6 ms·

NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness

26 points by lkurtz 7y ago

jalgos_eminator 7y ago
The NCAA caved so fast on this. Now they're going to try to get ahead of it and get their cut of the endorsement money that the athletes will be earning soon. This would be a good time for athletes to come together and demand that the NCAA stays out of their lives outside of sports.
- maximente 7y ago
  yep. to be honest it's kinda inspiring that this all started with a single body of a single state legislature. hopefully it shuts up cynics who say the status quo cannot be overcome.
  - labster 7y ago
    A single state legislature of a state large enough to form its own NCAA competitor. A competitor that would have quickly got all the best athletes by paying higher than slave wages. It’s only because of its monopoly position that the NCAA the iniquity persisted so long; any threat to that academic cash cow is a reason to cave.
    - jalgos_eminator 7y ago
      Well, to be fair after California passed this a few other states indicated they were looking into similar legislation. I think that is what prompted the NCAA to declare this as quickly as they did. I do think even if was just California they would have caved, but would have dragged their feet for much longer.
    - maximente 7y ago
      market fundamentalists would argue the size of the state doesn't matter; the leak in the dam would spur all sorts of competition and effective resource allocation that would eventually (perhaps more slowly) topple the system. so it made it happen more quickly perhaps, but seems unlikely the outcome would be different if you're a believer in so called "markets".
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        It would have to at least have enough universities that it can plausibly form a league. Wyoming wouldn't cut it. The relatively-populated states of Pennsylvania and New York currently only have three serious football programs each. California has seven (being charitable), and with centralized UC leadership could quickly create more. Texas or Florida are the only other plausible options.
        maximente 7y ago
        obviously counterfactual argument here but: NBA has one and done rule currently which means talented high schoolers are waiting 1 year, typically playing in college or abroad, before entering the draft. why not make some money alongside your 1 glide year by playing in the wyoming league? you get to stay in the US, boosting your future earnings, have some fun in college, but also earning some cash off of jersey sales and maybe lock in some sponsorship deals with apparel/shoe companies earlier than your competitors. once one successful person does it, it's easy to see how it morphs into a market for eager one and done players.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        An argument against that is you'll make less endorsement money the year after, because nobody's going to watch Cheyenne U. stomping all over Windswept Agricultural Institute.
- sonotathrowaway 7y ago
  The NCAA is the textbook definition of an illegal cartel and is used by economists to illustrate abusive behavior. As it stands today it is the most flagrant violator of US antitrust laws - they don’t really want a public fight with an institution that has the power to investigate and regulate their behavior.
KevinEldon 7y ago
All of these athletes are going to need an easy to use platform to monetize their likeness. Something like Cameo, but adapted to collegiate athletes and expanded to support endorsements and appearances. I imagine services that support paid fan clubs with exclusive content will do well too.
hbcondo714 7y ago
Announcement from the NCAA: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-starts-process-enhance-name-image-and-likeness-opportunities https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board...
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
EA Sports is probably happy as this means they can bring back their previously very popular NCAA Football series of games.
mattrp 7y ago
So let’s create a policy that benefits maybe the top 200-300 athletes out of the tens of thousands competing at the collegiate level? Yeah that makes sense. They on scholarship are already getting what — $300k to a million in scholarship subsidies, travel, access to upgraded facilities and trainers, supportive schedules, all to develop their professional career both on and off the field. And that’s not enough? I agree that a total ban on income is ridiculous but why not set a reasonable wage scale and let those who need / want to work earn at that scale? Opening up athletes to profit on their likeness while they also take scholarships just had all sorts of issues with it the least of which are the tax issues (why isn’t the scholarship now taxable income?) At a time when most families of non scholarship students struggle to pay for college and many students struggle with loads of student debt, why are on earth are we creating more haves / have nots? Especially when such policies won’t benefit the average athlete and certainly not the regular student body.
- dclusin 7y ago
  Those sports teams wouldn't be making any money without the talents of the students that play on those teams. The TV contracts the larger teams are negotiating are worth billions of dollars. The subsidies to all players are two digit millions at best. The manner in which these universities are profiting off of these largely minority athletes is obscene. To deny those kids the right to profit from their own labor because of some trivial tax implication while those same universities continue to make billions of dollars is an absurd argument to make. Perhaps if the universities turned down the TV contracts then maybe the scholarship argument might have some merit. How do you think it would be received if Harvard tried to seize ownership of Facebook because it gave Mark Zuckerberg a scholarship? Or that Harvard should take ownership of Facebook because some kids that didn't goto Harvard won't have the luxury of starting a billion dollar corporation.
  - mattrp 7y ago
    I’m not saying that the current system is fair. What I am saying is that the minute you make a student athlete a professional then it’s a logical outcome that the value of their entire scholarship is taxable - did you consider that in your remarks? I’m not defending the lack of fairness in the current system, I’m saying the policy is a half attempt at reform and not well constructed. In my view, it’s dumb to say a student athlete can’t work hard, can’t be a good student and can’t be a amateur athlete at the same time. Clearly they should be able to be all three... but there’s probably a better way to do it and one that’s fair and doesn’t saddle athletes with unnecessary tax consequences.

26 points by lkurtz 7y ago

The NCAA caved so fast on this. Now they're going to try to get ahead of it and get their cut of the endorsement money that the athletes will be earning soon. This would be a good time for athletes to come together and demand that the NCAA stays out of their lives outside of sports.

maximente 7y ago
yep. to be honest it's kinda inspiring that this all started with a single body of a single state legislature. hopefully it shuts up cynics who say the status quo cannot be overcome.
- labster 7y ago
  A single state legislature of a state large enough to form its own NCAA competitor. A competitor that would have quickly got all the best athletes by paying higher than slave wages. It’s only because of its monopoly position that the NCAA the iniquity persisted so long; any threat to that academic cash cow is a reason to cave.
  - jalgos_eminator 7y ago
    Well, to be fair after California passed this a few other states indicated they were looking into similar legislation. I think that is what prompted the NCAA to declare this as quickly as they did. I do think even if was just California they would have caved, but would have dragged their feet for much longer.
  - maximente 7y ago
    market fundamentalists would argue the size of the state doesn't matter; the leak in the dam would spur all sorts of competition and effective resource allocation that would eventually (perhaps more slowly) topple the system. so it made it happen more quickly perhaps, but seems unlikely the outcome would be different if you're a believer in so called "markets".
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      It would have to at least have enough universities that it can plausibly form a league. Wyoming wouldn't cut it. The relatively-populated states of Pennsylvania and New York currently only have three serious football programs each. California has seven (being charitable), and with centralized UC leadership could quickly create more. Texas or Florida are the only other plausible options.
      - maximente 7y ago
        obviously counterfactual argument here but: NBA has one and done rule currently which means talented high schoolers are waiting 1 year, typically playing in college or abroad, before entering the draft. why not make some money alongside your 1 glide year by playing in the wyoming league? you get to stay in the US, boosting your future earnings, have some fun in college, but also earning some cash off of jersey sales and maybe lock in some sponsorship deals with apparel/shoe companies earlier than your competitors. once one successful person does it, it's easy to see how it morphs into a market for eager one and done players.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        An argument against that is you'll make less endorsement money the year after, because nobody's going to watch Cheyenne U. stomping all over Windswept Agricultural Institute.
sonotathrowaway 7y ago
The NCAA is the textbook definition of an illegal cartel and is used by economists to illustrate abusive behavior. As it stands today it is the most flagrant violator of US antitrust laws - they don’t really want a public fight with an institution that has the power to investigate and regulate their behavior.

KevinEldon 7y ago

All of these athletes are going to need an easy to use platform to monetize their likeness. Something like Cameo, but adapted to collegiate athletes and expanded to support endorsements and appearances. I imagine services that support paid fan clubs with exclusive content will do well too.

hbcondo714 7y ago

Announcement from the NCAA: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-starts-process-enhance-name-image-and-likeness-opportunities https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board...

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

EA Sports is probably happy as this means they can bring back their previously very popular NCAA Football series of games.

mattrp 7y ago

So let’s create a policy that benefits maybe the top 200-300 athletes out of the tens of thousands competing at the collegiate level? Yeah that makes sense. They on scholarship are already getting what — $300k to a million in scholarship subsidies, travel, access to upgraded facilities and trainers, supportive schedules, all to develop their professional career both on and off the field. And that’s not enough? I agree that a total ban on income is ridiculous but why not set a reasonable wage scale and let those who need / want to work earn at that scale? Opening up athletes to profit on their likeness while they also take scholarships just had all sorts of issues with it the least of which are the tax issues (why isn’t the scholarship now taxable income?) At a time when most families of non scholarship students struggle to pay for college and many students struggle with loads of student debt, why are on earth are we creating more haves / have nots? Especially when such policies won’t benefit the average athlete and certainly not the regular student body.

dclusin 7y ago
Those sports teams wouldn't be making any money without the talents of the students that play on those teams. The TV contracts the larger teams are negotiating are worth billions of dollars. The subsidies to all players are two digit millions at best. The manner in which these universities are profiting off of these largely minority athletes is obscene. To deny those kids the right to profit from their own labor because of some trivial tax implication while those same universities continue to make billions of dollars is an absurd argument to make. Perhaps if the universities turned down the TV contracts then maybe the scholarship argument might have some merit. How do you think it would be received if Harvard tried to seize ownership of Facebook because it gave Mark Zuckerberg a scholarship? Or that Harvard should take ownership of Facebook because some kids that didn't goto Harvard won't have the luxury of starting a billion dollar corporation.
- mattrp 7y ago
  I’m not saying that the current system is fair. What I am saying is that the minute you make a student athlete a professional then it’s a logical outcome that the value of their entire scholarship is taxable - did you consider that in your remarks? I’m not defending the lack of fairness in the current system, I’m saying the policy is a half attempt at reform and not well constructed. In my view, it’s dumb to say a student athlete can’t work hard, can’t be a good student and can’t be a amateur athlete at the same time. Clearly they should be able to be all three... but there’s probably a better way to do it and one that’s fair and doesn’t saddle athletes with unnecessary tax consequences.