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

[Huckleberry 32,699]

Why? 

Rule: "income for any athlete earned based on their likeness, name, or athletic reputation is limited to $50,000 per year"

Describe a potential Title IX lawsuit that doesn't get thrown out in 5 minutes based on that rule.

[Michael Knight 12,890]

1 hour ago, pops said:

Yes it is. Scholarship athletes are barred from working. They can work in the summer but must get permission from the NCAA and the school. 

That was changed in 2007, it just has to be monitored by the athletic department, but of course no head coach is gonna allow their player to get a job.

[bigcigar 1,161]

2 hours ago, Foosters said:

Dude seems to have his priorities crooked.

 

 

Scholarships outside of tuition And fees are already treated as income.

[Michael Knight 12,890]

27 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Those against this realize that, had the NCAA continued to bury its head in the sand, a "revolution" of sorts was coming? Unequivocally, at some point fairly soon the players were going to lawyer up in mass and do their damnedest to (rightfully) tear the system down. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be against the NCAA looking for potential solutions before the issue inevitably blew up in their face.

We've long since crossed the rubicon, the time for reform was 20 years ago. The NCAA is just rearranging the deck chairs now.

[JBJ 3,649]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why? 

Rule: "income for any athlete earned based on their likeness, name, or athletic reputation is limited to $50,000 per year"

Describe a potential Title IX lawsuit that doesn't get thrown out in 5 minutes based on that rule.

The effect of such a rule is an unequal disbursement of funds (through official merchandising or team deals).  This has real merit - provided disbursement is actually uneven which isn't necessarily within that rule itself.

The effect of such a rule creates an uneven playing ground that in effect denies equal athletic benefits and publicity (if purely 3rd party).  Shakier but will get filed.

Edited October 29, 2019 by JBJ

[Brothahorn 10,085]

Richard Burr is a dick.

[notre dame joe 172]

27 minutes ago, pops said:

Agreed, but maybe you do something where tuition is offset by payments received. Nike would pay a guy like Tua or Zion a million a year to sponsor them. No reason the school should have to cover their tuition. 

Can they drop his 'image' if he underperforms?

[Huckleberry 32,699]

28 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The effect of such a rule is an unequal disbursement of funds (through official merchandising or team deals).  This has real merit - provided disbursement is actually uneven which isn't necessarily within that rule itself.

The effect of such a rule creates an uneven playing ground that in effect denies equal athletic benefits and publicity (if purely 3rd party).  Shakier but will get filed.

Like I said, thrown out immediately. This is a terrible argument. Any unequal funds are not from the educational institutions. Title IX does not apply to any entity or than educational institutions that receive education funding.

[Beau Vine 53,999]

4 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

 

There will now be a booster component where you have to run an outside business to pay for recruits.

 

There will now be?  

You mean like Big Red Autos?

Or that suit shop in Tuscaloosa?

[Beau Vine 53,999]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The next move by the NCAA should be to challenge the 18yr old age rule from the NFL. 

You don't even have to be a lawyer to know that wouldn't fly in court.  What grounds would the NCAA have?

[Beau Vine 53,999]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

And there is much rejoicing in law firms specializing in Title IX lawsuits.

Has zero to do with Title IX.  Use your brain.  

[Beau Vine 53,999]

 

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

As for T9, I get that money from 3rd party endorser won't apply...now.  BUT, do we not envision that being challenged in court?  

Or say a school can't directly pay it's players, but players can receive payments for endorsements and their likeness...... that's not "fair" to the track and field or swimmers who don't have video games to benefit from. Or the female BBall or softball players who can't even fill a stadium much less get endorsements or games made.  

I think this system will result in a widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots. This resulting lack of parity will cause 2nd tier programs to fold up shop. The result will be disastrous to women's athletics and non-revenue sports.

Never had a more perfect reason for this gif:

[Beau Vine 53,999]

2 hours ago, pops said:

Agreed, but maybe you do something where tuition is offset by payments received. Nike would pay a guy like Tua or Zion a million a year to sponsor them. No reason the school should have to cover their tuition. 

Other than "they are willing to." 

[hookem48 4,631]

1 hour ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

This will go well for about 20-30 teams. The rest will lose players through the transfer portal and free agency or will not be able to afford the outcomes of the  inevitable Title XI lawsuits. 

if players are getting paid for their likeness in a certain uniform fuck the transfer portal, your ass ain't going anywhere

[Beau Vine 53,999]

1 hour ago, pops said:

Not a molehill at all. Id just rather see that scholarship go to a golfer or a women's rower or whatever if the stud on the football or basketball team clearly doesn't need it. 

Yeah, I've noticed all your posts on the surly women's rowing board.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You don't even have to be a lawyer to know that wouldn't fly in court.  What grounds would the NCAA have?

Not sue the NFL directly........

But support or help the narrative along the same lines that the NBA was facing with future challenges to their one and done rule. They saw the writing on the wall and are doing away with it in 2021. If they didn’t change the rule they were going to be sued. 

The NCAA would be well served to say there are no obstacles for an individual to make money playing professional football after high school. They would simply be offering an alternative. The individual’s brand will be worth as much as someone is willing to pay them.   If undrafted, the schools could make a case they, not the individual, provide most of the brand value at that point and help them to avoid direct payments to players. 

[Beau Vine 53,999]

1 hour ago, stork642 said:

Yep.  What if the booster has a bet on a particular game and asked his “legally” paid player to have a bad game.  Wink wink.  

This would seem to be much more likely to be a problem when players are "illegally" paid, like they are right now. 

[Beau Vine 53,999]

4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But support or help the narrative along the same lines that the NBA was facing with future challenges to their one and done rule. They saw the writing on the wall and are doing away with it in 2021. If they didn’t change the rule they were going to be sued. 

By whom? The NCAA wasn't going to sue the NBA.  That would be immediately thrown out of court. 

The NCAA has such a horrible fucking record in court that they're not going to sue anyone, even if they have grounds to do so.  

[Beau Vine 53,999]

36 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Can they drop his 'image' if he underperforms?

What does the contract say?

[Surlybastard 65]

5 hours ago, hookem48 said:

Well the haves and the have nots are really going to seperated now, kids will make a hell of a lot more with their name on a Notre Dame jersey than say a Michigan State.  Unless there's something else to this. 

How much is Alabama separated from say Ole Miss under the old system? I don't think much will change at all.

[El Diablo 4,232]

5 hours ago, futureman said:

the players will be getting showered. with money

We're talking about volleyball, right? 

Fingers crossed.

[Beau Vine 53,999]

The NCAA actually hasn't done jack shit so far:

Quote

On Tuesday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s top decision-makers voted unanimously to begin a process of updating the association’s amateurism rules to allow college athletes to benefit from the use of their names, images, and likenesses—something that is currently prohibited.

The vote comes following the passage of a much-publicized California law, scheduled to go into effect in 2023, that would prevent the NCAA and its member schools from punishing campus athletes who receive compensation for their NILs. It also comes as a number of other states and lawmakers in Congress are introducing or exploring similar legislation—and as the largest national college athletes’ rights organization and a subsidiary of the National Football League Players Association have begun exploring ways that college athletes can capitalize on NIL deals.

Yet while the NCAA’s announcement was made under obvious duress—essentially, a legislative gun to the head—it’s anything but a white flag. Rather than signaling a willingness to stop stealing from college athletes by recognizing that they have the same personal property rights to their own names, images, and likenesses as everyone else in America, the association is attempting to maintain control. Fine, the NCAA is saying, we’ll let athletes get something more for their NILs. But only in a manner that we—an unelected group of university administrators and suits in Indianapolis—see fit.

To put things another way, the association is preparing to do what it always has done. Chisel athletes out. Dollar by dollar, bylaw by bylaw, condition by condition, until the schools keep all of the power and almost all of the money, while somehow the athletes who do the actual on-field work that makes college sports so damn lucrative are supposed to feel gratitude for the crumbs they’re permitted to receive.

And the NCAA isn’t hiding this! It’s all right there in their public statement on the vote. Let’s take a closer look at what the association had to say:

In the Association’s continuing efforts to support college athletes, the NCAA’s top governing board voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.

The opportunity to benefit is vague. It could mean profit, receive compensation, put cold, hard cash into athlete’s pockets. It could mean trust funds accessible after graduation. It could be capped at a particular dollar amount. Right now, no one can say!

Meanwhile, in a manner consistent with the collegiate model is giveaway that the NCAA does not intend to go quietly into the good night of amateurism, the way golf, tennis, and the Olympics have. To the contrary, the association intends to preserve the collegiate model, which isn’t actually a real thing—like amateurism itself, it’s a simply a quasi-legal-sounding term that in reality is whatever the NCAA says it is, and generally translates into we ain’t paying athletes but we’re happy to give coaches cash bonuses for, like, leading at halftime and stuff.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Beau Vine

[JBJ 3,649]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Like I said, thrown out immediately. This is a terrible argument. Any unequal funds are not from the educational institutions. Title IX does not apply to any entity or than educational institutions that receive education funding.

The source of the funds is irrelevant, there have been many a private donor try to challenge that.  Official merchandising and joint deals would 100% be university disbursements whether or not they showed up on an accounting spreadsheet that way.

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

10 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

By whom? The NCAA wasn't going to sue the NBA.  That would be immediately thrown out of court. 

The NCAA has such a horrible fucking record in court that they're not going to sue anyone, even if they have grounds to do so.  

The players. 

One example. Age discrimination. 

“

One might also question whether the NBA’s eligibility rule constitutes unlawful age discrimination. From the perspective of federal law, the answer is no. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects persons who are 40 and older from age discrimination in the workplace. It does not protect younger persons who are denied employment because of their age.

From the perspective of state law, the answer is maybe. Lou Pechman, a New York labor and employment attorney, has argued that the rule violates New York State Human Rights Law, which forbids employers from refusing to hire a person who is 18 years or older on account of his or her age. No player has brought a lawsuit to challenge the NBA’s eligibility rule on the basis of age discrimination.”

[Beau Vine 53,999]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The source of the funds is irrelevant, there have been many a private donor try to challenge that.  Official merchandising and joint deals would 100% be university disbursements whether or not they showed up on an accounting spreadsheet that way.

So all that has to happen for Title IX to have zero relevance is for universities to stay out of the way.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

Also interesting from same article regarding Clarett 

 

“

Despite the potential conflict and its anti-competitive quality, the NBA’s eligibility restriction is protected by court precedent. In Maurice Clarett v. NFL, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit ruled that the NFL and the NFLPA could collectively bargain an eligibility restriction that prevents players from draft eligibility until three years have passed from when the graduated or would have graduated high school. I served on the legal team that represented Clarett in 2004. Clarett’s lead counsel, Alan Milstein, argued that the rule should not be insulated from legal scrutiny merely due to collective bargaining.

To that end, Milstein stressed that the NFL’s eligibility rule primarily relates to persons who, because of it, can’t become NFL players, draftees or NFLPA members. An eligibility rule is thus different from a rookie wage scale since the wage scale clearly impacts NFL players. In contrast, an eligibility rule governs persons who it prevents from becoming NFL players. Judge (and now U.S. Supreme Court Justice) Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, reasoning that young players’ eligibility would impact wages and working conditions of current players since those current players would need to compete with them. This impact was sufficient from Judge Sotomayor’s perspective to allow the NFL and NFLPA to agree on a rule that bars the eligibility of even the most talented players who are, in some cases, two years out of high school.

Despite the Clarett decision, there remains the possibility that a player precluded by the NBA, WNBA or NFL eligible rule could challenge it in court. The Clarett decision is not “national precedent.” The decision is precedent in one federal circuit, the Second Circuit. In truth, the Second Circuit is the most significant circuit for sports leagues given that it governs New York, where the NBA, WNBA, NFL, MLB and NHL—as well as most of their respective players’ associations—are all headquartered. Also, any of those leagues would seek to transfer litigation filed in other circuits back to the Second Circuit on grounds it would be a more appropriate venue.”

https://www.si.com/nba/2019/03/03/legal-analysis-change-age-eligibility-rule-one-and-done

Edited October 30, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Nueces River Rat 5,529]

Big Red Imports in Norman already getting busy on this. 

[SquishMitten 10,400]

Why will they fold up shop? Why will football players making money on the side cause them to fold up shop? How come the football coach making 100 times what the swimming coach makes does not make them fold up shop?  
I need an explanation because I've seen this talking point repeatedly brought up without any analysis.

I think the argument is something like this: the money expended by fans/donors is not limitless. Let’s say the total pool of money is currently maxed out. If those donors instead give that money directly to a player, they will not make the same contribution to the university. As money is reallocated away from universities, those schools won’t be able to support as many non-revenue sports. Similarly, if schools can reduce the number of scholarships given to men (because those players are making good side money), then they aren’t obligated to give as many to women. So there’s a few potential edges to the sword. All speculative

[SquishMitten 10,400]

 

Double post

 

[Beau Vine 53,999]

8 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

 

I think the argument is something like this: the money expended by fans/donors is not limitless. Let’s say the total pool of money is currently maxed out. If those donors instead give that money directly to a player, they will not make the same contribution to the university. As money is reallocated away from universities, those schools won’t be able to support as many non-revenue sports. 

 

Or, the university could just pay the coaches and army of athletic administrators less.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Or, the university could just pay the coaches and army of athletic administrators less.  

Dabo ain’t getting out of bed for less than 8 million. 

[El Diablo 4,232]

10 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Dabo ain’t getting out of bed for less than 8 million. 

Pretty much what Candi Fisher said.

[Hook1997 5,285]

Guys on ESPNU on XM we’re talking about they wouldn’t receive the money until they leave school?  Yea that’s not happening. NCAA will put some kind of cap on it thought before they iron out the details, it’s not going to be wide open.  

Edited October 30, 2019 by Hook1997

[Beau Vine 53,999]

Quote

On Tuesday, the NCAA made a major announcement, and at first glance, it felt like a doozy.

In a post to the NCAA.org website, the association’s board of governors announced that they had “voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.”

Again, at first glance, this seems like a huge deal. The state of California had just passed a law allowing college athletes the chance to monetize their likeness, and it appeared, from that opening paragraph at least, that the NCAA was following suit.

But pause, and read closely the last few words of that opening paragraph: “in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.” That’s a very sneaky rhetorical move right there. The collegiate model doesn’t allow athletes to get paid, so what does it mean to have athletes earn off their likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model? Who knows!

And then read the next paragraph:

The Board of Governors’ action directs each of the NCAA’s three divisions to immediately consider updates to relevant bylaws and policies for the 21st century.

This is where things get a bit hairy. I’ll admit I had to read it a few times to even understand what it meant. When I finally got it, I almost had to tip my hat to the NCAA: This is a classic bit of double speak that anyone who’s covered the association knows well. It’s one of their finest efforts so far.

The Board of Governors did not make a change to NCAA bylaws which makes it legal for athletes to make money off their likeness.

The Board of Governors issued an “action” which tells their three divisions — DI, DII, and DIII — to “consider updates.” Basically, they are ordering the divisions to think about things.

This changes nothing. This is the formation of some working groups. We might even get a subcommittee out of it. The funny thing is, they’ve already done this. In May, the NCAA announced that it had formed a working group to consider the question of compensation for athlete likeness.

They’ve now apparently had their working group, and have come up with the action to … form more working groups. This time the working groups are at the divisional level.

It’s nonsense. It’s nothing. It’s a statement for a statement’s sake. Really smart writers who have devoted their lives to the subject couldn’t make heads or tails of what it was saying, because that was the point.

“We must embrace change,”  Michael V. Drake, chair of the board and president of Ohio State University, says in the statement. The statement then lists a bunch of bullet points about how they shouldn’t change all that much, or too fast, and also who knows how long it will take them to decide what to do.

The NCAA wants you to think it is embracing change, but that’s not what is happening. Change is being forced upon the NCAA; California has passed a bill, and there appears to be bi-partisan support for similar proposals in other states. This is the NCAA trying to change the narrative, get out in front, buy some time and ensure that the change takes a while and is incremental. It’s a stall tactic, full stop.

Don’t be fooled. This doesn’t change anything, not yet. This is a committee announcing the formation of more committees. Advocates for college compensation may take this incremental step as a win, but again, this is only an incremental step. College athletes have a long way to go before they can get compensated in any way.

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

The main catalyst for the benefits (stipend, cost of attendance, transfer portal, etc) students athletes received over the past decade or so was to do something in lieu of actually giving players the ability to trade on their likeness. Now that 'we've finally crossed the rubicon there's no reason to maintain this facade of actually being in favor of player rights in regards to player movement. I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of more restrictive adjustment to the transfer portal or even doing away with it completely. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[Beau Vine 53,999]

Seriously, read this stupid shit:

Quote

Specifically, the board said modernization should occur within the following principles and guidelines:  

• Assure student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate. 
• Maintain the priorities of education and the collegiate experience to provide opportunities for student-athlete success. 
• Ensure rules are transparent, focused and enforceable and facilitate fair and balanced competition. 
• Make clear the distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities. 
• Make clear that compensation for athletics performance or participation is impermissible. 
• Reaffirm that student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university. 
• Enhance principles of diversity, inclusion and gender equity. 
• Protect the recruiting environment and prohibit inducements to select, remain at, or transfer to a specific institution.

They're going to be dragged into this kicking and screaming by state and/or federal law, no other avenue.  

[Hook1997 5,285]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Yup that, it will be years before they come up with something that works for everybody probably.  No one should get too excited.  

[Beau Vine 53,999]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

Assure student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate. 

This is the one that is so fucking laughable.  All of these rules that have assure that student-athletes *ARE* treated differently from non-athletes.  This is the very definition of "disingenuous."  

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

Woot!  I still have my eligibility remaining!

[utee94 15,745]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

So all that has to happen for Title IX to have zero relevance is for universities to stay out of the way.  

Yup.  Which they absolutely will.  They want no part of opening the can of worms that having ANY involvement in paying players would bring on.  This is the EXACT solution the universities want, if something must alter the status quo.

They're not going to say that publicly, because then they'd have to stop their lip service to the ideal of the "student-athlete" but privately they love being left out of the fight-- for now-- and wouldn't ever engage in anything that could possibly implicate Title IX.  That's a non-issue.  These are 3rd party payments to individuals with no involvement from the universities.

 

[utee94 15,745]

38 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Guys on ESPNU on XM we’re talking about they wouldn’t receive the money until they leave school?  Yea that’s not happening. NCAA will put some kind of cap on it thought before they iron out the details, it’s not going to be wide open.  

It might not be WIDE open but IF the NCAA really tries to limit it too much, then...

21 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Seriously, read this stupid shit:

They're going to be dragged into this kicking and screaming by state and/or federal law, no other avenue.  

...the above will happen.  The state and Federal laws that were going to directly challenge the NCAA, will be enacted anyway.  This is precisely why the NCAA is trying to get ahead of the curve.  But if they attempt to put something in place that doesn't satisfy the lawmakers working on state and Federal provisions to tear down their current structure, then their structure WILL get torn down.  The universities aren't going to be able to challenge their state legislatures, or Congress.  Their only choice will be to withdraw from the NCAA.  And many of them would do so gladly.

I don't think it'll come to that, though.  The NCAA already knows this and is maneuvering to avoid it.  It's going to have to be pretty open.  Even setting "reasonable" upper limits is going to piss off some lawmakers that are pushing for Free Market treatment of the issue.

Edited October 30, 2019 by utee94

[Beau Vine 53,999]

24 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

The main catalyst for the benefits (stipend, cost of attendance, transfer portal, etc) students athletes received over the past decade or so was to do something in lieu of actually giving players the ability to trade on their likeness. Now that 'we've finally crossed the rubicon there's no reason to maintain this facade of actually being in favor of player rights in regards to player movement. I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of more restrictive adjustment to the transfer portal or even doing away with it completely. 

Come on, one of their "principles and guidelines" is:

Quote

Assure student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate

You can't do away with student-athletes transferring unless you also limit the ability of non-athlete students to transfer.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

12 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Come on, one of their "principles and guidelines" is:

You can't do away with student-athletes transferring unless you also limit the ability of non-athlete students to transfer.

I didn't say do away with transferring. I'm specifically talking about the eligibility rule changes that have taken place over the past 5 to 10 years. Let's be real. The only reason these rule changes came about in the first place was because the power imbalance between student athletes and everyone else surrounding the collegiate sports were so ridiculously stark that they knew they had to throw a few crumbs to the athletes. 

[TexasMan 10,786]

 

[MillerEP 30,339]

So when's the new NCAA game coming out?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Not sue the NFL directly........

But support or help the narrative along the same lines that the NBA was facing with future challenges to their one and done rule. They saw the writing on the wall and are doing away with it in 2021. If they didn’t change the rule they were going to be sued. 

The NCAA would be well served to say there are no obstacles for an individual to make money playing professional football after high school. They would simply be offering an alternative. The individual’s brand will be worth as much as someone is willing to pay them.   If undrafted, the schools could make a case they, not the individual, provide most of the brand value at that point and help them to avoid direct payments to players. 

The big difference is that the NFL can legitimately say that the 3 year rule is for player safety reasons and that is how they were able to withstand challenges by guys like Maurice Clarret.

[ImissWallyPryor 9,045]

5 hours ago, hookem48 said:

if players are getting paid for their likeness in a certain uniform fuck the transfer portal, your ass ain't going anywhere

I’m talking about the majority of schools that can’t afford to pay every player, or that don’t have the fan base to support putting every player’s likeness on a jersey. I could even see Texas losing players because everyone wants Sam‘s jersey, and all most of our players get is $1,500. The latter scenario could be used against Texas in recruiting. Schools could even set up a system where bag men promise to buy every recruit’s jerseys in bulk to assure they get the full $3,000.  Schools will find ways to game this system, and the schools that don’t or that don’t have the big budgets will be at a disadvantage.

[Hook1997 5,285]

16 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

I could even see Texas losing players because everyone wants Sam‘s jersey, and all most of our players get is $1,500. The latter scenario could be used against Texas in recruiting. 

A school that ranks top 10 or 5 in merchandise sales even when all major sports teams sucked will be hurt by one player being popular?  I don’t think so.  The stat stated here trumps any objection another school says.  It’s also going to end up being capped and shared or a portion held till they leave school, this won’t end up being a free for all.  It will be a half way meeting between the NCAA and what states and kids want, which I think will be best.  We don’t need college millionaires on campuses. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Hook1997

[ImissWallyPryor 9,045]

2 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

A school that ranks top 10 or 5 in merchandise sales even when all major sports teams sucked will be hurt by one player being popular?  I don’t think so.  The stat stated here trumps any objection another school says.  

If everyone wants an 11 jersey, how are the bulk of our players going to make $1,500 off their likeness without gaming the system. If we don’t, some players will put their name in the portal to test the market. I hope you’re right, though. 

[notre dame joe 172]

8 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

 

I think the argument is something like this: the money expended by fans/donors is not limitless. Let’s say the total pool of money is currently maxed out. If those donors instead give that money directly to a player, they will not make the same contribution to the university. As money is reallocated away from universities, those schools won’t be able to support as many non-revenue sports. Similarly, if schools can reduce the number of scholarships given to men (because those players are making good side money), then they aren’t obligated to give as many to women. So there’s a few potential edges to the sword. All speculative

 

This. The argument "the schools won't be paying the players" angle sounds vacuous.  I'd bet the "profit off image" $ flows to the program and is then doled back to the students, for a modest %.