ESPN: NCAA votes to allow athletes to profit from likeness

Donate To GopherHole
kisarazu said:
Since we're talking about (essentially)paying players, the discussion has moved from donations to marketing. So the question is no longer about the U of M, but about whether the Twin Cities market provides competitive money for professional sports. If the answer is "yes", we have our new answer.
Click to expand...

And our relationships with business, which you could reasonably make a connection based on usual donations from groups (you now just use them as “salaries” for players). Our corporations have infinitely more options (NHL NFL NBA MLB MLS) to choose from. Historically no one has wanted to pony up for the naming rights to things, which makes me suspect there will not be this magic new supply rushing in for players
 


Sen. Mitt Romney chimes in, raising two critical concerns already raised by several posters here: https://www.espn.com/college-sports...sen-mitt-romney-raises-concerns-ncaa-proposal

"
"What you can't have is a couple athletes on campus driving around in Ferraris while everybody else is basically having a hard time making ends meet," Romney said. "And you can't have a setting where some schools that are in major markets or have big-sport followings, some schools are like the honey pot, and all the great athletes all want to go to those handful of schools, then you kill collegiate sports. There needs to be some adjustment to the whole name, image and likeness approach to make sure we don't create those problems."

NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to start the process of modifying its rule to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

The board wants each of the three NCAA divisions to implement new rules by January 2021.

But Romney, who has collaborated with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on similar legislation, said there needs to be parity.

"I don't think you can have an athlete at a school making a million dollars a year at that school and lording it over everybody else on the team and everyone else on the campus," he told OTL. "That's what they're going to get when they go pro. While they're at school, they're still a student-athlete, and there has to be some limit to how much money is coming to an individual and there has to be a way to get compensation to other members of the team. I mean, that left tackle also needs to have some capacity to have some funds to be able to make ends meet and to be able to help their family."
"


Those two points being: 1) would there be a cap on the total dollar amount that a particular athlete can earn in a year, and 2) what is that going to do to the team dynamic to have a couple/few super-stars who have some serious cash, while everyone else on the team is making out like a regular student-athlete?


I absolutely think the NCAA can address these two concerns. I think they'll figure something and get it right.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Sen. Mitt Romney chimes in, raising two critical concerns already raised by several posters here: https://www.espn.com/college-sports...sen-mitt-romney-raises-concerns-ncaa-proposal

"
"What you can't have is a couple athletes on campus driving around in Ferraris while everybody else is basically having a hard time making ends meet," Romney said. "And you can't have a setting where some schools that are in major markets or have big-sport followings, some schools are like the honey pot, and all the great athletes all want to go to those handful of schools, then you kill collegiate sports. There needs to be some adjustment to the whole name, image and likeness approach to make sure we don't create those problems."

NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to start the process of modifying its rule to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

The board wants each of the three NCAA divisions to implement new rules by January 2021.

But Romney, who has collaborated with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on similar legislation, said there needs to be parity.

"I don't think you can have an athlete at a school making a million dollars a year at that school and lording it over everybody else on the team and everyone else on the campus," he told OTL. "That's what they're going to get when they go pro. While they're at school, they're still a student-athlete, and there has to be some limit to how much money is coming to an individual and there has to be a way to get compensation to other members of the team. I mean, that left tackle also needs to have some capacity to have some funds to be able to make ends meet and to be able to help their family."
"


Those two points being: 1) would there be a cap on the total dollar amount that a particular athlete can earn in a year, and 2) what is that going to do to the team dynamic to have a couple/few super-stars who have some serious cash, while everyone else on the team is making out like a regular student-athlete?


I absolutely think the NCAA can address these two concerns. I think they'll figure something and get it right.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the women track team is going to be fine living in the dorm while the Notre Dame QB is rolling around in the Ferrari and living in a plush loft.
 

WoodburyTim said:
I'm not sure the women track team is going to be fine living in the dorm while the Notre Dame QB is rolling around in the Ferrari and living in a plush loft.
Click to expand...

Let's see what they come up with.

I can think of some reasonable things, and I ain't the brightest bulb.
 


MnplsGopher said:
Let's see what they come up with.

I can think of some reasonable things, and I ain't the brightest bulb.
Click to expand...

I am willing to see what they can come up with it. Though I admit I am not a fan of passing legislation and rules with the strategy being "we'll figure out how to make it work as we go."
 

WoodburyTim said:
I'm not sure the women track team is going to be fine living in the dorm while the Notre Dame QB is rolling around in the Ferrari and living in a plush loft.
Click to expand...

You mean people with less will whine about it? Who knew...
 

WoodburyTim said:
I am willing to see what they can come up with it. Though I admit I am not a fan of passing legislation and rules with the strategy being "we'll figure out how to make it work as we go."
Click to expand...

Well it's not that, though.

No rules will change until they figure out what the new language will be and vote on it. IE, players this year and next year, won't be able to start selling their NILs. And that is consistent with what passed in CA. That bill said the NCAA would have three years to come up with something, IIRC.
 

Flash30 said:
I would pre order in a heartbeat. The greatest football franchise. How I miss the days of elevating a 2 star MN program to a 5 star helmet school. I’d even load my non con with the highest ranked team each week!
Click to expand...

Agreed x1000. And same here! Still play NCAA 13 sometimes, never got 14 and now finding a copy of it is hard. I’ve seen copies for $200 on eBay and Amazon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



MnplsGopher said:
Well it's not that, though.

No rules will change until they figure out what the new language will be and vote on it. IE, players this year and next year, won't be able to start selling their NILs. And that is consistent with what passed in CA. That bill said the NCAA would have three years to come up with something, IIRC.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but we do not know what effect this will have on the landscape and you can play with the language all you want, but it is all guesswork.
 

WoodburyTim said:
That may be true, but we do not know what effect this will have on the landscape and you can play with the language all you want, but it is all guesswork.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough.

You mean after the initial language is voted in, and then dealing with any issues that pop up going forward from there. I’m sure t won’t be perfect. Nothing is
 

Well, here we are with devilish details. The entire point of the CA legislation is to take a hands off approach to NLI. It never mentioned anything about being subservient to NCAA rules.

If you go with the pooling and distributing model you mentioned how does that work? Does each conference have a pool of NLI deal money? Or teams, or the NCAA as a whole (obviously most equitable).

If the NCAA and conferences recognize the players have NLI rights it seems to be a difficult legal case to say these rights are valid and recognized for video games, local commercials, jersey sales but NLI rights don’t apply to the televised games. Is there a scenario where the players could make a legal case they are entitled to a piece of that pie? We’re certainly going to find out (again).
 

PE you misread or misunderstood the CA legislation. It always said that the NCAA had a couple years to come up with language to satisfy the requirements.

As opposed to pooling, I think a lot of the issues around perception of unfairness between players could be solved by requiring players to invest any NLI deals into trusts that they can only access once they’re finished with college sports.

And as for competitive balance, I think a lot of those issues could be solved by putting a yearly cap on how much a player can make over the five years of their eligibility clock.

Won’t be perfect, nothing is. At some point, you gotta vote something reasonable in, try it, and then observe how people are gonna try to cheat it.
 
Last edited:



So which of you here is going to be the booster bringing all these players in :)
 

The law only states they are monitoring the NCAA working group. The law specially states student athletes cannot be prevented from unfettered profiting from NIL or hiring agents, neither of which the recent NCAA statement allows for. The reporting on this issue has been very poor. CA and the NCAA are still totally at odds with each other. It was a mistake to even try the placating route as that will never work and only weakens their own position on the collegiate model. We’ll see what gets spit out at the end of this...but surely far from over legally.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The law only states they are monitoring the NCAA working group. The law specially states student athletes cannot be prevented from unfettered profiting from NIL or hiring agents, neither of which the recent NCAA statement allows for. The reporting on this issue has been very poor. CA and the NCAA are still totally at odds with each other. It was a mistake to even try the placating route as that will never work and only weakens their own position on the collegiate model. We’ll see what gets spit out at the end of this...but surely far from over legally.
Click to expand...

I hate to do this, because I do believe you, but can you please quote the law language you’re referencing?

Everything I’ve read about the CA bill indicated that their idea the whole time was to work with and implement through NCAA rules.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I hate to do this, because I do believe you, but can you please quote the law language you’re referencing?

Everything I’ve read about the CA bill indicated that their idea the whole time was to work with and implement through NCAA rules.
Click to expand...

Feel free to compare the NCAA statement and the CA bill - they are vastly different. The actual text of the bill is at this link https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206 but here is the superficial analysis:



This bill:
1) Exempts community colleges from the provisions of this bill as it relates to student athlete compensation and representation in institutions of higher education.

2) Prohibits any entity with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a student athlete from receiving compensation for the use of their own name, image, or likeness. This bill provides that earning compensation through athletic endorsements shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility.

3) Prohibits any group with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a consequence of that institution allowing its student-athletes to earn athletic endorsements.

4) Prohibits any organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from providing prospective student athletes with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness.

5) Prohibits any entity with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a student athlete from obtaining professional representation in relation to their college athletics, provided that the professional representation is in compliance with federal law and is performed by persons licensed by the state.

6) Prohibits the revocation of a student-athlete’s scholarship as a consequence of receiving endorsements, or as a consequence of obtaining professional representation as authorized under these provisions.

SB 206 Page 4
7) Prohibits a student athlete from entering into an athletic endorsement contract that is in conflict with a provision of the athlete’s team contract.

8) Requires a student athlete who enters into an endorsement contract to disclose the contract to an appropriate official of the institution at which the athlete is enrolled.

9) Requires an institution, upon asserting a conflict between an athlete’s athletic endorsement contract and the team contract, to inform the athlete or the athlete’s legal representation concerning the provisions that are in conflict.

10) Prohibits a postsecondary educational institutions athletic program, other than community colleges, from establishing a contract that prevents student athletes from participating in athletic endorsements.

11) Requires the Chancellor of the CCCs convene a working group to do both of the following:
a) Review existing CCC bylaws, state and federal laws, and NCAA bylaws regarding a student athletes’ use of athletic endorsements.
b) Submit a report of findings and policy recommendations relating to the above to the CCC Athletic Association and the Legislature on or before July 1, 2021.

12) Provides that #1-10 are to become effective on January 1, 2023.

13) Makes legislative findings and declarations.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom