NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness(cnn.com)
cnn.com
NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/us/ncaa-athletes-compensation/index.html
5 comments
The NCAA caved so fast on this. Now they're going to try to get ahead of it and get their cut of the endorsement money that the athletes will be earning soon. This would be a good time for athletes to come together and demand that the NCAA stays out of their lives outside of sports.
yep. to be honest it's kinda inspiring that this all started with a single body of a single state legislature. hopefully it shuts up cynics who say the status quo cannot be overcome.
A single state legislature of a state large enough to form its own NCAA competitor. A competitor that would have quickly got all the best athletes by paying higher than slave wages. It’s only because of its monopoly position that the NCAA the iniquity persisted so long; any threat to that academic cash cow is a reason to cave.
Well, to be fair after California passed this a few other states indicated they were looking into similar legislation. I think that is what prompted the NCAA to declare this as quickly as they did. I do think even if was just California they would have caved, but would have dragged their feet for much longer.
market fundamentalists would argue the size of the state doesn't matter; the leak in the dam would spur all sorts of competition and effective resource allocation that would eventually (perhaps more slowly) topple the system.
so it made it happen more quickly perhaps, but seems unlikely the outcome would be different if you're a believer in so called "markets".
so it made it happen more quickly perhaps, but seems unlikely the outcome would be different if you're a believer in so called "markets".
It would have to at least have enough universities that it can plausibly form a league. Wyoming wouldn't cut it. The relatively-populated states of Pennsylvania and New York currently only have three serious football programs each. California has seven (being charitable), and with centralized UC leadership could quickly create more. Texas or Florida are the only other plausible options.
obviously counterfactual argument here but:
NBA has one and done rule currently which means talented high schoolers are waiting 1 year, typically playing in college or abroad, before entering the draft.
why not make some money alongside your 1 glide year by playing in the wyoming league? you get to stay in the US, boosting your future earnings, have some fun in college, but also earning some cash off of jersey sales and maybe lock in some sponsorship deals with apparel/shoe companies earlier than your competitors.
once one successful person does it, it's easy to see how it morphs into a market for eager one and done players.
NBA has one and done rule currently which means talented high schoolers are waiting 1 year, typically playing in college or abroad, before entering the draft.
why not make some money alongside your 1 glide year by playing in the wyoming league? you get to stay in the US, boosting your future earnings, have some fun in college, but also earning some cash off of jersey sales and maybe lock in some sponsorship deals with apparel/shoe companies earlier than your competitors.
once one successful person does it, it's easy to see how it morphs into a market for eager one and done players.
An argument against that is you'll make less endorsement money the year after, because nobody's going to watch Cheyenne U. stomping all over Windswept Agricultural Institute.
The NCAA is the textbook definition of an illegal cartel and is used by economists to illustrate abusive behavior. As it stands today it is the most flagrant violator of US antitrust laws - they don’t really want a public fight with an institution that has the power to investigate and regulate their behavior.
So let’s create a policy that benefits maybe the top 200-300 athletes out of the tens of thousands competing at the collegiate level? Yeah that makes sense. They on scholarship are already getting what — $300k to a million in scholarship subsidies, travel, access to upgraded facilities and trainers, supportive schedules, all to develop their professional career both on and off the field. And that’s not enough? I agree that a total ban on income is ridiculous but why not set a reasonable wage scale and let those who need / want to work earn at that scale? Opening up athletes to profit on their likeness while they also take scholarships just had all sorts of issues with it the least of which are the tax issues (why isn’t the scholarship now taxable income?) At a time when most families of non scholarship students struggle to pay for college and many students struggle with loads of student debt, why are on earth are we creating more haves / have nots? Especially when such policies won’t benefit the average athlete and certainly not the regular student body.
Those sports teams wouldn't be making any money without the talents of the students that play on those teams. The TV contracts the larger teams are negotiating are worth billions of dollars. The subsidies to all players are two digit millions at best. The manner in which these universities are profiting off of these largely minority athletes is obscene. To deny those kids the right to profit from their own labor because of some trivial tax implication while those same universities continue to make billions of dollars is an absurd argument to make. Perhaps if the universities turned down the TV contracts then maybe the scholarship argument might have some merit.
How do you think it would be received if Harvard tried to seize ownership of Facebook because it gave Mark Zuckerberg a scholarship? Or that Harvard should take ownership of Facebook because some kids that didn't goto Harvard won't have the luxury of starting a billion dollar corporation.
How do you think it would be received if Harvard tried to seize ownership of Facebook because it gave Mark Zuckerberg a scholarship? Or that Harvard should take ownership of Facebook because some kids that didn't goto Harvard won't have the luxury of starting a billion dollar corporation.
I’m not saying that the current system is fair. What I am saying is that the minute you make a student athlete a professional then it’s a logical outcome that the value of their entire scholarship is taxable - did you consider that in your remarks? I’m not defending the lack of fairness in the current system, I’m saying the policy is a half attempt at reform and not well constructed. In my view, it’s dumb to say a student athlete can’t work hard, can’t be a good student and can’t be a amateur athlete at the same time. Clearly they should be able to be all three... but there’s probably a better way to do it and one that’s fair and doesn’t saddle athletes with unnecessary tax consequences.
This is off the mark and here's why: The schools wouldn't be paying them, private businesses would be paying them for endorsements.
If the schools were paying them, then talking about fairness between sports (Football vs Swimming for example) at least makes sense. Personally, I'm not against the schools directly paying athletes different amounts based on their individual worth because this is exactly how the labor market works (and the NFL too). This is how academic scholarships work too, the better "candidate" you are, the more money the school gives you to enroll. But note that this is not what all this is about.
The problem is that the NCAA is dictating what an athlete can do with their own time outside of sports. This is like Google prohibiting employees from getting paid to teach a class on the Go Programming Language because they learned it on the job. Or the engineer who created Go to get paid to give a speech about it at a conference. Or even prohibiting a famous Google employee from appearing in a car commercial for the local Tesla dealership. If we saw these examples in a newspaper, we would say: "wow, that's not right, Google can't do that!". And there would also be lawsuits against google.
If the schools were paying them, then talking about fairness between sports (Football vs Swimming for example) at least makes sense. Personally, I'm not against the schools directly paying athletes different amounts based on their individual worth because this is exactly how the labor market works (and the NFL too). This is how academic scholarships work too, the better "candidate" you are, the more money the school gives you to enroll. But note that this is not what all this is about.
The problem is that the NCAA is dictating what an athlete can do with their own time outside of sports. This is like Google prohibiting employees from getting paid to teach a class on the Go Programming Language because they learned it on the job. Or the engineer who created Go to get paid to give a speech about it at a conference. Or even prohibiting a famous Google employee from appearing in a car commercial for the local Tesla dealership. If we saw these examples in a newspaper, we would say: "wow, that's not right, Google can't do that!". And there would also be lawsuits against google.
Well as I stated, I agree that an outright ban on outside work isn’t fair. So I do agree with you that it’s a little ridiculous the way the system is currently set up.
Also, I think the ncaa rulemaking concerns use of the athlete’s likeness — I’m pretty sure that would cover the school’s own use to promote their programs so in fact I think it means that the schools would also be paying the student athlete for that use. And that becomes the problem - in its current form it’s not well thought out.
But my point is slightly different: I’m saying the policy disproportionately impacts a few athletes at a few top schools. And doesn’t resolve the issue of allowing students the ability to earn an income if they need to or desire to. The ncaa is trying to thread a needle and in doing so is making bad policy. The only athletes who stand to benefit are going pro anyway... you’re telling me they can’t wait a few years and simply focus on their degree and supporting their school’s program?
Also, I think the ncaa rulemaking concerns use of the athlete’s likeness — I’m pretty sure that would cover the school’s own use to promote their programs so in fact I think it means that the schools would also be paying the student athlete for that use. And that becomes the problem - in its current form it’s not well thought out.
But my point is slightly different: I’m saying the policy disproportionately impacts a few athletes at a few top schools. And doesn’t resolve the issue of allowing students the ability to earn an income if they need to or desire to. The ncaa is trying to thread a needle and in doing so is making bad policy. The only athletes who stand to benefit are going pro anyway... you’re telling me they can’t wait a few years and simply focus on their degree and supporting their school’s program?
> And doesn’t resolve the issue of allowing students the ability to earn an income if they need to or desire to.
I don't understand what you're arguing here. This is exactly what this was meant to do, allow athletes to earn money on the side by themselves by getting endorsements, running camps, give private lessons, etc.
> you’re telling me they can’t wait a few years and simply focus on their degree and supporting their school’s program?
A decent number of them will flame out in the pros after making basically no money, even relatively high round draft picks. So no, they can't wait because their income is artificially being stunted by the NCAA and by extension the schools. College athletics is a $10 Billion industry, god forbid the athletes everyone watches on TV get a piece of the pie.
I don't understand what you're arguing here. This is exactly what this was meant to do, allow athletes to earn money on the side by themselves by getting endorsements, running camps, give private lessons, etc.
> you’re telling me they can’t wait a few years and simply focus on their degree and supporting their school’s program?
A decent number of them will flame out in the pros after making basically no money, even relatively high round draft picks. So no, they can't wait because their income is artificially being stunted by the NCAA and by extension the schools. College athletics is a $10 Billion industry, god forbid the athletes everyone watches on TV get a piece of the pie.
Is your argument really just “there are poor people in the world so we need to force these people to be extorted by the ncaa”? You provide lots of context that less fortunate people exist, but none actually explaining why this particular profession needs to be forced to give the revenue they generate to coaches and athletic directors like they currently do.
No that’s not my argument at all. I’m saying the policy doesn’t help most student athletes - only those whose programs already benefit from large budgets. And really only the stars... you think Nike is going to pay some back bencher at a nationally ranked program for use of his likeness?
Announcement from the NCAA:
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board...
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board...
All of these athletes are going to need an easy to use platform to monetize their likeness. Something like Cameo, but adapted to collegiate athletes and expanded to support endorsements and appearances. I imagine services that support paid fan clubs with exclusive content will do well too.
EA Sports is probably happy as this means they can bring back their previously very popular NCAA Football series of games.