Supreme Court will hear NCAA case on college athlete pay

[homersapien 11,812]

The case could upend the college sports business model.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/supreme-court-will-hear-ncaa-case-on-college-athlete-pay-446336

 

[Howard Roark 195]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The case could upend the college sports business model.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/supreme-court-will-hear-ncaa-case-on-college-athlete-pay-446336

 

And probably ending college sports as we know it.  The workman's comp, Title IX, issues, etc. will destroy all the sports. The only 2 making money are football and men's basketball, the other sports cannot support pay.  

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,854]

^ the counter to that IMO, would just be the major two sports having to do a lil bit more to support other programs. That's essentially what happens right now anyway 

A side of the argument I've never seen, instead of colleges having to pay players through their own means and boosters, these guys can make their own money from their own likeness. Colleges will lose money with having less of a split in ownership of player likeness, but they'll save some from giving a guy say 30k and intangible, personality raising, benefits instead of 120k. 

[Swamp Eagle 5,178]

Seems more politics to me than anything. I’ll stop right there.

[gabo4au 229]

This is a topic that concerns me a lot. I think AU and even the SEC in general could be the big losers. 

So, let the players make money off their likeness?? Let's see, Oregon has offered me and if I go there they are guaranteeing I'll get my likeness on Nike shoes and pay me a ton for it!

Universities with lots of wealthy alumni, meaning lots of wealthy people who own companies who can buy a players "likeness" stand a chance to significantly improve recruiting. Yes AU has some wealthy alums, but nothing the likes of Notre Dame, MI, Oregon, USC, TX, etc. etc. etc. 

Large Universities, meaning they have lots more alumni, will have an advantage too. To me it just opens the door for the legal payment to athletes from alumni. AU, and the SEC in general, is not as wealthy, the schools are smaller, so there are fewer alums to pull from. 

The one thing the SEC does have are alums who actually would purchase likenesses. Some of the aforementioned "rich" universities might not care as much about sports or FB, so maybe we would find a way to compete. But it has the potential to completely reorder college sports and I don't really see AU coming out on the good end of it.

 

gabo

[gravejd 3,282]

You don’t have to make athletes employees for them to make money. Just allowing them to market themselves would be a big help for many. With social media the way it is people are know able to make large sums of money for themselves in ways that were not possible before. I see no reason to restrict college athletes from pursuing those opportunities. 
 

Also, the same 5 or so teams get the majority of the best players each year so I have zero concerns about this causing un fair advantage. If anything it levels the playing field and I’m a big fan of that. As long as there are signing and roster limits, teams will not be able to hog all the good players. 

[gabo4au 229]

31 minutes ago, gravejd said:

You don’t have to make athletes employees for them to make money. Just allowing them to market themselves would be a big help for many. With social media the way it is people are know able to make large sums of money for themselves in ways that were not possible before. I see no reason to restrict college athletes from pursuing those opportunities. 
 

Also, the same 5 or so teams get the majority of the best players each year so I have zero concerns about this causing un fair advantage. If anything it levels the playing field and I’m a big fan of that. As long as there are signing and roster limits, teams will not be able to hog all the good players. 

But it's not like general people making money on social media. It's a license for alums to figure out a way to pay players to come play for their university.

Wow, look that player made 3 million selling his "likeness" because Nike put his likeness on a pair of shoes to come play for Oregon.

I don't think it levels the playing field, it gives the big advantage to the rich. And it's the rich alums, not the university itself. Granted that might be different than the top 5 teams now. AL, GA, Clemson, don't have near the rich alumni of many other Universities.

Unless there are some really big controls put in place, it'll be a license for rich alums to pay players. TAMU might become the power force in the SEC, they probably have more money than any other university in the SEC.  Northwestern could become a perennial power! Vandy might no longer be the door mat of the SEC. The IVY league could become the most powerful conference.

 

gabo

[TigerOne 1,167]

Updykes have been doing this for decades. They will be consultants for the ncaa on how to do it but only without how to keep it a secret.

[TigerHorn 1,360]

What you should be looking at is how Joe Student and Jane Parent are going to view already privileged athletes raking in even more benefits from their association with a "public" university, vs the mountain of debt the regular students are taking on. Don't hand me "Well, free market...." because the free market wouldn't pay much at all to see them play for the local arena league team. They only gain that wealth by wearing the school colors.

Then there is the faculty and grad students, who are not permitted to own or benefit from their research, publications, and patents financially. How can you say that their relationship to the university is any different than that of well-paid QB1? You can't, and this will end up breaking the university system as we know it. Maybe it's time. 

[gabo4au 229]

Yep, totally agree. 

 

My solution to all this, which of course nobody wants to hear as it's just my opinion. To me the way to fix all this is just allow athletes to turn pro at age 18, just like any other business. If you complain that you should  be making all this money, then go make it! If you can make it in the NFL right out of high school and get paid, go for it! If you can't, then come play College and we'll give you scholarship to get an education just like we always have. 

 

Yes, this takes a few of the top athletes out of College FB. But the fans of those schools won't really miss any of it. We'll still follow AU just as fervently as we always have, buy just as many t-shirts, and go to just as many games. It might even be refreshing to NOT have the pr[ma donnas and it might also level the playing field just a bit. The bama's of the world wouldn't get all the top athletes, they would go pro. 

 

Just my 2 cents. gabo

[gravejd 3,282]

10 hours ago, TigerHorn said:

What you should be looking at is how Joe Student and Jane Parent are going to view already privileged athletes raking in even more benefits from their association with a "public" university, vs the mountain of debt the regular students are taking on. Don't hand me "Well, free market...." because the free market wouldn't pay much at all to see them play for the local arena league team. They only gain that wealth by wearing the school colors.

Then there is the faculty and grad students, who are not permitted to own or benefit from their research, publications, and patents financially. How can you say that their relationship to the university is any different than that of well-paid QB1? You can't, and this will end up breaking the university system as we know it. Maybe it's time. 

In both cases the athletes and students both benefit from being associated with the school. The student benefit with access to great resources, teachers, grants by the school to fund the research. The student benefits by getting experience in the field of their choosing and that allows them to get a job after school. The student can even get a side job in their field of study and make a some cash on the side while gaining experience. If the student happens to be savy with social networking they can also make side money as well to help them get started in life. 

With the current system you are basically punishing the athletes for being athletes. Making them adhere to rules that no other student has to adhere too. Whats going to kill the current college model if doing nothing. Its already trending where people are questing if schools provide more value to the athletes or if the athletes provide more value to the schools. Did Tua make it to the NFL because he went to bama or could he have gone anywhere and still made it to the NFL?? I know bama made a lot of money by him going to school there. 

Its a really complex issue to talk about. So many facets to it. I think the biggest hang up for people is that you have colleges pulling in obscene amounts of money based on TV contracts. And those TV contracts exist thanks to the athletes and people wanting to watch those athletes. It seems fair that the athletes should benefit from that money as well. And at the very least the schools and NCAA (which is also making obscene amounts of money) should not hinder the athletes from benefiting from their talents. 

[aubaseball 2,739]

26 minutes ago, gravejd said:

In both cases the athletes and students both benefit from being associated with the school. The student benefit with access to great resources, teachers, grants by the school to fund the research. The student benefits by getting experience in the field of their choosing and that allows them to get a job after school. The student can even get a side job in their field of study and make a some cash on the side while gaining experience. If the student happens to be savy with social networking they can also make side money as well to help them get started in life. 

With the current system you are basically punishing the athletes for being athletes. Making them adhere to rules that no other student has to adhere too. Whats going to kill the current college model if doing nothing. Its already trending where people are questing if schools provide more value to the athletes or if the athletes provide more value to the schools. Did Tua make it to the NFL because he went to bama or could he have gone anywhere and still made it to the NFL?? I know bama made a lot of money by him going to school there. 

Its a really complex issue to talk about. So many facets to it. I think the biggest hang up for people is that you have colleges pulling in obscene amounts of money based on TV contracts. And those TV contracts exist thanks to the athletes and people wanting to watch those athletes. It seems fair that the athletes should benefit from that money as well. And at the very least the schools and NCAA (which is also making obscene amounts of money) should not hinder the athletes from benefiting from their talents. 

That’s part of the problem.    The networks are paying this absurd amount of money to get the rights and then they pass that onto the consumer for subscriptions.   Ticket prices go up, T-shirts go up, concessions go up, and then schools pay a coach 7 million dollars to coach plus assistants.   

The way to solve it is minor leagues.   Basketball and baseball do it.   Let the players get a taste of minor league football and you will see them come back to college.   

Someone mentioned it earlier, the rich alums will be the ones paying for the likeness and to me that’s a recipe for team dissension.    When Tua’s of college start making millions and the second and some first stringers are getting nothing, I see a lot of locker rooms in chaos 

[gravejd 3,282]

7 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

That’s part of the problem.    The networks are paying this absurd amount of money to get the rights and then they pass that onto the consumer for subscriptions.   Ticket prices go up, T-shirts go up, concessions go up, and then schools pay a coach 7 million dollars to coach plus assistants.   

The way to solve it is minor leagues.   Basketball and baseball do it.   Let the players get a taste of minor league football and you will see them come back to college.   

Someone mentioned it earlier, the rich alums will be the ones paying for the likeness and to me that’s a recipe for team dissension.    When Tua’s of college start making millions and the second and some first stringers are getting nothing, I see a lot of locker rooms in chaos 

I mean bball is starting to trend that way to the minor league system. And i'm afraid its only going to get worse. But right now there is no minor league option for football players. Maybe there should be and that should be an option for kids that want to choose that route. But that would take a lot of money commitment by the big league teams to sustain the minor league teams. 

At the very least allow kids to go Pro whenever they want to. Then the million dollar guys will go pro and make their millions. If boosters want to come up with crazy schemes to pay the tier 2 players let them go for it. 1. i don't think we would be talking millions.....maybe a few thousand. and 2. not allowing people to make money off their skills because "it is not fair to everyone" is venturing too far into socialism for my tastes. 

[CT Tiger 136]

4 hours ago, gravejd said:

And at the very least the schools and NCAA (which is also making obscene amounts of money) should not hinder the athletes from benefiting from their talents. 

I want to hone in on this part because one important thing (IMO) seems to be overlooked a lot--non-football/basketball athletes and student athletes at smaller D1 schools and D2/D3 schools. What about the swimmer from a small D1 school that wants to give swimming lessons to kids in his hometown as a summer job? Or golfer wanting to give golf lessons? Or the tennis player who wants to start a tennis camp for the local community?  Etc. etc. 

I know as die hard Auburn fans, it is easy to forget about the non football and basketball athletes that are being prevented from using their talents for summer jobs and things of that nature, but there are hundreds of thousands of them even if you remove football and basketball. Here's how I frame the issue in my mind:

Is screwing over hundreds of thousands of student athletes a justifiable method of trying (and often failing) to eliminate booster influence in FBS football and D1 basketball? 

Personally, I have trouble finding this ethically permissible.

But here's the thing, this is not a zero-sum game like it's being treated as. Even though it always has and still does happen, the concern about boosters and companies abusing this is 100% valid. A new image/likeness rule can't just be a free-for-all like many seem to assume. It has to have parameters can devolve into a free 'pass' for boosters; however, I am confident that a framework can be created to minimize this while letting student athletes make some profit from their God-given talents which they also practice so hard for--for all sports. I am not sure what that framework is, but some quick ideas could be things like:

• The university cannot not pay any money to student athletes or prospective students. 
• Businesses and individuals (boosters) cannot talk about any sort of financial incentives to prospective players while they are being recruited.
• An annual financial cap on how much an individual or business can pay student athletes for promotion purposes.
• An annual cap on the number of promotional opportunities each student athlete is allotted. 
• No cap on how much money a student athlete makes in their own business using their likeness.
  • E.g. That tennis camp really takes off and the tennis players who happens to be majoring in business uses his education to grow it (or maintain it until he or she graduates and is able to treat it like a full-time job) while in college.
• No financial cap on the dollar-amount received from their cut of their jerseys sold (see next bullet for details).
• Jerseys with all player names can be sold with players getting an equal cut for anything sold using their likeness.
  • For example (ignore the numbers; those are for illustration purposes), Tank and Bo couldn't get 10% while Cord Sandberg only got 5%. Everyone must get 10%. Bo and Tank jerseys would obviously sell more, so their dollar amount would be higher than Cord but that's a direct consequence of their skill and talent. It's a free-market philosophy centered around the essence of what defines capitalism.
  • This could actually help with NCAA basketball's problem of the top-tier recruits going into the G-league. Maybe if this rule had been in place, we'd have landed Jalen Green?  
• Students may not sign licensing or promotional deals with any companies that are a competitor to the university's apparel provider.
  • So Tank and Bo couldn't sign anything with Nike or any other company than Under Armor, for example.

That's just off the top of my head and definitely incomplete. I am sure a deeper framework can be created to minimize the fears that many people share; but don't forget that there is already a huge disparity between schools and teams and boosters are still meddling in athletic affairs anyway. The NCAA is stripping freedom from hundreds of thousands of non-famous college athletes citing that it's necessary to prevent a problem... that has been going for decades anyway. There must be a compromise somewhere and I hope more people consider that path. 

 

And just for convenience, these are the current rules per the NCAA website:

Quote

 

WHAT ARE THE CURRENT RULES, AND HOW DO THEY IMPACT STUDENT-ATHLETES?

The current NCAA regulations on how student-athletes use their name, image and likeness vary among the three divisions. Athletics compliance administrators at each school and conference are charged with understanding and applying them on campus. The NCAA is a membership-led association, so leaders from more than 1,200 member colleges, universities and conferences make the rules.

Division I

In general, to maintain NCAA eligibility, Division I student-athletes may not promote or endorse a commercial product or service, even if they are not paid to participate in the activity.

Athletes may use their image to continue participating in nonathletically related promotional activities if they were initiated before college enrollment.

Divisions II and III

In general, student-athletes in Divisions II and III may participate in promotional activities not related to athletics, including promoting or endorsing commercial products or services. Student-athletes may be paid for participating in these activities under certain conditions — for example, when payment is not based on the individual’s involvement in athletics.

*In all divisions, there are several exceptions that allow the use of a student-athlete’s name, image or likeness in promotional activities. These include charitable, educational or nonprofit promotions; media activities; national governing body promotions; and camp and congratulatory advertisements.