NCAA group to propose possible changes to allow athlete endorsements

[Jason Svoboda]

Source: Group to present NIL endorsement plan

A working group studying the future of NCAA name, image and likeness rules plans to suggest during a Tuesday afternoon board meeting that college athletes be allowed to make money from a variety of endorsements, a source tells ESPN's Dan Murphy.

www.espn.com

Nope, don't like it one bit. First, it does not address program inequality. Sorry, a school like UNC that has rabid millionaire boosters will just form LLCs and "endorse" players. This is going to have the same effect as corporate lobbying in the political arena where the haves are going to further separate into completely different tier. Second, when the player goes and gets the money on their own, the situation is ripe for outside interference in the game. Hey, I'm going to give you $50k cash but I'm going to need you to shave points when I tell you to. What could go wrong?

If the NCAA membership is fine with paying players, then lets just jump in with both feet and institute a salary cap for college football and basketball. Create a revenue sharing model (sort of like how they disperse NCAA tournament units) and give it to all Division 1 schools to let them sign players. Lets see how good blue bloods are when they don't have 10 4- and 5-star recruits because they opted to take a bigger payday at a smaller school.

 

[BrokerZ]

I don't mind this approach...in a perfect world. In a perfect world each school's NCAA compliance person(s) would be required to submit W2's or 1099's for the NCAA to review and bless. Because, without this having SIGNIFICANT oversight I fear the same things Jason noted will happen. This bullet in particular I found most troubling:

"Allow athletes to hire an agent to help procure marketing opportunities, so long as that agent does not seek professional sports opportunities for the client during his or her college career."​

That just smells like trouble.

If this is done rightly, it is a free market strategy that could benefit all players, whether from big or small schools. Tyreke Key should be able to do a Dorsett radio commercial and get paid for it. If the free market deems him marketable locally, then he should be allowed to make money if he chooses to do so.

Unfortunately, I think we all can see the pitfalls in this where corruption can become quickly rampant.

 

[4Q_iu]

Source: Group to present NIL endorsement plan

A working group studying the future of NCAA name, image and likeness rules plans to suggest during a Tuesday afternoon board meeting that college athletes be allowed to make money from a variety of endorsements, a source tells ESPN's Dan Murphy.

www.espn.com

Nope, don't like it one bit. First, it does not address program inequality. Sorry, a school like UNC that has rabid millionaire boosters will just form LLCs and "endorse" players. This is going to have the same effect as corporate lobbying in the political arena where the haves are going to further separate into completely different tier. Second, when the player goes and gets the money on their own, the situation is ripe for outside interference in the game. Hey, I'm going to give you $50k cash but I'm going to need you to shave points when I tell you to. What could go wrong?

If the NCAA membership is fine with paying players, then lets just jump in with both feet and institute a salary cap for college football and basketball. Create a revenue sharing model (sort of like how they disperse NCAA tournament units) and give it to all Division 1 schools to let them sign players. Lets see how good blue bloods are when they don't have 10 4- and 5-star recruits because they opted to take a bigger payday at a smaller school.

A horrible idea; look at the latest "student movement"

www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/students-are-filing-lawsuits-and-organizing-strikes-against-universities/ar-BB13myvf?li=BBnb7Kz

What happens with the new pro league masquerading as the ncaa is forced to negotiate a new cba with the returning players?

 

[Bluethunder]

Like it or not, the days of college players not being paid for playing are numbered. It is only a matter of time before they are either given cash payments by their school or the NCAA or allowed to cash in on their likeness via endorsements, etc.

The NCAA can't continue to reap billions of dollars a year on the backs of college football and basketball players each year without compensating them beyond a scholarship (and other ways like meals, free tutoring, etc). The chickens are coming home to roost.

On a side note, I am not in favor of paying athletes, I wish it stayed as an amateur organization. But I am also a realist, and when the NCAA, Bowls, network television, and many others are raking in millions each year, its only a matter of time before they are forced to give more to the athletes.

I have never understood why a player can't cash in on his/her likeness? If a piano player in college gets paid to perform for a commercial, its all good. If a QB gets paid to do a radio ad or sign an autograph he is suspended.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

I have never understood why a player can't cash in on his/her likeness? If a piano player in college gets paid to perform for a commercial, its all good. If a QB gets paid to do a radio ad or sign an autograph he is suspended.

The reason I don't like it is the same reason many college football coaches don't care for it. The bigger schools will abuse the system and recruiting will simply become whatever programs can build the biggest donor pools. For example, lets say one way the school did it was custom jersey sales. Each sale by number is attributed to the current roster member. All you'd have is deep pocketed boosters telling kids, I'll buy 1000 of your jerseys when you hit campus. That won't just happen for stars, it'll go to the secondary players, too. So the top schools will consolidate even more talent.

That's why I think it makes more sense to simply adopt the pro model, give schools a salary cap and it's cost controlled. Make the cap and pool flexible based on the total NCAA revenues and give every school a chance. Who would have Lansing got if he could offer the same $20k to a big time player that may have wanted to stay home in Indiana but got his pockets lined at a power conference school?

The other reason why filtering it through schools makes sense (at least to me) is they could figure a way out to keep the tax and reporting burden off these kids, who at 17, can barely handle basic life skills. They can give them one singular tax document, they could even have an on-staff accountant to help the kids out, etc.

 

[4Q_iu]

Like it or not, the days of college players not being paid for playing are numbered. It is only a matter of time before they are either given cash payments by their school or the NCAA or allowed to cash in on their likeness via endorsements, etc.

The NCAA can't continue to reap billions of dollars a year on the backs of college football and basketball players each year without compensating them beyond a scholarship (and other ways like meals, free tutoring, etc). The chickens are coming home to roost.

On a side note, I am not in favor of paying athletes, I wish it stayed as an amateur organization. But I am also a realist, and when the NCAA, Bowls, network television, and many others are raking in millions each year, its only a matter of time before they are forced to give more to the athletes.

I have never understood why a player can't cash in on his/her likeness? If a piano player in college gets paid to perform for a commercial, its all good. If a QB gets paid to do a radio ad or sign an autograph he is suspended.

keep in mind that the majority of the "billions" the NCAA earns is then paid out to schools, who in turn pay it out to the athletes in the form of their scholies, room & board ( a direct payment when the athlete lives off campus ), their books ( so, SO many unused books ), their tutoring, etc, etc, etc

there are a handful of the ~40 bowls that turn a profit; sorry BocaRaton Bowl, you're NOT in the black

I'm also so completely tired of the "piano player" analogy for athletes; when is the last time, donors were willing to spend ten of thousands of $$ on getting that "5-star cello recruit" to sign with Julliard over Berklee?

to quote Bear Bryant... "...80,000 people don't show up to watch a chemistry test..."

 

[Bluethunder]

But that Cello player can go and make money off of their talent while in school. How come the athlete can't? I thought that was part of the American dream, to hone and develop your God given talents and be able to cash in on them? A science student can develop a new vaccine and make millions, he/she doesn't lose their ability to keep working in the science department. If someone is wiling to pay, why can't you to endorse a product because of your talent in basketball or football, why can't you accept? Nick Saban can make 6 million a year to coach me, and can cash in on his likeness with Aflac commercials but I can't?

As for the competitive balance, I have never worried too much about it because it is already a myth. The same 5-7 teams have the top recruiting classes each year. The same 5-7 teams are typically the ones competing for a national championship. Yes, sometimes the stars align for an outsider to join for one year but each year Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Georgia (and now throw in LSU) are leading the nation in recruiting.

Again, I am not saying I am in favor of dumping truck loads of money on young kids' doors. However, over the past ten years when I look at the amount of money being spent by schools on stadiums, coaching salaries, etc it is pretty hard to imagine that the day of student athletes getting paid is still far off. The day is coming, it's just a question of how will it be set up.

There are ways to set it up where student athletes can prosper on their abilities like normal students but without completely throwing out the amateur model. Make it a deferred compensation based upon graduating. You can have access to the money after you get your degree. If you don't get your degree then you only get a percentage dependent upon how much of your classes you complete. Or you have to wait longer to access the money. There are ways it can be set up that involve people planning that are a lot smarter than me. The point is that the horses are out of the barn and the current model isn't going to work for the next generation. There is just too much money being thrown around that it is unlikely that those who actually perform aren't going to want a bigger slice of the pie.

 

[4Q_iu]

across the NCAA Div I landscape, I believe that the current model for "student"-athletes isn't broken anywhere but at the ~top 20 programs, arguable the "power 5" conferences. And I believe it's broken there b/c of the ridiculous amounts of that exist in that arena.

I DON'T believe Nick Saban should be paid $6M, regardless of the source of the $6M, I DON'T believe in the truckloads of $$ being spent on stadiums, players lounges, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that some programs have 4+ uniforms.

The student-athlete IS paid today; that pay takes the form of their full scholarship (esp for Div I MBB and FBS football athletes), their room, boarding, the free gear provided by Nike, addidas, UnderArmor, etc, the tutoring, the training tables, the "understanding professors" for road trips, etc


Is there a possibility your "future model" comes to pass? possible but I can guarantee. it won't last; kids will be clamoring for "their money" before they graduate

Jason has mentioned a "salary cap" of sorts; it's possible that model could work but for me, it would have to include the coaching salaries -- which is a non-starter as the ncaa tried that model years back w/ the 1 "restricted earnings" coach on staff.


Circling back to your Saban AFLAC commercials... I don't care if he does ads for them but they should be banned during ANY football game - period. They should be banned during the ENTIRE NCAA football season - period.

As there wasn't a "march madness" this season, i was spared the ubiquitous mike "the head rat" krzyzewski ads DURING march madness; i've forgotten the product, obviously an NCAA partner but in WHAT world is running a rat krzyzewski ad DURING march madness not promoting the dook brand?

It's wrong, it should be banned under ncaa directives - period.

 

[Bluethunder]

I don't disagree with anything you say. I would love to keep amateur athletics as amateurs, but I feel like the winds have changed on that in the last 5-10 years or so. I see and hear far fewer defenders of amateur athletics now and far more people saying players should be compensated beyond what they currently get. Combine that with the amount spent on coaches, facilities (a never ending arms race) and the like and it just seems that the current model is dying a slow death.

In a perfect world, a basketball or football player (or any other athlete) should be able to make some money on his/her talent while in school just like the cello player or the science student. However, the science student and cello player will be given fair market value based upon their abilities. I think we all agree that football and basketball players will be given far more than they should, in a backdoor effort to bring in more talent. However the flip side to that argument is that it is already happening, this would just bring it out of the shadows and into the light.

The one common thought I hear from fans of paying players (no matter how much or how little they say) and those who argue against it is that none of them have any faith in the NCAA's ability to create a plan, implement and enforce it.

 

[4Q_iu]

I don't disagree with anything you say. I would love to keep amateur athletics as amateurs, but I feel like the winds have changed on that in the last 5-10 years or so. I see and hear far fewer defenders of amateur athletics now and far more people saying players should be compensated beyond what they currently get. Combine that with the amount spent on coaches, facilities (a never ending arms race) and the like and it just seems that the current model is dying a slow death.

absolutely agree -- but anyone who thinks a "pay the athlete more" model will be better is living under a rock.

In a perfect world, a basketball or football player (or any other athlete) should be able to make some money on his/her talent while in school just like the cello player or the science student. However, the science student and cello player will be given fair market value based upon their abilities. I think we all agree that football and basketball players will be given far more than they should, in a backdoor effort to bring in more talent. However the flip side to that argument is that it is already happening, this would just bring it out of the shadows and into the light.

There are very few cello players making any $$ while still in college; perhaps those who are busking down on the corner but they're making virtually nothing -- panhandlers make as much or more. And those "money-making" science students? Unless they're cooking meth, all of those breakthroughs in the science lab are property of the University (and whomever else is supporting the work), virtually NONE of that intellectual property is owned by the student

The one common thought I hear from fans of paying players (no matter how much or how little they say) and those who argue against it is that none of them have any faith in the NCAA's ability to create a plan, implement and enforce it.

Agree -- but the NCAA is only as strong, legit as the corrupt ADs, coaches and university staffs that develop and implement policy