NCAA moves toward allowing athletes to be paid sponsors

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,977
The NCAA is moving closer to allowing Division I athletes to earn money from endorsements and sponsorship deals they can strike on their own as early as next year.

Recommended rule changes that would clear the way for athletes to earn money from their names, images and likeness are being reviewed by college sports administrators this week before being sent to the NCAA Board of Governors, which meets Monday and Tuesday.

If adopted, the rules would allow athletes to make sponsorship and endorsement deals with all kinds of companies and third parties, from car dealerships to concert promoters to pizza shops, according to a person who has reviewed the recommendations. The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Thursday because the details were still being discussed and debated.

The recommendations are expected to form the foundation for legislation the NCAA hopes to pass next January so it can take effect in 2021. Changes could still be made before January.

more at the link.
It’s about time the NCAA came to its senses. Hopefully one of the outcomes of this is we can get NCAA EA games again.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,651
Saskatchestan
Step in the right direction. However, reading it as "deals they can strike on their own", seems a bit weird
From the article:
The NCAA would create a mechanism to evaluate potential deals for fair market value and spot possible corruption. An athlete could compromise their eligibility for failing to disclose details of a financial agreement or relationship, the person said.

That mechanism already exists in a lawyer or agent. I definitely wouldn't trust that the NCAA isn't getting some sort of kickback from this either, these athletes need their own representation so they aren't getting screwed. These are still youngish athletes that aren't going to have a ton a real world business sense
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I definitely wouldn't trust that the NCAA isn't getting some sort of kickback from this either, these athletes need their own representation like an agent or lawyer would need to be involved so the players aren't getting screwed. These are still youngish athletes that aren't going to have a ton a real world business sense
For the great majority of athletes, even in revenue sports, this new income won't be much more than walking-around money. Requiring disclosure of all arrangements will deter the worst abuses, and schools should be allowed to arrange free legal representation for to players without running afoul of NCAA rules. Beyond that, regulation would greatly cut down on the number of kids who benefit. Sure, the next freshman phenom will get a lawyer to negotiate his Nike deal, but no one's going to go through a full-blown negotiation to pay some student-athlete $5,000 to make a few appearances at a local car dealership or whatever. For these small deals, getting a university lawyer to eyeball the contract to make sure the student-athlete isn't getting totally screwed or violating NCAA rules is probably the best approach.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,651
Saskatchestan
For the great majority of athletes, even in revenue sports, this new income won't be much more than walking-around money. Requiring disclosure of all arrangements will deter the worst abuses, and schools should be allowed to arrange free legal representation for to players without running afoul of NCAA rules. Beyond that, regulation would greatly cut down on the number of kids who benefit. Sure, the next freshman phenom will get a lawyer to negotiate his Nike deal, but no one's going to go through a full-blown negotiation to pay some student-athlete $5,000 to make a few appearances at a local car dealership or whatever. For these small deals, getting a university lawyer to eyeball the contract to make sure the student-athlete isn't getting totally screwed or violating NCAA rules is probably the best approach.
Good points
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
As far as I know, universities don’t claw back any compensation from coaches when they rake in millions from outside sponsorships. So, no.
True, but that is part of the coaching compensation. “We will give you $X and Nike does our shoes and will give you $Y more, and you can use the facilities in summer for camps and whatever”

considering how the NCAA has treated athletes all these years, my confidence in them being fair is slim.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,571
True, but that is part of the coaching compensation. “We will give you $X and Nike does our shoes and will give you $Y more, and you can use the facilities in summer for camps and whatever”

considering how the NCAA has treated athletes all these years, my confidence in them being fair is slim.
In the scenario where the university has the descretion of whether to claw back the money on a per athlete basis (since certainly not every scholarshipped athlete will be getting $200K in endorsements to cover the cost of tuition and R&B) then not clawing it back is just a way of bribing the athletes towards their school, so I'd expect they'd continue to do so anyway.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
12,402
Pittsburgh, PA
I support this liberation, conceptually.

But: Won't this lead to, effectively, colleges being able to compete for recruits through competitive pay packages? If I'm Ohio State, I'm getting all my boosters who own businesses together and figuring out some collective budget from them that I can "suggest" they allocate in a certain way to maximize the talent I can attract to the team.

Separate counsel for the students can ensure the deals are arm's-length but the terms may have already been a fait accompli.

So much easier to just cut out the middleman and let schools pay directly. For the 30-50 college programs that would actually do so, we'd at least know what the market looked like.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,992
Southwestern CT
I support this liberation, conceptually.

But: Won't this lead to, effectively, colleges being able to compete for recruits through competitive pay packages? If I'm Ohio State, I'm getting all my boosters who own businesses together and figuring out some collective budget from them that I can "suggest" they allocate in a certain way to maximize the talent I can attract to the team.

Separate counsel for the students can ensure the deals are arm's-length but the terms may have already been a fait accompli.

So much easier to just cut out the middleman and let schools pay directly. For the 30-50 college programs that would actually do so, we'd at least know what the market looked like.
Yes, it will.

However that might actually level the playing field, in the sense that it would remove the structural advantages created by the existing underground infrastructure at some of our more accomplished practitioners of booster-based cheating and allow everyone to do it openly. (I still marvel at the fact that the NCAA acknowledged that Cam Newton's father sold his son to the highest bidder - at one point, telling a booster for Mississippi State that the money from Auburn was "too much to turn down" - but, because the NCAA was never able to discover how the payments were laundered, Auburn was never punished.)

Not that this wouldn't be a grotesque free-for-all.
 
Last edited:

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
1,084
Yes, it will.

However that might actually level the playing field, in the sense that it would remove the structural advantages created by the existing underground infrastructure at some of our more accomplished practitioners of booster-based cheating and allow everyone to do it openly. (I still marvel at the fact that the NCAA acknowledged that Cam Newton's father sold his son to the highest bidder - at one point, telling a booster for Mississippi State that the money from Auburn was "too much to turn down" - but, because the NCAA was never able to discover how the payments were laundered, Auburn was never punished.)

Not that this wouldn't be a grotesque free-for-all.
I think it would also give the private schools an advantage, in that prying eyes will not able to readily view how much athletes are paid like at public schools with the open records laws. How many times a year do I see the "X Coach is the highest paid state employee in Y state" articles.

The smarminess of Coach K would continue to be palpable. "I guess this player just likes the Duke program better" as they are rumored to go to UNC or Virginia then change their mind at the last minute for some reason.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,238
I wonder whether this will advantage colleges in richer cities or those with larger markets.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I wonder whether this will advantage colleges in richer cities or those with larger markets.
I don’t think so.

You’ll be able to count the number of college athletes worthy of national endorsement contracts on your fingers. Moreover, half of those will be QBs for big-name program who wouldn’t have the same cache if they played for, say, Rutgers.

Every now and then, you might get a one-and-done phenom from New York or Chicago who chooses to attend St. John’s or DePaul instead of Kentucky or Kansas because of the opportunity to make short-term bank in a community where he is already sort-of famous. (Or, put another way, the money might free him to follow his heart instead of doing what others think is in his best interest.) For everyone else, though, I think endorsement opportunities will be roughly proportional to the revenue generated by the school’s program. So I’d expect to be “the rich get richer,” rather than any broad trend toward schools in major metropolitan areas.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,263
I don’t think so.

You’ll be able to count the number of college athletes worthy of national endorsement contracts on your fingers. Moreover, half of those will be QBs for big-name program who wouldn’t have the same cache if they played for, say, Rutgers.

Every now and then, you might get a one-and-done phenom from New York or Chicago who chooses to attend St. John’s or DePaul instead of Kentucky or Kansas because of the opportunity to make short-term bank in a community where he is already sort-of famous. (Or, put another way, the money might free him to follow his heart instead of doing what others think is in his best interest.) For everyone else, though, I think endorsement opportunities will be roughly proportional to the revenue generated by the school’s program. So I’d expect to be “the rich get richer,” rather than any broad trend toward schools in major metropolitan areas.
The only major big city I can think of where there is a college program that matters to people would be USC in LA. And that's because they didn't have a pro football team for long periods. I guess you can argue what constitutes a "major big city" or how much certain programs matter in some places, but most of the largest cities have long existing pro teams that matter much more for endorsement contracts. I think just about any guy from the Patriots would be a bigger draw to an advertiser than the best ranked player at BC. Who is probably a faceless offensive lineman any way.