Fair pay to play act just signed in to law in CA.

-

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
7,514
Likes
11,062

>>First, student athletes will likely be prohibited from signing deals with companies either not already an athletic department sponsor or in direct competition with a current sponsor. Professional athletes often derive a large portion of sponsorship money, especially in early years, from lucrative shoe does, which will likely be unavailable to student athletes.<<

>>Second, even if a student athlete finds a potential brand sponsorship that avoids conflict with university and athletic department deals, it’s unlikely they’ll have the right to use any university or athletic department intellectual property. That means no jerseys, logos or other related apparel or marks in any content they produce with the sponsor. That would likely limit the pool of student athletes who could benefit from the new law, as they’d have to rely on name or facial recognition alone.<<
Heh, Like you acknowledged, they have three years to figure out the holes. Looks like the University Athletic Funds/ Alumni Associations will have to align their sponsor set with the University itself and then they can start the funny money game of donations and sponsorships/endorsements.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
643
Likes
358
You need the billboards. We'd be paying for their "likeness" not their talent.
Take a picture of them. Give it to them. Then offer to buy it back for $200,000. They just sold their image for $200,000.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,098
Likes
6,523
Take a picture of them. Give it to them. Then offer to buy it back for $200,000. They just sold their image for $200,000.
Exactly. Tell me how that won’t happen.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
643
Likes
358
Exactly. Tell me how that won’t happen.
It will happen. Some get the money now. If this goes through, it will be within the rules. Every top recruit will be looking through his offer list to see which booster or alumni club is making the best offer.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
63
Likes
45
Ya think they'll carve out an exception to the scholly where students earning money from their likeness will have to pay for tuition & room & board? At USC that's $77,500/yr. Stanford is $74,500/yr. UCLA is a bargain at $35,800 (in-state) and $65,500 (out-of-state).:confused:
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
643
Likes
358
Ya think they'll carve out an exception to the scholly where students earning money from their likeness will have to pay for tuition & room & board? At USC that's $77,500/yr. Stanford is $74,500/yr. UCLA is a bargain at $35,800 (in-state) and $65,500 (out-of-state).:confused:
So they get $70K from the school, and $200K from the boosters. There will probably be under the table payments just to avoid tax payments. But now, instead of NCAA violations, we will have IRS violations to avoid.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,098
Likes
6,523
I’m a free market guy but we may come to regret it. Every high school athlete already thinks they’re special. At 18 they can enter into contracts without parental consent. They’ll all hire agents and sell themselves to the highest bidder. Why not? Agents will be preying on them and the money is enticing. No longer will a coach’s living room presentation matter. It’s going to be all about the cash. It’s the agent issue that will drive this into a complete money grab. What other perks will they ask for? Sure it goes on now under wraps at various places for top recruits—but under fear of being exposed and sanctioned by the NCAA. Now it’s the IRS that will be watching. Like I said, the biggest job now for a college will be recruiting new, generous boosters, not coaches who’s excel at recruiting new players. Schools/states that allow for the paying for likeness (and if there is no constraint on what market value is) will have a huge advantage over the ones that don’t. Every state legislature will be rushing to join the club. This is the 21st century gold rush.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
54,725
Likes
81,569
Nothing earth-shattering based on the group (and sample size) but some perspective:
(The survey was distributed to 344 NCAA Division I Directors of Athletics. 97 individuals responded, providing a 28.2% response rate. The responses were representative of the population of AD's across Power 5, Group of 5 and FCS/Non-Football institutions with all three classifications seeing nearly identical response rates. )
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,565
Likes
6,569
Ridiculous. Nothing good will come from this other than more corruption and abuse.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
600
Likes
468

Typical NCAA. Pass the rule with no plan in place
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Messages
2,396
Likes
4,525
I'm somewhat inclined to think that if a kid can get endorsement deals, it shouldn't be within the NCAA's power to stop them. But ultimately it's a can of worms that you'd never be able to put the lid back on. Picture a bunch of 18-20 year old college kids with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in their own personal bank accounts. It'd cause a lot of issues on the team, campus, and community levels.

The NCAA is reaping what they've sown, for stubbornly refusing time and again to be flexible and change rules over time to keep pace with modern life.

My view is, at the very least, every college athlete should get a full scholarship, room, board, and books for the duration of their time at school. That includes the cadillac meal plan and a weekly food / life essentials stipend. I don't know if that's currently the norm, but based on Shabazz Napier's comments a few years back, about how he often was going to bed hungry after practice, I don't think it is.

If the NCAA had spent their energy all these years making sure that college athletes were actually being well taken care of during their time at school, instead of trying to ensure that no one ever got a free sandwich, I don't think we'd be where we are.

As a UConn fan and alum, I selfishly hope the whole system burns to the ground and we have to start over again. Because the current configuration sure as hell hasn't worked out for us.
 

Top