NCAA Tells UCF Kicker He Can't Make Money From His YouTube Channel

[Drew]

UCF tells kicker he can't profit from YouTube

UCF kicker Donald De La Haye has a popular channel on YouTube, but in his most recent video, he says UCF asked him to stop making money off his videos to preserve his amateur status.

In the video "Quit College Sports or Quit YouTube," De La Haye said, "I feel like they're making me pick between my passion in what I love to do, make videos and entertain, be creative, and my other passion, which is playing football."

A source said UCF never gave De La Haye an ultimatum. Rather, he met with the compliance staff, and they offered to work toward a solution. The NCAA has not been involved in the matter, and all correspondence has been handled by UCF.

De La Haye has made 41 videos that show his daily life, including what it is like to be a student-athlete. Because he hit 10,000 lifetime views, he was able to make money off ads placed on his videos. At issue is NCAA bylaw 12.4.4, which states an athlete "may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete's name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business."

Since De La Haye mentions his career as a UCF football player, he could be in violation of this specific bylaw. If De La Haye continued to make the videos, he most likely would be unable to collect any money from the ads.

 

[Drew]

UCF Kicker With Over 52,000 YouTube Subscribers Says The NCAA Told Him To Stop Making Videos Or Quit Football

Video is in this link too

 

[uconnfan68]

It's all about the student-athlete. Preferably the poor indentured ones.

 

[polycom]

This is similar to the UNLV wbb players who quit playing to purse singing careers, because the NCAA told them they can't do both.

 

[Papadukes]

What if he kept doing the videos but gave the money to poor lil broke NCAA. So stupid

 

[WhereistheDove?]

My god, this is like being arrested for Jaywalking. There have to be bigger fish to fry out there than a guy taking some initiative and making a couple hundred or thousand bucks off of youtube videos.

 

[CTMike]

They are just like every other student, right NCAA? So dumb.

 

[Drew]

This is an...interesting take

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

As long as he's not making videos with the Coastal Carolina cheerleaders what's the big deal?

 

[Drew]

 

[Drew]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[BlueDogs]

Meanwhile, the NCAA lacks the basic integrity to protect fair and open competition among college football teams. They make mockery of their mission.

 

[upstater]

I don't like the NCAA, but...

These arguments about being allowed to do what regular students do? They don't fly. Regular students PAY to go to school. Scholarship students sign a contract. Many students who receive stipends from a university are not allowed to moonlight, for instance.

It's not uniform and across the board of course. For instance, a music student can perform for money. But a teaching assistant can't take a second job (though many break this rule secretly).

Why is it done this way for student athletes?

Because the booster over at the YMCA outside Syracuse would figure out a way to funnel money to a Cuse player's youtube channel. The Cuse player could upload videos of his toenail clippings being blown off a table by a small fan, and that booster would funnel money to him. So this kid at UCF gets a waiver from the NCAA to monetize non-athletic videos. But another kid at Auburn can also monetize non-athletic videos, and the NCAA would be none the wiser about the revenue streams this kid could charge (I know that youtube is ad-based, but there are many subscription services as well).

This is obvious, and it can destroy the competitive nature of college football, as all the kids would gravitate toward the schools with the crazy boosters. If I were the NCAA, I wouldn't grant waivers.

 

[blue93]

I don't like the NCAA, but...

These arguments about being allowed to do what regular students do? They don't fly. Regular students PAY to go to school. Scholarship students sign a contract. Many students who receive stipends from a university are not allowed to moonlight.

It's not uniform and across the board of course. For instance, a music student can perform for money. A teaching assistant can't take a second job (though many break this rule secretly).

Why is it done this way for student athletes?

Because the booster over at the YMCA outside Syracuse would figure out a way to funnel money to a Cuse player's youtube channel. The Cuse player could upload videos of his toenail clippings being blown off a table by a small fan, and that booster would funnel money to him.

This is obvious, and it would destroy the competitive nature of college football, as all the kids would gravitate toward the schools with the crazy boosters.

I support the NCAA in this.

I'm with you on this one, and to take it a step further, the NCAA appears to have been fairly accommodating to the kid through the waiver process. They would have let him keep the channel with certain conditions. That's on the kid if he didn't want to budge.

 

[huskymedic]

I don't like the NCAA, but...

These arguments about being allowed to do what regular students do? They don't fly. Regular students PAY to go to school. Scholarship students sign a contract. Many students who receive stipends from a university are not allowed to moonlight.

It's not uniform and across the board of course. For instance, a music student can perform for money. A teaching assistant can't take a second job (though many break this rule secretly).

Why is it done this way for student athletes?

Because the booster over at the YMCA outside Syracuse would figure out a way to funnel money to a Cuse player's youtube channel. The Cuse player could upload videos of his toenail clippings being blown off a table by a small fan, and that booster would funnel money to him.

This is obvious, and it would destroy the competitive nature of college football, as all the kids would gravitate toward the schools with the crazy boosters.

I support the NCAA in this.

Agree --- the school's make the rules through the NCAA, the NCAA just enforces them. This isn't an NCAA issue - this is a member university issue. Don't like the rules - legislate the change.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[uconnbill]

My issue is that a school like UNC still hasn't been punished and this player is no longer eligible.

I can see both sides and think this is a slippery slope for sure, but the NCAA picks and chooses what they go after and what they ignore or put on the back burner.,

 

[huskymedic]

My issue is that a school like UNC still hasn't been punished and this player is no longer eligible.

I can see both sides and think this is a slippery slope for sure, but the NCAA picks and chooses what they go after and what they ignore or put on the back burner.,

UCF pursued this based on the fear he would be declared ineligible down the road - this wasn't initiated by the NCAA.

 

[uconnbill]

UCF pursued this based on the fear he would be declared ineligible down the road - this wasn't initiated by the NCAA.

I understand but it was the fear of the NCAA why this happened.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[BlueDogs]

If the primary purpose of college is education, and one of the objectives is instilling creativity, problem solving, entrepreneurialism and business acumen, as demonstrated by any number of business courses, business incubators, and student business idea challenges, then the NCAA is actually inhibiting the primary purpose of education to protect a secondary activity - namely competitive sport.

The rationale that a booster could conspire to violate the rules through a side business is insufficient in itself to generally impose a prohibition against an activity that is principally aligned with the core school mission of educating students. Whether done under an actual program or on one's own initiative, the policy smacks of misplaced priority.

I'll grant it is a slippery slope, but the NCAA needs to and should be able to fashion a system to detect and investigate sham situations versus bona fide endeavors. It's just not that hard and tens of millions are spent of compliance issues ,including on important things like cracking down on laundery money and extra meals.

Will a student business exception be abused? 100% guaranteed. Should the tens of thousands of student atheletes who will go pro in something other than competitive sport be denied as a result? No.

This is what happens when college sports is about the business of protecting and generating school revenue. The tail is wagging the dog.

 

[upstater]

If the primary purpose of college is education, and one of the objectives is instilling creativity, problem solving, entrepreneurialism and business acumen, as demonstrated by any number of business courses, business incubators, and student business idea challenges, then the NCAA is actually inhibiting the primary purpose of education to protect a secondary activity - namely competitive sport.

The rationale that a booster could conspire to violate the rules through a side business is insufficient in itself to generally impose a prohibition against an activity that is principally aligned with the core school mission of educating students. Whether done under an actual program or on one's own initiative, the policy smacks of misplaced priority.

I'll grant it is a slippery slope, but the NCAA needs to and should be able to fashion a system to detect and investigate sham situations versus bona fide endeavors. It's just not that hard and tens of millions are spent of compliance issues ,including on important things like cracking down on laundery money and extra meals.

Will a student business exception be abused? 100% guaranteed. Should the tens of thousands of student atheletes who will go pro in something other than competitive sport be denied as a result? No.

This is what happens when college sports is about the business of protecting and generating school revenue. The tail is wagging the dog.

???

As I wrote above, it's not only about the booster situation.

Universities do this with any contract between students receiving a stipend or a scholarship. They expect that you will not moonlight. They are giving you the money so that you will not spend your time doing things other than what they gave you the money for. Yes, there are exceptions, but I'm just making the point that this is the thinking behind this controversy. It applies to more than football.

 

[BlueDogs]

???

As I wrote above, it's not only about the booster situation.

Universities do this with any contract between students receiving a stipend or a scholarship. They expect that you will not moonlight. They are giving you the money so that you will not spend your time doing things other than what they gave you the money for. Yes, there are exceptions, but I'm just making the point that this is the thinking behind this controversy. It applies to more than football.

Yes, I understand the point and that makes sense. If a student athlete is receiving a scholarship then it is reasonable that the student be contracted to devote is free time and energies to his sport. But, that is not the point I was making. It should be inherently appropriate that any student athlete be allowed to pursue a business idea like any other. Otherwise, what is the point of school.

All good.