Sure, same way it works in the pros, subject to the contract between the parties.
should we be paying mens CFB and CBB players?
- Thread starter blion72
- Start date
Sure, same way it works in the pros, subject to the contract between the parties.
Sure you can. Ordinarily, a gymnast is going to command less money than a football or basketball player. Gymnastics isn't called a non-revenue sport for nothing. However, nothing stops a school from paying a gymnast, or any other athlete, whatever it wants other that the possibility that someone might pay more.
It's no longer college sports when it reaches this point. Penn State/Alabama/Rutgers/Loyola Chicago aren't in the business of running multiple professional sports franchises. For every Saquon Barkley that benefits from a system like you propose there are hundreds who will be hurt when it results in the system collapsing.
If you want to say athletes should be able to monetize their likeness, I can get behind that. If Nike wants to pay Saquon while he's at Penn State, great. If Speedo or Gatorade wants to pay Katie Ledecky while she swims at Stanford good for her. Private business relationships that don't involve the school.
Last edited:
But they are professional sports franchises - or they act like professional sports franchises except for when it comes to the student-athlete. FBS football has employees (coaches, trainers, AD’s, support staff), it generates millions if not billions in revenue for the schools and the TV networks, it markets and sells merchandise, and like a business that revenue is used to make upgrades to the university’s facilities, to provide pay raises and bonuses, attract talent from other schools. FBS football certainly operates like a business.
I completely agree with the second part of your post. A relationship between a business and an individual should be no business of the NCAA. For example, Saquon could have appeared in Nike ads sans any reference to Penn State. He owns his likeness and his name - not the school or the NCAA.
So a local business (say a large car dealer) could swing a recruit from one school to another by offering him money for his likeness?
I understand this opens up a can of worms. And undoubtedly there will be businesses that do this. But a more fundamental question is whether the NCAA can stop a person from profiting from their likeness. Here is how Wikipedia defines the right of a person to control their likeness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
So a better question may be not whether some local businesses will take advantage of being able to pay a player to sway a recruit but whether the rights of US citizens are being violated so others (NCAA and the suits at the universities that make huge salaries) can profit from maintaining the status quo.
No matter how much you and others may like the status quo, whether changing it opens a can of worms is completely immaterial to the fundamental question of whether the NCAA can stop student-athletes from controlling their likenesses.
It will put an end to the one and done. They'll make more in college they can in the pros.
They are a business, they aren't a professional sports team. The revenue they made is immaterial. My high school sold tickets to football games, paid coaches, trainers and an AD but you aren't going to make an argument that high school players deserve a cut of the gate.
If you want to pay college athletes you make every sport (gymnastics, diving, fencing, etc) professional. So the next step in this business is you cut all of the divisions within your company that aren't profitable. So say goodbye to basically every college team outside of 50 or so college football and mens basketball teams and the uconns womens basketball team, and then say goodbye to the uconn women because a 1 team basketball league won't be profitable.
Yup, still a better alternative than having Alabama and OSU in bidding wars for recruits.
Major college football and basketball haven't been college sports for a long time. Doesn't matter what you or I think, courts are going to decide this, maybe as early as sometime next year.
And Katie Ledecky is gone from Stanford swimming. Probably cost her a nice piece of change for the two years she was there.
Under current rules, no. If I were making the rules, sure. What happens after Jenkins is decided is anyone's guess. If the NCAA were smart about this, they'd get out ahead of it, just like MLB did after Flood. But we've seen the extent of the NCAA's wisdom.
For the vast majority of kids in MBB and football, the system in place is probably better for them. However, the true elite athletes get screwed a bit. That being said, the kid that is reneging on the Cuse in basketball is looking at a max of 25k in the G League next season.....
25k from the G League but odds are that won't be his sole revenue stream. Nothing stopping Adidas/Nike/UA from throwing some cash his way.
Nope. They are already paid in full with the scholarships they receive. 100% tuition, room, food, and additional monies through easy work assignments. Probably equals $50k plus per year . Are you kidding me
the ncaa exists under a contract with the member schools. it cannot stop a player from profiting individually from selling some value point around themselves, however the ncaa can decide to prohibit playing a sport for a member school under the contract. that limitation is not a constitutional limitation.
So it can stop a player from “selling some value point” indirectly. Will be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.
Are you listening to what you are saying? Imo, you are rationalizing the dumbing down of America. Once an athlete suffers any type of career ending injury, no pro franchise will invest in him and where is he in life without a college education.
You're kidding, right? Barkley will be making literally millions from the use of his image. If he was lost playing in some "G-league", no one would have ever heard of him. The free advertising he got from Penn State (or any other school if he was playing there) was priceless. That kid that decomitted from Syracuse will be playing in obscurity for the next year.
If you want to make endorsements legal, fine. As long as it is written all NCAA Letters of Intent that those endorsement revenues will be paid back to the University involved to offset the cost of attendance (tuition, room, board, medical, etc). He is getting free advertising from the use of the NCAA and University involved's name.
Baseball and hockey have it right. If you want to get paid, sign and contract and go play somewhere other than the NCAA. The NFL and NBA (lesser w the Developmental league) have free “farm systems” in place and the NCAA is making Billions within tax exempt entities.
Smoking weed is illegal in most states. They can drink beer. And making money off of your image is not illegal.
If a student with an academic scholarship gets some kind of endorsement deal (can’t imagine how or why this would happen), would they have to pay back their academic scholarship? And if Barkley was allowed to make an endorsement deal while in college, and let’s say it was worth millions, I would have no problem with the school rescinding his scholarship because it would then be unnecessary.
As far as Barkley now making millions. You’re missing the point. Remember Aaron Harris? They’re always one play away from their careers being over. How about Kijana Carter? Yeah he got signed, but then suffered a career ending injury. How much could he have made off of endorsements while in college? But he wasn’t allowed to profit from his image or skills because everyone is obsessed with these kids not being allowed to profit from their skills while everyone around them makes millions.
The issue is whether not allowing people to control and profit from their image is legal. The NCAA, universities, and TV networks use their images all the time to make money but the players themselves are precluded feom doing so. I’m not sure that’s legal. People in the US have the right to control their image. A persons image is considered to be their property. Like I said: we’ll see what the courts say. And if their letter of intent states that they give up the right to control their image, we’ll see whether that’s legal too. Contracts are invalidate all the time ifone side has undue influence or if a severe power imbalance exists in the agreement.
Right. And if they lose their amateur status they lose (or seriously jeopardize) their ability to earn a living as a professional athlete because the NFL won’t allow a person to enter the draft until they’ve been out of high school for three years. So the NCAA is effectively telling them that if they profit from their image that their athletic career is over. Then there is this whole other issue of TV and the NCAA profiting from their images while simultaneously forbidding the athletes from doing so.
Hey Rip I would love to be making 37.50/hour for part-time work play a game.
Good then show the balls it takes to do it.... BTW..... $37.50 adjusted for inflation is about 5 bucks an hour in 1960 dollars.
Similar threads
