I see. It's about being fair. First on the list should be Title IX
Like 20 players at P5 schools, but every kid will have a agent in there ear telling them lies to get them to sign in case they make it big, the big donors will pay recruits big money for something as long as they play for their school , they will be subject to taxes and we know what will happen there . Then the linemen that make the stars will want a piece of that pie and no more team unity .
It will have more unattended consequences than we can fathom.
But that's not what NCAA sports is. NCAA football is an AMATEUR sport, not a professional sport. Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious, but everyone seems to be forgetting this one simple fact.
If a player wants to make money off his "brand" or "likeness", etc...then he needs to take another route. He needs to go professional. Because NCAA football is not for him. Oh....but then you'll say, "but HD, there's not another route a football player can take". And that appears to be true. HOWEVER --THAT'S NOT THE NCAA's PROBLEM!!! It's not the obligation of the NCAA to provide a professional platform or these professional benefits for these wannabe professional athletes. If the players really want these benefits, then someone (e.g., the NFL, an entrepreneur, etc...) needs to start a new --and separate-- professional league. Or, the NFL needs to provide these benefits by sponsoring a "semi-pro" or even a professional "minor" league. One that pays the professional benefits the players desire.
I fail to see how any court in the land can force any university --or the NCAA for that matter-- into sponsoring professional sports. All the NCAA has to do is wrap itself in a blanket called "Amateur Sports", and the discussion quickly ends. There's no argument about it. The NCAA has a hundred years of case law clearly establishing itself as an "amateur organization". Nobody can force the NCAA into professional sports. Not even the players.
This uneven playing field argument is ridiculous. They can completely fix that issue by capping the number of players each team is permitted to have and the number of players a team can add per year. If alabama can only add 25 players per year and can only have 90 total... then really nothing changes for us. The big schools get all of the top talent and we get the 2-3 stars that they either dont want or who dont want to ride the bench 2-3 years. They mostly all sign full classes every year so making money accessible wouldnt change much.
I actually think this could help level the playing field. All of the P5 schools have money and could spend it. If money was a bigger factor in recruiting... schools like ole miss and SMU and Vanderbilt could compete. (Look at Ole Miss’s success while cheating).
Even for small schools it could help. The 25th best guy in Bama’s class would be the best in our class. A small school’s boosters could likely compete with big schools for 1 or 2 guys per year. The 5th string running back at bama just isn't going to get paid much. At a school like tech, he might be a star and make some money.
I think we are conflating the 2 issues here. No school will be paying players a salary. Maybe under the table, but nothing legitimate. It was crazy to me that Marlon Watts was almost punished for having a clothing line. If one of our engineers had an awesome idea, they can sell the product or sell the idea. And they also might be on scholarship. Gasp! But the school doesn’t pay a salary for the things they invent while in school. I do with there was a minor league for football. If you want to go there out of high school, then have at it. If you get a scholarship and leave early without graduating, then pay the money back that could have gone to another students 4 year degree. Might even say the same for academic scholarships. Finish or pay it back.
Obviously some athletes are more talented but it’s not only “by their OWN efforts”. As TECH70 accurately points out, the other players play a vital role in their success... a running back’s production suffers if blocking is no good, same for QB and receivers. What about kickers that win a game and the place holder, blockers, etc. It’s the whole team that contributes to the game and the “star” player. They are not all equal in skill but they all contribute value. If you have a star player on a terrible 0-10 team the money opportunity will most likely be less for the “star” and more if the team is 10-0. One or only a couple of players making all the money could cause dissention on the team. For public universities, public tax dollars help fund the facilities the athlete train/play in/on, help pay for their coaches, living accommodations, food, supplements, books, educational tuition and fees, etc... I agree with HogDog too, this is an Amateur league (yet I agree with paying enough of a stipend to help with basics and if there is a death in the family they can afford to go home for the funeral, etc…) IF there is money to be paid an athlete for car advertising, etc. the athlete now has a business the athlete will owe taxes on and should they not first be required to repay the university (taxpayers) for their expenses (or some percentage), then if anything is left, they should put a percentage in a fund that pays all the athletes on their team and a higher percentage for the “Star” athlete? This may be a benefit to privately funded universities because the athlete would not have to pay back taxpayer funded education dollars and would mean more money to the athlete.
Question: Does anyone know of a publication showing how much public money is used at each university to fund athletics and exactly where the public money is being spent? I remember seeing (years ago) not all, but the vast majority of college athletic programs pay nothing to the education departments. So where is the money going that‘s coming in today to the athletic programs? If businesses now pay it directly to the athlete what will fund the athletic department because much of it is coming from donors and advertisers? Will it not eventually bleed athletic departments dry and hurt the vast majority of college programs that are not in major markets? It seems, as someone suggested, there would need to be caps or something.
It will be interesting to see how this ends up. There have been many good points made in this discussion. Going down this road will be complicated because both sides have good point to make.
DawgBark, public universities, including their athletic departments, and their associated foundations are required to have annual audits. They are public documents and usually available online.
Well, of course that's true. But how is an athlete selling his or her likeness to a local advertiser substantively different from that same individual selling their labor to Sonic in the off-season? Or web-design services from their dorm room? Or letting out their apartment on Airbnb?
Yes, I think we can all agree its unfortunate that the NCAA has become the de facto minor league for the NFL, NBA, etc. A semi-pro NFL-affiliated D-league would be preferable, but failing that ... this is what we got.If a player wants to make money off his "brand" or "likeness", etc...then he needs to take another route. He needs to go professional. Because NCAA football is not for him. Oh....but then you'll say, "but HD, there's not another route a football player can take". And that appears to be true. HOWEVER --THAT'S NOT THE NCAA's PROBLEM!!! It's not the obligation of the NCAA to provide a professional platform or these professional benefits for these wannabe professional athletes. If the players really want these benefits, then someone (e.g., the NFL, an entrepreneur, etc...) needs to start a new --and separate-- professional league. Or, the NFL needs to provide these benefits by sponsoring a "semi-pro" or even a professional "minor" league. One that pays the professional benefits the players desire.
You're correct that the State of California cant dictate what the NCAA does outside of California. But it CAN dictate what happens in California. The California leg can bar California institutions or athletic organizations operating within the state (NCAA, NAIA, etc) from prohibiting athletes from profiting off their own likeness / endorsement. So if your amateur athletics sanctioning organization wants to do business in California-- them's the rules for doing business in California.I fail to see how any court in the land can force any university --or the NCAA for that matter-- into sponsoring professional sports. All the NCAA has to do is wrap itself in a blanket called "Amateur Sports", and the discussion quickly ends. There's no argument about it. The NCAA has a hundred years of case law clearly establishing itself as an "amateur organization". Nobody can force the NCAA into professional sports. Not even the players.
Last edited by Champ967; 10-07-2019 at 10:39 AM.