NCAA votes to allow athletes to profit from their name and likeness

[BadlandsGrizFan]

I honestly dont think it changes a ton as far as the monster schools getting recruits over the Montanas of the world...it already happens.

You mean the Texas...and Alabama...and USCs are going to get all the good players??? They already do. I dont think it changes much as far as where players will want to go. You'll still have kids that move around because they get in trouble or dont like the coach.

I think coming up with an appropriate amount is the hard part. I could see them saying that they only can receive money from the schools and still prohibit things like making money from appearances or signing things.

Maybe it adds another revenue stream for the larger schools with the big name athletes? I am assuming those hiring student athletes for promotional purposes will want them wearing their schools colors so they are recognizable, right? So wouldn't those schools be able to charge for the use of their trademarks? I guess I am saying the schools will benefit from this too.

I agree...the schools will absolutely make money off this.

 

[PlayerRep]

How will this be reconciled with Title IX?

How would Title IX be implicated? The NCAA, conferences and schools won't discriminate by sex or sport, I assume. They won't pay anything to the athletes. Then, it would be seem to be free market as to which third parties would "hire" the athletes and how much they wiould pay the athletes.

Let us know what you were thinking.

I'm just being a devil's advocate here. Athletes should be able to profit from their worth as everyone else has (schools, NCAA, etc.) and I also can see shenanigans happening as has been pointed out. I'm old school but accept with the present day media and advertising landscape having changed the powers that be need to as well.

Given the fact that the biggest bucks will go to football and basketball male athletes you don't think lawyers won't go after the parties involved for the NCAA not being "fair" to athletes who are female and participants in non-revenue generating sports? Look at the imbroglio over the USWNT in soccer earlier this year. When politicians (NCAA brass ARE basically politicians) come up with "BIG' ideas there are always unintended consequences. I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts about it.

I actually don't see that as a potential Title IX problem. The NCAA and schools aren't going to control, or want to control, which athletes get paid. The payments will come from third parties, not the schools. The schools/ncaa can't and shouldn't control or dictate what is paid to which athlete. Of course, the system has to be set up to be neutral.

With the women's soccer thing, the problem is that the organization or organization was/is deciding what to pay the players. That's one of the reasons the ncaa and schools won't be involved in setting or directing payments or compensation. Also, the schools don't want athletes as employees or anything close to that.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I think the way the details shake out between now and 2021 will be one of the most compelling sports stories I've ever seen. There are tons of questions right now. There are the obvious ones (like, can booster payments that already happen, now happen above board?) and less obvious ones (like, will the schools themselves have "free use" for things like posters or highlights on the Jumbotron?).

Example: I don't believe whomever is #37 is 2021 will be entitled to a cut of the profits from #37 jersey sales because there is no name on the back, and the school/manufacturer can say it doesn't directly reference the particular current player. However, could the 2021 #37 have an argument that those #37 jerseys sold during his tenure as #37 are using his likeness?

Then again, I think the new rule will likely center around what players CAN do, rather than what players are entitled to on the back end, if that makes sense. Whether that is the way it works in practice will be the rub.

 

[PlayerRep]

I honestly dont think it changes a ton as far as the monster schools getting recruits over the Montanas of the world...it already happens.

You mean the Texas...and Alabama...and USCs are going to get all the good players??? They already do. I dont think it changes much as far as where players will want to go. You'll still have kids that move around because they get in trouble or dont like the coach.

I think coming up with an appropriate amount is the hard part. I could see them saying that they only can receive money from the schools and still prohibit things like making money from appearances or signing things.

Maybe it adds another revenue stream for the larger schools with the big name athletes? I am assuming those hiring student athletes for promotional purposes will want them wearing their schools colors so they are recognizable, right? So wouldn't those schools be able to charge for the use of their trademarks? I guess I am saying the schools will benefit from this too.

Good points. Not sure how those things will be addressed.

I have always wondered how college's seem to have the rights to sell player jerseys, and perhaps have some rights to the player images, and the player got nothing. I assume players don't consent to that, but maybe that is buried somewhere in the fine print relating to scholarships or other things.

 

[PlayerRep]

I honestly dont think it changes a ton as far as the monster schools getting recruits over the Montanas of the world...it already happens.

You mean the Texas...and Alabama...and USCs are going to get all the good players??? They already do. I dont think it changes much as far as where players will want to go. You'll still have kids that move around because they get in trouble or dont like the coach.

I think coming up with an appropriate amount is the hard part. I could see them saying that they only can receive money from the schools and still prohibit things like making money from appearances or signing things.

Maybe it adds another revenue stream for the larger schools with the big name athletes? I am assuming those hiring student athletes for promotional purposes will want them wearing their schools colors so they are recognizable, right? So wouldn't those schools be able to charge for the use of their trademarks? I guess I am saying the schools will benefit from this too.

I agree...the schools will absolutely make money off this.

Will they? I'm not so sure. I think the schools will need or want to stay out of the money chain. The push is for athletes to be freed up to make some money off themselves, not for the schools to make more money off the athletes.

 

[putter]

I wonder if it will spread out talent even more. If I am recruited by say, U of Washington as a WR and they are stacked, do I go, hoping I can crack the line-up and make some extra $ or do I choose Boise, Wyoming or even Montana where I can star earlier and make a name for myself?

 

[argh!]

So, will allowing "college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses" mean:

They can sign a poster or jersey for the Mo Club or Stocks to put up, or for any restaurant to put up, and get free drinks and food for themselves and their friends?

They can sign a poster, jersey or ball for the local tattoo parlors, and get free tattoos. That what Ohio St. got in trouble for.

They can agree to come by a tailgate and get free hot dogs.

They can agree to sign stuff, or do advertisements, for the local car dealerships and get free use of cars.

They can sign stuff for families, and then get free dinners every week.


I know that supposedly rules will be created, but does this not lead to getting rid of or not being able to enforce that special benefit rules of the NCAA involving boosters?

I always thought the little special benefit rules were stupid, but I just don't see how the door doesn't end up being completely open.

Well boosters be able to get something signed, and then give thousands of dollars to encourage a player to come to their school?

Who's going to police what is paid? Who's going to decide what market is? Isn't market what people will pay?

Will businesses be able to pay big fees, or even real big fees, to have players come to their events?

Where will the limits be? Will there be any limits?

Can high school kids do this, or do they have to be college players? What's the distinction there?

I think the sky will be the limit, eventually.

Son, if you come to the school, I support, I will sign you to a big contract for your name, likeness or image? Or, maybe just advertise it on the internet, with no prior contact. "At Montana, starting qb's get $10,000 per year for their image, to promote BWahlberg real estate". Plus, an extra $100 for every TD pass they throw.

Will colleges continue to be able to sell jerseys of players? Or, who will have or should have those rights?

The good news is that perhaps compliance officers will be put out of business.

good post, greenie. lots of issues to be worked through. unfortunately, the ncaa is the ncaa, so i'm not expecting their final policy to make lots of sense.

 

[Hoops watcher]

I honestly dont think it changes a ton as far as the monster schools getting recruits over the Montanas of the world...it already happens.

You mean the Texas...and Alabama...and USCs are going to get all the good players??? They already do. I dont think it changes much as far as where players will want to go. You'll still have kids that move around because they get in trouble or dont like the coach.

I think coming up with an appropriate amount is the hard part. I could see them saying that they only can receive money from the schools and still prohibit things like making money from appearances or signing things.

If this ended up wide open, I think 3d parties could influence whether a player is going to one big school or another.

I could see even FCS schools with big athletic donor bases being able to influence where a recruit went, again only if this were wide open. It probably won't be, at leSt initially.

I don't think the schools will want to be involved in paying any athlete. That would be problematical and likely a huge mess.

The CA legislation doesn't seem to set any limits or support any limits. It doesn't seem that the NCAA is at the point of supporting the CA model yet.

I have my doubts as to whether the NCAA and schools can set amounts, unless perhaps it was just some larger cap per year. But what would the basis be for that? If the market will bear more, why shouldn't the athletes get more?

Yeah I dont have the answers..its def tough.

The only reason I say the schools should be the ones paying them is that it seems like that would be the easiest way to track the money, if thats even important in the future.

Here is a scenario I was pondering. If this revenue went through institutions it seems like Title IX would indicate it must be shared in an equal manner among both male and female athletes. Maybe a legal beagle can set me straight if I'm off base here, I'm not a lawyer, I've just observed cases over the years and given a lot of people seem to think you can legislate or regulate equal outcomes (impossible IMO) rather than equal opportunity it's an interesting situation. It's a bit of a microcosm of varying opinions on how society should be organized.

 

[PlayerRep]

I wonder if it will spread out talent even more. If I am recruited by say, U of Washington as a WR and they are stacked, do I go, hoping I can crack the line-up and make some extra $ or do I choose Boise, Wyoming or even Montana where I can star earlier and make a name for myself?

Isn't that the way it is now?

 

[PlayerRep]

I honestly dont think it changes a ton as far as the monster schools getting recruits over the Montanas of the world...it already happens.

You mean the Texas...and Alabama...and USCs are going to get all the good players??? They already do. I dont think it changes much as far as where players will want to go. You'll still have kids that move around because they get in trouble or dont like the coach.

I think coming up with an appropriate amount is the hard part. I could see them saying that they only can receive money from the schools and still prohibit things like making money from appearances or signing things.

If this ended up wide open, I think 3d parties could influence whether a player is going to one big school or another.

I could see even FCS schools with big athletic donor bases being able to influence where a recruit went, again only if this were wide open. It probably won't be, at leSt initially.

I don't think the schools will want to be involved in paying any athlete. That would be problematical and likely a huge mess.

The CA legislation doesn't seem to set any limits or support any limits. It doesn't seem that the NCAA is at the point of supporting the CA model yet.

I have my doubts as to whether the NCAA and schools can set amounts, unless perhaps it was just some larger cap per year. But what would the basis be for that? If the market will bear more, why shouldn't the athletes get more?

Yeah I dont have the answers..its def tough.

The only reason I say the schools should be the ones paying them is that it seems like that would be the easiest way to track the money, if thats even important in the future.

Here is a scenario I was pondering. If this revenue went through institutions it seems like Title IX would indicate it must be shared in an equal manner among both male and female athletes. Maybe a legal beagle can set me straight if I'm off base here, I'm not a lawyer, I've just observed cases over the years and given a lot of people seem to think you can legislate or regulate equal outcomes (impossible IMO) rather than equal opportunity it's an interesting situation. It's a bit of a microcosm of varying opinions on how society should be organized.

I don't envision the money going through the colleges. That would become of huge mess and hassle for the colleges. And yes, the issue you raised could be implicated by that structure. Now I get what you were saying.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... Here is a scenario I was pondering. If this revenue went through institutions it seems like Title IX would indicate it must be shared in an equal manner among both male and female athletes. Maybe a legal beagle can set me straight if I'm off base here, I'm not a lawyer, I've just observed cases over the years and given a lot of people seem to think you can legislate or regulate equal outcomes (impossible IMO) rather than equal opportunity it's an interesting situation. It's a bit of a microcosm of varying opinions on how society should be organized.

I don't envision the money going through the colleges. That would become of huge mess and hassle for the colleges. And yes, the issue you raised could be implicated by that structure. Now I get what you were saying.

I addressed the Title IX puzzle in an earlier post ... with the same concern as "Hoops." Market realities are almost certain to see vastly more money flowing in for male athlete "sponsorships" than for females. Distribution in that proportion would most likely set off protests from the equal outcome faction.

As for the other point: I think the money will have to go through the colleges, or through the NCAA. Otherwise, how will there be any oversight? The last thing we want is another federal bureaucracy getting into the act. And, as I said in another early post, the institutions should get a cut: After all, they provide the "platform" for the athletes to strut their stuff and get recognized.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I honestly hope, this thing is capped at 1k to 2k per month per athlete. If not, this further separates and divides NCAA athletics.

 

[putter]

I wonder if it will spread out talent even more. If I am recruited by say, U of Washington as a WR and they are stacked, do I go, hoping I can crack the line-up and make some extra $ or do I choose Boise, Wyoming or even Montana where I can star earlier and make a name for myself?

Isn't that the way it is now?

In a sense. Now, if there is $ on the line for my likeness, I may be motivated to pick another school right away rather than possibly waiting 2 years or more hoping I get a chance to get drafted.

 

[PlayerRep]

... Here is a scenario I was pondering. If this revenue went through institutions it seems like Title IX would indicate it must be shared in an equal manner among both male and female athletes. Maybe a legal beagle can set me straight if I'm off base here, I'm not a lawyer, I've just observed cases over the years and given a lot of people seem to think you can legislate or regulate equal outcomes (impossible IMO) rather than equal opportunity it's an interesting situation. It's a bit of a microcosm of varying opinions on how society should be organized.

I don't envision the money going through the colleges. That would become of huge mess and hassle for the colleges. And yes, the issue you raised could be implicated by that structure. Now I get what you were saying.

I addressed the Title IX puzzle in an earlier post ... with the same concern as "Hoops." Market realities are almost certain to see vastly more money flowing in for male athlete "sponsorships" than for females. Distribution in that proportion would most likely set off protests from the equal outcome faction.

As for the other point: I think the money will have to go through the colleges, or through the NCAA. Otherwise, how will there be any oversight? The last thing we want is another federal bureaucracy getting into the act. And, as I said in another early post, the institutions should get a cut: After all, they provide the "platform" for the athletes to strut their stuff and get recognized.

I think you are mis-analyzing this. Other than some rules, I don't see there being much oversight.

If the NCAA allows, or states require, I just don't see the schools agreeing to stop into the middle.

Why should colleges get a cut? Should players also also get a cut of what the colleges make?

 

[DuCharme]

It doesn’t say “profit”. It says “benefit”. The NCAA is stressing that.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

I wonder if it will spread out talent even more. If I am recruited by say, U of Washington as a WR and they are stacked, do I go, hoping I can crack the line-up and make some extra $ or do I choose Boise, Wyoming or even Montana where I can star earlier and make a name for myself?

Isn't that the way it is now?

Yes, it is...thats why I dont buy the argument when people say it will shift the dynamic of what schools get what recruits.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

If this ended up wide open, I think 3d parties could influence whether a player is going to one big school or another.

I could see even FCS schools with big athletic donor bases being able to influence where a recruit went, again only if this were wide open. It probably won't be, at leSt initially.

I don't think the schools will want to be involved in paying any athlete. That would be problematical and likely a huge mess.

The CA legislation doesn't seem to set any limits or support any limits. It doesn't seem that the NCAA is at the point of supporting the CA model yet.

I have my doubts as to whether the NCAA and schools can set amounts, unless perhaps it was just some larger cap per year. But what would the basis be for that? If the market will bear more, why shouldn't the athletes get more?

Yeah I dont have the answers..its def tough.

The only reason I say the schools should be the ones paying them is that it seems like that would be the easiest way to track the money, if thats even important in the future.

Here is a scenario I was pondering. If this revenue went through institutions it seems like Title IX would indicate it must be shared in an equal manner among both male and female athletes. Maybe a legal beagle can set me straight if I'm off base here, I'm not a lawyer, I've just observed cases over the years and given a lot of people seem to think you can legislate or regulate equal outcomes (impossible IMO) rather than equal opportunity it's an interesting situation. It's a bit of a microcosm of varying opinions on how society should be organized.

I don't envision the money going through the colleges. That would become of huge mess and hassle for the colleges. And yes, the issue you raised could be implicated by that structure. Now I get what you were saying.

So do you think the money will just come directly from say Nike or local businesses? To me that seems like the scenario the NCAA would least like to see?

 

[IdaGriz01]

... I think the money will have to go through the colleges, or through the NCAA. Otherwise, how will there be any oversight? The last thing we want is another federal bureaucracy getting into the act. And, as I said in another early post, the institutions should get a cut: After all, they provide the "platform" for the athletes to strut their stuff and get recognized.

I think you are mis-analyzing this. Other than some rules, I don't see there being much oversight.

If the NCAA allows, or states require, I just don't see the schools agreeing to stop into the middle.

Why should colleges get a cut? Should players also also get a cut of what the colleges make?

If there's no oversight, then I think you can kiss off college football/basketball "as we know it." Boosters and companies know who the most promising athletes are coming out of high school -- if not through their own research, then from one of the services that do that. Rules with no oversight will lead to bidding wars to get top guys (and some gals) to go to particular schools. Will all that even out? Perhaps at the very top level, but it could get pretty ugly, and education would take a distant back seat. Which, admittedly, it probably will anyway, whatever approach shakes out in the end, but let's not help it along.

I totally agree that that schools will most likely want to duck on this. That will leave it to the NCAA ... and we know how good they are at oversight, fairness, balance, etc. (NOT!). God forbid that the federal governments gets directly involved ... another top-heavy bureaucracy with no incentive to do a good job. In the end, I think every deal that is made with an athlete will needed to be reported (and vetted) by an oversight body ... probably the NCAA.

Addressed the final point above … the college is the “platform.” There are no really viable "minor leagues" for either football or basketball where top athletes can go to get noticed. Personally, I wish there were, so young athletes who don't really belong in college could go there.

And players already get a cut of what the colleges make … in the form of scholarships, coaches to instruct them, and so on.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yeah I dont have the answers..its def tough.

The only reason I say the schools should be the ones paying them is that it seems like that would be the easiest way to track the money, if thats even important in the future.

Here is a scenario I was pondering. If this revenue went through institutions it seems like Title IX would indicate it must be shared in an equal manner among both male and female athletes. Maybe a legal beagle can set me straight if I'm off base here, I'm not a lawyer, I've just observed cases over the years and given a lot of people seem to think you can legislate or regulate equal outcomes (impossible IMO) rather than equal opportunity it's an interesting situation. It's a bit of a microcosm of varying opinions on how society should be organized.

I don't envision the money going through the colleges. That would become of huge mess and hassle for the colleges. And yes, the issue you raised could be implicated by that structure. Now I get what you were saying.

So do you think the money will just come directly from say Nike or local businesses? To me that seems like the scenario the NCAA would least like to see?

Don't know, but can't imagine that the schools will want to be involved in this, even as a conduit. I could see the ncaa setting up some third party organization through which the money would be paid. Just to have a record of what is going on. I supposed the final rules (but remember that states and state laws, and maybe even federal laws, are going to have a say in this) could also require a written agreement to be provided to the third party/portal.

I wonder if contracts and payments would be publicly available?

I don't how the schools interest in trademarks/tradenames/logos will be dealt. Is the school going to negotiate every deal with the player and his agent? Is the ncaa going to provide some set split? Will states or others be okay with that. The split should probably depend on the situation. If Sneed does tv ads for a car dealership, not wearing his jersey, why should the university get any part of that.

If someone sees some good article discussing possibilities, please link. I haven't look for any yet. I am very curious about this subject.

I still think it's going to be a complicated mess, and will ultimately cause many changes in college sports. It seems it is likely to reduce the role and power of the ncaa. Not necessarily a bad thing. But then how will things be regulated, or will it just be a free for all. No matter where the ncaa or anyone draws lines, there will be arguments to move the lines over time.

If a player wants to sign a poster for a tattoo shop, to get free tattoos, is that really worth regulating? Or sell signed balls? Or sign a poster for free drinks at a downtown bar? The little things are what could help many more players, instead of just endorsements and payments by the big name players. How about the volleyball team selling their signed team posters?

 

[grizindabox]

People are fooling themselves is A) they don't believe that the NCAA will have oversight, and B) they don't believe that the NCAA will make the rules so convoluted that it is near impossible for an individual player to benefit from this and still remain eligible.