I've never made an ethics argument. I've said the members have the right to institute rules for the events they host in order for the athlete to participate. If they believe amateurism is the best approach for what they are trying to accomplish, presumably a level playing field, then that is their prerogative. If the athlete doesn't like those rules, he or she doesn't have to participate.
CA governor signs bill to allow athletes to profit from endorsements
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
I don't see why they have to be linked. There's nothing about this decision that has anything to do with schools paying players.
It's acknowledging that these guys are famous, and that famous people are used to advertise things. Drake can't count a Vitamin Water endorsement as record sales.
The $35,000 scholarship Derrick Rose received from Memphis pales in comparison to the actualities of what he brought the school in profits in his lone season at Memphis. If some car salesman wanted to put Rose in a commercial in February of 2008 and give him $40,000 for it, fundamentally (and beyond the emaciated "current rules basis" fallback argument) I'm not sure how that's any different than Roy Williams doing Coke commercials. In both examples, both are state-supported agents receiving compensation outside of the university they're aligned with. Memphis wouldn't be giving Rose money. A private business would be. Some might cry foul and say boosters could collude with the universities? So what? Let the big dogs of college do what the big dogs of corporate America do: eviscerate their competition. The "level playing field" line is rubbish.
Further, it's funny to me that we allow for financial competition in every form of college academics, professional scholarship, professorship hiring practices, coaching, athletic programs, etc., but when it comes to a kid who catches a football? Nope. He gets no slice of the pie.
It's weird too. I was a TA at the school I'm getting my MA from. If someone wanted to hire me for a commercial based on my scholarly abilities (or lack thereof), there would be no objection to it. But the second an athlete does it? Hellfire and damnation!!!!
Last edited:
LOL I would imagine you are smart enough to know that schools will work with boosters/local companies to secure the deals and $ amounts they want...you'll have players in the banking/car dealerships/restaurant adds and they will get deals directly because of their association with the college team, not due to their athletic stardom.
And again, if that's what people want - that's totally fine. But it is pay for play.
One thing that could slow this down, is allow it to happen as players are prospects and before they sign to a school. Let all the bidding and $ exchange to go on prior to a decision, so their is a risk to the ones paying for the players.
Kids will wanna go to large metro areas like New York and LA where they can be paid big bucks by big media outlets for their image. This does not help UK in any way, shape or form. There is not money in Lex like there is in LA, Chicago, NY, etc.
And if the rules change, you'll have no objection to players getting endorsements outside of direct payments from the university? It seemed to me that you were making the case that this was an improper way to go, hence my use of the "ethics" comment.
Did Rose gain any value from playing in the NCAA besides a scholarship?
Again, I wish players could go pro straight from HS...go for it, you're good enough then get it done...
and if you want colleges to pay players with no restrictions, again, go for it...just say it and don't hide behind "earnings from likeness etc" when those likeness values decrease after college eligibility runs out. The value in most cases comes directly from being a college prospect, not from being great at the sport...if that weren't the case, many ex-players would have quite a bit more $.
The Olympics is another private organization who can implement any rule they feel furthers their goals. Not sure what point you are trying to make. The NCAA and the Olympics are different organizations and can run their events how they see fit.
Kentucky also doesn't have a pro team to compete with for endorsements.
Considering Adidas thought Brian Bowen was worth paying $100k to play in a small market like Louisville, I think this should lessen concerns about what Lexington could offer. We also have better coaches, training, facilities, etc. It will still be an advantage for Kentucky.
I think the "likeness" development is a good compromise. It's a wise and relatively safe "byway" between two pretty volatile parallel "interstates" of maintaining the fiction of amateurism or alternatively, the full endorsement of schools directly paying players.
This allows players to presumably step outside of the public universities and receive compensation from private businesses. Will this likely be corrupted? Yes. But is it also better than seeking to maintain the fairy tale of amateurism that presently exists? Yes.
There's no perfect system, but this move puts us closer to a workable paradigm that gives players some agency beyond the university constraints.
The point is that "amateurism" is a made up, flexible term. Olympic athletes can be amateurs despite making money from endorsements. College athletes can too.
The NCAA has changed the definition of "amateurism" so often that I'm not sure what the definition is currently. Schools currently pay players a "cost of living" stipend equal to $2000-$5000 annually. That is literally the colleges paying the players. As soon as this exception was added, Nick Saban lobbied the school to increase their "cost of living" from $3,664 to $5,386.... the only reason for the change was to remain competitive with Tennessee.
If the NCAA changes their rules to permit this, I have no reason to object. They can do whatever they feel furthers their mission. I personally believe this will destroy college athletics. For example, if UK manages to put together competitive endorsement packages for the basketball program, not a given considering Kentucky is not a rich state, can they also manage to do that for their football, baseball, etc., programs, or do we go back to the days where we have good basketball and crappy teams in every other sport? I think for most schools, fielding more than one competitive team will be a struggle. It will allow places like Los Angles, Chicago, New York, etc., that has access to large numbers of businesses and corporations to dominate college sports. I think it will lead to very one dimensional athletic programs for most universities. I just don't think it's a good direction to go down unless it can be regulated in some way that will allow your average university to compete if they so desire.
Yes, if they go to the pay for play route, I'd love for the local car lots to pay for players that do not end up going to their schools. I think it adds a good financial risk for the bag men and would add a speedbump (also is funny).
Why compromise? Let's just get really honest and have $ payments and contracts between school and player, in addition to outside endorsements?
Go all in - no reason to keep any type of fairy tale story rolling.
I actually have advocated for that extreme view for the last few years.
I don't think it's a sustainable idea, however, and that's why I advocate for a PR-level compromise that still ultimately has the same effect of establishing player agency, but also allows a literal golden parachute from which schools can public deflect to the private sector.
And maybe someday we'll get to what I want as far as direct payments. But most major transitions take time, as I'm sure you understand.
Why would you want universities ultimately running professional sports teams? I'm not sure how this makes any sense for universities to be involved in.
Universities run hospitals, patent inventions from STEM programs, and run many other income producing programs including their athletics programs. Are you advocating to shut down university hospitals?
If there was a market for it, you'd think some additional semi-pro orgs would pop up.
I think the value that colleges/universities bring is understated...I think the colleges/universities understand the value the NCAA brings...many demonize college athletics without acknowledging that its existence is the only reason some have the market to make any $. Others that have the $making market from day 1 have a beef with the professional athletic associations who do not allow them to play.
Truth is that people love their college teams...and that's always where the market will be.
I don't believe university run hospitals are for profit hospitals. In addition, they are teaching hospitals, so they fit perfectly with the mission of the university. That's a pretty poor comparison to running a sports program. Even today taxing authorities are questioning the validity of universities having athletic programs and why they should be tax exempt like other university programs.
To me there are 2 separate issues.
1. Should players be able to get endorsements?
2. Can a Governor if a state dictate how the NCAA or any other organization makes rules?
1. I’m not against. The devil would be in the details.
2. Imo. Absolutely not!
1. Should players be able to get endorsements?
2. Can a Governor if a state dictate how the NCAA or any other organization makes rules?
1. I’m not against. The devil would be in the details.
2. Imo. Absolutely not!
I fail to see the distinction. Athletic Departments are also non-profit, they are also teaching basketball/football/baseball/track programs. The only distinguishing characteristic is the non-profit university hospitals actually have paid student positions and nobody bats an eye at those.
So now we are not only opposed to free markets..... but we are openly against the democratic legislative process? I didn't know we had so many Marxists in our fanbase.
I thought you already agreed that a private organization should have the right to make the rules that apply to the events it hosts? Do you believe in that right or not?
I don't believe anything California did today alters the "rules of a private organization." Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. If this puts pressure on the NCAA to change their silly rule, then all the better.
On number 2, the state government runs state schools. The NCAA can react and follow its rules. Washington state follows California around like a puppy so I would expect them to pass this soon. The state rebellion will likely grow. Unless Nike tells Oregon they can't pass this type of legislation I would expect Oregon to follow as well. The NCAA will lose the entire west coast.
The post you replied to said a Governor of a state shouldn't be able to tell a private organization what its rules should be and you accused him of being a Marxist. That pretty much says you disagree with his statement.
The law does put their member institutions in a situation where they cannot comply with NCAA rules as they exist today. So they are trying to tell the NCAA what they can and can't require to participate in their events. They have made it against the law in California to comply with NCAA rules.
I’m against one state dictating how business is done outside of their state. Nothing Marxist in what I said.
How about the athletes get a choice - something like this:
1. Play under the current rules, scholarship, stipend.
2. Play under an NCAA calculated salary per sport, position and remaining eligibility . If on salary, can be fired. Do not have the current stipend, but still on scholarship.
3. Allow yourself outside $ opportunities within certain boundaries. Must pay for school, housing, tuition, food, medical/training/nutritional care (of their choice, doesn’t have to be team related), must pay the university for coaching fees and marketing in a calculation based on coaches salary and television exposure.
1. Play under the current rules, scholarship, stipend.
2. Play under an NCAA calculated salary per sport, position and remaining eligibility . If on salary, can be fired. Do not have the current stipend, but still on scholarship.
3. Allow yourself outside $ opportunities within certain boundaries. Must pay for school, housing, tuition, food, medical/training/nutritional care (of their choice, doesn’t have to be team related), must pay the university for coaching fees and marketing in a calculation based on coaches salary and television exposure.
Last edited:
They treat every aspect of the sport like a professional team except for the players. They make profits, they utilize endorsements, they gain sponsorship (Kroger Field ring a bell?), they pay their coaches better than professional teams do.
I'm not sure why it would be a stretch ideologically to see how a school that pays a head coach $8.5 million/year could throw a little cash at the players as well. The players could be redefined as "state employees" in the same way a coach could. It just requires a paradigm shift.
That said, I still feel like this wouldn't be practicable at this time due to the present fantasy land narrative of "ethics" and "college integrity" that so many old school proponents roar about. Thus, my reasons for allowing for likeness endorsement outside of the publicly funded sector.
California isn't making the Commonwealth of Kentucky do anything they don't want to do.
If Kentucky decides to sit this one out, they can do so. And they can also watch and their potential five star recruits head over to the Golden State.
What percentage of athletic programs make money? You act like it's common for athletic departments to turn a profit, but in reality very few actually do.
The NCAA could allow athletes to have agents represent them on their behalf, but the athletes wouldn’t be paying them, endorsement money would. The endorsement money would be delayed for the athletes until they are no longer collegiate athletes. If an athlete suffers a career ending injury, they would have a nest egg to fall back on so to speak. Scholarship money is enough to make it on until graduating or turning pro. Athletes aren’t getting paid until no longer amateurs, just like today, but they would still be compensated, just delayed. My 2 cents.
And should we even care? What is with your quest to embed your argument with sentiments of equity?
Do you have the same appraisal when it comes to state schools that out-compete their in-state competition for students by promoting better facilities, better professors, better networking, etc.? What about private schools that have exponentially greater endowments and can thereby build better "everythings" than the peon Joe Blow State University?
You seem like your major theme is maintaining a "level playing field" in athletics (and yes, you actually do have an ethical problem with the suggestion of changing the system, just admit it). So are you equally outraged when one company outperforms another or when a school like Harvard can out-duel UMass for elite scholars?
Or do you just reserve your "it's not equal" outrage for college sports?
