Senator Murphy’s Legislation on College Athletes

[oldude]

Yesterday, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut along with Congresswoman Lori Trahan of MA submitted a bill in Congress titled the College Athlete Economic Freedom Act that would permit college athletes to profit off their “name, image or likeness.”

Murphy stated, “It’s time for us to stop denying the right of college athletes to make money off their talents.” The fact that a CT Senator introduced this legislation is interesting considering that one of the likely beneficiaries will undoubtedly be UConn’s Paige Bueckers. I figure it’s just a matter of time before Geno asks Paige to start picking up the checks on UConn road trips.

 

[Biff]

O.K. everyone. Do you see the minefield ahead of you here? We've got a valid topic wrapped in a political bun. Stay on course please.

 

[oldude]

Not sure about Murphy, but Trahan, who is well over 6’ tall, was an exceptional HS athlete from Lowell, MA who earned an athletic scholarship to play volleyball at Georgetown.

 

[Skeets]

Biff, I hear you and hope this slightly different discussion steers clear of the mines.

Let's say college athletes are allowed to make money off of the name, image, etc. I don't necessarily have too much of a problem with this. But, let's consider the unintended consequences. What does this do to the top schools? How about the mid-majors. What does it do to recruiting? What does it do to high school sports. Anyone have an opinion on this? I'm somewhat concerned that it looks too good without carefully considering all the possibilities.

 

[oldude]

Biff, I hear you and hope this slightly different discussion steers clear of the mines.

Let's say college athletes are allowed to make money off of the name, image, etc. I don't necessarily have too much of a problem with this. But, let's consider the unintended consequences. What does this do to the top schools? How about the mid-majors. What does it do to recruiting? What does it do to high school sports. Anyone have an opinion on this? I'm somewhat concerned that it looks too good without carefully considering all the possibilities.

I believe the top schools will only prosper from this legislation for the simple reason that the handful of top HS athletes like Paige, will have an even greater incentive to attend “high profile” universities where their print & media exposure will be significantly greater.

 

[hoopsfan22]

What it means is the schools with the ability to provide the highest profile to a student-athlete will get first dibs on the top talent. The more marketing and exposure a school can offer, the more money making potential for a prospective recruit. It would just be one more thing to add to the overall package a school could offer. A coach could say if you come to our university, we'll offer you the best coaching, training, TV exposure, marketing, biggest potential to make money, and way way down on the list in small letters a top notch education. There would of course be corruption with such an arrangement, but we'll put that aside for a moment. Imagine what this would do for the top football schools like Ohio State or Alabama? I think the impact is less in basketball because teams are much smaller, the talent is less specialized and is forced to disperse across many schools. It would help steer the top shelf talent to the schools with the largest media footprints ultimately.

 

[CTBballfan243]

What needs to happen is the P5 need to break away from the NCAA where they can run their athletics programs like a semi-professional league and pay the revenue generating student athletes how they see fit. The Non-P5 cannot afford to get into that arms race and should stay under the NCAA umbrella and remain amateur athletes.

 

[oldude]

What needs to happen is the P5 need to break away from the NCAA where they can run their athletics programs like a semi-professional league and pay the revenue generating student athletes how they see fit. The Non-P5 cannot afford to get into that arms race and should stay under the NCAA umbrella and remain amateur athletes.

To some extent, P5 schools have already broken away from the NCAA relative to football. Beyond that issue, assuming that a law is enacted to allow college athletes to profit off their name, image or likeness, no school will want to limit an athlete’s opportunity to do so for the simple reason that it will hurt them recruiting.

There will even be marketing opportunities for small town teams. For instance, if a local pizza joint or car dealership wants to pay the star running back of their hometown team to endorse their business in a local newspaper or radio station ad, what kid is not going to want to pick up a few bucks?

 

[bluedevil]

Do they even play WBB in FL?

Beach Volleyball.

 

[hoopsfan22]

To some extent, P5 schools have already broken away from the NCAA relative to football. Beyond that issue, assuming that a law is enacted to allow college athletes to profit off their name, image or likeness, no school will want to limit an athlete’s opportunity to do so for the simple reason that it will hurt them recruiting.

There will even be marketing opportunities for small town teams. For instance, if a local pizza joint or car dealership wants to pay the star running back of their hometown team to endorse their business in a local newspaper or radio station ad, what kid is not going to want to pick up a few bucks?

Is there a law preventing a player from getting paid? I assumed that was just an NCAA rule, so a law saying a player can do something that's already legal does what exactly? When you sign your name on the dotted line to accept an athletic scholarship, you are committing to the school, and all of the NCAA's rules and regulations. The NCAA has a monopoly and tight grip on college sports, so perhaps that's the real problem.

 

[CocoHusky]

One very troubling (confusing?) aspect of the new proposed legislation is the aspect that allows players unionize and provide "group licensing agreements" for players. All the discussion thus far has been individual based as in an individual would be free to make money from their own image and likeness. This group aspect strikes a blow at not just the NCAA but also the conferences in such areas as broadcast rights, apparel fees/ sponsorship & conference network revenue. Simple example: UCONN WBB (Players) goes to Adidas and says Nike is currently giving UCONN X. In exchange for 1/2 of X (directly payable to the Players) we will rep and wear Adidas. Possible?

 

[oldude]

Is there a law preventing a player from getting paid? I assumed that was just an NCAA rule, so a law saying a player can do something that's already legal does what exactly? When you sign your name on the dotted line to accept an athletic scholarship, you are committing to the school, and all of the NCAA's rules and regulations. The NCAA has a monopoly and tight grip on college sports, so perhaps that's the real problem.

The NCAA has been dancing around the fringes of the issue of athlete compensation for several years now. The Ed Obannon lawsuit that dragged through the court for years, finally blew the lid off colleges using player images to make money while not providing a dime in compensation to the players themselves.

I assume that if Congress passes a law expressly granting college athletes the right to profit off their name, image and likeness, colleges will have to comply with that law relative to the terms of the scholarships they grant and any potential restrictions they might attempt to place on the athletes ability to profit.

One exception I do forsee is that colleges should be able to restrict athletes endorsement opportunities when wearing school uniforms, including game highlights. In those cases, colleges or media organizations own the commercial rights. A more intriguing dilemma might be if an athlete, say Paige, decides to do a commercial for Adidas, when UConn has a contract with Nike....

 

[j66kicker]

What it means is the schools with the ability to provide the highest profile to a student-athlete will get first dibs on the top talent. The more marketing and exposure a school can offer, the more money making potential for a prospective recruit. It would just be one more thing to add to the overall package a school could offer. A coach could say if you come to our university, we'll offer you the best coaching, training, TV exposure, marketing, biggest potential to make money, and way way down on the list in small letters a top notch education. There would of course be corruption with such an arrangement, but we'll put that aside for a moment. Imagine what this would do for the top football schools like Ohio State or Alabama? I think the impact is less in basketball because teams are much smaller, the talent is less specialized and is forced to disperse across many schools. It would help steer the top shelf talent to the schools with the largest media footprints ultimately.

Major difference in Murphy’s bill and the several competing versions is that this one completely ties the NCAA’s hands in terms of putting any limitations on NIL earnings. IMO this bill allows the most potential for abuse by rich boosters offering endorsement deals.

Also, I think the corruption is already bigger in basketball (men’s) than football, and this particular version of the bill would probably even further exaggerate that.

 

[CocoHusky]

Is there a law preventing a player from getting paid? I assumed that was just an NCAA rule, so a law saying a player can do something that's already legal does what exactly? When you sign your name on the dotted line to accept an athletic scholarship, you are committing to the school, and all of the NCAA's rules and regulations. The NCAA has a monopoly and tight grip on college sports, so perhaps that's the real problem.

There is no law preventing the players from getting paid with the assumption that such income would be taxable. If a player were to get paid and then turn around and paid the appropriate taxes the only consequences would be NCAA=loss of eligibility, forfeiture of contest the player played in.

 

[stamfordhusky]

On the men's side it will cause massive problems in football and basketball. Imagine Alabama boosters paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsement money to their top players and recruits. A second problem is that Murphy's bill doesn't recognize that a major factor in a college player's earning potential is the brand-name of the school itself.

 

[oldude]

A second problem is that Murphy's bill doesn't recognize that a major factor in a college player's earning potential is the brand-name of the school itself.

I agree with your point. But the reverse is also true. A major factor, and perhaps the major factor, in the estimated $15 billion in revenue that colleges earn are the players themselves. At present, players receive tuition, room & board, and that’s it.

 

[Jackcatscal]

On the men's side it will cause massive problems in football and basketball. Imagine Alabama boosters paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsement money to their top players and recruits. A second problem is that Murphy's bill doesn't recognize that a major factor in a college player's earning potential is the brand-name of the school itself.

The vision I have is that a booster will tell a high school star, “Come to my school, and I’ll pay you $50,000 for making a couple of appearances at my auto dealership.” How do you control that?

 

[Cornell Lt]

This will definitely change the landscape of college athletics.. How can a small town area like Storrs compete with the big metropolitan areas of Chicago, LA, NY, etc as far a promotional/endorsement opportunities.

 

[CocoHusky]

The vision I have is that a booster will tell a high school star, “Come to my school, and I’ll pay you $50,000 for making a couple of appearances at my auto dealership.” How do you control that?

First thing I want to point out is that a gift of $50K is illegal right for anyone ( not just athletes) unless Uncle Sam get his cut .
You probably can't fully control this but here are some possible partial solutions.
1) Make the athletes employees of the university. As employees of the University the players would then be subject to an agreement to report all outside compensation. The university can then set a limit on this compensation by simply saying if you are making >$ ( Pick a number ) in outside compensation your employment agreement is terminated because clearly you don't need us. 2) Treat the $50K as taxable income reported to the IRS=not reporting it make this a federal crime.

 

[AgStatesman]

Women's basketball is unique in that it is the only sport where the NCAA version is more popular than the professional. I could see situations where it would make more economic sense for a women's college player to stay for a 5th year and make more money in endorsements then she ever could by playing in the WNBA and overseas. Right now, Paige would make more as a collegian then any WNBA player does.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

On the men's side it will cause massive problems in football and basketball. Imagine Alabama boosters paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsement money to their top players and recruits. A second problem is that Murphy's bill doesn't recognize that a major factor in a college player's earning potential is the brand-name of the school itself.

The vision I have is that a booster will tell a high school star, “Come to my school, and I’ll pay you $50,000 for making a couple of appearances at my auto dealership.” How do you control that?

You both hit the nail on the head. Schools that currently skirt the rules will now be able to do it in public with 0 repercussions. The schools with the most passionate boosters will regularly buy the best players. All we need is 1 year of earnings for a star player to show potential recruits what they too could earn. I want the kids to have money and be as normal as they can, but this is going to make things crazy.

 

[CocoHusky]

You both hit the nail on the head. Schools that currently skirt the rules will now be able to do it in public with 0 repercussions. The schools with the most passionate boosters will regularly buy the best players. All we need is 1 year of earnings for a star player to show potential recruits what they too could earn. I want the kids to have money and be as normal as they can, but this is going to make things crazy.

No booster regardless of how passionate or how wealthy can make a University accept a player. If payments are done in public and deemed to be excessive the University can simply say we will not admit you. The purpose of the the University is to educate not to build sports programs.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

No booster regardless of how passionate or how wealthy can make a University accept a player. If payments are done in public and deemed to be excessive the University can simply say we will not admit you. The purpose of the the University is to educate not to build sports programs.

Alabama wants the #1 QB in the country. Said recruit is able to see the kind of $ current top performing players make at 'bama thanks to oil money boosters for whom cost is no object. In the new environment where players can make money off their image and likeness, the top prep stars will almost certainly go to where they can play AND make the most money.
I'm not suggesting the boosters will force players on the school and I'm also not suggesting they pay the athletes while still in high school, but by virtue of supporting existing players, they will make it easier for their university to get the players they want by showing what the player could earn on the side at said school. BTW, I seriously doubt a school wouldn't admit a stud the coach wants just because they've made excessive money in high school. For the top basketball players, the sneaker companies will be there and possibly making deals.
Who decides what is excessive? If T Boone Pickens Ford wants to pay a freshman stud quarterback $50K for a TV commercial, who's to stop them? Free market, right?

 

[Jingo]

College athletes are already getting paid - room, board & tuition - upwards of $200,000 .. plus a camaraderie and social life that is priceless! .. If they need the money that badly, let them turn pro .. I, for one, will not miss them, at all.

 

[MooseJaw]

Women's basketball is unique in that it is the only sport where the NCAA version is more popular than the professional. I could see situations where it would make more economic sense for a women's college player to stay for a 5th year and make more money in endorsements then she ever could by playing in the WNBA and overseas. Right now, Paige would make more as a collegian then any WNBA player does.

I believe that an athlete such as Paige who has a huge following will carry her fan base and endorsements with her. Athletes with less notoriety may or may not enjoy the same. This entire subject is an enormous cavern with more unforeseen pitfalls that has the chance to rip apart and convolute the entire landscape of college athletics. I am afraid seeing $ signs will overrule common sense while concentrating talent in a manner that ruins competition as we know it. Good or bad you decide.

 

[MooseJaw]

Alabama wants the #1 QB in the country. Said recruit is able to see the kind of $ current top performing players make at 'bama thanks to oil money boosters for whom cost is no object. In the new environment where players can make money off their image and likeness, the top prep stars will almost certainly go to where they can play AND make the most money.
I'm not suggesting the boosters will force players on the school and I'm also not suggesting they pay the athletes while still in high school, but by virtue of supporting existing players, they will make it easier for their university to get the players they want by showing what the player could earn on the side at said school. BTW, I seriously doubt a school wouldn't admit a stud the coach wants just because they've made excessive money in high school. For the top basketball players, the sneaker companies will be there and possibly making deals.
Who decides what is excessive? If T Boone Pickens Ford wants to pay a freshman stud quarterback $50K for a TV commercial, who's to stop them? Free market, right?

I agree, when and if this happens I will no longer support the sport and search elsewhere for my entertainment.

 

[BobbyJ]

I agree with your point. But the reverse is also true. A major factor, and perhaps the major factor, in the estimated $15 billion in revenue that colleges earn are the players themselves. At present, players receive tuition, room & board, and that’s it.

Don't forget the unlimited Pudding Pops for snacks.

 

[CocoHusky]

Alabama wants the #1 QB in the country. Said recruit is able to see the kind of $ current top performing players make at 'bama thanks to oil money boosters for whom cost is no object. In the new environment where players can make money off their image and likeness, the top prep stars will almost certainly go to where they can play AND make the most money.
I'm not suggesting the boosters will force players on the school and I'm also not suggesting they pay the athletes while still in high school, but by virtue of supporting existing players, they will make it easier for their university to get the players they want by showing what the player could earn on the side at said school. BTW, I seriously doubt a school wouldn't admit a stud the coach wants just because they've made excessive money in high school. For the top basketball players, the sneaker companies will be there and possibly making deals.
Who decides what is excessive? If T Boone Pickens Ford wants to pay a freshman stud quarterback $50K for a TV commercial, who's to stop them? Free market, right?

Every university has a department call admissions. The best thing about working in and admissions department is you don't have to have a very good reason to reject an applicant. In the case where a University thinks that boosters have paid too much for an athlete the University can reject the applicant.
So let me flip your questions around. What booster is going to pay $50K for a kid that's not going to be admitted to their favorite university. For already enrolled students free market and public disclosure could work much better than the current system of under the table payments like we seen in movies like Blue Chips. We are also only talking about two sports Men's basketball and Football.

 

[CocoHusky]

I agree, when and if this happens I will no longer support the sport and search elsewhere for my entertainment.

It is already happening don't delay your search.

 

[j66kicker]

In the case where a University thinks that boosters have paid too much for an athlete the University can reject the applicant.
So let me flip your questions around. What booster is going to pay $50K for a kid that's not going to be admitted to their favorite university. For already enrolled students free market and public disclosure could work much better than the current system of under the table payments like we seen in movies like Blue Chips. We are also only talking about two sports Men's basketball and Football.

What about the "already-enrolled" students who were promised the $50K "contract" before they enrolled, to be awarded after they're in place?

BTW for the top high-end MBB and football players it's already a lot more than $50K