Paying College Athletes/Letting Them Get Endorsements

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
31,449
Reaction score
42,803
Points
148
I hope people like you leave and stop commenting on sports forever.

Win for everyone involved.

I don't agree unless you only want the rich schools with rich alumni to benefit. I agree that the players should make more, but allowing people to pay them in commercials just mean rich alumni will pay them to do commercials for their programs only meaning all 4 and 5 star recruits are going to the programs with rich alumni.

If Oregon could do this, all 5 star recruits go there to get paid a million dollars to do a Nike commercial.
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
16,065
Reaction score
24,549
Points
135
This is dangerous and will make the richer programs richer. Paying for endorsements allows almuni the window to legally just pay players. Sure OSU would benefit, but college football will be so unequal I might have to stop watching.

I hate the NCAA, but this is not a solution.
I don't agree that this actually changes anything regarding where the recruits go. The top programs are already doing shady stuff, but that's just to compete with each other. The little guys are already losing out.
 

inliner311

All-Star
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
10,126
Reaction score
9,949
Points
113
I don't agree unless you only want the rich schools with rich alumni to benefit. I agree that the players should make more, but allowing people to pay them in commercials just mean rich alumni will pay them to do commercials for their programs only meaning all 4 and 5 star recruits are going to the programs with rich alumni.

If Oregon could do this, all 5 star recruits go there to get paid a million dollars to do a Nike commercial.

I feel like there is a limit to how many players can stand out at one program. Right now how many players at Ohio State get big endorsement deals. The 3 off the top of my head would be Fields, Dobbins, and Chase Young. Not sure who after that could get much money.

Even pro athletes are getting less endorsements these days and get one off brand deals. It's how marketing has trended over the last couple years. I'm just not sure who is giving guys who haven't made a name for themselves on the field more than a couple thousand dollars to do a commerical or ad spot for them. There are certainly guys who are big recruits with help from professinals who could make a name for themselves on social media until their time comes on the field but they would definitely need something beyond their athletic talents to do so.
 

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,885
Reaction score
12,903
Points
123
I don't agree that this actually changes anything regarding where the recruits go. The top programs are already doing shady stuff, but that's just to compete with each other. The little guys are already losing out.

So....continue to let the little guys lose?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,971
Reaction score
45,612
Points
148
I don't agree unless you only want the rich schools with rich alumni to benefit. I agree that the players should make more, but allowing people to pay them in commercials just mean rich alumni will pay them to do commercials for their programs only meaning all 4 and 5 star recruits are going to the programs with rich alumni.

If Oregon could do this, all 5 star recruits go there to get paid a million dollars to do a Nike commercial.

The NCAA could get out ahead of this and develop a system where this is strictly enforced as illegal.

But they have seemingly no interest.


In this country, ANYONE should be entitled to profit off of their image and likeness. Viral internet stars can do it, but you can't do it if you want to play football? It's nonsensical.

The ONLY counter arguments to this are rooted in not wanting the current college football landscape to change. People are terrified and constantly live in fear of the changing world around them.

Disallowing boosters to pay for player endorsements they wouldn't otherwise receive is pretty easy to contain.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
29,353
Reaction score
48,928
Points
148
I struggle to see why it’s a step in the wrong direction to let players receive profit from their likenesses that otherwise goes to schools. We’ve done this with literally everything else in the history of America as far as I’m aware. Why should this be an exception?

Because unlike most commercial endeavors, a key part of what you are selling is the competition itself, so "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply. If a few schools (or rather their alumni) are willing to pay large sums to get all the best players, it destroys the competitive balance that is essential for success.

The NCAA also is unusual in that part of what they sell -- part of why people watch -- is school pride, etc.. It's the romanticization of the college experience, etc.. As soon as you turn college athletes into professionals -- which is exactly what this law would do -- you've destroyed much of that. College football (and basketball) basically become just minor leagues for the pros. And how many people really watch minor league anything? In college football more than anything else, most fans watch/attend the name on the front of the jersey, not on the back. But if the top schools basically just become pro franchises, I think you'll lose a lot of those fans.

The NCAA is a private organization, that sets its own competitive rules. Schools are free to not to belong, and students are free to go somewhere else. Or someone else is perfectly entitled to set up a different sanctioning organization, and let players get paid.
 

The Oi

Ahhhh chachachacha
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
45,965
Reaction score
64,115
Points
148
I don't agree unless you only want the rich schools with rich alumni to benefit. I agree that the players should make more, but allowing people to pay them in commercials just mean rich alumni will pay them to do commercials for their programs only meaning all 4 and 5 star recruits are going to the programs with rich alumni.

If Oregon could do this, all 5 star recruits go there to get paid a million dollars to do a Nike commercial.

Then perhaps it’s the NCAA’s job to limit what players can be paid by way of making rules and enforcing them. Q’s idea of increasing a stipend could make sense. But kids spending their entire collegiate careers making money for schools and getting essentially nothing out of it but the same education as anyone else doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense. Some schools are barely on the map without their sports programs.

Can somebody remind me of why NCAA players aren’t paid in the first place other than that they just never were? What am I missing?
 

inliner311

All-Star
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
10,126
Reaction score
9,949
Points
113
Disallowing boosters to pay for player endorsements they wouldn't otherwise receive is pretty easy to contain.

I think this is a good idea. I think any money they get needs to be tied to a business they advertise for or event they attend to earn that money. It shouldn't just be some money that a rich alumni just hands them.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
29,353
Reaction score
48,928
Points
148
I think this is a good idea. I think any money they get needs to be tied to a business they advertise for or event they attend to earn that money. It shouldn't just be some money that a rich alumni just hands them.

That's impossible. There's always alumni who own businesses, etc., and they'll just pay them for the sponsorship of their business.

And it would be impossible for the NCAA to police effectively. Right now, if a kid starts showing up with lots of expensive stuff, it's suspicious. But once endorsements are legal, and any kid can have that kind of money, there's no longer a tipoff for anything improper happening. How do you write a rule that determines what is "overpayment" for a particular endorsement, or how many endorsements you can get?

As a practical matter, opening players up to profit off their likeness is carte blanche for alumni to get away with paying players anything they want. "Here kid, here's $100,000 so I'm allowed to use your likeness to sell t-shirts, or in ads".
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,971
Reaction score
45,612
Points
148
That's impossible. There's always alumni who own businesses, etc., and they'll just pay them for the sponsorship of their business.

And it would be impossible for the NCAA to police effectively. Right now, if a kid starts showing up with lots of expensive stuff, it's suspicious. But once endorsements are legal, and any kid can have that kind of money, there's no longer a tipoff for anything improper happening. How do you write a rule that determines what is "overpayment" for a particular endorsement, or how many endorsements you can get?

As a practical matter, opening players up to profit off their likeness is carte blanche for alumni to get away with paying players anything they want. "Here kid, here's $100,000 so I'm allowed to use your likeness to sell t-shirts, or in ads".

A few things.

1. If kids are already showing up with expensive stuff, which happens all the time, then the entire point of whining about a sponsorship deal is irrelevant.

2. Businesses will eventually need to see a return on that investment, or it becomes completely worthless to have some kid sponsoring their business. The market correction that will come from having to do this on paper will force companies to be wise about who endorses them.

3. That kid EARNED $100K by being good. In a free market, as some might say you're a fan of, we reward people based on merit. If a kid is good enough at football to earn $100K selling t-shirts, fuckin let him earn.

Who the hell are we to stand in his way?
 

inliner311

All-Star
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
10,126
Reaction score
9,949
Points
113
A few things.

1. If kids are already showing up with expensive stuff, which happens all the time, then the entire point of whining about a sponsorship deal is irrelevant.

2. Businesses will eventually need to see a return on that investment, or it becomes completely worthless to have some kid sponsoring their business. The market correction that will come from having to do this on paper will force companies to be wise about who endorses them.

3. That kid EARNED $100K by being good. In a free market, as some might say you're a fan of, we reward people based on merit. If a kid is good enough at football to earn $100K selling t-shirts, fuckin let him earn.

Who the hell are we to stand in his way?

Market correction is exactly what I was thinking. A bad ad could hurt the athlete and/or the business. Players and alumni will become smarter with who and how they work with after the initial surge.

Business owners tying payouts to their businesses will probably have consequences too. If you know your boss gave money to a college athlete for some BS marketing campaign and then refuses to give raises, they could lose good employees. Same goes if they have to raise prices and customers see them throwing money at college athletes, they will surely lose customers to a company that uses their money more wisely.
 
Last edited:

Amherstcavsfan

Always a Wine and Gold Winner
Browns Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
18,138
Reaction score
26,538
Points
135
I'd just like to say the only people who benefit from players likeness not being a benefit right now are multimillion dollar athletic departments that, quite frankly, could stand to give a player more money while also selling a kid's jersey.

This isn't "paying" players to play for a school. This is allowing kids that are great at what they do to make some money while they are in school.

Hell, there could be thousands of college athletes that could benefit from this, especially if somehow EA could create their NCAA football game again.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
29,353
Reaction score
48,928
Points
148
A few things.

1. If kids are already showing up with expensive stuff, which happens all the time, then the entire point of whining about a sponsorship deal is irrelevant.

This is the cynic's dodge: "it's already happening, so why worry about it?" But if you truly believed that "it's irrelevant", then it wouldn't make sense to make the rest of the arguments you made below.

The truth is that it isn't already happening - certainly not at the level it would be if it was legalized. First, if they already were making all that money, nobody would really be pushing for change with the claim that the athletes are getting ripped off. They'd already all be making that exact same money already. But instead, advocates are claiming that athletes are getting ripped off, which obviously means they're not making that kind of money right now.

Second, if they were making that much money already, guys like Pryor would not have to resort to selling their jerseys.

2. Businesses will eventually need to see a return on that investment, or it becomes completely worthless to have some kid sponsoring their business.

No, not at all. What return on investment do alumni get for violating NCAA rules right now? By the very nature of it being illegal, they can't publicize it, so there isn't an economic benefit at all. Yet, it still sometimes happens anyway. That's because some alumni are willing to give away their own money just to help their team win. I don't think that can reasonably be disputed.

3. That kid EARNED $100K by being good. In a free market, as some might say you're a fan of, we reward people based on merit. If a kid is good enough at football to earn $100K selling t-shirts, fuckin let him earn.

It's not a free market, and isn't supposed to be. It's a college athletic league with rules on how much money athletes can get to maintain competitive balance.

Kids who believe they are truly worth wads of cash without the name of a university attached, and without the rest of the non-star players for which the university foots the bill, are free to play in a minor league. Obviously, if there was that much independent demand for their talent, someone would set it up.

Who the hell are we to stand in his way?

"We're" not.
 
Last edited:

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
31,449
Reaction score
42,803
Points
148
The NCAA could get out ahead of this and develop a system where this is strictly enforced as illegal.

But they have seemingly no interest.


In this country, ANYONE should be entitled to profit off of their image and likeness. Viral internet stars can do it, but you can't do it if you want to play football? It's nonsensical.

The ONLY counter arguments to this are rooted in not wanting the current college football landscape to change. People are terrified and constantly live in fear of the changing world around them.

Disallowing boosters to pay for player endorsements they wouldn't otherwise receive is pretty easy to contain.

In theory I agree they should be allowed to profit off of their likeness, also in theory you should be able to go to college without huge debt.

The issue becomes competitive balance and that is out the door. We are already losing that, its always the same 4 teams almost in the playoffs, Alabama, Ohio State Clemson and Oklahoma, you can throw in Auburn and a few others make it and OSU and/or OU get thrown out, but really only 6 or 7 teams are every invited to the part.

So sadly, maybe you are right, teams like my beloved Purdue will never, ever have a shot to make the playoffs....kind of sad but maybe I am the one that needs to face reality.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,971
Reaction score
45,612
Points
148
This is the cynic's dodge: "it's already happening, so why worry about it.?"

Except it isn't already happening - certainly not at the level it would be if it was legalized.

Well of course it is with regards to high-level players at major college programs. We've known about this for decades.



First, if they already wereaking all that money, nobody would really be pushing for change with the claim that the athletes are getting ripped off.

Straw man fallacy.

They'd already all be making that exact same money already. But instead, advocates are claiming that athletes are getting ripped off, which obviously means they're not making that kind of money right now.

Because they don't want to jeopardize their status, because its illegal.

Second, if they were making that much money already, guys like Pryor would be selling their jerseys.

Good. If someone wants to buy his property, he has earned it. See kids, if you're GOOD at this you can earn money.

I don't see the issue.



No, not at all. What return on investment does an do alumni get right for violating NCAA rules right now?

Access, tickets, parking, luxury boxes, special privileges at events, charitable contributions, access and enrollment for their children. University employees being funneled to buy their product, contracts for employment, etc.

Do I really need to go on? I'm honestly curious if this was a genuine question....

By the very nature of it being illegal, they can't publicize it, so there isn't an economic benefit at all. Yet, it still sometimes happens anyway. That's because some alumni are willing to give away their own money just to help their team win. I don't think that can reasonably be dispute.

Yes, this too. They want to benefit the program.

But now they will presumably have to put that down on paper, and be held accountable for the ROI to their stakeholders.



It's not a free market, and isn't supposed to be. It's a college athletic league with rules on how much money athletes can get to maintain competitive balance.

Kids who believe they are truly worth wads of cash without the name of a university attached, and without the rest of the non-star players for which the university foots the bill, are free to play in a minor league. Obviously, if there was that much independent demand for their talent, someone would set it up.

"We're" not.

Zion can go make money at Grambling, too.

If this wasn't about making money, we wouldn't be making millions off the Tostito's Scoops Dipalicious Bowl at Auto Zone Field inside of Subaru Stadium during Honda Bowl Week.


The only people not earning money is the kids, which is absurd.
 

RBF Podcast

Additional text can be placed above or below the player.
Top