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

[Machinator 32103]

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3468]

On 6/21/2021 at 9:47 AM, Machinator said:

 

For the lawyers on here does giving the NCAA an antitrust exemptions  without establishing collective bargaining rights for athletes seem odd? Or is it not necessary for other entities with an antitrust exemption?

[fellside 1136]

Thursday players can start making money.

[Machinator 32103]

 

[conVINCEd 21477]

43 minutes ago, fellside said:

Thursday players can start making money.

I have a feeling our player’s social media accounts are going to be very annoying for the next few weeks.

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

The big names will grab the Nike, Adidas, etc. Allowing small money in on the action for the second level guys. Something like “Chico’s Bail Bonds” situation that will ruffle some feathers. Should be fun…

[Machinator 32103]

 

[DaysOff 8219]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEQTYiFALg0/?utm_medium=copy_link

[UncleSonny 6798]

23 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEQTYiFALg0/?utm_medium=copy_link

Yeah, that adds up. 

[Jkwellborn 7058]

We need to figure out something like onlyfans but for college athletes ASAP. Lol

[Francisco 2.0 32608]

 

 

[MirrOlure 15307]

Why is it a mistake? 

They’ve to be careful they don’t sign away their future ability to control their own NIL to some zit-faced sophomore ZBT for peanuts

[Big Frog II 522]

So college athletes everywhere will be able to do what the SEC has been doing for years, get paid.

[Ldogg53 514]

1 hour ago, Jkwellborn said:

We need to figure out something like onlyfans but for college athletes ASAP. Lol

It’s a legit idea. Truefans.com or something.  Same concept with subscribers.  Athletes will get paid. 

[TwiceHorn 32101]

On 6/29/2021 at 3:03 PM, Catdaddyhorn said:

For the lawyers on here does giving the NCAA an antitrust exemptions  without establishing collective bargaining rights for athletes seem odd? Or is it not necessary for other entities with an antitrust exemption?

Well, in the case of the NFL, the exemption permits the owners/teams to collude legally.  That is counterbalanced by the ability of the players to collective bargain.  The players are a monopsony of sorts, as well, so collective bargaining could be viewed as its own antitrust exemption.

I am not sure anyone fully accepts the labor model for college sports yet.

[conVINCEd 21477]

47 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

So college athletes everywhere will be able to do what the SEC has been doing for years, get paid.

The downside is they have to pay taxes on the earnings.  Bags have no taxes.

[TwiceHorn 32101]

On 6/28/2021 at 8:49 PM, Burt Macklin said:

Why is it a mistake? 

Well, unless you think athletes should be able to engage in any money-making scheme they can devise.

Developing a brand is a business.  90% of the time, the brand has nothing to do with any individual, living or dead.  Coca-Cola.  Pepsi.  Microsoft. Apple.

The initial reason for letting them "have" NIL is that NIL is inherently theirs.  They don't have to do anything special other than be themselves to have it and own it.  The "exploitation" of that, to the extent it was occurring, was unjust.

If the intention is to let them run any side business they want that has some tangential connection to their name or image, well then it's not a mistake.

If the intention is to reserve to the athlete what was theirs inherently, and not let them create something else commercial altogether, then it is a mistake.

Edited July 1, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32101]

1 hour ago, MirrOlure said:

They’ve to be careful they don’t sign away their future ability to control their own NIL to some zit-faced sophomore ZBT for peanuts

Most of the NIL laws do not permit the deal to extend past their eligibility as a student/student-athlete.

[Enchubben 5600]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Most of the NIL laws do not permit the deal to extend past their eligibility as a student/student-athlete.

You’ve looked more than I have, when does it start exactly? Can they do it as a commit? Or do they have to be enrolled? 

[TwiceHorn 32101]

10 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You’ve looked more than I have, when does it start exactly? Can they do it as a commit? Or do they have to be enrolled? 

I've read Texas' a few times, it's reasonably short and clear.  I have scanned a few other states' and they seem to be similar.  This is the Texas bill. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB01385F.htm

It's effective July 1.

This is the language probably in question:

Quote

(j)  No individual, corporate entity, or other organization
	may:
	(1)  enter into any arrangement with a prospective
	student athlete relating to the prospective student athlete's name,
	image, or likeness prior to their enrollment in an institution of
	higher education; or
	(2)  use inducements of future name, image, and
	likeness compensation arrangement to recruit a prospective student
	athlete to any institution of higher education.
	(k)  Nothing in this section may be construed as permitting
	an athlete agent to take any action prohibited under Section
	2051.351, Occupations Code.

You've hit upon something, though.  The statute doesn't define "student athlete" per se.  Reading it, though, they must be "enrolled" and "participating" in an athletic program.

Also kind of interesting is that it is mostly couched in terms of what the institution may NOT do, which is predicate eligibility on the student athlete doing or not doing according to the statute.  In most cases, it doesn't forbid the student athlete from doing any particular thing, just that the institution may punish by revoking eligibility.

Edited July 1, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Jkwellborn 7058]

It’s a legit idea. Truefans.com or something.  Same concept with subscribers.  Athletes will get paid. 

Immamac, get on this

[Francisco 2.0 32608]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Also kind of interesting is that it is mostly couched in terms of what the institution may NOT do, which is predicate eligibility on the student athlete doing or not doing according to the statute.  In most cases, it doesn't forbid the student athlete from doing any particular thing, just that the institution may punish by revoking eligibility.

So, this prevents some female gymnast from promoting a dildo brand.  She can do it, but the university can revoke eligibility because of her endorsement.  Is that the inference here?

I'd like to think universities have already told student athletes what is permissible as an endorsement, and what isn't.  Thing is, this opens up a completely different can of worms, from my viewpoint. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Francisco 2.0

[conVINCEd 21477]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, this prevents some female gymnast from promoting a dildo brand.  She can do it, but the university can revoke eligibility because of her endorsement.  Is that the inference here?

I'd like to think universities have already told student athletes what is permissible as an endorsement, and what isn't.  Thing is, this opens up a completely different can of worms, from my viewpoint. 

There are about 35 different cans of worms about to be opened.

[TwiceHorn 32101]

6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, this prevents some female gymnast from promoting a dildo brand.  She can do it, but the university can revoke eligibility because of her endorsement.  Is that the inference here?

I'd like to think universities have already told student athletes what is permissible as an endorsement, and what isn't.  Thing is, this opens up a completely different can of worms, from my viewpoint. 

There is, actually, nothing that would do that.  The "turpitude" section is:

in exchange for an endorsement of
	alcohol, tobacco products, e-cigarettes or any other type of
	nicotine delivery device, anabolic steroids, sports betting,
	casino gambling, a firearm the student athlete cannot legally
	purchase, or a sexually oriented business as defined in Section
	243.002, Local Government Code; or

[Burt Macklin 19230]

 

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, unless you think athletes should be able to engage in any money-making scheme they can devise.

Why shouldn’t they be able to just like very other person ion the planet? Why shouldn’t an athlete be able to stream on twitch and make money as a result of their efforts as a football player? What’s the point in taking away their eligibility for that? There’s all sorts of ways athletes can make money without over extending themselves or putting themselves at risk. 
 

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If the intention is to let them run any side business they want that has some tangential connection to their name or image, well then it's not a mistake.

If the intention is to reserve to the athlete what was theirs inherently, and not let them create something else commercial altogether, then it is a mistake.

I realize this originated with a true NIL lawsuit over NCAA Football, sales of jerseys, etc. like you said, things they can benefit from without having to be actively working/running a business, but these laws were not solely in response to that. I think they’re much more focused on fixing the inequity of the archaic NCAA rules. That’s what the lawmakers and people who’ve passed these bills have focused their comments on. 

[Burt Macklin 19230]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is, actually, nothing that would do that.  The "turpitude" section is:

in exchange for an endorsement of
	alcohol, tobacco products, e-cigarettes or any other type of
	nicotine delivery device, anabolic steroids, sports betting,
	casino gambling, a firearm the student athlete cannot legally
	purchase, or a sexually oriented business as defined in Section
	243.002, Local Government Code; or

Huh? Receiving compensation from a company that sells dildos absolutely falls under the definition of sexually oriented business. 
 

243.002: “In this chapter, "sexually oriented business" means a sex parlor, nude studio, modeling studio, love parlor, adult bookstore, adult movie theater, adult video arcade, adult movie arcade, adult video store, adult motel, or other commercial enterprise the primary business of which is the offering of a service or the selling, renting, or exhibiting of devices or any other items intended to provide sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to the customer.”

 

[TwiceHorn 32101]

2 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Huh? Receiving compensation from a company that sells dildos absolutely falls under the definition of sexually oriented business. 
 

243.002: “In this chapter, "sexually oriented business" means a sex parlor, nude studio, modeling studio, love parlor, adult bookstore, adult movie theater, adult video arcade, adult movie arcade, adult video store, adult motel, or other commercial enterprise the primary business of which is the offering of a service or the selling, renting, or exhibiting of devices or any other items intended to provide sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to the customer.”

 

Well, technically, it would be endorsing the "product" of a sexually oriented business, rather than the business itself.

[oldhorn2 449]

I can see it now.....Big Cigars telling some HS stud......Now if you come to aTm, the Chicken will give you a 7 figure endorsement....

 

Whats to stop them?

[Burt Macklin 19230]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, technically, it would be endorsing the "product" of a sexually oriented business, rather than the business itself.

If the seller or manufacturer’s name and branding is anywhere in the video, it would still be an endorsement of the business.
 

This also brings up the interesting question of who would actually enforce any of this. Since no person is being harmed by any of this, it would pretty much have to be the AG going after college students, which would open a whole can of worms for them. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Burt Macklin

[TwiceHorn 32101]

18 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

 

Why shouldn’t they be able to just like very other person ion the planet? Why shouldn’t an athlete be able to stream on twitch and make money as a result of their efforts as a football player? What’s the point in taking away their eligibility for that? There’s all sorts of ways athletes can make money without over extending themselves or putting themselves at risk. 
 

I realize this originated with a true NIL lawsuit over NCAA Football, sales of jerseys, etc. like you said, things they can benefit from without having to be actively working/running a business, but these laws were not solely in response to that. I think they’re much more focused on fixing the inequity of the archaic NCAA rules. That’s what the lawmakers and people who’ve passed these bills have focused their comments on. 

Well, twitch isn't a very good example.  That's pretty pure NIL.

The laws themselves are couched in terms of name, image, likeness as well.

All I can draw from that is the intention to permit athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, not a general permission to run any kind of business that they can stick their name on.  Or develop new names for.

Also points out that I think the original intention, lost in drafting, is that student athletes were to profit from their NIL by the fundamentally passive activity of licensing the NIL, rather than being active participants in a business selling products or services.

Edited July 1, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32101]

10 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

If the seller’s name and branding is anywhere in the video, it would still be an endorsement of the business. 

Very likely true, but it is somewhat amusing that they itemized some products and then kind of threw a blanket over the rest.

Pretty sure they could do condoms and lube, for example.

Edited July 1, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Burt Macklin 19230]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Very likely true, but it is somewhat amusing that they itemized some products and then kind of threw a blanket over the rest.

Pretty sure they could do condoms and lube, for example.

Yeah, I’d love to hear the back and forth that led to that specific list of items. 

[BurntOrange&White 42001]

On 6/29/2021 at 3:03 PM, Catdaddyhorn said:

For the lawyers on here does giving the NCAA an antitrust exemptions  without establishing collective bargaining rights for athletes seem odd? Or is it not necessary for other entities with an antitrust exemption?

If they establish a union anti trust goes out the window, allegedly. 

[TwiceHorn 32101]

17 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

If the seller or manufacturer’s name and branding is anywhere in the video, it would still be an endorsement of the business.
 

This also brings up the interesting question of who would actually enforce any of this. Since no person is being harmed by any of this, it would pretty much have to be the AG going after college students, which would open a whole can of worms for them. 

Yeah, that last goes back to, the only "remedy" for a student-athlete violating any of this is the institution revoking their eligibility.  Says nothing about the institution HAVING to revoke their eligibility.

This all kind of presumes that the institutions were lockstep aligned with the NCAA eligibility rules and guidelines and the thoughts behind them.  Now that the door is cracked open, some "renegade" institutions are practically free to go thunderdome.  And the NCAA may be largely helpless to do anything about it.  Or any other organization (conferences) that requires concerted action.

[TwiceHorn 32101]

53 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

 

Why shouldn’t they be able to just like very other person ion the planet? Why shouldn’t an athlete be able to stream on twitch and make money as a result of their efforts as a football player? What’s the point in taking away their eligibility for that? There’s all sorts of ways athletes can make money without over extending themselves or putting themselves at risk. 
 

I realize this originated with a true NIL lawsuit over NCAA Football, sales of jerseys, etc. like you said, things they can benefit from without having to be actively working/running a business, but these laws were not solely in response to that. I think they’re much more focused on fixing the inequity of the archaic NCAA rules. That’s what the lawmakers and people who’ve passed these bills have focused their comments on. 

Back to this.  While I recognize that there are "athlete equity" problems all over college sports, I tend not to be completely sympathetic to all of them.  It's a relatively short period of time and they do receive a lot of benefit, even if it isn't strictly financial or proportionate to what certain athletes could make or what the institutions make "off of them."

That said, I saw the NIL as a "narrow victory" for student athletes for a more obviously unjust situation in which institutions could exclusively profit from their NIL, a thing inextricably tied to the athlete him or herself from which they could passively draw income in some circumstances.

All the blather about it was just blather until someone, like the Texas Lege, or the NCAA, or the feds, put pen to paper.  In the putting of pen to paper, it seems that the "narrow victory" aspect of NIL and related litigation is what is intended, by the powers that be, if not all stakeholders, to go into effect.  I think some mistakes have been made.

I also think the forbidding of the use of institution trademarks in any of the "deals" is odd.  In one way it makes sense, and insures that the athlete is not free-riding off the institution; in another, it seems unduly narrow.  I think athletes should get a cut of their name/number jersey sales.  There are some other things that I think are foreclosed by these laws that just aren't "right."  By the same token, I think the laws have been somewhat sloppily drafted in a way that may open Pandora's box.

In the final analysis, though, it's probably going to be pretty small potatoes for 90% or more of athletes.  Some beer money.  Just seems like a lot can go wrong.

Edited July 1, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Burt Macklin 19230]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I also think the forbidding of the use of institution trademarks in any of the "deals" is odd.  In one way it makes sense, and insures that the athlete is not free-riding off the institution; in another, it seems unduly narrow.  I think athletes should get a cut of their name/number jersey sales.  There are some other things that I think are foreclosed by these laws that just aren't "right."  By the same token, I think the laws have been somewhat sloppily drafted in a way that may open Pandora's box.

Yes, I saw that part and thought it was very odd. It should at least say “without the institution’s permission.” To completely forbid it, regardless of the institution’s approval doesn’t make sense. At first I thought it would be a very serious detriment to all Texas schools, but then it goes back to the only enforcement mechanism being a school taking away a player’s eligibility, so as long as the NCAA changes their rules (which they are and have to due to other state laws not having this requirement), then there’s no one to enforce this part of the law besides the player’s own school. 

[TwiceHorn 32101]

7 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Yes, I saw that part and thought it was very odd. It should at least say “without the institution’s permission.” To completely forbid it, regardless of the institution’s approval doesn’t make sense. At first I thought it would be a very serious detriment to all Texas schools, but then it goes back to the only enforcement mechanism being a school taking away a player’s eligibility, so as long as the NCAA changes their rules (which they are and have to due to other state laws not having this requirement), then there’s no one to enforce this part of the law besides the player’s own school. 

Yeah, I agree that that makes some sense.  But might also get the institution unduly entangled in the agreements and performance of the agreements.  Plus the universities probably lobbied for it, for the entanglement/administration reason, and just to be dicks about their TMs.

[Burt Macklin 19230]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I agree that that makes some sense.  But might also get the institution unduly entangled in the agreements and performance of the agreements.  Plus the universities probably lobbied for it, for the entanglement/administration reason, and just to be dicks about their TMs.

Eh idk about that. If Texas doesn’t let any athletes use any sort of Texas IP, then that will put our players at a massive earning disadvantage to a school like tOSU or Bama if they do. 

[GringoSalado 1653]

5 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Eh idk about that. If Texas doesn’t let any athletes use any sort of Texas IP, then that will put our players at a massive earning disadvantage to a school like tOSU or Bama if they do. 

Race to the bottom.

 

Already posited upthread I think but what's to stop schools from paying players directly? They currently are using the players' NIL w/out any compensation, this fixes that glitch so they can just pay them. Did I miss where the brain trust addressed that in this thread? ianafl

[Burt Macklin 19230]

7 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

Race to the bottom.

 

Already posited upthread I think but what's to stop schools from paying players directly? They currently are using the players' NIL w/out any compensation, this fixes that glitch so they can just pay them. Did I miss where the brain trust addressed that in this thread? ianafl

They can’t because the NCAA outlaws that and they’ll all lose their eligibility with the NCAA. It would be the same for NIL, but the states making it illegal out a stop to that. 

[GringoSalado 1653]

14 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

They can’t because the NCAA outlaws that and they’ll all lose their eligibility with the NCAA. It would be the same for NIL, but the states making it illegal out a stop to that. 

I guess the follow up is how does that square w/ anti-trust laws? The schools, through the NCAA, are still colluding to not compensate the players (as opposed to setting/fixing the price paid).

 

Either way everybody gets an F250 via various NIL agreements I guess? Will that (loaded F250) be like the rookie contract for P5? How various boosters & etc. in different college towns make use of this will be interesting. Instead of networking to fund a coaches buyout they can put together a lucrative NIL deal to recruit a hot QB (portal or HS). Does anybody have to legit use the NIL? What if I want like a Fathead of Q. Ewers in my man cave, and I'll pay $1m?

eta provided he enrolls at Texas of course. Can I do that (I mean I cannot, because I don't have $1M, but hypothetically)?

Edited July 1, 2021 by GringoSalado

[Burt Macklin 19230]

1 minute ago, GringoSalado said:

I guess the follow up is how does that square w/ anti-trust laws? The schools, through the NCAA, are still colluding to not compensate the players (as opposed to setting/fixing the price paid).

 

Either way everybody gets an F250 via various NIL agreements I guess? Will that (loaded F250) be like the rookie contract for P5? How various boosters & etc. in different college towns make use of this will be interesting. Instead of networking to fund a coaches buyout they can put together a lucrative NIL deal to recruit a hot QB (portal or HS). Does anybody have to legit use the NIL? What if I want like a Fathead of Q. Ewers in my man cave, and I'll pay $1m?

SCOTUS hasn’t got to that issue yet, but it’s very possible they would rule it violates anti-trust. 
 

As for what the going rate for a P5 player will be, I’m not sure every guy will get that, but it will be fascinating to see how it develops and how much some schools/boosters try to push the envelope with legitimate business versus fronts to pay the players. 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

2 hours ago, oldhorn2 said:

I can see it now.....Big Cigars telling some HS stud......Now if you come to aTm, the Chicken will give you a 7 figure endorsement....

 

Whats to stop them?

This ... and Title IX, which I do not see how does not kill all of college athletics if this is allowed to stand. There is no way NIL, college athletics, and Title IX can co-exist.

Power will shift from schools based in small, college towns to larger cities where NIL can more easily be monetized.

This is going to be a shit show. I for one am glad I don't have a long-term obligation to a south end zone suite.

[oldhorn2 449]

To add to the scary.......

When you add this to the new Portal realities, what is to prevent Bama or aTm from approaching Bijan and offering a “car dealership” endorsement to switch to them?

 

” May you live in interesting times”...........old Chinese curse

[Royale with cheese 1494]

I don't know if this has been covered upthread, but is there a projected decline in sales of traditional institutional merchandise because of the emergence of new off-book, athlete-branded merchandise? I.e., if we assume that Joe Sixpack has only so much disposable income to spend on football jerseys, and in the past he's used that to buy school-licensed Nike Longhorn apparel, what if he now decides instead to buy some made-in-China individual athlete gear? In short, will this new reality end up costing the Texases and Alabamas of the world?

[Machinator 32103]

 

[BurntOrange&White 42001]

4 minutes ago, Royale with cheese said:

I don't know if this has been covered upthread, but is there a projected decline in sales of traditional institutional merchandise because of the emergence of new off-book, athlete-branded merchandise? I.e., if we assume that Joe Sixpack has only so much disposable income to spend on football jerseys, and in the past he's used that to buy school-licensed Nike Longhorn apparel, what if he now decides instead to buy some made-in-China individual athlete gear? In short, will this new reality end up costing the Texases and Alabamas of the world?

I don't think they can use the schools name image or likeness to promote themselves or sell products.

[Machinator 32103]

 

[TwiceHorn 32101]

8 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

Eh idk about that. If Texas doesn’t let any athletes use any sort of Texas IP, then that will put our players at a massive earning disadvantage to a school like tOSU or Bama if they do. 

I didn't say it was a valid reason, entirely.  But seems a likely reason.  You are correct that if other institutions (I keep using this because it's what is in the statute)/schools want to let athletes use the trademarks, it could get wild.

The thing is, if you grant permission/license a trademark, you have to monitor how it's used or you risk legal weakening or loss of the mark.

And, I'm sure schools would like to minimize their policing obligations of all of this, if possible, while reaping recruiting or whatever benefits.

[Machinator 32103]