California preparing to go to war with the NCAA?

BloodStripe said:
So when is California going to start teaching more about capitalism and less about communism?
Click to expand...
Isn't that what this is all about? Capitalism is the driver behind letting the athletes make money via endorsements.

CA needs to get their message straight. Can't have capitalism in the marketplace and communism in politics. Just doesn't mesh right.

LL
 
Box said:
Conflict of interest maybe?

I have a big "meh" on this one - I say market yourself - if Reebok wants to pay a college student a million dollars to wear sneakers - so be it.
...but if the college benches them for a conflict of interest because the school already has a contract with Nike - so be it
Click to expand...
The article says the law doesn't allow athletes to sign with companies competing against the contractual partners of the schools.
 
Raptor said:
But why should that keep outside companies from paying athletes for commercials, endorsements, etc.?
Click to expand...
Th endorsement they accepted was the scholarship offer they received to attend the university at no cost. The athletes are showcasing themselves with the hope of a future payout.

Listen, if an athlete is that shit hot, they'll get their due and then some after school.

This effects such an incredibly small number of athletes to the point the argument is really mute.
 
I understand that the athletes are getting benefits through scholarships, but if a company wants to pay them to be in an ad then the athlete themselves should be able to decide if they want to do it or not. Like I mentioned earlier, denying them the ability to make money off of their own image seems fucked to me. Every other college student could theoretically do it, as far as I know, so denying athletes that right seems really silly. And while the big contracts are definitely going to go to the 1%, I'd bet some businesses from around where smaller name athletes went to HS would be willing to put them in local ads, especially if its a rural area.
 
Raptor said:
I understand that the athletes are getting benefits through scholarships, but if a company wants to pay them to be in an ad then the athlete themselves should be able to decide if they want to do it or not. Like I mentioned earlier, denying them the ability to make money off of their own image seems fucked to me. Every other college student could theoretically do it, as far as I know, so denying athletes that right seems really silly. And while the big contracts are definitely going to go to the 1%, I'd bet some businesses from around where smaller name athletes went to HS would be willing to put them in local ads, especially if its a rural area.
Click to expand...
It's only fucked in that the NCAA and universities are using the revenue they receive to redistribute funds to provide scholarship opportunities and funding to other sports that may not be viable otherwise. It could be viewed as a redistribution of wealth, as opposed to letting the individual keep it all (a concept,, as pointed out earlier by others, that ironically you'd think CA would embrace)

Rather than sponsor an individual, the companies merely sponsor a school or the NCAA. I don't see a whole new influx of money coming in if athletes are allowed to accept endorsement deals. It's just a shifting of funds. That's the difference the way I see it.
 
I see what you're saying now. That could happen, but I could also see companies shifting marketing money from the pros to try and take even more advantage of how college fan bases tend to be more rabid than fan bases of pro teams (in my experience, at least). Also, like you mentioned, athletes are there rather short term. Most would probably only be getting contracts for one or two years rather than the full 4 or 5. Getting contracts with the schools would probably have better long term advantages, which would give companies incentives to keep doing it like they do now. However, I'll fully admit that I'm just taking a guess from what I know (admittedly little) about how large companies operate, so once again I could just be way off on my conclusion.
 
There's lots of talk about jerseys and what not, but how about when UCF and the NCAA took away a football players eligibility because he had a youtube channel he made and revenue off of?

How the YouTube kicker’s lawsuit challenges the NCAA

According to NCAA rules:

A student-athlete may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete’s name, photograph, appearance, or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business.
Click to expand...

I.E. if he made any money at all that somehow had his name or apperance in it, he'd lose his scholarship and eligibility.
 
That stuff is so petty and so much the exception to the exception that it's almost not worth noting.
 
Blizzard said:
That stuff is so petty and so much the exception to the exception that it's almost not worth noting.
Click to expand...

Did you know that if you are a scholarship player and I was an alumni or a booster and I lent you money to buy pizza you could have your scholarship revoked? And the school put on probation?

All it is is about money control and power control. NCAA rules are bullshit. The fact that scholarship players can't make money over his own name but your school can? There's something wrong in that.

Now I do completely agree with the assertion that this is pretty, and while it's not widespread and so egregious that it's commonplace, the fact that we even have to have the discussion is absurd..
 
Devildoc said:
Did you know that if you are a scholarship player and I was an alumni or a booster and I lent you money to buy pizza you could have your scholarship revoked? And the school put on probation?

All it is is about money control and power control. NCAA rules are bullshit. The fact that scholarship players can't make money over his own name but your school can? There's something wrong in that.

Now I do completely agree with the assertion that this is pretty, and while it's not widespread and so egregious that it's commonplace, the fact that we even have to have the discussion is absurd..
Click to expand...
To that I agree.
 
Remember that this really gathered steam over the NCAA football game. EA Sports used names and likenesses, so it wasn't just the college making a buck off their names.
 
Blizzard said:
Th endorsement they accepted was the scholarship offer they received to attend the university at no cost. The athletes are showcasing themselves with the hope of a future payout.

Listen, if an athlete is that shit hot, they'll get their due and then some after school.

This effects such an incredibly small number of athletes to the point the argument is really mute.
Click to expand...
If guys got paid off their jersey sales and received even a small amount of ticket sales it would help them be squared away for when they leave college. Look at the number of guys who have been injured in football who are fucked up for life. Maybe even lose a scholarship and never get that degree. They risked their body for a schools bottom line and get nothing in return. Letting guys profit off their own efforts seems like the easiest way of repaying them.
 
DasBoot said:
If guys got paid off their jersey sales and received even a small amount of ticket sales it would help them be squared away for when they leave college. Look at the number of guys who have been injured in football who are fucked up for life. Maybe even lose a scholarship and never get that degree. They risked their body for a schools bottom line and get nothing in return. Letting guys profit off their own efforts seems like the easiest way of repaying them.
Click to expand...
This is up to each individual school but every school that I'm aware of will honor the scholarship in the event of a career ending injury; they may still require involvement in the program in other ways. Again, this a small fraction of the 1% that any of those would even apply to.

I understand that I (and the NCAA) will likely be on the losing side of this argument but it doesn't make it right. As pointed out earlier, the school owns the jersey, so is the athlete going to split the revenue with the school? How much do they think they'll really make? There is a small handful that will make serious money; most won't. And what does this mean in terms of scholarship dollars? If they can earn more through endorsements, then perhaps their scholarship allotment should be reduced or even eliminated if they earn over a certain amount. Again, if you want to earn money/be the big dog, then go pro. Otherwise your job is to be a student-athlete, with the emphasis on the first part.

In many ways, the argument is no different than it is for many of us. Most employers, unless self employed, make a lot more money off our efforts than we do in salary. Are we entitled to those "extra" earnings they make from our efforts? No, not really.
 
Last edited:
Raptor said:
While this works for some sports, I know the NFL and NBA won't let you enter straight out of high school.
Click to expand...
That's only because they want to see you prove yourself against other high caliber competition first. Thus, the proving ground that is the NCAA. Certainly there have been more than a few that left college early to enter the pro ranks But again, we're talking about introducing a policy that effects so few as to be almost negligible.
 
I agree, and I'd argue that for football, its probably best to not send 18 year olds out against a bunch of NFL players. However, for the players this would affect, a lot of them can't simply go pro like you were suggesting. And as Boot mentioned, a career ending injury can happen anytime, so I can see why players would want to get money while they still can (even those already in the pros go with that mindset). Also, even if only a small percent of players would be affected, I don't see why they should be held back just because others won't be able to get the same deals.
 
Blizzard said:
This is up to each individual school but every school that I'm aware of will honor the scholarship in the event of a career ending injury; they may still require involvement in the program in other ways. Again, this a small fraction of the 1% that any of those would even apply to.

I understand that I (and the NCAA) will likely be on the losing side of this argument but it doesn't make it right. As pointed out earlier, the school owns the jersey, so is the athlete going to split the revenue with the school? How much do they think they'll really make? There is a small handful that will make serious money; most won't. And what does this mean in terms of scholarship dollars? If they can earn more through endorsements, then perhaps their scholarship allotment should be reduced or even eliminated if they earn over a certain amount. Again, if you want to earn money/be the big dog, then go pro. Otherwise your job is to be a student-athlete, with the emphasis on the first part.

In many ways, the argument is no different than it is for many of us. Most employers, unless self employed, make a lot more money off our efforts than we do in salary. Are we entitled to those "extra" earnings they make from our efforts? No, not really.
Click to expand...

The school owns the Jersey, but the Jersey isn't worth money without the player that makes it valuable. The arguement isn't (currently) about saying students should get paid to play; it's about students being allowed to make money outside of their athletic requirements.
The NCAA is a tax exempt organization that makes billions of dollars a year; I think losing a bit of money on some jerseys and allowing players the rights to their likeness as no affect on the "amateurism" of the sports, and a negligible affect on the NCAA's bottom line.
 
Cookie_ said:
The school owns the Jersey, but the Jersey isn't worth money without the player that makes it valuable. The arguement isn't (currently) about saying students should get paid to play; it's about students being allowed to make money outside of their athletic requirements.
The NCAA is a tax exempt organization that makes billions of dollars a year; I think losing a bit of money on some jerseys and allowing players the rights to their likeness as no affect on the "amateurism" of the sports, and a negligible affect on the NCAA's bottom line.
Click to expand...
Why would they do that? That's not even how merchandising works for the pros; NFL, NBA, NHL. Licensing occurs through the league, which splits revenues across all teams, although not necessarily proportionally. In other words, Ezekiel Elliott isn't getting all the money from the sales of NFL jerseys with his name/number on it. That revenue goes into a pool that is distributed among all athletes in the league.

The discussion is really about earning endorsement money. Which I also think comes with it's potential set of unintended consequences.
 
Destroying amateurism as it stands is really a stupid fucking idea. The NCAA scholarship model has taken hundreds of thousands of students providing them a path to become professionals.
 
Back
Top