Jameis Winston (QB Browns)

[Bleed S & G]

Interesting interpretation of the IRS 501(c)(3) rule. It may or may not be accurate; it would be interesting to see whether the government could prevail if they were to claim that the NCAA were not an "educational" organization, which is the position I'd take if I were an NCAA attorney.

Like many other legal questions, this one is hard to figure without supporting case law.

In 2006, the NCAA did come under fire - here is the Illinois Business Law Journal's summary of congress' challenge of the NCAA tax exempt status:
http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljourn...he-NCAA-Fulfilling-its-Tax-Exempt-Status.aspx

In late 2006, Congress challenged the NCAA’s tax-exempt status, questioning the organization’s lucrative commercial contracts and alleged lack of emphasis on higher education. [1] Some point out that Division I football and basketball are looking more like minor leagues for the pros that benefit only a tiny portion of a university’s student body and may actually be more “detrimental to the overall education of the athlete given the amount of time they consume, and so forth.”[2] Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist claims that “college sports has grown into a standard commercial enterprise — with only a tip of the hat to the academic environment they exist in."[3]This article will first provide background to clarify the manner in which tax rules are applied to organizations such as the NCAA, an analysis on whether the NCAA is actually fulfilling its tax-exempt status, and some possible solutions for tax-exempt compliance.

 

[Bucklion]

As much as I despise Famous Jameis, it's ridiculous that athletes are prohibited from earning money for their autograph. I can't get angry about someone cashing in on their own name.

I agree with this, but the rule is the rule...if people don't like it, they need to change the rule...they can't just not enforce it because someone got caught.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Interesting interpretation of the IRS 501(c)(3) rule. It may or may not be accurate; it would be interesting to see whether the government could prevail if they were to claim that the NCAA were not an "educational" organization, which is the position I'd take if I were an NCAA attorney.

Like many other legal questions, this one is hard to figure without supporting case law.

The government has already questioned the NCAA's tax-exempt status:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2006-10-04-ncaa-tax-status_x.htm

http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljourn...he-NCAA-Fulfilling-its-Tax-Exempt-Status.aspx

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

The bigger brands will always have an advantage, scholarship limits or not, no doubt. So, we want the schools/NCAA/conferences to determine fair market value? Naturally, an autographed playbook will be worth much more in Columbus than it would be in Bloomington - I don't see how anyone, besides the market itself, can dictate market value.

Yes, my examples were meant to be extreme - but I do think this would be harder to regulate than you think. I mean, not every place is like Columbus.. you have these Stubenville's/Happy Valley's out there that will go to extreme lengths if given the opportunity I would think.

Just food for thought. Unless you want the NCAA to have even *more* regulation/power.. letting these players profit is a slippery, slippery slope.. in my IMO.

I agree that the FMV being produced by the NCAA would be quite difficult. But I think my second solution would probably be better. You assign a certain $$$ allotment per team based off of a % of what they make. Then the school can assign a % of that allotment to individual players. Would it completely change recruiting from here on out? Yes. You could promise the #1 recruit 5% of the allotment, but then it could negatively affect other recruits. So it's not a perfect system, but one that could work. But as you said, it could potentially not fly with the NCAA. Which is why the inevitable Power 5 (or maybe soonish Power 4) will remove the need for the NCAA.

 

[MaxBuck]

The government has already questioned the NCAA's tax-exempt status:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2006-10-04-ncaa-tax-status_x.htm

http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljourn...he-NCAA-Fulfilling-its-Tax-Exempt-Status.aspx

In 2006, the NCAA did come under fire - here is the Illinois Business Law Journal's summary of congress' challenge of the NCAA tax exempt status:
http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljourn...he-NCAA-Fulfilling-its-Tax-Exempt-Status.aspx

In late 2006, Congress challenged the NCAA’s tax-exempt status, questioning the organization’s lucrative commercial contracts and alleged lack of emphasis on higher education. [1] Some point out that Division I football and basketball are looking more like minor leagues for the pros that benefit only a tiny portion of a university’s student body and may actually be more “detrimental to the overall education of the athlete given the amount of time they consume, and so forth.”[2] Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist claims that “college sports has grown into a standard commercial enterprise — with only a tip of the hat to the academic environment they exist in."[3]This article will first provide background to clarify the manner in which tax rules are applied to organizations such as the NCAA, an analysis on whether the NCAA is actually fulfilling its tax-exempt status, and some possible solutions for tax-exempt compliance.

Like I said, it will take case law to decide whether your positions are correct. It's one thing to "come under fire" by journalistic outlets (including university law journals); it's quite another to fail as defendant, as Oscar Pistorius unfortunately proved recently.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

I agree that the FMV being produced by the NCAA would be quite difficult. But I think my second solution would probably be better. You assign a certain $$$ allotment per team based off of a % of what they make. Then the school can assign a % of that allotment to individual players. Would it completely change recruiting from here on out? Yes. You could promise the #1 recruit 5% of the allotment, but then it could negatively affect other recruits. So it's not a perfect system, but one that could work. But as you said, it could potentially not fly with the NCAA. Which is why the inevitable Power 5 (or maybe soonish Power 4) will remove the need for the NCAA.

That wouldn't work any differently than the current system of paying kids under the table.

 

[bigdog3300]

As much as I despise Famous Jameis, it's ridiculous that athletes are prohibited from earning money for their autograph. I can't get angry about someone cashing in on their own name.

I see it from both sides - what stops booster X from paying him $250,000 for some autographs and clearly using this as an avenue for improper benefits?

 

[Jaxbuck]

I see it from both sides - what stops booster X from paying him $250,000 for some autographs and clearly using this as an avenue for improper benefits?

bingo

 

[cincibuck]

Say it loud, say it proud! The Big Ten was founded and is overseen by the Presidents of the Big
Ten. I can't imagine a single Big Ten president having a clause in his contract stating in clear, undisputed terms that one of his performance objectives was to make nice with the AD and the boosters.

Such conditions do not exist in the Florida State University system.

The NCAA stepped in at Penn State because coaches and the administration of a member school failed to adhere to what is widely accepted policy. It did nothing in the case of Cam Newton of Johnny Manziel because it lacked subpoena power and had no jurisdictional authority to act. In both of those cases and the case with Jameis it is up to the schools and the state courts to act.

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

That wouldn't work any differently than the current system of paying kids under the table.

Maybe I should have made myself clear that I think they should be able to profit from their own likeness. This would just allow it to A) be above the table and B) limit it so a certain amount. So you can't go and get $5M because you're a heisman winner. But maybe you can go get $50k. And as mentioned before, as a team you don't have unlimited power to give every kid $50k just because. You would have a set amount based on your revenue which is then split among players. So let's say you have $500k to give to your players for their likeness, if you give your Heisman winner $50k you're giving 10% to one player out of basically 100 (including walk-ons).

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Maybe I should have made myself clear that I think they should be able to profit from their own likeness. This would just allow it to A) be above the table and B) limit it so a certain amount. So you can't go and get $5M because you're a heisman winner. But maybe you can go get $50k.

No I knew what you meant. So they'd pay a little bit above the table, and then a bunch more under the table. Nothing would change.

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

No I knew what you meant. So they'd pay a little bit above the table, and then a bunch more under the table. Nothing would change.

If you're Winston or Gurley, do you deal with guys who you know could have you end up being kicked out of school to make $20k, or do you take the $20k from your school in a legitimate manner? Now, we are talking about Winston here so maybe this isn't the best example, but I sure know that I wouldn't mess with that other stuff if I can get just as much in a legitimate way.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

If you're Winston or Gurley, do you deal with guys who you know could have you end up being kicked out of school to make $20k, or do you take the $20k from your school in a legitimate manner? Now, we are talking about Winston here so maybe this isn't the best example, but I sure know that I wouldn't mess with that other stuff if I can get just as much in a legitimate way.

You do both. They currently deal with people who can get them kicked out of school. That threat didn't stop them.

 

[NFBuck]

Fuck Jimbo right in the p*ssy.

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

You do both. They currently deal with people who can get them kicked out of school. That threat didn't stop them.

Yes, but one thing you're ignoring is the lack of ability to legitimately receive $$$ in return for the use of their likeness. So for now the only way to get $$$ for the use of their likeness is with dealing with these people. In my scenario they would have the ability to get $$$ legitimately.

So you're a potential first rounder, a couple of years away from millions of dollars, and you can have $20k per year and be big man on campus with a ton of cash, or you can make $40k per year (with the possibility of being kicked out of school) with a marginal amount of additional money (when comparing to what is coming down the road), and be the exact same thing. At least to me, it's a no brainer. I wouldn't jeopardize my collegiate career, and potentially those millions of dollars, to get $20k on top of my already allotted $20k.