NCAA rules in favor of profit for athlete's "likeness"

[isufbcurt]

It could be because we're historically a really bad football program.

Well then you'd think those donors would be eager to donate to improve it's profile, but they weren't.

If I'm not doing good in my racing, I don't just sit there and hope I magically start performing better, I go out and spend money to get better equipment and technical knowledge in order to get better results.

 

[3TrueFans]

Well then you'd think those donors would be eager to donate to improve it's profile, but they weren't.

I don't think that's how that works, I think they were reluctant and had to be sold by JP that things were going to be different.

 

[AuH2O]

How long before boosters decrease their donations and just give it directly to the players?

Immediately, and this is what I've been saying about the two main arguments as to why this won't be that big a deal.

Claim 1. It's not not like boosters have been withholding money waiting for this.
Response: Correct, but before a booster gives $500,000 gift to an Athletic Department that goes for operations, buildings, etc. that have some effect on steering recruits, but in the current age of everybody having good facilities, that impact is marginal. Now that booster shifts that $500k toward likeness income to get players to their school.

Claim 2. It's happening anyway, might as well make it legal. Yes, some of this stuff happens, Response: but people WAY overblow how much money is getting to players and handlers under the table. Look at some of the rumored $ amounts on the top end to some of the biggest HS basketball recruits in recent years. It's clear that the threat of sanctions kept these in check to a large extent.

Claim 3. The same teams go to the playoffs, so what's it really matter.
Response: Just by reducing scholarship limits the past couple times it increased parity in CFB significantly. Think about that, when every team had a lot more scholarships, 3 star type guys would go to Oklahoma instead of Iowa State, and that was in a scenario of financial parity between the two. Now imagine that same scenario where there's an additional financial benefit. Look at how the Dakota Schools moved up from DII to FCS and started kicking everybody's ass, including former power UNI. The Dakota schools have enough money to pay actual cost of attendance, so what probably adds up to an extra $3-4k per year.

 

[ArgentCy]

Could this splinter away the ncaa into two leagues? Man i have never posted so much in a thread.. this is just crazy impactful

There are already like 5 different levels. Enough that most people cant name them all. We have Div 1 FBS, FCS, and partial non-scholorship, Div 2, Div 3 and probably some more. This was already heading towards a split of the top tier and that will probably happen in football and maybe basketball just because of their popularity.

 

[drlove]

Every car dealership, car wash and local whatever could have been donating to the school before this. All this does is make the school compete with the athlete for that money. Most places were giving what they could, they aren't going to give more than they can by splitting it up between two benefactors.

Additionally, what sort of tax implications are there to the company that would shift their donation from the University to a "athlete/employee"?

 

[isufbcurt]

Additionally, what sort of tax implications are there to the company that would shift their donation from the University to a "athlete/employee"?

I'd say it benefits the company more because it's Advertsing expense and direct reduction to revenue.

 

[AuH2O]

Ohio State still has a limited number of players that will see the field every year. I don't see their 2nd or 3rd string guys making more from their likeness than a starter at a school like Iowa State. A player's "likeness" and name is only valuable if they get exposure. How many incoming freshman football players would you be willing to buy an autograph from, or a jersey? 99.9% of college athletes wont make much until they have actually done something at the college level. I just don't see many boosters shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for players that may, or may not even develop into stars. I guess I could be wrong, though.

You are assuming that those that pay prospective players for their likeness actually need to get some return on investment. If that's all it was going to be, you are right, I doubt this would have much impact.

What will have massive impact is boosters that used to donate hundreds of thousands and millions to athletic departments can now pay players, directly or indirectly for gigs that use their likeness.

Until we know how this is going to shake out it's hard to say how big the impact will be.

 

[ArgentCy]

You are assuming that those that pay prospective players for their likeness actually need to get some return on investment. If that's all it was going to be, you are right, I doubt this would have much impact.

What will have massive impact is boosters that used to donate hundreds of thousands and millions to athletic departments can now pay players, directly or indirectly for gigs that use their likeness.

Until we know how this is going to shake out it's hard to say how big the impact will be.

Sounds to me like the money is going to get spread around a bit more and going to the people doing the work. How is this bad again?

 

[Mr Janny]

Additionally, what sort of tax implications are there to the company that would shift their donation from the University to a "athlete/employee"?

I'm no tax expert but donations to the school are deductable. That deduction wouldn't be there if they instead spent their money on an endorsement. Now, they may be able to make a profit on an endorsement, but only if the kid is worth it. Paying a 3rd string running back isn't going to have much ROI.
Businesses are still going to want their tax deductions, even in this new world of player endorsements.

 

[isutrevman]

You are assuming that those that pay prospective players for their likeness actually need to get some return on investment. If that's all it was going to be, you are right, I doubt this would have much impact.

What will have massive impact is boosters that used to donate hundreds of thousands and millions to athletic departments can now pay players, directly or indirectly for gigs that use their likeness.

Until we know how this is going to shake out it's hard to say how big the impact will be.

Yes, I just don't think boosters will pay much $$ for anyone other than top level recruits. Iowa State gets 3 star guys with 1 or two 4 stars in a class if we're lucky. I don't see boosters from Ohio State or Texas paying to get that level of player. That's why I don't think this will impact Iowa State that much. I agree, we don't yet know what the impact will be.

 

[drlove]

I really am curious who the first Student Athlete will be that will screw up their deal as a result of doing something stupid.

 

[Mr Janny]

There's already rublings (Sen Richard Burr, I believe) that they are going to try to pass legislation to make the scholarship taxable if you get any money due to your name and likeness.

Here's another reason why Senator Burr's proposed legislation is DOA:



The NCAA will do everything in their power to prevent these athletes from legally being designated as employees. They have far, far more to lose in that scenario than the players. Bring it on, Senator.

 

[BoxsterCy]

How long before boosters decrease their donations and just give it directly to the players?

If I stopped donating to other departments/causes at ISU I might be able to pool my donations and instead be able to afford and buy me a generic three star guy.

 

[CapnCy]

So intriguing to see how this goes from a vote to implementation.

I think of things like jersey sales...used to be one or two numbers a year....now will that player get some of that? We have multiple guys with the same number.

Also will be curious on who manages the amount....meaning, a student athlete only has so many hours in a day....but a popular athlete could "fill" time with money making opportunities.

What about camps.....now Coaches host camps and can pay players to help out....but what would stop Tyrese and a few teammates from starting their own camp.

It'll be fun to watch...and as others have said....positive thoughts to all the compliance officers out there!!!

 

[AuH2O]

Yes, I just don't think boosters will pay much $$ for anyone other than top level recruits. Iowa State gets 3 star guys with 1 or two 4 stars in a class if we're lucky. I don't see boosters from Ohio State or Texas paying to get that level of player. That's why I don't think this will impact Iowa State that much. I agree, we don't yet know what the impact will be.

I think what the scholarship limit changes showed is that under a financial equal scenario, it's still a damn hard sell playing time at ISU over riding the pine at tOSU. As the difference in full cost of attendance at some FCS schools vs. tuition only others show, a few grand per player can be the difference in kicking everybody's ass or being a mediocre program. Maybe it's not directly applicable, but essentially by spending an additional $2M or so per year above what most FCS teams like UNI can in direct payments to players in the form of total cost of attendance, NDSU went from Division II to crushing everybody in FCS in no time.

I definitely think additional compensation for revenue sports is LONG overdue.

One thing that will be interesting is how a place like ISU that lacks big donors relative to most, but has a sizable and active alumni might be able to crowdsource funds to pay for appearances by players.

 

[19210]

How long until all the other sports get involved and the university has to pay some sort of additional funds, kind of like a title 9 situation? Could we see something similar with women sports having a grievance because they aren't making any additional income and the opportunities aren't the same? There aren't any women sports video games, etc. It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out and if they continue to move the goal posts where they end up.

 

[chadm]

Was it mentioned that coaches pay will be impacted by this? No more 5 million dollar coaches if this goes through. Can the university pay to promote itself and pay a player?

 

[JRE1975]

I wonder what the Title IX implications are with unequal compensation to athletes based on popularity of each sport.

I wonder how much Iowa State will be entitled of revenue from sales of jerseys, posters, etc. when the athlete uses trademarks owned by Iowa State.

How much more will Hayden Fry make on the sale individual athlete items with the Iowa Hawk emblem on it?

This is going to be messy, but we can all be assured that the lawyers and agents will figure out how to make money on this change.

 

[BryceC]

Hey look, the exact kind of braindead take i was talking about.

There are degrees of it. Some programs will be better than others. This will cement a permanent, and much wider, gap.

The chasm is absurd already.

I’m of the opinion this helps Iowa State relative to other schools at their level.

 

[CTTB78]

The only question I have when considering this change is whether this good for Iowa State? I don't see any way that the answer to this is yes.

Agree.
I'll be anxious to hear JP, CSP, and CMC's comments on how this will impact ISU. My guess is that they'll say something to effect of-- "The devil's in the details. We'll have to wait and see what controls are in place."