Paying College Athletes/Letting Them Get Endorsements

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Sebastian

Terror Belli, Decus Pacis
Staff member
Real Cleveland Fans
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
20,427
Reaction score
35,255
Points
148
So, reading through this thread:

Why can't the NCAA establish a universal wage and compensation for likenesses for all the athletes?

Would that not impose parity?

Or a salary cap?
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,974
Reaction score
45,636
Points
148
Not saying it isn’t foolish. Phil Knight could do it independently of Nike anyway if he wanted to.

The ultimate question is does paying college athletes make much of a difference in the long run? Without proper financial education and responsibility you’ll just have big name colleges guys going broke because they spent all their money on a car, clothes, jewelry, etc. Don’t know about you, but if I was handed even $5,000 in college I probably wouldn’t have done anything worthwhile with it.

Obviously it’s rampant in the NBA and NFL. Not saying they shouldn’t be paid, just pointing out that it could ultimately usher in a lot of unintended distractions.

Well no, he couldn’t do it independently because any sort of agreement to do this would have rules in place to prevent it.

The question of whether or not players are going to be smart with the money they make is wholly irrelevant.

But if you want to talk about how much better colleges and universities could be at teaching personal wealth to all students, I’m all for it.
 

Sebastian

Terror Belli, Decus Pacis
Staff member
Real Cleveland Fans
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
20,427
Reaction score
35,255
Points
148
Legalities I would assume - @The Human Q-Tip

Also, I bet they would be heavily opposed lol.

Sure, I get that they oppose the whole thing on principle (and greed).

But if there is to be a system, it would be in the best interests of 90% of the schools to be on a level playing field with regard to compensation.

On another note, I remember back in the day, some of my friends were playing college ball at good programs and bowl games were a great way of stocking up on "participation gifts."

The Blockbuster Bowl was maligned but not by the kids who got free big-screen tvs and other home theater stuff.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
29,408
Reaction score
49,100
Points
148
So, reading through this thread:

Why can't the NCAA establish a universal wage and compensation for likenesses for all the athletes?

Would that not impose parity?

Or a salary cap?

It's all in the details. The lower the limits on what they can receive, the closer it is to looking more like a limited stipend. That's not bad, though others seem to be pushing for no restrictions at all. You'd also have to address whether the cap is per endorsement, or total. Per endorsement doesn't help much because you'd see a lot of sham buyers/payers.

I don't see too much of a legal problem with doing it your way, though.
 

inliner311

All-Star
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
10,140
Reaction score
9,966
Points
113
So, reading through this thread:

Why can't the NCAA establish a universal wage and compensation for likenesses for all the athletes?

Would that not impose parity?

Or a salary cap?

I wonder if title IV would come into play here or in any scheme where they pay athletes. Each univeristy might have to pay all athletes equally.

I think it's just simpler to let the athletes go out and find compensation on their own for their likeness and image. Let the market decide what they are worth and keep the universities out of the equation.

I truly don't feel that a set of standards or equations can properly compensate some of the top end athletes for what they give. So many college players bust on to the scene at a random time and become sensations. They should be able to pounce on that to get the compensation they are worth as quickly as they can.

Like people didn't think Zion was the best player in his recruiting class at Duke let alone in the country before the season. I'm not even sure how a university would figure out the proper compensation for a one and done player like that.
 

Bob_The_Cat

All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
6,012
Reaction score
7,451
Points
113
After thinking about this more, I believe we’re completely missing the point on this. Aside from the small number of athletic programs that self-fund (OSU, Texas, Alabama, etc.) the overwhelming majority of college athletics even in the power 5 schools, are funded through general tuition dollars and government subsidies. Most college athletics programs don't make money for the university.

So what we're potentially looking at here are students who are going into massive debt to go to college, funding athletic programs that provide full scholarships, training, and more, and then the athletes get paid on top of it? Doesn't make much logic sense, especially when a general student can't dictate where ther tuition is going.

This Washington Post article further illustrates the point.


Excerpt:

"At Texas A&M University, the president’s proposal to charge all 50,000 students $72 a year to help pay for a $450 million football stadium renovation brought protests.

At Clemson University, the athletic director’s idea to charge all 17,000 students $350 a year to help him keep up with competition brought pushback from student government.

At the University of Kansas, a walk-on golfer’s push to eliminate a $50 fee all 17,000 students paid the increasingly wealthy athletic department brought a strong — and to some students, vindictive — response from administrators.

And at many of America’s largest public universities, athletic departments making millions more every year from surging television contracts, luxury suite sales and endorsements continue to take money from tens of thousands of students who will never set foot in stadiums or arenas."


Given the student loan crisis in this country, this is going to become a much larger can of worms when it's all said and done. Not sure how much this winds up actually helping.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,974
Reaction score
45,636
Points
148
After thinking about this more, I believe we’re completely missing the point on this. Aside from the small number of athletic programs that self-fund (OSU, Texas, Alabama, etc.) the overwhelming majority of college athletics even in the power 5 schools, are funded through general tuition dollars and government subsidies. Most college athletics programs don't make money for the university.

So what we're potentially looking at here are students who are going into massive debt to go to college, funding athletic programs that provide full scholarships, training, and more, and then the athletes get paid on top of it? Doesn't make much logic sense, especially when a general student can't dictate where ther tuition is going.

This Washington Post article further illustrates the point.


Excerpt:

"At Texas A&M University, the president’s proposal to charge all 50,000 students $72 a year to help pay for a $450 million football stadium renovation brought protests.

At Clemson University, the athletic director’s idea to charge all 17,000 students $350 a year to help him keep up with competition brought pushback from student government.

At the University of Kansas, a walk-on golfer’s push to eliminate a $50 fee all 17,000 students paid the increasingly wealthy athletic department brought a strong — and to some students, vindictive — response from administrators.

And at many of America’s largest public universities, athletic departments making millions more every year from surging television contracts, luxury suite sales and endorsements continue to take money from tens of thousands of students who will never set foot in stadiums or arenas."


Given the student loan crisis in this country, this is going to become a much larger can of worms when it's all said and done. Not sure how much this winds up actually helping.

Nobody is asking the universities to pay them.

They’re saying that kids can earn money based on their image and likeness. It has nothing to do at all with the issues you’re bringing out.

It appears like you’re missing the entire point of what’s being discussed.
 

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,887
Reaction score
12,905
Points
123
Nobody is asking the universities to pay them.

They’re saying that kids can earn money based on their image and likeness.

It appears like you’re missing the entire point of what’s being discussed.

No...you just refrain from digging beneath the surface.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,974
Reaction score
45,636
Points
148
No...you just refrain from digging beneath the surface.

Digging beneath the surface on issues that exist, but are not caused by athletes potentially being able to earn money from their image and likeness.
 

macbdog

Resident Luddite
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
11,332
Reaction score
7,411
Points
113
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.



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.



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.
What it is is an unsustainable model. Pro sports exploded into a multibillion dollar industry, and that in turn has reached collegiate football and basketball. When the major colleges started using their sports teams as revenue generators, this became the obvious end result. Imo, all this talk of endorsement deals and what not is just avoiding the bigger issue that higher learning institutions should no longer be the 'minor leagues' for pro football and pro basketball. A club model for both of these sports for what was previously the 'amateur' level is desperately needed, and if these laws expedite it, then so be it. If this means college football spins off their football teams as a separate entity, owned and operated by the school- so be that too. But a radical change is needed, because at the top of the NCAA, the current model is just not working in the best interests of the top 0.01% that have the talent to be pro sports prospects. And it has also led to universities having to sell their souls to maintain the illusion of amateur athletics. The longer it takes the NCAA to find a new way for the top schools, the harder it will be for the rest of the system.
 

JDailey23

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
4,220
Reaction score
3,364
Points
113
So. I remember in middle school wearing my Penn State Nike jersey with the same number Kerry Collins has. Weird coincidence. Anyway, so in this situation, Kerry would have earned a certain % of those jersey sales or would just get X amount of money every year he plays at PSU, correct?
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
31,501
Reaction score
42,894
Points
148
Just can’t get on board with the argument that businesses are just going to start POURING money into athletes with no clout just to get them paid.

Especially publicly.

But allowing universities to sell jerseys and T-shirt’s with player likeness, bringing back video games, et al is a great way for the best players to earn based on their marketability.

I remember when in college how excited Brad Miller was when the new NCAA basketball came out with his likeness on it. Was kind of cool, i do agree they should be compensated somehow since they are partially earning the money. I am just afraid of how quickly it can be abused.
 

RBF Podcast

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