How would you regulate paying college athletes?

[McLovin]

I’m not an accountant but couldn’t phony endorsements, if you took the expense write off, Be considered tax fraud?

Tag your favorite BY accountant to help...

I am not sure about that, but by phony endorsements I meant something like a really rich donor setting up endorsement deals for one their "businesses". For example a donor could set-up a small sporting goods store in the area and offers pays top athletes $100K per year (or whatever top rates would be to land a top recruit) to become the "face" of the business while they are at the respective university.

 

[McLovin]

I am not sure about that, but by phony endorsements I meant something like a really rich donor setting up endorsement deals for one their "businesses". For example a donor could set-up a small sporting goods store in the area and offers pays top athletes $100K per year (or whatever top rates would be to land a top recruit) to become the "face" of the business while they are at the respective university.

If they went the route of allowing endorsements then the NCAA would have to either regulate how much athletes could get paid and/or have a list of approved brands and companies that can endorse athletes. But if they did this, it would kind of defeat the purpose of allowing them to get paid from a "free market" system.

 

[CL82]

To go to your last line, the NCAA has brought that on themesleves claiming they’re students first.

If that’s a the case then they need to put their money where their mouth is.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. If I, say, worked in a prosecutor's office, I wouldn't be entitled to take a job as private security for someone under investigation. The fact that other people can is entirely irrelevant. Same thing here. Scholarship athletes cannot, currently, earn money selling their image as an athlete. It is irrelevant if someone who is not scholarship athlete can. Accepting a scholarship means you are entitled to it's considerable benefits, valuing six figures, but in exchange they agree to not to get paid in ways derivative from their playing.

 

[the Q]

If they went the route of allowing endorsements then the NCAA would have to either regulate how much athletes could get paid and/or have a list of approved brands and companies that can endorse athletes. But if they did this, it would kind of defeat the purpose of allowing them to get paid from a "free market" system.

Why would they have to do that?

It’s the players brand.

 

[McLovin]

Why would they have to do that?

It’s the players brand.

To keep endorsements from becoming a bidding war between schools with rich donors to land top athletes.

Like I mentioned in my pervious comment, if there is no regulation then it will be easy for schools with big time donors to skirt the rules and offer endorsement deals of whatever it takes to land the athlete. Recruiting top athletes will just become the NBA offseason.

But if the NCAA caps endorsements or restricts what business can provide endorsements, it defeats the whole purpose giving kids the right to sell their likeness.

In short, allowing kids to use their likeness for endorsements will become a slippery slope and a no-win situation either way.

 

[Chief00]

How do you regulate paying college athletes?
For starters don’t do it like they do it now.

 

[jimva]

Why would they have to do that?

It’s the players brand.

Not true. Its mostly the universities brand that the student athlete is leveraging to create their own brand. Qithout the university they have no brand. If this was not the case, someone would create an alternative system, outside of the universities, to enable them to leverage their personal brand. But, that is not viable as the 1% would have to pay the other 99% of players to join them

 

[Stinger92860]

Maybe pay the stipend when they graduate, make money off their likeness or name in their senior year, etc.

 

[huskymedic]

Interesting comments by the USCe AD:

GamecockScoop - Tanner weighs in on California bill on player likeness

The Gamecock AD talks about a big potential shift in college football.

southcarolina.rivals.com

>>“I think we’re in a really good place. We do cost of attendance now and provide all kinds of services,” he said. “I probably shouldn’t do my editorial, but I don’t see how it could ever work. We have 21 sports and for all intents and purposes, football pays the freight for the other 20. If we’re going in that direction, however it may be set up, it’s going to affect financially in a big way.”

Tanner continued saying he’s worried if South Carolina’s bill passes the Gamecock athletic department couldn’t be as profitable as it is currently. According to USA Today’s annual piece, South Carolina had revenue just over $140 million with a profit of just over $5 million.

“Those institutions like ours that are self-supporting will no longer be self supporting. You’d have to get rid of a lot of sports,” Tanner said. “Would our donors continue to give to our programs or will they give to student-athletes? Where would the sponsorships go? Would they go to student athletes or would they stay within the athletics departments.”<<

 

[upstater]

What is the line people are drawing?

Are we upset if the baseball teams all got compensated for ncaa baseball video game sales? (Same for football and hoops)

Do we care if everyone gets a piece of U athletics gear sold? Or if spirts teams get a piece of all specific sport gear sold (i.e. football jersey sales divided amongst the scholarship football players)

Do we care about a kid making money off his own insta or YouTube channel?

I know some say endorsements, but as long as there’s actually something done, if a business owner is willing to take a huge loss for a nominal endorsement program, is that really worse than the current system where people are committing crimes to get kids to schools?

I don't see anyone who is against kids getting endorsements. I think we're just equating it with booster payouts. And yes, many of us think it will ruin college sports outside of the ACC, SEC and Big12.

 

[upstater]

The best way to run this, by the way, is to make a professional league that uses the university's brand, but which severs the student/athlete relationship with the university (while still offering buy-ins for those who want a university education).

This would mean that the entity is self-sustaining, it pays as much as it takes in, it doesn't get any money from the academic side, it doesn't give any money to the academic side. If a player wants an education, then that amount is paid directly by the athletic program (even at a discount), and deducted from the player's salary (and/or each school is allowed to recruit 3 or 4 players in bball, for instance, who can enroll at the university).

This would just make everything cut-and-dried. No arguments to be had by anyone.

 

[UConnFranklin]

Athletes are not employees of the colleges. If you start paying them then they become an employee subject to the rules and regulations of all other employees. They may be subject to union oversight, benefits, unemployment taxes, etc. if a player gets hurt does he collect unemployment compensation or disability benefits? I really think the current system of providing them a quality quarter million $ education plus $3,000 to 6,000 in living expense is appropriate.

I think they should be able to benefit from sale of their likeness to private companies. It’s as, David Benedict says, an art student selling their painting to someone. College athletes should be able to benefit from this.

 

[RON]

SC lawmakers to file proposal to pay college athletes

Two South Carolina lawmakers plan to file a proposal which would allow college athletes to profit from endorsements.

www.si.com

 

[TheChamps990411]

I haven’t got too deep into the CA bill, but my concern would be that the schools with the biggest boosters would get the best talent and it would take away the parity that still exists. Would that even matter? Or do schools like Kentucky and Duke get pretty much the same players. Would it not affect them but affect the 5-25 schools more? Would allowing kids to get paid for likeness essentially do the same thing as it would make the kids who go to the biggest brands get paid the most? Would giving 17-18 year olds a ton of cash be a good idea or would they all end up in a strip club with a trash bag full of dollar bills. I probably would have.

I’m curious as to what approaches have been seriously discussed.

My approach would be to pay players a sum that would allow them to be ok not having a job for the year. Maybe 4K ish a semester and 5k ish in the summer so they can focus on their sport. I’d also probably give the family a 2000 expense account per season to see their kid play.

The catch would be that if you elected to pay for one sport, you would have to pay across your entire athletic department without dropping sports. So all athletes would have the time to dedicate to their craft, not have garbage-bag-full-of-bill money but enough to not be hungry huskies, and it would keep a level playing field between schools so there isn’t a massive concentration of college sports money into a few schools in big media or booster markets.

Am I way off? What does a proposal look like that will keep a good product for a broad base of fans and get the NCAA out of the tricky game of applying a BS set of rules across an incredibly wide range of scenarios.

Very curious to see what folks have to say.

The whole thing is idiotic. Just change the rule where high school kids can go straight to the league and get paid to play and those who aren't good enough just go to college.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[DonaldDraper]

The whole thing is idiotic. Just change the rule where high school kids can go straight to the league and get paid to play and those who aren't good enough just go to college.

I'm with you and there's no perfect solution, but I'm also glad Zion had a cup of coffee in the NCAA. It was fun to watch. It's cool that the generational players get to show their stuff at the NCAA level, even if its only for a year.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[CL82]

Ugh, I really believe, even though it may be being done with the best of intentions, that this will be sheet show of epic proportions. States are taking such a broad stance that regulation will be impossible.

 

[the Q]

I’m curious on the language of all these bills.

If the ncaa rules you permanently ineligible is that grounds to lose your scholarship? Even if it’s for this? You’re not doing it because of them getting money, you’re doing it because the ncaa is burying them.

 

[CL82]

I’m curious on the language of all these bills.

If the ncaa rules you permanently ineligible is that grounds to lose your scholarship? Even if it’s for this? You’re not doing it because of them getting money, you’re doing it because the ncaa is burying them.

The more interesting is whether the NCAA is bound by the state of NY's direction as to what it may or may not do.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[freescooter]

I’m all for paying players in theory but this is a great point. I think people think student-athletes would be making millions in college. In reality, you’d be lucky to break even with the cost of tuition in just one year of college.

Players, especially in basketball can already get paid. It’s called the G league. Let them go there. I’m sure the Portland Exposition Center in Portland Maine is nice just not as nice as Gampel or the he Yum or the Dean Dome. But hey, you choose

 

[GHSWolverines]

I think it is pathetic that amateur sports has gotten to this. Who knows, maybe in 10 years high school athletes will want to be paid to perform.

 

[the Q]

Players, especially in basketball can already get paid. It’s called the G league. Let them go there. I’m sure the Portland Exposition Center in Portland Maine is nice just not as nice as Gampel or the he Yum or the Dean Dome. But hey, you choose

It’s not the players choice right now.

Until all 50 states say that the nba can’t prevent hs kids from declaring for the draft, or the nba takes its own independent action, this will be a false narrative.