in my pocket. I also, like CDA, do not understand how you think that offering extra money will hurt our recruiting vs other schools that don’t offer. Once again, please enlighten us.

I have never in my life turned down any extra money. I think our recruiting will suffer against other schools that DO offer, because I think they will infer that more money will be available with their school vs. us.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Mikey, maybe you grew up a little better off then most kids. I can only assume that since you assume most kids will be like “meh” to extra money in the pockets. I on the other hand, like a lot of kids trying to use football as a way to help make money for themselves and their families, grew up dirt poor and have never once been like “meh” to any amount of extra money in my pocket. I also, like CDA, do not understand how you think that offering extra money will hurt our recruiting vs other schools that don’t offer. Once again, please enlighten us.

I have never in my life turned down any extra money. I think our recruiting will suffer against other schools that DO offer, because I think they will infer that more money will be available with their school vs. us.

Ah, I think I've got it. You're saying that a kid choosing between UM and some FBS school might choose the FBS school because the name and likeness income potential could be higher at the FBS school?