NCAA to Allow Players to be Compensated for their Names, Likenesses, and Images

[BurntOrange&White 39617]

1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

Yeah, that tweet doesn’t have the full statute, but that portion is written as permissive instead of mandatory. I can’t imagine UGA will require their football players to sign a contract where they have to pool 75% of what they earn from non-official school activities. That’s oils be recruiting suicide.
 

I would expect GA lawmakers will say they wrote this to protect students from being exploited by schools who would try to require 100% pooling, but it seems like BS and probably shouldn’t be in there at all. 

I also can’t remember exactly what the CA bill sys, but I think it was primarily about prohibiting schools/the NCAA from punishing students for profiting from NLI. This bill seems to contemplate official school activities that provide NLI benefits, which is not currently allowed per the NCAA and I’m not sure if the CA bill addresses that scenario.
 

I would expect that school-sponsored activities which generate NLI money would end up falling under Title 9.  I’d have to look into it more, but I think it’s likely the 75% cap from the GA bill would be superseded by Title 9 and any NLI profits from official school activities would be subject to Title 9 requirements. 

 

California's bill doesn't become active until 2023 though, by then the NCAA should have fully implemented NIL.

[Burt Macklin 18994]

25 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

California's bill doesn't become active until 2023 though, by then the NCAA should have fully implemented NIL.

Yes, I’m sure the NCAA will act quickly and efficiently to implement a functional NLI system.
 

It’s also likely the NCAA won’t allow anything more than what the new statutes require, which is why I was talking about whether CA addresses pooling/sharing school-sponsored NLI profit. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Burt Macklin

[BurntOrange&White 39617]

1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

Yes, I’m sure the NCAA will act quickly and efficiently to implement a functional NLI system.
 

It’s also likely the NCAA won’t allow anything more than what the new statutes require, which is why I was talking about whether CA addresses school-sponsored NLI profit. 

I couldn’t imagine how dumb their nil stuff will be as a state. 

[Burt Macklin 18994]

10 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I couldn’t imagine how dumb their nil stuff will be as a state. 

I mean they’ve already passed the bill so you don’t have to imagine, and I think it was pretty straightforward in just saying schools/NCAA can’t restrict/punish students for profiting from their NLI. 
 

The NCAA is the one who’s been enforcing the stupid and archaic rules and it’s good states are forcing them to finally change it. The NCAA was never going to do it on their own. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10139]

Would love to see ads of say Freshman Trevor Lawrence wearing Adidas shoes saying they are by far his favorite and ones he will wear once he goes pro all while Nike is paying Clemson tons of money.

[Machinator 32097]

 

[markstanco 12504]

3 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

That is still easy to negative recruit against.  Clemson assistant: "Well of course they say that now, but since it is a law they can change their mind at any time and there will be nothing you can do about it while at Georgia / Georgia Tech."

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Beau Vine 53984]

On 5/6/2021 at 11:25 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

California's bill doesn't become active until 2023 though, by then the NCAA should have fully implemented NIL.

[Napoleon 8600]

On 5/6/2021 at 11:51 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

I couldn’t imagine how dumb their nil stuff will be as a state. 

California penis envy never ceases to amuse.
 

On 5/6/2021 at 12:16 PM, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Would love to see ads of say Freshman Trevor Lawrence wearing Adidas shoes saying they are by far his favorite and ones he will wear once he goes pro all while Nike is paying Clemson tons of money.

Replace “Trevor Lawrence” with “Lionel Messi” and “Clemson” with “Barcelona” and no one thinks anything about it. 

All of Messi’s shoe advertising has him in an Argentina kit, not Barcelona. Nike still pays assloads to Barcelona all the same. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Napoleon

[lemonandaturd 4285]

State law versus Mark Emmert and a clueless pussyfooting NCAA?  NCAA better get their shit right or they will be very irrelevant very soon.    

[WhatTheBuck 28705]

39 minutes ago, lemonandaturd said:

State law versus Mark Emmert and a clueless pussyfooting NCAA?  NCAA better get their shit right or they will be very irrelevant very soon.    

You know who the NCAA is, right? It’s your school and my school and all the other schools and there will always be a ruling body made up of all the schools to govern our collective athletic programs. Get rid of the NCAA and people will just bitch about whatever replaces it. 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[ouflak 60]

Quote

...no NCAA antitrust exemption.

As long as this part is absolutely insured, I'd be happy to just complain on message boards about the rest, but probably could live with whatever they come up with. But there should be no more special exemptions from following the law of the land for the NCAA (or the universities), from now and forever more.

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[General Specific 3232]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31521100/congressional-bill-introduced-allow-college-athletes-form-unions-become-employees

[Machinator 32097]

 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

On 5/18/2021 at 5:02 AM, ouflak said:

As long as this part is absolutely insured, I'd be happy to just complain on message boards about the rest, but probably could live with whatever they come up with. But there should be no more special exemptions from following the law of the land for the NCAA (or the universities), from now and forever more.

I think that means no antitrust exemption for that narrow purpose, e.g. the amateurism rules and athlete compensation.

Despite the suckage of the NCAA, broad removal of the antitrust exemption, which permits the NCAA and its member schools to collude and cooperate, would create a complete thunderdome situation.

[Tex Long 4346]

I've been curious since the first time I laid eyes on the phrase, "name, image and likeness", as to the precise difference between "image" and 'likeness". I figgered it could be as simple as something like "image is a photo, likeness is a drawing or perhaps a picture of someone else, but identified as the person."

Thank goodness, I've discovered (by accident) an official NCAA web page, titled questions and answers name image likeness. 

Find "likeness", seems like the quickest way to find the difference. Dang, fifteen matches... let's see... mmm-hmm mmm-hmm mmm-hmm.

Well damn, every single match is just that phrase, "name, image and likeness". There may be an answer, but that would entail an assumption that NCAA ever answered a question directly. Maybe it's there, but I don't think I care any longer. It's prolly just some typical quarter-assed legal term of art that basically means "You don't know what the fuck we're talking about, but neither do we, so it's all good."

[TwiceHorn 31263]

21 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

I've been curious since the first time I laid eyes on the phrase, "name, image and likeness", as to the precise difference between "image" and 'likeness". I figgered it could be as simple as something like "image is a photo, likeness is a drawing or perhaps a picture of someone else, but identified as the person."

Thank goodness, I've discovered (by accident) an official NCAA web page, titled questions and answers name image likeness. 

Find "likeness", seems like the quickest way to find the difference. Dang, fifteen matches... let's see... mmm-hmm mmm-hmm mmm-hmm.

Well damn, every single match is just that phrase, "name, image and likeness". There may be an answer, but that would entail an assumption that NCAA ever answered a question directly. Maybe it's there, but I don't think I care any longer. It's prolly just some typical quarter-assed legal term of art that basically means "You don't know what the fuck we're talking about, but neither do we, so it's all good."

It's been bandied about in connection with right of publicity and right of privacy.

You are correct that image means actual photograph, while likeness is something less.  Videogames have avoided some legal issues by using say a number and say a dark haired white guy that vaguely resembles the player, without using the name.  That's a likeness.

A primer on the law.  https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/

Edited May 28, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

1 hour ago, Machinator said:

 

Agree with him, but phots on the tickets?  That’s a huge stretch but an even easier fix. 
 

Not sure I understand his comment on the coaches and breaking contact. Would an example be he is no longer able to speak with Herman or Orlando?

States need to let it go and Universities should be pushing them to do so. Players should be able to make any money that someone is legally willing to pay them (with taxes), but I’m afraid it will be a rude awakening for many when money they assume they are not making does not materialize. 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

43 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Agree with him, but phots on the tickets?  That’s a huge stretch but an even easier fix. 
 

Not sure I understand his comment on the coaches and breaking contact. Would an example be he is no longer able to speak with Herman or Orlando?

States need to let it go and Universities should be pushing them to do so. Players should be able to make any money that someone is legally willing to pay them (with taxes), but I’m afraid it will be a rude awakening for many when money they assume they are not making does not materialize. 

That series of tweets isn't exactly a marvel of clarity.

He's complaining that coaches have no restrictions on leaving and going to another program, while players do.  Which is fairly obviously wholly unconnected to NIL.

"Robbed" is a stupid word to use, as well.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That series of tweets isn't exactly a marvel of clarity.

He's complaining that coaches have no restrictions on leaving and going to another program, while players do.  Which is fairly obviously wholly unconnected to NIL.

"Robbed" is a stupid word to use, as well.

“Robbed” is interesting, are we starting this all over again when only a small portion of the players are able to make any money from Licensing agreements? Then, will the have nots again approach the ones with the money, the athletic departments, and round and round we go?

[TwiceHorn 31263]

13 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

“Robbed” is interesting, are we starting this all over again when only a small portion of the players are able to make any money from Licensing agreements? Then, will the have nots again approach the ones with the money, the athletic departments, and round and round we go?

Part of it is that this name/image/likeness thing is relatively new as an intellectual property with commercial value. 

 

At first it was simply the right not to have ones NIL associated with "just anything," so more a right of privacy. Then that grew into the right to control any use of it at all and to license it for money.  And then only if you were "famous." 

That last really only came on in the last 10 years or so. Which coincides with historically bad UT football. 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[ouflak 60]

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that means no antitrust exemption for that narrow purpose, e.g. the amateurism rules and athlete compensation.

Despite the suckage of the NCAA, broad removal of the antitrust exemption, which permits the NCAA and its member schools to collude and cooperate, would create a complete thunderdome situation.

And that's their problem to sort out. But if it does result in a ThunderDome situation, whoever grabs the pigshit powered chainsaw and goes after the NCAA is the one I'm rooting for.

[ouflak 60]

Double post.

Edited May 29, 2021 by ouflak

[Machinator 32097]

 

[gernblansten 3188]

Give the players a cut of something and let them earn what they can earn.  Whatever.  But the argument "coaches can move freely to other schools for millions" is tiring.  There are exceptions, but for the most part that coach spent four years in college (not getting paid to play either, which seems really important), made peanut shells as a grad assistant, toiled for years later making peanuts, moving multiple times for a couple more peanuts, a lot of times doing so with a wife and young children, and working insane hours to make it.  IMHO, the coach has earned the right over many years.  If your impulse is to say "the player spent years sweating and practicing to play in college, I'd say the coach's road is a bit more substantive than being driven around by parents to pee wee football and being a man above boys in high school while someone is still generally feeding, clothing, and housing you.  If you want that coach's ability to program jump and make millions, put in your time and go be that coach and stop bitching about needing the ability to transfer because you're second team after spring practice. 

[WhatTheBuck 28705]

If they’re going to get paid, make them pay their way. Pay tuition. Pay for housing and food. Make them schedule their own classes, buy their own books, and hire their own tutors. Pay for insurance. Make them pay their coaches. Make them pay for their strength and conditioning and the use of the weight rooms. Make them pay for travel and lodging and book it all themselves or hire travel agents to do it for them. Make them pay their fair share of the debt service on their stadiums and facilities. Free the alumni from the burden of massive donations just for the opportunity to buy season tickets to watch them play.

Oh, and make them pay taxes. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If they’re going to get paid, make them pay their way. Pay tuition. Pay for housing and food. Make them schedule their own classes, buy their own books, and hire their own tutors. Pay for insurance. Make them pay their coaches. Make them pay for their strength and conditioning and the use of the weight rooms. Make them pay for travel and lodging and book it all themselves or hire travel agents to do it for them. Make them pay their fair share of the debt service on their stadiums and facilities. Free the alumni from the burden of massive donations just for the opportunity to buy season tickets to watch them play.

Oh, and make them pay taxes. 

I'm sure all the top athletes will be flocking to the school that implements your policy. 

[BurntOrange&White 39617]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I'm sure all the top athletes will be flocking to the school that implements your policy. 

I'm fairly certain these kids are going to get a hard taught lesson in self employment and taxes with the NIL stuff.

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'm fairly certain these kids are going to get a hard taught lesson in self employment and taxes with the NIL stuff.

Some will.  All the major universities will likely set up programs for their athletes to show them what to do, and that advice will be free for them as well because the school realizes attracting the top athletes makes them multitudes more money than billing the players ever would.  

[BurntOrange&White 39617]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Some will.  All the major universities will likely set up programs for their athletes to show them what to do, and that advice will be free for them as well because the school realizes attracting the top athletes makes them multitudes more money than billing the players ever would.  

When have you ever known 18-21 year old to be fiscally responsible even with all the tools available to them?

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

When have you ever known 18-21 year old to be fiscally responsible even with all the tools available to them?

Non athlete 18-21 year old people get jobs and file taxes.  They manage to figure it out for the most part.  This will be no different.  Not that there won't be some that screw up, but it's not going to be a hard taught lesson for many.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

3 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Non athlete 18-21 year old people get jobs and file taxes.  They manage to figure it out for the most part.  This will be no different.  Not that there won't be some that screw up, but it's not going to be a hard taught lesson for many.

Yeah, this points up something that most college students get that most football players don't:  most students, even those on the mom n dad scholarship, have to learn to manage their money.  To make it last through the month, or semester, or whatever.  Blow it all on beer or weed, and you may not eat next week.

Edited June 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[ouflak 60]

14 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Give the players a cut of something and let them earn what they can earn.  Whatever.  But the argument "coaches can move freely to other schools for millions" is tiring.  There are exceptions, but ... < snip >  IMHO, the coach has earned the right over many years.

My impulse is to say that a baseball phenom pitcher can become a millionaire at 18 by just signing on the dotted line. Same with a 19 year old basketball player. Heck if some cute pre-teen chick has some dance moves, can hold a tune, and is in touch with the zeitgeist of her age-group, she can become a millionaire before she even has her first period. If we want to rewrite our laws of our land so that wealth is dependent on age or some  arbitrary definition of 'how hard people worked for how long', fine. It's a huge departure from our capitalist traditions. But I'm sure we could make the economic transition eventually. Until then, you work - you get paid. If you get paid more than others now instead of later, than maybe they should have chosen a different career pather, or worked harder, or just plain gotten luckier. That's their problem.

 

Quote

[QUOTE="WhatTheBuck"]If they’re going to get paid, make them pay their way. Pay tuition. Pay for housing and food. Make them schedule their own classes, buy their own books, and hire their own tutors. Pay for insurance. Make them pay their coaches. Make them pay for their strength and conditioning and the use of the weight rooms. Make them pay for travel and lodging and book it all themselves or hire travel agents to do it for them. Make them pay their fair share of the debt service on their stadiums and facilities. Free the alumni from the burden of massive donations just for the opportunity to buy season tickets to watch them play.[/QUOTE]

Sure. But then Alabama, Georgia, USC, OU, Clemson and Ohio State will say, "But if you come here, we'll pay for tuition, housing, and food. We'll also take care of scheduling your classes, getting your books lined up, and tutoring sessions (paid for by us as well). You will be coached by some of the best in the business (it will be their pleasure - ofcourse they are paid well themselves) along with free access to the gyms and professional S&C experts. Naturally all business expenses such travel to-and-from games and hotels are covered by us. Sure you could go to Texas, where they make you pay for and take care of all of that stuff yourself. But why would your 5-star self want to do that?

Quote

[QUOTE="WhatTheBuck"]Oh, and make them pay taxes. [/QUOTE]

I never heard anybody ever make the argument that the student athletes shouldn't pay taxes. It just doesn't make any sense. If you work in the United States and make money, you pay taxes. The end. In what interpretation of modern reality could that possibly not happen? Where did this idea even come from?

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by ouflak

[General Specific 3232]

Are these NLI compliance requirements not additional expenses on top of already large orgs and budgets? Sure, the UTs, tOSUs, Bamas and the USCs of the world can make this happen with little impact. Hell, it’s one more differentiator in the market place competing for top talent.

What about the little guy? Will this squeeze the middle and push several teams/colleges to drop down and become Ivy League equivalents, playing sports with no scholarships?

What impacts will this have on the overall number of student athletes across the NCAA that get an education for free now?How many will no longer be getting a scholarship, all to feed the top performers?

How will NLI impact other sports? Sure, football, basketball and possibly baseball can carry on with a few adjustments. The rest become Olympic sports, truly amateur now?

Lot’s of questions, time to shut up and listen (lurk) again.

[ouflak 60]

23 minutes ago, General Specific said:

Are these NLI compliance requirements not additional expenses on top of already large orgs and budgets?

No. The money comes out from the companies who want to dole it out in exchange for an athlete's NIL. I think a couple of states have laws that have the school hold onto the money in escrow or act as agents, taking a cut of the action. But otherwise they pay nothing.

 

23 minutes ago, General Specific said:

Hell, it’s one more differentiator in the market place competing for top talent.
 

True. But there are already significant differentiators in the market, and they already make a huge difference between the haves and have-nots. And there is no talk of expanding scholarship numbers or game time. So schools will still only be able to take and play some many players in a given game/season.

 

23 minutes ago, General Specific said:

What about the little guy? Will this squeeze the middle and push several teams/colleges to drop down and become Ivy League equivalents, playing sports with no scholarships?

It's hard to see how there would be much, if any, impact that is already different from the exposure a top player gets for playing well for a top team. But it may be that we are all missing dynamic here that is yet to come to the fore.

  

23 minutes ago, General Specific said:

What impacts will this have on the overall number of student athletes across the NCAA that get an education for free now?How many will no longer be getting a scholarship, all to feed the top performers?

This has sort of been talked about earlier in the thread. But if a school decides to drop scholarship and just have its athletes pay for everything out of NIL, that school will immediately be competing against many other schools that are quite happy to continue scholarships and let the student athletes enjoy the benefits of NIL. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out how long that silly policy would last (if it even made it into policy).

 

  

23 minutes ago, General Specific said:

How will NLI impact other sports? Sure, football, basketball and possibly baseball can carry on with a few adjustments. The rest become Olympic sports, truly amateur now?

The laws that the states are passing are entirely agnostic of the sports involved. So if the UCLA Women's Beach Volleyball team decides to do a string bikini calender, they get to make money off of that just like an P5 football team all-conference linebacker does for signing autographs.

Edited June 3, 2021 by ouflak

[Burt Macklin 18994]

18 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If they’re going to get paid, make them pay their way. Pay tuition. Pay for housing and food. Make them schedule their own classes, buy their own books, and hire their own tutors. Pay for insurance. Make them pay their coaches. Make them pay for their strength and conditioning and the use of the weight rooms. Make them pay for travel and lodging and book it all themselves or hire travel agents to do it for them. Make them pay their fair share of the debt service on their stadiums and facilities. Free the alumni from the burden of massive donations just for the opportunity to buy season tickets to watch them play.

Oh, and make them pay taxes. 

Bravo. This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. So make the pay for every single expense imaginable that is involved with them attending school and playing football while the school gets to make pure profit and benefits from the national exposure of its brand with no outgoing expenses? That seems completely fair and reasonable. 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

So how is it proposed that these contracts get negotiated and "royalty rates" be determined?  In the real world, that's a pretty significant expense per contract, using lawyers and financial/business people.

Edited June 3, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Machinator 32097]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39617]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So how is it proposed that these contracts get negotiated and "royalty rates" be determined?  In the real world, that's a pretty significant expense per contract, using lawyers and financial/business people.

This shit will be insane. 

[Machinator 32097]