OT: Is This The Beginning Of The End For The NCAA?

[JavaMan]

The NCAA's top decision-makers will meet Tuesday in Atlanta for their first formal discussion about modifying rules that currently prohibit college athletes from making money by selling the rights to their names, images or likenesses.

The association's long-held policy regarding that aspect of amateurism is under increasing pressure from state and federal legislators who believe college athletes deserve an opportunity to collect money from endorsements. The NCAA board of governors is expecting to hear recommendations on how to move forward from Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East commissioner Val Ackerman, who are spearheading a committee that has spent the past five months evaluating options for a more modern path forward.

Amateurism has been a central tenet of the NCAA's mission for more than a century.

The chief concern among NCAA stakeholders with each new erosion of amateurism rules is that the next step will be the one that changes the court's opinion. If college athletes are viewed as professionals in the eyes of the law, the NCAA and its members would be subject to a hornet's nest of antitrust and labor issues that could collapse their current business model.

______________________​

It's going to be interesting to see how all of this will effect the NCAA's mysterious eligibility decisions. I'm wondering what percent of denials will quickly lead to a lawsuit if and when money is on the line (or even potentially on the line) for athletes (and their families).

LINK to full article

 

[Grad1990]

Amateurism has been a central tenet of the NCAA's mission for more than a century.

….and, if in the process we can help protect our institutions' capacity to make billions off athlete amateurism, than we have truly met a primary goal. (sarcasm intended)

 

[hoopsfan22]

You really don't need the NCAA these days. It's just a jobs program for Indiana at this point.

 

[McFly]

We really, really need politicians in college athletics. They haven't screwed up enough stuff already.
I don't understand how turning college athletes into professionals helps anyone but schools with a lot of money or wealthy alumni. We all complain about the NCAA, and not without ample reason, but what's the alternative?

 

[bmayuc]

We really, really need politicians in college athletics. They haven't screwed up enough stuff already.
I don't understand how turning college athletes into professionals helps anyone but schools with a lot of money or wealthy alumni. We all complain about the NCAA, and not without ample reason, but what's the alternative?

**Facepalm** how do people actually have these thoughts rattling around in their head**

How about before you worry about competitive balance(which already doesn't exist), you worry about what is Justice for the players at the expense of billion-dollar institutions?

What's the alternative???!?!?

Literally every other sports league in the world can act as a frame of reference here. Literally the structure of **every other sports league on the planet**

What the actual folk people

 

[CocoHusky]

The NCAA's top decision-makers will meet Tuesday in Atlanta for their first formal discussion about modifying rules that currently prohibit college athletes from making money by selling the rights to their names, images or likenesses.

The association's long-held policy regarding that aspect of amateurism is under increasing pressure from state and federal legislators who believe college athletes deserve an opportunity to collect money from endorsements. The NCAA board of governors is expecting to hear recommendations on how to move forward from Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East commissioner Val Ackerman, who are spearheading a committee that has spent the past five months evaluating options for a more modern path forward.

Amateurism has been a central tenet of the NCAA's mission for more than a century.

The chief concern among NCAA stakeholders with each new erosion of amateurism rules is that the next step will be the one that changes the court's opinion. If college athletes are viewed as professionals in the eyes of the law, the NCAA and its members would be subject to a hornet's nest of antitrust and labor issues that could collapse their current business model.

______________________​

It's going to be interesting to see how all of this will effect the NCAA's mysterious eligibility decisions. I'm wondering what percent of denials will quickly lead to a lawsuit if and when money is on the line (or even potentially on the line) for athletes (and their families).

LINK to full article

Thank for posting this. It is a very complicated often misunderstood mess. The first great misunderstanding is that the California legislation would require the schools to share revenue or compensate the athletes. What the legislation does it removes the current restriction on the student athlete's ability to earn money from "names, images or likenesses". Simple example: If I decided that Christyn Williams signature or picture was worth $10, I (in two years) be able to pay her $10 for that same picture and autograph that must be free today. Since there is no grandfather provision to the legislation, former student athletes including those whose eligibility decisions are denied, would have no basis for a lawsuit.

The NCAA will be lucky to hold the compensation line at the current California proposed legislation because other states are not going to let their athletes be disadvantaged. Federal legislation is on the way to make this the national norm and the NCAA will have no choice but to cave. US congress will threaten to remove the NCAA's charity status. The threat of a tax liability on the billion $ property that is the NCAA tournament virtually guarantees that the NCAA will cave.

 

[CL82]

….and, if in the process we can help protect our institutions' capacity to make billions off athlete amateurism, than we have truly met a primary goal. (sarcasm intended)

Don't most institutions lose money on athletics?

 

[CocoHusky]

Don't most institutions lose money on athletics?

complicated question you can draw your own conclusions:
Where Does the Money Go?.

 

[BroadwayVa]

complicated question you can draw your own conclusions:
Where Does the Money Go?.

Didn't I say you knew more about the NCAA , now Calif legislation. Thanks. I'm not sure I like this because the full potential starts with a crack in the door. The imagination of the end result conjures up all kinds of undesirable visions. Also I dislike state or the Feds getting into sports----in Future States USA--I can see the Supreme court calling fouls or strikes. I guess new Freedom doesn't mean free from government long reach.

 

[oldude]

Make no mistake. This will make the rich schools richer by creating an incentive for top recruits to attend those schools with the greatest national exposure. That means top P5 schools in football and basketball will have a distinct advantage over 2nd tier P5 schools and every other conference.

There is potentially a silver lining for UConn WBB. The Huskies are in a unique situation. They may receive more national exposure than any other WBB program, in a state with no professional teams, at a school where the men’s football & basketball programs are not as successful and in a second tier conference. Add in the exceptional young ladies that UConn recruits and there could be some decent promotional opportunities. The one potential downside is that individual UConn players doing promotional work for compensation does seem to be a bit of line with UConn’s team philosophy.

 

[CocoHusky]

Make no mistake. This will make the rich schools richer by creating an incentive for top recruits to attend those schools with the greatest national exposure. That means top P5 schools in football and basketball will have a distinct advantage over 2nd tier P5 schools and every other conference.

There is potentially a silver lining for UConn WBB. The Huskies are in a unique situation. They may receive more national exposure than any other WBB program, in a state with no professional teams, at a school where the men’s football & basketball programs are not as successful and in a second tier conference. Add in the exceptional young ladies that UConn recruits and there could be some decent promotional opportunities. The one potential downside is that individual UConn players doing promotional work for compensation does seem to be a bit of line with UConn’s team philosophy.

How is this any different than the current system?

 

[oldude]

How is this any different than the current system?

The exposure afforded to top athletes at top programs does not necessarily equate to money in their pocket. I know there have been some well documented abuses by boosters, shoe companies, etc. But by and large athletes have been limited to tuition, room and board for their services.

 

[CocoHusky]

The exposure afforded to top athletes at top programs does not necessarily equate to money in their pocket. I know there have been some well documented abuses by boosters, shoe companies, etc. But by and large athletes have been limited to tuition, room and board for their services.

I would have to vehemently disagree with that. In football and basketball recruits attend those top colleges today specifically because it is those high exposure schools that maximizes their chances of going to NFL and NBA=money in their pockets. In a sense the same can be said for WCBB, if you think you have WNBA potential your not signing with Holy Cross- great school though it maybe.

 

[oldude]

I would have to vehemently disagree with that. In football and basketball recruits attend those top colleges today specifically because it is those high exposure schools that maximizes their chances of going to NFL and NBA=money in their pockets. In a sense the same can be said for WCBB, if you think you have WNBA potential your not signing with Holy Cross- great school though it maybe.

I’m not disputing that the top schools have an inherent advantage, but this would be one more advantage for top programs. At least today, there’s a chance for a secondary program to woo a top recruit with the pitch of immediate PT and the opportunity to build a winning tradition, etc.

Beyond that, the devil is in the details. There have been a number of indictments over 6 figure payments to player’s families from shoe companies for a player attending a specific university. The potential here is that such payments to the players themselves could be perfectly legal. So if I’m a top basketball player, and I know that if I attend Louisville that earns me a $200,000 check from Adidas, because Adidas has decided that Louisville is their flagship university for MBB, how do other schools compete for that recruit?

 

[CocoHusky]

I’m not disputing that the top schools have an inherent advantage, but this would be one more advantage for top programs. At least today, there’s a chance for a secondary program to woo a top recruit with the pitch of immediate PT and the opportunity to build a winning tradition, etc.

Beyond that, the devil is in the details. There have been a number of indictments over 6 figure payments to player’s families from shoe companies for a player attending a specific university. The potential here is that such payments to the players themselves could be perfectly legal. So if I’m a top basketball player, and I know that if I attend Louisville that earns me a $200,000 check from Adidas, because Adidas has decided that Louisville is their flagship university for MBB, how do other schools compete for that recruit?

That Adidas contract is with the University of Louisville athletic department. Because Louisville is a public university, any payment by Adidas directly to players would still be illegal as it constitutes a bribe. Again, the scope of the new legislation is limited to names, images or likenesses it DOES NOT require the schools to compensate the student athlete.
Part of the student athletes scholarship agreement says that will only wear school supplied equipment to organized team activities. You can't show up to a UCONN team activity sporting Adidas gear without violating your scholarship agreement.

 

[Alydar]

Don't most institutions lose money on athletics?

The institutions may well lose money but without athletics their enrollment would decline. Those Sat football games are the identity of big colleges. Big colleges are businesses, and drawing in students is their business.

And someone is making money. A school with a $50 million football budget is writing checks to lots of people who are supplying all the things that teams need. Who is making money selling autographed photos of the Heisman Trophy winner at $100.00 a pop? It's the same people sliding envelopes of cash to prospective recruits.

Amateurism and capitalism don't mix well.

 

[oldude]

That Adidas contract is with the University of Louisville athletic department. Because Louisville is a public university, any payment by Adidas directly to players would still be illegal as it constitutes a bribe. Again, the scope of the new legislation is limited to names, images or likenesses it DOES NOT require the schools to compensate the student athlete.
Part of the student athletes scholarship agreement says that will only wear school supplied equipment to organized team activities. You can't show up to a UCONN team activity sporting Adidas gear without violating your scholarship agreement.

This is a gray area. Why wouldn’t Adidas also be able to compensate players directly for the use of their name or likeness in a commercial? Let’s assume that no official monetary offer is made until after the player signs their LOI, but it is common knowledge that if you’re a top 10 recruit and you sign with school X, Adidas will pay you Y. How is that a bribe?

Scenario 2: Booster XYZ owns a car dealership near campus. He pays school X players to use their name and likeness to promote his dealership. Today that’s a violation of NCAA rules. Under the new CA law it appears to be perfectly legal.

 

[Grad1990]

Amateurism and capitalism don't mix well.

Excellent point!

Show me any large governmental or institutional (public) program that correctly benefits and protects the intended end-user while not disenfranchising a separate group of people and I'll show you dancing monkeys on our green moon

There is nothing capitalistic or sustainable about the stripping of individual freedoms. Consequently, the NCAA was doomed to eventually fail at keeping individual freedoms stripped from their rightful owners.

 

[CocoHusky]

This is a gray area. Why wouldn’t Adidas also be able to compensate players directly for the use of their name or likeness in a commercial? Let’s assume that no official monetary offer is made until after the player signs their LOI, but it is common knowledge that if you’re a top 10 recruit and you sign with school X, Adidas will pay you Y. How is that a bribe?

Scenario 2: Booster XYZ owns a car dealership near campus. He pays school X players to use their name and likeness to promote his dealership. Today that’s a violation of NCAA rules. Under the new CA law it appears to be perfectly legal.

It is not a gray area it is rather black, white & illegal. You are not the only one who have these draconian things in their mind but please read the proposed legislation and I can assure these scenarios are well outside the scope of it.

Scenario 1 amounts to pay for play/attend which is & will continue to be illegal under the new proposed rules. If you pay a player to go to a specific university for the purpose of participating in athletic competition that is illegal and will void their eligibility. The sources of the money does not matter it could be the shoe companies, or cousin Ray Ray and em. It does not matter when the money changes hands. You can pay the student athlete before, during school or put in a trust fund until after they graduate, it will still be illegal.

Under the new rules scenario 2 might be more plausible minus the part about the booster. Here are the most important distinctions. Under the current rules NCAA athletes are not permitted to have part time jobs when in season. Under the new rules all income would be reported & theoretically taxable.

 

[Grad1990]

This is a gray area. Why wouldn’t Adidas also be able to compensate players directly for the use of their name or likeness in a commercial? Let’s assume that no official monetary offer is made until after the player signs their LOI, but it is common knowledge that if you’re a top 10 recruit and you sign with school X, Adidas will pay you Y. How is that a bribe?

Scenario 2: Booster XYZ owns a car dealership near campus. He pays school X players to use their name and likeness to promote his dealership. Today that’s a violation of NCAA rules. Under the new CA law it appears to be perfectly legal.

Exactly!!!

Big time university boosters and corporate marketers will make very short work of taking advantage of the profit-on-likeness rule as well as take down any and all remaining barriers in the way of protecting their turfs, status & profits (which is more than just money!).

I agree Olddude, the ruling definitely will help the "haves", and not in a small way.

 

[oldude]

It is not a gray area it is rather black, white & illegal. You are not the only one who have these draconian things in their mind but please read the proposed legislation and I can assure these scenarios are well outside the scope of it.

Scenario 1 amounts to pay for play/attend which is & will continue to be illegal under the new proposed rules. If you pay a player to go to a specific university for the purpose of participating in athletic competition that is illegal and will void their eligibility. The sources of the money does not matter it could be the shoe companies, or cousin Ray Ray and em. It does not matter when the money changes hands. You can pay the student athlete before, during school or put in a trust fund until after they graduate, it will still be illegal.

Under the new rules scenario 2 might be more plausible minus the part about the booster. Here are the most important distinctions. Under the current rules NCAA athletes are not permitted to have part time jobs when in season. Under the new rules all income would be reported & theoretically taxable.

So I’m confused. Under what circumstances exactly can college athletes earn monetary compensation for their name, image or likeness if they are not to be paid by a commercial company or booster with an interest in the university itself?

 

[Grad1990]

How about Nike paying player X to use their likeness to sell t-shirts or basketball shoes?

Respectfully, the ruling opens Pandora's box.

 

[stamfordhusky]

How about before you worry about competitive balance(which already doesn't exist), you worry about what is Justice for the players at the expense of billion-dollar institutions?

The majority of these "billion-dollar institutions" lose huge amounts of money on their overall athletics program, while many players gain scholarships worth over $50K per year. For that matter, many colleges already are in bad financial shape, and it is getting worse.

Btw, a very high percentage of the endorsement value of college athletes comes from the brand value of the college for which they play. Any unknown basketball player who suits up for Kentucky, for example, will earn a massive amount of money due to their network of fans. If that same unknown player suited up for DePaul, he would make a small fraction of what he would make for Kentucky. Etc.

 

[McFly]

**Facepalm** how do people actually have these thoughts rattling around in their head**

Easy. Because also rattling around in my otherwise nearly empty head are memories of things like point shaving, no show jobs, cars, and under the table cash to athletes and their families.
As BroadwayVa intimated, this current proposal is a "crack in the door."
Frame of reference, every other sports league in the world? Most of them are professional, and that's what I'm afraid will happen here.

 

[reno tony]

So are these pro athletes going to have to pay for their education, room, board, training, travel, uniform and so many other expenses that I haven't mentioned?

 

[Alydar]

Excellent point!

Show me any large governmental or institutional (public) program that correctly benefits and protects the intended end-user while not disenfranchising a separate group of people and I'll show you dancing monkeys on our green moon

There is nothing capitalistic or sustainable about the stripping of individual freedoms. Consequently, the NCAA was doomed to eventually fail at keeping individual freedoms stripped from their rightful owners.

The NCAA also is in part responsible for turning football and basketball into the cash cows they have become. I don't remember ever hearing them say that all that money was a bad thing. (As long as it was going into their pockets).

 

[reno tony]

Oh yeah, do better schools... athletically speaking... get to charge more for things like coaching and such. Because you really have to think Geno would be worth more than Holly.

 

[Alydar]

So are these pro athletes going to have to pay for their education, room, board, training, travel, uniform and so many other expenses that I haven't mentioned?

Leave that up to each school to decide. I don't think many will send their star center a bill for room and board.

 

[j66kicker]

Well the NCAA met today on this issue for the first time, and has already capitulated (sort of) to the growing number of states considering “name & likeness” bills (including the US Congress now). The NCAA higher-ups have punted to the 3 NCAA divisions and asked each division to come up with a solution for their division which is ”consistent with the collegiate model.” Ha.

Despite Positive Vote, Don’t Expect NCAA to Permit Athletes to Make Money

 

[Ozimoto]

I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect college athletics at the Division 1 level as we know it will be unrecognizable in no more than 10 years. Things have changed drastically in the last 10 years as a direct result of TV revenue and conference re-alignment that has destroyed many long standing regional rivalries that fueled student and alumni interest in sports. It is also driving up the costs to universities that have decided they want to have major athletic programs and join the blue bloods (UCONN football anyone?).

I also doubt that major success in sports generates the bounce in enrollment and general fund income to the school that it did five or ten years ago. Many in this generation of college students are not the rabid supporters of their university sports teams that we remember from our days of attending universities. My daughter looks at U of Maryland scores and is interested in how they are doing, but she only goes to games as a social event, not as a rabid fan. My son doesn't pay any attention to sports at his school. I don't think he has attended one sporting event at George Mason in the two years he has been there. Their selection of school had nothing to do with sports. They chose their school on the available programs, the costs, and the potential for future income. Sports success had absolutely nothing to do with it. At the cost of a college education these days, sports teams has little impact on the choice of a college for a majority of students from my personal experience.

Part of the disconnect between students and sports is based on the fact that the general student body and the athletes rarely mix. The top schools have separate dining halls and tutoring sessions for the athletes. You might see one or two athletes in one of your classes but other than walking by a practice field on your way to class you rarely have an opportunity to interact with the Division 1 athlete as a fellow student. They might as well be NFL or NBA players. It was bad enough 40 years ago when I was a student. I at least had a few classes with some of the football players who had real majors. I would suspect it is even more segregated now.

If you go to a game at a Division 1 school these days, students get tickets via a lottery system because the majority of the seats go to alumni or others (boosters) who are willing to pay a seat license fee on top of the ticket prices to attend games. When I went to WVU in the late '70's and early 80's any student could go into a football or basketball game and all they needed was their student ID. Now limiting student accessibility to put paying butts in the seats feeds the void between the student and the student athlete. This is why you don't have the rabid student sections that we were used to (with notable exceptions here and there).

These proposals will potentially help some athletes, but they will further erode the relationship between the general student population and the college athletic teams. I had an English professor who thought that college athletics had become a joke way back in 1980. He figured that it made more sense to have the college host a "professional team in residence" that would generate their own self sustaining revenue. I think that is essentially what Division 1 revenue sports will end up being (you could make the case it already is this way at some schools). Not sure what, if any, impact any of this will have on non-revenue sports and their athletes. I doubt it will help them significantly as there aren't too many endorsement opportunities for the guys and girls on the fencing team, or for the field hockey team for that matter.

It remains to be seen how this ruling will affect the awarding of athletic "scholarships." Will colleges and universities reduce their offers of student aid to athletes based on their earning potential? They already are doing that with "normal" students, basing the aid given on the government's determination (FAFSA) of what resources the student and his family have to put toward the cost of education.

As has been said many times, no one wants to see how the sausage is made. I am afraid the making of this sausage moving forward could get really ugly.