re: Why not cap the amount an athlete can receive for their "likeness"

Are you actually opposed to a player being entitled to be compensated for money generated from the use of his name or likeness that has become popular through his talent and hard work?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was taught that is the very basis of capitalism....

Why should it be just the school and the bloodsuckers from the NCAA that enjoy those profits?

GEAUX TIGERS!!!

quote:

---

There is zero logical reason for the NCAA to have the amount of control over these athletes that they have.

---

The only control they have is in the eligibility of players within the NCAA. I think that's very, very reasonable.

They can't prevent kids from quitting. They can't prevent kids from going to the NFL. They can't prevent kids from deciding to play in a different league that directly competes with the NCAA. And, they can't prevent kids from trying to capitalize on the name/brand that they built while playing for the NCAA.

All they can do is make a kid ineligible if they do any of those things.

In other words, the NCAA doesn't have a ton of control like you say they do. What they do have is a fantastic product that is very popular and thus affords these players with a ton of value. Because of that, they have tons of players willing to happily engage them in this voluntary agreement.

quote:

---

How long before there is a lawsuit because females “aren’t getting” the same opportunities as male student athletes?

---

Free market is free market. All you have to do is allow all incoming freshman scholarship athletes hire a agent to represent them for their college career. The money would not be coming directly from the school. Money would pour in from local businesses for advertising deals.

Actually, you are incorrect on several points. I’ll respond to two.

First, the government is effectively involved in all contracts because they establish and enforce the law by which contracts are interpreted and enforced.

Second, the NCAA most assuredly participates in the profits generated from the players images and likenesses. That was a huge part of the O’Bannon case. The NCAA didn’t want Mr. O’Bannon to receive any compensation for the profits created from the Video game that used his likeness and name some 10 years after he was even in college.

But my big question for you is, why are you so vehemently opposed to these guys being compensated? If someone takes your picture and then uses it in an add that generates a profit, they have to compensate you, so why does an athlete have his rights reduced to yours?


GEAUX TIGERS!!!!

quote:

---

If Player A exceeds his market value while Player B does not, would a company be able to renegotiate for less money or would they just have to eat the loss?

What would stop a school from essentially having alumni businesses begin shopping around potential student athletes? Alabama having Regions bank offer kids contracts to try and outbid LSU and Raising Canes.

I’m all for student athletes being able to make money off of their likeness, but feel like this will really peel back the curtain on shady recruiting and create a lot of controversy between athletes in profit generating teams vs athletes on teams operating at a loss.

---

My thoughts exactly. The unintended consequences of this are not being considered, just like Title IX.

quote:

---

Free market is free market. All you have to do is allow all incoming freshman scholarship athletes hire a agent to represent them for their college career.

---

They’re free to do this now. They’re freely choosing to participate in an association where it isn’t allowed. They’re also free to hire an agent after high school and get whatever endorsement deals or salary the free market will allow them while completely bypassing the NCAA.

quote:

---

First, the government is effectively involved in all contracts because they establish and enforce the law by which contracts are interpreted and enforced.

---

This is a meaningless point. You asked about capitalism. I explained it to you.

Are you really trying to say that government intervention into a contractual situation between two private parties is the basis of capitalism?

quote:

---

Second, the NCAA most assuredly participates in the profits generated from the players images and likenesses. That was a huge part of the O’Bannon case. The NCAA didn’t want Mr. O’Bannon to receive any compensation for the profits created from the Video game that used his likeness and name some 10 years after he was even in college.

---

The NCAA is a nonprofit. It is effectively a collection of universities. The O'Bannon case was about whether or not the NCAA could license the players likeness. It was ruled they can't. Thus, the game could no longer be made.

None of that changes anything about what I said. Neither the NCAA, nor the member institutions are making huge profits. In fact, more often than not, they are taking a loss.

They get a ton of revenue. And, you seem to be unaware of the different between revenue and profit. This type of economic illiteracy (see your comment about capitalism above) seems to be prevelant among those that argue your side.

But, the video game situation is a great analog for this situation. Some group decides to go file suit and actually wins the case. YAY!!! The practical impact is that nobody got what they want. Players still don't get money. Schools don't get that revenue, so they actually have less to reinvest back into the program. And, fans of the game can't get it anymore. WHAT A HUGE SUCCESS!!! In truth, it was a collossal frickup.

quote:

---

But my big question for you is, why are you so vehemently opposed to these guys being compensated? If someone takes your picture and then uses it in an add that generates a profit, they have to compensate you, so why does an athlete have his rights reduced to yours?

---

I explained why I'm against compensation. You just seemed to ignore it. I don't want the game to materially change. I don't want success determined by who spends the most. I don't want the game to be injected with agents, hangers on, etc. I don't want to encourage free agency since there is now financial incentive to do so. I don't want players having leverage to pressure schools for more money in the middle of the season simply because they can and it's within the rules. And, I don't want any of the 100 other negative unintended consequences that I haven't thought about yet that comes with the change.

I like the game of college football. I want it preserved.

Futhermore, using your example, I don't have a right to be compensated if I agree to allow that person to take my picture. And, depending on what I get out of the deal, I might be ok with that.

If I allow a news reporter to interview me, I don't get to demand their ad revenue.

I don't get to tell facebook that I deserve ad money because they use my likeness in the picture I uploaded. If they decided to sell subscriptions, I don't get to say I deserve that money. I agreed to allow that when I signed up.

quote:

---

GEAUX TIGERS!!!!

---

If you love the Tigers and college football, you would be wise to be very wary of this change.

quote:

---

It’s not against the law for anyone to get paid for their likeness

---

It is against NCAA regulations, and there is a good reason for it. Plenty of larger schools have very well connected and loaded boosters that will be able to pay players lots of money for their “name and likeness”. Silicon Valley is going to make the PAC very relevant again real soon. SEC schools have money, but only A&M has money to compete for players if they are being paid.

quote:

---

That’s for his playing, not compensation for the use of his likeness...

---

actually, it’s for literally everything that comes with being a college football player.

you get all of this (equivalent of a few hundred thousand dollar value).
in return, you play football, show up to press conferences/media days etc as required, smile for camera for the team posters we print, etc.

quote:

---

First, I represent a number of not for profit entities that generate a significant amount of revenue. They just don’t designate it as “profit”. They often refer to it as margin, member equity or capital credits, but it’s still a significant amount of revenue...

---

It's a huge amount of revenue...that get's completely reinvested into the athletic programs. It pays for infrastructure, operating costs, healthcare, insurance, etc. Non-revenue producing sports are tremendous losers and schools are forced into making poor financial based decisions due to Title IX (more government intervention).

quote:

---

Two, just because I don’t necessarily agree with your analysis, does not make me a financial dimwit or an economic moron.

---

I'll let your opinion speak for itself.