NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness

[LTownZag]

All the new legislation does is allow players to make money "on the side" from autographs, commercials, endorsements, camps, etc. Does not effect in any way how the student/university relationship is funded (scholarship + stipend)

Milehigh has proven to be a smart guy, so I imagine you understand this already, but:

These supposed "on the side" perks to a player would turn into the main menu item among all the top recruits.

For example - the next Zion or Wiseman or Jalen Suggs will be told by school A "We have a buyer, or group of wealthy business friends/boosters/alums committed to purchase 4 million dollars worth of your jerseys next year, "on the side" if you come here."

Then school B has a recruiting staff, boosters, and rich businessmen than commit to buy 5 million "on the side" and so the auction commences.

Regardless of how these perks are framed as being a side dish in theory, they would be the main course for the 5* guys.

[willandi]

Not sure how this doesn't open a Sam Gilbert-sized hole in the basic fairness of the sports. What is to keep Phil Knight from making sure the best players play at Oregon every single year? He can pay them a TON of money and call it monetizing their likeness.

I think there can be a middle ground somewhere, but honestly, the legislation doesn't remotely address this.

Milehigh has proven to be a smart guy, so I imagine you understand this already, but:

These supposed "on the side" perks to a player would turn into the main menu item among all the top recruits.

For example - the next Zion or Wiseman or Jalen Suggs will be told by school A "We have a buyer, or group of wealthy business friends/boosters/alums committed to purchase 4 million dollars worth of your jerseys next year, "on the side" if you come here."

Then school B has a recruiting staff, boosters, and rich businessmen than commit to buy 5 million "on the side" and so the auction commences.

Regardless of how these perks are framed as being a side dish in theory, they would be the main course for the 5* guys.

That is where I see a problem too. There is NOTHING to stop rich alumni fro paying lots of money to bring recruits in. The reason that the NCAA has the rules they have is because of times in the past when rich alumni paid athletes to go to their school. It was a good idea then, and remains a good idea.

The first premise presented was " If you are 18+, you're an adult. If you choose to play in any league exclusively as an unpaid amateur, you are not being "exploited" or victimized. You are free to stop the entire arrangement at any time, in order to pursue anything else, including paying professionally in a for-profit league abroad (during year 1) or the NBA (any time after year 1)."

I agree with this 100%. If you want to make money. Go pro.

[mgadfly]

For example - the next Zion or Wiseman or Jalen Suggs will be told by school A "We have a buyer, or group of wealthy business friends/boosters/alums committed to purchase 4 million dollars worth of your jerseys next year, "on the side" if you come here."

Then school B has a recruiting staff, boosters, and rich businessmen than commit to buy 5 million "on the side" and so the auction commences.

Regardless of how these perks are framed as being a side dish in theory, they would be the main course for the 5* guys.

And what's wrong with this?

This gets at the question that the OP ignores here.

Why should the NCAA be able to fix the price of labor for sports nationally? Why not make it a free market?
Shouldn't adults be able to make as much money off their talent as they can?
Why do we care that female shot putters won't make as much as 5-star quarterbacks?

Is the arrangement mutually and voluntary when giant institutions (including state governments) are fixing the price of labor and setting arbitrary rules that prohibits them from signing an agreement with certain terms (like the purchase of five million jerseys or even the ability to do a local TV commercial)?
Shouldn't the institutions themselves be able to set the terms of their contracts with players? (Right now they aren't - the NCAA sets the terms)
Should the NCAA set the terms that are acceptable for coach salaries? Why not?
Should institutions be able to approach minors and begin negotiating the terms of a scholarship?
Is this even a contractual relationship to begin with as the terms are set and there is no real negotiating going on at all?


Mark Few should have stayed in his lane. The California legislature sent a bill to a governor who signed it. It has years before it is implemented so that the NCAA can do what I hope Mark Few was trying to get at - which is self regulate a national scheme that in some way maintains competitive balance.

But competitive balance shouldn't be the goal. It certainly isn't when we are talking about coaching salaries. And that's the hypocrisy that drives me crazy. Our concern as fans is that we want it to be like a pro-league with a salary cap so that it isn't Duke vs Oregon every year for the national title with a team of guys making $5 million per season. That's a legitimate concern. But if you are a non-basketball fan observing this from the outside, you have two pools of labor with completely different rules. This isn't a freedom of contract issue. It's a price fixing scheme and states and citizens that aren't basketball fans get to address real or perceived injustices through the laws just like basketball fans. And our competitive balance concern isn't going to be their concern. Basketball (and more so football) should have done a better job addressing this a long time ago so that the public didn't get involved to begin with.

[zagfan24]

Some meandering thoughts:

1) Something has to change. The status quo isn't working, and the fact that a fix to the system is complicated isn't a good reason to keep things the way they are now.

2) There is currently almost no parity in college sports. Yes, paying players for their likeness creates a new problem, but it's hard to imagine college football and basketball being any more top-heavy than they are now.

3) This issue is incredibly complex, to the point that it's almost mind boggling. You have, in no particular order, the following conflicts: public vs private schools. tuition "value" versus actual costs. college rules vs pro league rules (i.e. the age at which a player can realistically turn pro). revenue vs non revenue producing programs. men's vs women's sports. d1 vs d2/d3. celebrity players vs anonymous players.

4) There is a huge lack of incentive for the people at the NCAA level to change anything. So while I don't agree that politicians at the state level are in an ideal position to exert influence or opinion, the reality is that those making money now are also probably the ones who ideally would possess the knowledge and power to make changes....and why would they?

5) Shoe companies, with the transformation of the AAU circuit into EYBL programs, already have an outside influence on high school and college sports. That genie can't be put back in the bottle.

6) There is an important role that poverty and privilege play in all of this. I'm not going to open up a Crosby (RIP) style discussion about this, but it's also hard for many to understand the viewpoint of some college athletes who grow up in poor socioeconomic conditions when talking about the relative value of money.

[LTownZag]

And what's wrong with this?

This gets at the question that the OP ignores here.

Why should the NCAA be able to fix the price of labor for sports nationally? Why not make it a free market?

I do not ignore that question. The NCAA should be able to set the limits for play within their own league, and should not be able to stop rival leagues from existing. If Zion had wanted to spend last year training on his own and doing private for-profit dunk exhibitions, poster signings, instagram live streamings, or playing pro in Europe or elsewhere for a million dollars or more, he could have.

Shouldn't adults be able to make as much money off their talent as they can?
Why do we care that female shot putters won't make as much as 5-star quarterbacks?

1 - They should be free to choose their own career path, which might involve 1-4 years of nominally "unpaid" time at a university, and might not. I have no problem with the university, NCAA, or any other training/apprenticeship/value-adding program not paying its participants, as long as no pay was ever promised.
2. I don't care that shot putters of any gender won't make as much as 5-star 5* QBs or point guards. Who is the "we" that supposedly cares? Do they?

Is the arrangement mutually and voluntary when giant institutions (including state governments) are fixing the price of labor and setting arbitrary rules that prohibits them from signing an agreement with certain terms (like the purchase of five million jerseys or even the ability to do a local TV commercial)?

Yes, it is mutual and voluntary. No price is "fixed". With respect, I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means, since you use it in a way that specifies achieving a strategic goal.

[LongIslandZagFan]

I just fear that basketball is going to be like college football is now... where 5 or 6 teams that compete year in year out. Deep pocketed donors will pay the best players and disguise it as paying for their likeness being used.

If anyone can explain to me how this WOULDN'T happen, I am all ears.

Sadly, the people this is "supposed to help" in some of the less popular sports, are going to see nothing still and football and basketball players (at only a select number of schools) will be getting rich.

[mgadfly]

I actually don't think you know what arbitrary means. I litigate it quite regularly. Arbitrary rules can certainly have a "strategic goal." My argument is that the rules are arbitrary from a value perspective because it, at least arguably, is based on power/institutional whim/is unrestrained and autocratic rather than based on actual values or reason.

Just because there is a value, doesn't mean the value/goal/what-have-you isn't arbitrary itself.

A king can have a strategic goal of making sure no cousins are ever in a position to challenge his authority. He can have an arbitrary rule that prohibits red hair so that he can execute 95% of his cousins. The red hair rule may arguably have a value based backing, may be to obtain a strategic goal, but would still be arbitrary.

Our placing of our interests over the interests of players, the public, etc... is arbitrary and not really based on logic or reason. You are free to disagree with that, but you aren't free to redefine what arbitrary actually means in an ad hominem attack.

The price is fixed. It's tuition plus a little stipend. You give no support for why it isn't fixed and every objective piece of evidence is contrary to your statement.

State governments and institutions shouldn't be fixing that price and then saying that if they don't like the price they should go do something else. And they certainly shouldn't do it without oversight from a democratically elected legislature and governor. That's exactly the way we (as in society if that wasn't clear, or the citizens that make up our electorate) decided these issues SHOULD be addressed.

I don't care who makes what either, but one of the arguments you see here is some generalized fear that someone will make too much (not coaches, they can't make too much) but that some 5-star quality player will make too much money or something and it needs to be fair. That isn't free market (and neither is states acting through their universities to set the salaries of labor).

And the NCAA should be able to set the price of its labor. And if one of the states that prop up the current price fixing says "forget that" we all shouldn't sit around all shocked and crying when all the good athletes play for millions of dollars per season in the California (and other states passing similar laws) Coalition of Universities Who Aren't Going to Continue to Price Fix League (CCUWAGCPFL).

[LTownZag]

I actually don't think you know what arbitrary means. I litigate it quite regularly. Arbitrary rules can certainly have a "strategic goal." My argument is that the rules are arbitrary from a value perspective because it, at least arguably, is based on power/institutional whim/is unrestrained and autocratic rather than based on actual values or reason.

Just because there is a value, doesn't mean the value/goal/what-have-you isn't arbitrary itself.

[mgadfly]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you are saying that something can't be arbitrary if there is any reason for it (even if the reason is arbitrary), thank God you've never been one of my judges or arbitrators. I'd have never won a case where I alleged a work rule or policy was arbitrary.

[LTownZag]

I just fear that basketball is going to be like college football is now... where 5 or 6 teams that compete year in year out. Deep pocketed donors will pay the best players and disguise it as paying for their likeness being used.

If anyone can explain to me how this WOULDN'T happen, I am all ears.

Sadly, the people this is "supposed to help" in some of the less popular sports, are going to see nothing still and football and basketball players (at only a select number of schools) will be getting rich.

Basketball is very different from football in a logistics and material support viewpoint, which is what is required to produce a top program. Fielding a top-10 football team requires dozens of players, special teams, more niche trainers, and a far larger staff and budget than it takes to run a top-10 basketball team or program. It's why you'd never see a national championship level football team from an equivalent of Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, etc.

I'm not sure if that difference makes things *easier* or *harder* for rich schools buy their way into a final 4 at a school with $$$ that could effectively pay top players for their marketing name and image.

I actually think it's at least plausible that paying players for a year or two in college would make it more likely for less established programs to land a very elite recruiting class and make a final 4. You'd just need enough money from a rich benefactor to buy the services of a few elite freshman for 6 months. Some non-powerhouse basketball school like Yale or Boston College or Stanford could easily round up a few billionaire alumni and make that happen in Basketball, but the logistical/institutional/$$$ challenge in football would be far greater.

[Hoopaholic]

Some meandering thoughts:

1) Something has to change. The status quo isn't working, and the fact that a fix to the system is complicated isn't a good reason to keep things the way they are now.
Please expl;ain to me why "status quo": is not working.......while some are cheating doesnt mean the other 93% that are abiding by rules should be considered not working

2) There is currently almost no parity in college sports. Yes, paying players for their likeness creates a new problem, but it's hard to imagine college football and basketball being any more top-heavy than they are now.

We can agree to disagree on this statement.....there is a ton of parity in the vast majority of college sports.......now you want to isolate football I might agree but the rest of the college sports I think there is great parity and opportunity for success

3) This issue is incredibly complex, to the point that it's almost mind boggling. You have, in no particular order, the following conflicts: public vs private schools. tuition "value" versus actual costs. college rules vs pro league rules (i.e. the age at which a player can realistically turn pro). revenue vs non revenue producing programs. men's vs women's sports. d1 vs d2/d3. celebrity players vs anonymous players.


4) There is a huge lack of incentive for the people at the NCAA level to change anything. So while I don't agree that politicians at the state level are in an ideal position to exert influence or opinion, the reality is that those making money now are also probably the ones who ideally would possess the knowledge and power to make changes....and why would they?

5) Shoe companies, with the transformation of the AAU circuit into EYBL programs, already have an outside influence on high school and college sports. That genie can't be put back in the bottle.
I disagree that this issue cannot be changed......question is is their the will to change

6) There is an important role that poverty and privilege play in all of this. I'm not going to open up a Crosby (RIP) style discussion about this, but it's also hard for many to understand the viewpoint of some college athletes who grow up in poor socioeconomic conditions when talking about the relative value of money.

and I see there is very little discussion as it pertains to tax payers who fund and support these universities through mandated taking of my hard earned money......why should my tax dollars go to support adults who can now make money while leveraging and using my tax paying dollars as a farce to attend "college".....move that money to those who want to go to college for the direct purpose of an education.........and while we are at it I would love for a mandate that college athletics must be fully funded on its own without taking any tax dollars toward operational expenses (solely use tax dollars for tuition and books like any other component of higher education does)

[MileHigh]

and I see there is very little discussion as it pertains to tax payers who fund and support these universities through mandated taking of my hard earned money......why should my tax dollars go to support adults who can now make money while leveraging and using my tax paying dollars as a farce to attend "college".....move that money to those who want to go to college for the direct purpose of an education.........and while we are at it I would love for a mandate that college athletics must be fully funded on its own without taking any tax dollars toward operational expenses (solely use tax dollars for tuition and books like any other component of higher education does)

Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

[LongIslandZagFan]

Basketball is very different from football in a logistics and material support viewpoint, which is what is required to produce a top program. Fielding a top-10 football team requires dozens of players, special teams, more niche trainers, and a far larger staff and budget than it takes to run a top-10 basketball team or program. It's why you'd never see a national championship level football team from an equivalent of Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, etc.

I'm not sure if that difference makes things *easier* or *harder* for rich schools buy their way into a final 4 at a school with $$$ that could effectively pay top players for their marketing name and image.

I actually think it's at least plausible that paying players for a year or two in college would make it more likely for less established programs to land a very elite recruiting class and make a final 4. You'd just need enough money from a rich benefactor to buy the services of a few elite freshman for 6 months. Some non-powerhouse basketball school like Yale or Boston College or Stanford could easily round up a few billionaire alumni and make that happen in Basketball, but the logistical/institutional/$$$ challenge in football would be far greater.

I don't disagree on Football... that isn't going to change. It is already a worthless effort for 99% of the teams in college football to try. It is already skewed to a handful of teams and this will not change the dynamic. Basketball-wise... if there aren't real constraints on how this is implemented... it will destroy the sport IMHO. All you need look at is UCLA in the 70s. They basically had a booster paying their players. They won every year. This is a step back in that direction... just making it above the board and legitimized.

[tinfoilzag]

Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

"Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school."

I fixed that sentence for you, College is a business.

The new law in CA is just a turf war between two mafia families.

[kitzbuel]

Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

That should definitely be taken in to consideration. It is taken into consideration for academic scholarships, music scholarships, etc. It should be taken into account for athletic as well. That way teams can focus scholarship money on those players that don't have the ability to make money off their likeness.