Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL and Revenue Sharing)

[ScriptOhio]

I think the bidding war from boosters thing makes sense at a very superficial level but here is the real world rub;

If superbooster says to a local business give high school kid Johhny Gun 100K to endorse your mattress store;

Said business owner now has two choices

1. Use his own money and write it off. Real world, there has to be some actual value in it for him/her or it isn't going to happen.
2. Take money from booster to give to spokesperson. Real world, you just created a taxable event and all the fun that comes with that or issues that arise from trying to conceal that.

Thus my point about real world businesses, taxes and profit doing an ice bucket challenge on a lot of these notions we get about the endorsement market going berserk.

Once you make a prohibited item legal it removes the black market for it and lowers the price.

There is actually at least one more (i.e 3rd option) to you scenario; what if the business owner is the booster?

Also, the booster/business owner doesn't have to be local either.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Honestly, I'm less concerned about east & west coast entrepreneurs getting involved than I am old Big-8/SWC oil tycoons. The coastal elites have been cheating for decades and are still so incompetent they can't buy UCLA a basketball title (and you only have to pay five guys). Old-money oil guys like T Boone Pickens (RIP) or Jerry Jones paying guys to go to Oklahoma St and Arkansas?

Frankly, I'm surprised Texas didn't think of this first.

And shoe/jersey company tycoons/executives, etc.

 

[zincfinger]

There are ncaa rules regarding boosters (people who give money to schools)

The biggest problem won’t be with boosters, it’ll be with people who don’t fit the ncaa definition of booster

It's not clear to me how the NCAA definition of booster is relevant here.

1. Are there not NCAA rules that currently prohibit a player from taking money from someone who doesn't donate money directly to the school?
2. Does the California law, and other proposed state laws, make any distinction based on whether the payer donates money directly to the school?
3. Isn't the California law, and other proposed law, explicitly in conflict with NCAA rules?

 

[buchtelgrad04]

There is actually at least one more (i.e 3rd option) to you scenario; what if the business owner is the booster?

Also, the booster/business owner doesn't have to be local either.

There are rules currently in place for that too. The NCAA already considers the businesses of proprietors an extension of the booster. So if a company owned/run by a booster were to provide an extra benefit as it currently stands, that is still considered an improper benefit.

 

[Systems_id]

What's to keep a billionaire (Phil Knight, eg) from giving $100k each to incoming recruits to do adds for local donut shops, pawn shops, liquor stores, convenience stores, etc.?

Why would this be a problem?

 

[scarletmike]

The problem with that is that it doesn't allow the golf or equestrian prodigy the ability to make money off their own endorsements for clubs/saddles (as an example).

So, if I am understanding this law correctly, it is to help the student athlete and it is for all athletes not just football?

I wouldn't think it in the spirit of the law to limit what that Olympic sport athlete could do with his/her own likeness.

Just off the top of my head

I agree that it leaves out most Olympic sport athletes, but not by design, just by market forces. It obviously gets harder when you're trying to find ways to get all the athletes money, but then those sports aren't exactly marketed and they'll stereotypically come from better off families than basketball and football. I doubt this issue is really on the minds of the rowing/golf/etc. athletes, though I don't disagree that, just on principle, that if the revenue sport athletes are allowed to profit then the Olympic sport athletes should be allowed to as well. The method I suggested just ends up leaving them out of the picture because of the nature of it, not by intent or design. EDIT: But hey, if some well-off alum at EA can pitch and make an NCAA Rowing 2025 game that makes money, the rowing athletes get theirs as well.

There are ncaa rules regarding boosters (people who give money to schools)

The biggest problem won’t be with boosters, it’ll be with people who don’t fit the ncaa definition of booster

Yep, the boosters are typically business owners. Before they were usually just paying them for nothing or for dubious/invisible jobs within their business. This would theoretically remove the "black market" aspect and the boosters would just pay them for promoting their business, though likely an exorbitant amount for their market area and limited appearance (with the exception of the obvious like USC/UCLA and LA).

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

It's not clear to me how the NCAA definition of booster is relevant here.

1. Are there not NCAA rules that currently prohibit a player from taking money from someone who doesn't donate money directly to the school?
2. Does the California law, and other proposed state laws, make any distinction based on whether the payer donates money directly to the school?
3. Isn't the California law, and other proposed law, explicitly in conflict with NCAA rules?

The rules are very different for boosters

If you see some Ohio state football players walking by the hotel event-room where you’re hosting your daughter’s wedding reception and you invited them to join the party, as a booster you would not have the excuse of not knowing they were players, or rather the players would not have that excuse. They would be deemed ineligible if they took one bite of the food.

 

[zincfinger]

The rules are very different for boosters

If you see some Ohio state football players walking by the hotel event-room where you’re hosting your daughter’s wedding reception and you invited them to join the party, as a booster you would not have the excuse of not knowing they were players, or rather the players would not have that excuse. They would be deemed ineligible if they took one bite of the food.

Yes, but you're citing NCAA rules when the bill in question is explicitly intended to override NCAA rules (see below). And we're not talking about a bite of food at a party, we're talking about cash payments for endorsement, use of name, or use of likeness, which would be pretty easy to arrange whether one is a booster or not.

SEC. 2.
Section 67456 is added to the Education Code, to read:


67456.
(a) (1) A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility.
(2) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a student of a postsecondary educational institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.

 

[Jaxbuck]

There is actually at least one more (i.e 3rd option) to you scenario; what if the business owner is the booster?

Also, the booster/business owner doesn't have to be local either.

Sure so just put yourself in that person's (booster/business owner) shoes.

What is Johnny Gun's real value to you in endorsing your product?

If it is significantly less than what it takes to land him, then the school/your fandom is asking your business to take that financial hit.

No business is going to do that to an indefinite scale for an indefinite time. It's a question of degree and, in my experience, businesses will quickly gravitate to the low end of the spectrum I don't care who they are.

Johnny Gun's real market value is the key piece to all this and there is only one way to determine that imo; let the free market tell you.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Yes, but you're citing NCAA rules when the bill in question is explicitly intended to override NCAA rules (see below). And we're not talking about a bite of food at a party, we're talking about cash payments for endorsement, use of name, or use of likeness, which would be pretty easy to arrange whether one is a booster or not.

SEC. 2.
Section 67456 is added to the Education Code, to read:


67456.
(a) (1) A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility.
(2) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a student of a postsecondary educational institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.

Whatever dude

I really don’t give a fuck about this

I’ll still watch the sport either way

I’ll probably donate to funds that buy huge quantities of OSU player T-shirts and ship them overseas

The ncaa will fuck this up, guaranteed

Beyond that...


You guys argue all you want

 

[Swimmer]

Not for tats, but I support it for anything else.

 

[zincfinger]

Whatever dude

I really don’t give a fuck about this

I’ll still watch the sport either way

I’ll probably donate to funds that buy huge quantities of OSU player T-shirts and ship them overseas

The ncaa will fuck this up, guaranteed

Beyond that...


You guys argue all you want

I'm not trying to pick a fight over it, and at the end of the day it's not a real big deal to me, either. I just had trouble making sense of an argument that, as I understood it, effectively said, "These bills that purport to override NCAA rules won't allow boosters to pay players because there are NCAA rules against that."

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I'm not trying to pick a fight over it, and at the end of the day it's not a real big deal to me, either. I just had trouble making sense of an argument that, as I understood it, effectively said, "These bills that purport to override NCAA rules won't allow boosters to pay players because there are NCAA rules against that."

Agreed. The NCAA can write whatever rules they want about boosters vs non-boosters, but the CA law completely overrides those rules (in theory).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Any opinion on the extent to which the NCAA is subject to state law?

I think the NCAA is perfectly entitled to define the contours of its membership requirements. Consequently, it could decide, as a body, to kick its California members out.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I had my oldest go through college selection as an Equestrian and this would have made a big difference.

She was limited in schools she wanted to even try to go through the hassle of trying to be eligible for because of NCAA affiliation. As it turns out amateur riders get "paid" either prize money or equipment as they compete in shows.

So just from my limited experience with an Olympic athlete I can see this being enormously beneficial to the kids.

I have another one coming up that might be good enough to play baseball in college. I don't think this is going to mean a damn thing to him.