Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DumfriesYMCA

Breaking—NCAA votes to pay athletes

Recommended Posts

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

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.

The board’s action was based on comprehensive recommendations from the NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group, which includes presidents, commissioners, athletics directors, administrators and student-athletes. The group gathered input over the past several months from numerous stakeholders, including current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions. The board also directed continued and productive engagement with legislators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question to me though.  
 

can a man like say.....Tua be paid to do a commercial for say....some business. 
 

there are no references to football at all. But he is in the commercial 

 

will the NCAA say he only got the commercial job because he is on Alabama’s football team? Is his name and likeness only viewable because he is an athlete? will that conflict with “they are students first athletes second” 

Also. Can a player start up their own business selling say...apparel....in which they make their own merchandise and sell. It may include football themed stuff too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCAA Okays Paying Student Athletes, Republican Senator Immediately Wants to Tax Their Scholarships: https://reason.com/2019/10/30/ncaa-okays-paying-student-athletes-republican-senator-richard-burr-north-carolina-immediately-wants-to-tax-their-scholarships/

Quote

"Americans need a break," said Sen. Richard Burr (R–N.C.) in 2017, following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. "Let's put more money back into the pockets of Americans."

Contrast that with his most recent stance on this issue, specifically pertaining to the NCAA's recent decision to allow college athletes to profit off of their name, image, and likeness.

"If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income," he tweeted. "I'll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to 'cash in' to income taxes."

The cognitive dissonance is baffling. I thought Americans needed a break?

Previous NCAA rules prohibited student-athletes from monetizing their talent and fame, even as the multibillion-dollar industry rested on their shoulders. California sparked the beginning of the end of that policy when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act last month, which paved the way for athletes in the state to start making money in 2023.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," Michael Drake, the chairman of the NCAA Board of Governors, said in a statement following the group's decision to ease the prohibitive rules nationwide. "Additional flexibility in this area can and must continue to support college sports as a part of higher education. This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

But if Burr has his way, those scholarships would come at a high cost. In practice, this would disenfranchise just about every college athlete that hasn't reached superstar status by the time he or she graduates high school.

Consider a relatively unknown athlete who accepts a full-ride offer to a university at age 17. On average, the four-year price tag at a private institution amounts to $147,204, while an out-of-state student at a public institution pays $90,308. Who would be able to pay income taxes on that enormous lump sum when he or she has no guaranteed income other than a potential revenue-sharing check split countless ways? Only the few athletes with prodigious talent and promise of future sponsorships might opt in. Everyone else would be wise to take the scholarship and simultaneously sign away the right to profit from their hard work.

That would undoubtedly be a slap in the face to the scrappier athletes who improve tremendously in school. Take Steph Curry, for example, who went to Davidson College—which, at the time, sported a no-name basketball program—after Virginia Tech declined to recruit him. Davidson is no longer off the map, and for that, they can thank Curry, who is now a six-time NBA All-Star.

Indeed, Burr's proposition sounds more like an effort to dismantle California's law and the NCAA's subsequent change rather than an attempt to codify sound tax policy. Under his proposal, if a subsidized athlete chose to pursue sports-related moneymaking opportunities, their scholarship would be taxed as if the student were receiving it as a salary. But anyone who has attended college on scholarship knows this is patently absurd. Since when is free tuition equivalent to earning a living?

While the conversation around the new NCAA policy has been dominated by talk of "image and likeness," it also opens the gate for athletes to take advantage of smaller opportunities, as well—prospects that most people may not have assumed were off-limits. "For a tennis star, it could lead to giving paid lessons to recreational players," The Wall Street Journal notes. "For a gymnast with a crowd-pleasing floor exercise, it might mean monetizing a YouTube channel."

All of those avenues—big and little—reflect student-athletes' dedication and ability. Puzzlingly, Burr has spent his time in Congress defending people who use free markets in that same context. Why are athletes any different?

Typical that a government bureaucrat would demand a piece of the pie.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burr has been absolutely torched by the media...what a joke he is....

 

someone replaced athletes with troops and mentioned their benefits as a mocking of him and it really drove home the point 

Edited by DumfriesYMCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let me know when NCAA 2021 comes out!!!   GOD I hope that is July release..... help me Jesus if its an August release!!!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Muda69 said:

NCAA Okays Paying Student Athletes, Republican Senator Immediately Wants to Tax Their Scholarships: https://reason.com/2019/10/30/ncaa-okays-paying-student-athletes-republican-senator-richard-burr-north-carolina-immediately-wants-to-tax-their-scholarships/

Typical that a government bureaucrat would demand a piece of the pie.

 

I guess a full scholarship for a free education and a stipend is not enough for the 1% of college athletes that will benefit from the changes???  Their piece of the pie needs to be bigger?

Meanwhile, swimmers and wrestlers that arguably work even harder than a football or bball player won't even benefit from a full scholarship, let alone be paid.....sounds right to me......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I guess a full scholarship for a free education and a stipend is not enough for the 1% of college athletes that will benefit from the changes???  Their piece of the pie needs to be bigger?

Meanwhile, swimmers and wrestlers that arguably work even harder than a football or bball player won't even benefit from a full scholarship, let alone be paid.....sounds right to me......

The issue is that universities and everyone else gets to make money off them. Jersey sales of just the number no names of big time players sell like crazy. Billions of dollars are made off of their likeness...tv ads and all included...

 

just allow all athletes to make money on their own being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DumfriesYMCA said:

The issue is that universities and everyone else gets to make money off them. Jersey sales of just the number no names of big time players sell like crazy. Billions of dollars are made off of their likeness...tv ads and all included...

 

just allow all athletes to make money on their own being. 

Somewhat playing devil's advocate here.  Not entirely sure where I stand on the issue yet but in regards to the jersey sales...who gets the money when several players in the recent past have wore the jersey.? Prime example is Duke basketball.  There are requirements for a jersey being retired and in the era of one and dones another jersey being retired by them anytime soon is less than slim.  But since the 2010/11 season, 5 different pros have wore the #1 for the Blue Devils.  Kyrie Irving,  Jabari Parker, Harry Giles, Traveon Duval, and Zion Williamson.  Arguably, at least two of those 5 are stars (or at least BIG names) in the NBA.  At what point does a jersey (and the money that goes along with it) quit belonging to one player and move to the next player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ajames4 said:

Somewhat playing devil's advocate here.  Not entirely sure where I stand on the issue yet but in regards to the jersey sales...who gets the money when several players in the recent past have wore the jersey.? Prime example is Duke basketball.  There are requirements for a jersey being retired and in the era of one and dones another jersey being retired by them anytime soon is less than slim.  But since the 2010/11 season, 5 different pros have wore the #1 for the Blue Devils.  Kyrie Irving,  Jabari Parker, Harry Giles, Traveon Duval, and Zion Williamson.  Arguably, at least two of those 5 are stars (or at least BIG names) in the NBA.  At what point does a jersey (and the money that goes along with it) quit belonging to one player and move to the next player?

I agree to all of this...but it would be crazy interesting to see the numbers on some of these...for football the #2 at Texas A&M was Johnny footballs number. I recall reading that at some point you could type his name into their online merch store and that jersey would pull up. No name on it but clear association of name and sales.

 

you speak to a good point though that only a few get retired and by that notion how can you determine if it’s their number or not...for Syracuse Lacrosse the number 22 is a big one with lots of top players wearing that...similar to The #1 jersey you mentioned 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real question is not whether a player can profit from the use of his own name, image, and likeness, but whether he can preclude others from doing so. If I can prevent the University from selling jerseys with my name on them, then I can enter into a license agreement with the University, which greatly enhances my ability to profit from the use of my name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I think the real question is not whether a player can profit from the use of his own name, image, and likeness, but whether he can preclude others from doing so. If I can prevent the University from selling jerseys with my name on them, then I can enter into a license agreement with the University, which greatly enhances my ability to profit from the use of my name.

Now that’s thinking outside the box! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I guess a full scholarship for a free education and a stipend is not enough for the 1% of college athletes that will benefit from the changes???  Their piece of the pie needs to be bigger?

Meanwhile, swimmers and wrestlers that arguably work even harder than a football or bball player won't even benefit from a full scholarship, let alone be paid.....sounds right to me......

The definition of “enough” is “the amount someone else has.” The definition of “not enough” is “the amount I have.”  Let the market determine what is “enough.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobref said:

The definition of “enough” is “the amount someone else has.” The definition of “not enough” is “the amount I have.”  Let the market determine what is “enough.”

Or....allow the 1% that has the market potential to move on to the professional leagues earlier so they can profit as a professional and not as a student athlete.....if "enough is not enough" for them as a college student attending on a full scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...