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

[Irishfan]

Ralph Russo AP College Football Writer: Analysis: Lacking foresight, NCAA playing defense again

>>It is important to point out the NCAA is the schools. The rules are made and passed by school administrators and university presidents. Emmert does not have power to enact policy and there is not a cabal of bureaucrats in Indianapolis pulling the strings. The one time Emmert did try to get out in front of something was in 2011, when he pushed for a $2,000 a year cost-of-attendance stipend for athletes. Membership rebelled. Wilken later ruled the NCAA could not prohibit cost-of-attendance stipends, and now most schools are paying more than they would have under Emmert’s plan.<<

>>But forward-thinking leadership across the board in college sports is lacking, and it worries many athletic directors who don’t see allowing athletes access to a free market as an unmanageable problem. The prospect of a wide receiver, point guard or midfielder becoming a social media influencer, starting a side business giving lessons in their sports or making $25 a pop for leaving fans personalized voice messages through companies such as Cameo is not keeping administrators up at night.

There will be challenges. Especially, as it relates to recruiting in the most high-profile sports. But athletic programs are already facing those challenges and it’s possible a regulated free market could eat into a black market of payments to players that is near impossible for NCAA enforcement to disrupt.<<

When giving $100,000 (or more) to top high school athletes becomes an acceptable practice, the whole environment of college athletics will change. Even paying a freshman football or basketball player $200,000 to transfer will become a practice you will see. Why contribute to the school’s athletic department when you can give the money directly to the athlete.

 

[Nostical]

When giving $100,000 (or more) to top high school athletes becomes an acceptable practice...

We should stop recruiting athletes and instead recruit boosters. They would then pay the good athletes recruited by other schools. Billboards with player photos would save our coaches a lot of travel and lodging expense.

 

[Irishfan]

We should stop recruiting athletes and instead recruit boosters. They would then pay the good athletes recruited by other schools. Billboards with player photos would save our coaches a lot of travel and lodging expense.

If you pay them enough, you won’t need billboards. I’m sure the UConn Club of Fairfield County could raise enough to get 3-4 four star athletes to Storrs.

 

[Nostical]

If you pay them enough, you won’t need billboards. I’m sure the UConn Club of Fairfield County could raise enough to get 3-4 four star athletes to Storrs.

You need the billboards. We'd be paying for their "likeness" not their talent.

 

[huskymedic]

2023 is a ways away and things will likely change but worth a read for perspective:

Is The Fair Pay To Play Act More Moral Victory Than Jackpot For Student Athletes?

Legal challenges not withstanding, collegiate student athletes in California can begin earning money from their name, image and likeness on January 1, 2023. But will there be a market for them?

www.forbes.com

>>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.

“As I understand it, students cannot sign endorsement deals that conflict with the school’s endorsement contracts, which takes the shoe money off the table,” said Powell. “Footwear deals are where the big money is.”<<

>>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.<<

>>It’s also worth noting that student athletes will be taxed on any revenue derived from licensing their name, image or likeness.

“Whatever they receive in terms of compensation, whether salaries, incentives, royalties, etc., will be taxable as of the time they receive it,” said Paul Creasy, a partner at independent compensation consultancy Organizational Consulting Group, by email. “This may prove fertile ground for financial planners, tax attorneys, et al.”<<

 

[Exit 4]

Is The Fair Pay To Play Act More Moral Victory Than Jackpot For Student Athletes?

Legal challenges not withstanding, collegiate student athletes in California can begin earning money from their name, image and likeness on January 1, 2023. But will there be a market for them?

www.forbes.com

>>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.

 

[Irishfan]

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.

 

[Nostical]

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.

 

[Irishfan]

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.

 

[Husker Husky]

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).

 

[Irishfan]

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).

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.

 

[Nostical]

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.

 

[huskymedic]

Nothing earth-shattering based on the group (and sample size) but some perspective:

What Do Athletic Directors Think About Name, Image and Likeness?

In an effort to continue to provide intercollegiate athletics leaders with key industry insights, AthleticDirectorU gathered information on the topic of Name, Image and Likeness and student-athlete compensation by surveying current Division I athletics directors on the issue.

www.athleticdirectoru.com

(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. )

 

[noeynox]

NCAA poised to move toward allowing athletes to make money

The NCAA is poised to take a significant step toward allowing college athletes to earn money without violating amateurism rules.

apnews.com

 

[BlueDogs]

Ridiculous. Nothing good will come from this other than more corruption and abuse.

 

[bobbyinaz]

NCAA clears way for athletes to profit from names, images and likenesses

The NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to start the process of modifying its rule to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

www.espn.com

Typical NCAA. Pass the rule with no plan in place

 

[amory]

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.