PDA

View Full Version : NCAA caves, allows athletes to make money off their likeness



JasonEvans
10-29-2019, 02:16 PM
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness


The NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to allow college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

Hingeknocker
10-29-2019, 02:19 PM
There is a chasm of difference between that headline, and this from the piece:


The board directed the three separate divisions of college sports to immediately begin figuring out how to update their rules in a way that maintains a distinction between college and professional sports. The board members said in a release Tuesday that all changes should make sure student-athletes have the same opportunities to make money as all other students, maintain a priority of the education and the collegiate experience, and that rules are "transparent, focused and enforceable" and do not create a competitive imbalance. The board wants each division to implement new rules by January 2021.

I don't know why any media organization would take what the NCAA says at face value, and put that in the headline.

proelitedota
10-29-2019, 02:32 PM
Jason getting in on the DBR clickbait scheme.

devildeac
10-29-2019, 02:47 PM
Expect rams club "suggested" annual membership fees to skyrocket...

(yea, yea, you can fill in the "blank" above with a slew of university names, but, my comment is first and I'm on Mt. Hatemore, so there's that :p)

sagegrouse
10-29-2019, 02:48 PM
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness

As a long-time veteran of Washington, DC -- I would say, "There's the "'law,' and then there are the 'implementing regulations,' which govern how the law is enforced." We'll see how these turn out in the NCAA context.

JasonEvans
10-29-2019, 02:51 PM
As a long-time veteran of Washington, DC -- there's the "law" and then there are the "implementing regulations." We'll see how these evolve in the various NCAA divisions.

Yeah, the devil will definitely be in the details. I see this as a positive step for the NCAA. Even though I know there will be problems along the way and probably some nasty unintended consequences, this was somewhat inevitable and allowing the athletes to profit a bit off their immense skills seems entirely justified at this point.

wsb3
10-29-2019, 03:29 PM
The NCAA will surely govern this fairly & as superbly as they do in all matters.

Dr. Rosenrosen
10-29-2019, 03:42 PM
The NCAA will surely govern this fairly & as superbly as they do in all matters.
And no doubt will ensure they get their cut of the extra monies along the way.

tteettimes
10-29-2019, 03:57 PM
Lawyers Dreams come true

proelitedota
10-29-2019, 04:12 PM
One positive is that we'll have EA sports NCAA bball games again, maybe with Zion as DLC. :cool:

arnie
10-29-2019, 04:35 PM
One positive is that we'll have EA sports NCAA bball games again, maybe with Zion as DLC. :cool:

Since Zion hasn't played any real NBA games yet, NCAA should give him 3 more years of eligibility and he can come back a make a zillion$$ off his likeness in a Duke uniform.

Of course, that only works if we have a scholarship available next year.😁

JasonEvans
10-29-2019, 04:48 PM
North Carolina senator Richard Burr say that if athletes can make money off their likeness, then their scholarships must be treated like income. He is introducing legislation that will do just that.

https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896

Hingeknocker
10-29-2019, 04:52 PM
North Carolina senator Richard Burr say that if athletes can make money off their likeness, then their scholarships must be treated like income. He is introducing legislation that will do just that.

https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896

A truly revealing moment for Burr, as he pulls the sheet back to let us all know exactly how he feels about athletes even scratching the surface of their value in monetary terms.

I wonder if Senator Burr thinks that all scholarships - not just athletic ones - should be treated like income, or nah?

HereBeforeCoachK
10-29-2019, 04:53 PM
North Carolina senator Richard Burr say that if athletes can make money off their likeness, then their scholarships must be treated like income. He is introducing legislation that will do just that.

https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896

Well that would be an IRS issue, and they probably would count it as income, but I don't think Burr has anything to do with that. He's not on House Appropriations...he's not even in the House.

On another issue, you can guarantee that the schools will look at it this way and act accordingly...ie...more brutally on yanking scholarships.

SupaDave
10-29-2019, 05:09 PM
Well that would be an IRS issue, and they probably would count it as income, but I don't think Burr has anything to do with that. He's not on House Appropriations...he's not even in the House.

On another issue, you can guarantee that the schools will look at it this way and act accordingly...ie...more brutally on yanking scholarships.

Iím gonna have to disagree on that. They will still be earning those scholarships (public events, practice, games, travel, and so on and so forth). Itís folks who go to school with dozens of scholarships that get to pocket the change - athletes do not.

SupaDave
10-29-2019, 05:09 PM
Btw,

Youíre welcome.

Sincerely,

The OíBannon brothers.

sagegrouse
10-29-2019, 05:17 PM
Well that would be an IRS issue, and they probably would count it as income, but I don't think Burr has anything to do with that. He's not on House Appropriations...he's not even in the House.

On another issue, you can guarantee that the schools will look at it this way and act accordingly...ie...more brutally on yanking scholarships.

Burr is on the Senate Finance Committee, which has a major say on tax legislation. The relevant House Committee is Ways and Means, and tax bills must originate in the House.

mkirsh
10-29-2019, 05:28 PM
North Carolina senator Richard Burr say that if athletes can make money off their likeness, then their scholarships must be treated like income. He is introducing legislation that will do just that.

https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896

If Burr wasn't a Wake guy I might suspect this as a way to drive college athletes to the lower-cost state schools to reduce the tax burden

dukelifer
10-29-2019, 05:40 PM
Burr is on the Senate Finance Committee, which has a major say on tax legislation. The relevant House Committee is Ways and Means, and tax bills must originate in the House.

Even if this happened- some clever lawyers will find a work-around. You would also have to do the same to a musician on scholarship that makes a few buck playing gigs. It also make it more likely that athletes should be treated as employees.

AZLA
10-29-2019, 08:37 PM
States want the taxes. College tax prep 101 coming to curriculum near you. Either that or academic tutors will have to be get certified by Quicken. UNC is most likely studying the Anderson Consulting guide on hiding Enron losses. Should be interesting. I suppose Ďgiftsí under the 16k cap wonít require reporting. There should be a boosters guide to legal gifting. Iím writing it now; available on Amazon in 2 days.

rocketeli
10-29-2019, 08:39 PM
A truly revealing moment for Burr, as he pulls the sheet back to let us all know exactly how he feels about athletes even scratching the surface of their value in monetary terms.

I wonder if Senator Burr thinks that all scholarships - not just athletic ones - should be treated like income, or nah?

Why is Senator Burr wrong? If any one of us earns income through selling our name and likeness we have to pay tax on it, and indeed on all income. I don't get this knee-jerk love for paying athletes in college. One, they already get 50 thousand and up a year--good money out of high school, in indirect and direct payments, two, 99% of college athletes cost their schools money and/or don't have a prayer of paying any kind of pro sport, either because they aren't good enough or there is no such thing as pro women's water polo or whatever, and thirdly and most importantly, this just widens the gap between the haves, who can offer publicity opportunities and the have nots that can't. As long as you can sell you likeness and make money off it, athletes will be playing football at places like Alabama, not Duke.

Hingeknocker
10-29-2019, 09:52 PM
Why is Senator Burr wrong? If any one of us earns income through selling our name and likeness we have to pay tax on it, and indeed on all income.

In almost all cases, scholarships are not taxable. There are several conditions that must be met, but accepting income from another source is not one of them. If Burr were to be successful in punitively treating athletic scholarships as taxable just because an athlete is getting paid from another source, that certainly would be something, wouldn't it?

Of course, athletes accepting money for the NIL rights would and should pay taxes on that income. But that's not what Burr is threatening.

J.Blink
10-29-2019, 10:18 PM
So will universities be able to--or have to--start paying players for the right to use their likenesses in media guides, promotional material, advertisement for school athletic programs, etc.?

HereBeforeCoachK
10-29-2019, 10:29 PM
Iím gonna have to disagree on that. They will still be earning those scholarships (public events, practice, games, travel, and so on and so forth). Itís folks who go to school with dozens of scholarships that get to pocket the change - athletes do not.

I'm talking about those who don't pan out, the poor performers, the disappointments.....this is going to change the whole tenor of the sport, and the nature of the relationship between school and athlete.

gep
10-29-2019, 11:58 PM
So will universities be able to--or have to--start paying players for the right to use their likenesses in media guides, promotional material, advertisement for school athletic programs, etc.?

Maybe this is already part of the scholarship deal? Kinda like if you go somewhere to a function (professional conference) and sign a disclosure that you may be in photo/video media, and waive all rights to compensation...

gep
10-30-2019, 12:00 AM
Why is Senator Burr wrong? If any one of us earns income through selling our name and likeness we have to pay tax on it, and indeed on all income. I don't get this knee-jerk love for paying athletes in college. One, they already get 50 thousand and up a year--good money out of high school, in indirect and direct payments, two, 99% of college athletes cost their schools money and/or don't have a prayer of paying any kind of pro sport, either because they aren't good enough or there is no such thing as pro women's water polo or whatever, and thirdly and most importantly, this just widens the gap between the haves, who can offer publicity opportunities and the have nots that can't. As long as you can sell you likeness and make money off it, athletes will be playing football at places like Alabama, not Duke.

Well... maybe in small communities, college towns, etc... local company advertising for athletes in local communities might work well. The athletes might be "big" in the local communities. Of course, not the big bucks for the Alabama's of the world, but something meaningful, nonetheless.

Edouble
10-30-2019, 08:40 AM
Btw,

Youíre welcome.

Sincerely,

The OíBannon brothers.

What does Charles O'Bannon have to do with this?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-30-2019, 09:00 AM
What does Charles O'Bannon have to do with this?

I assume OP is referring to the lawsuit the O'Bannon brothers at UCLA filed after having their likenesses features in an NCAA basketball video game.

As I see it, that was a definite catalyst for this road we find ourselves on. It's one thing for a team to sell jerseys that happen to have your number on them. To have EA Sports creating digital characters that not only have your name and number, but are tweaked to your appearance is particularly egregious.

HereBeforeCoachK
10-30-2019, 09:19 AM
I assume OP is referring to the lawsuit the O'Bannon brothers at UCLA filed after having their likenesses features in an NCAA basketball video game.

As I see it, that was a definite catalyst for this road we find ourselves on. It's one thing for a team to sell jerseys that happen to have your number on them. To have EA Sports creating digital characters that not only have your name and number, but are tweaked to your appearance is particularly egregious.

THIS^^^ is such an important distinction. A school that sells your jersey to its fans, which have become the player's fans simply due to a school's inherent fan base, is something that I think properly should be retained by the school. VERY RARE is the player like Zion or Johnny Football who will attract outside fans, and to make law based on outliers is never a wise thing to do.

But yeah, EA Sports - that's a blatantly commercial enterprise.

And on the O'Bannon brothers, yeah I'm sure what was OP is referring to. And I think we may want to wait just a bit before "thanking them" before we see where all this ends up. My prediction is the unintended consequences are going to be much bigger and much more negative than is being contemplated now by many.

Edouble
10-30-2019, 09:24 AM
I assume OP is referring to the lawsuit the O'Bannon brothers at UCLA filed after having their likenesses features in an NCAA basketball video game.

As I see it, that was a definite catalyst for this road we find ourselves on. It's one thing for a team to sell jerseys that happen to have your number on them. To have EA Sports creating digital characters that not only have your name and number, but are tweaked to your appearance is particularly egregious.

It was a rhetorical question.

Yes, the O'Bannon brothers played together at UCLA.

However, Ed O'Bannon filed the class action suit against the NCAA. Charles had nothing to do with it.

Acymetric
10-30-2019, 09:41 AM
Even if this happened- some clever lawyers will find a work-around. You would also have to do the same to a musician on scholarship that makes a few buck playing gigs. It also make it more likely that athletes should be treated as employees.

Without commenting on the merits of this...interesting idea...I don't think this is true. I don't see any reason the law couldn't regulate athletic scholarships differently than other scholarships. In fact I'm pretty sure it already does. Whether it should is a good topic for discussion.

Bluedog
10-30-2019, 09:41 AM
Devil will be in the details here. I doubt the NCAA is going to allow unlimited compensation from "local car dealers" looking to lure high schoolers to their schools, but I could be wrong. If that is the case, and it's basically an unfettered free market, then I'd rather call it what it is (for football and men's basketball), a minor league, and divorce the athletes from the academic institutions and have the athletes be club teams associated with the institution (of course that would never happen given the "non-profit" nature of universities). The other option is to make academic institutions only about academics and eliminate big time college sport.

It might not happen immediately, but if you think going to an AAU game attracts some shady characters, it's going to reach another level. So while in theory I like the move, I'll wait for the details as I think putting a reasonable plan in action is much trickier than it sounds. I don't think it's going to be like Olympic athletes given they are on their own and not associated with a team/University as part of their Olympic competition, but that would be the ideal.

superdave
10-30-2019, 09:56 AM
In almost all cases, scholarships are not taxable. There are several conditions that must be met, but accepting income from another source is not one of them. If Burr were to be successful in punitively treating athletic scholarships as taxable just because an athlete is getting paid from another source, that certainly would be something, wouldn't it?

Of course, athletes accepting money for the NIL rights would and should pay taxes on that income. But that's not what Burr is threatening.

My read - and this is maybe assuming too much - is Burr is saying NCAA athletes should remain amateur and money should stay out. He's basically swinging a blunt hammer to make this only attractive for a handful and unattractive for the rest.

I cannot say I disagree with him. I saw all Capel's guys at Pitt getting custom suits on instagram. Do they hand that back upon graduation? How much Nike swag did Justise lay out at the end of 2015? Remember that clip?

Actors pay taxes on the gift boxes they get at the Oscars. IRS is all over this stuff already. Not much way to avoid the issue.

Hingeknocker
10-30-2019, 10:19 AM
My read - and this is maybe assuming too much - is Burr is saying NCAA athletes should remain amateur and money should stay out. He's basically swinging a blunt hammer to make this only attractive for a handful and unattractive for the rest.

I cannot say I disagree with him. I saw all Capel's guys at Pitt getting custom suits on instagram. Do they hand that back upon graduation? How much Nike swag did Justise lay out at the end of 2015? Remember that clip?

Actors pay taxes on the gift boxes they get at the Oscars. IRS is all over this stuff already. Not much way to avoid the issue.

But then Burr would have to also explain whether he thinks the kid getting an AB Duke scholarship (full-ride to Duke! extremely selective group!) should also have that scholarship taxed as income, if she happened to decide to get a job working in the library while she's a student.

Acymetric
10-30-2019, 10:22 AM
But then Burr would have to also explain whether he thinks the kid getting an AB Duke scholarship (full-ride to Duke! extremely selective group!) should also have that scholarship taxed as income, if she happened to decide to get a job working in the library while she's a student.

Again, there is no (legal) reason why athletic scholarships can't be treated differently under the law than various other scholarships. There are a lot of ways to criticize Burr's proposal, but this isn't a good one.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-30-2019, 10:25 AM
Again, there is no (legal) reason why athletic scholarships can't be treated differently under the law than various other scholarships. There are a lot of ways to criticize Burr's proposal, but this isn't a good one.

Substitute "track and field scholarship." How does it work now?

Hingeknocker
10-30-2019, 10:28 AM
Again, there is no (legal) reason why athletic scholarships can't be treated differently under the law than various other scholarships. There are a lot of ways to criticize Burr's proposal, but this isn't a good one.

Which brings me to my original point that all Burr has done here is lift the sheet on his own immoral beliefs about how and why student-athletes should be controlled and/or prevented from making money off of their value.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-30-2019, 10:37 AM
Which brings me to my original point that all Burr has done here is lift the sheet on his own immoral beliefs about how and why student-athletes should be controlled and/or prevented from making money off of their value.

David Glenn (yes, I know) had a pretty good take on this yesterday in the first hour. It addressed the strawman arguments of "well, it's only 1% of student athletes" and "what about non-revenue sports?"

Those are fair points, but aren't relevant counter points to why top tier football players can't make money on their own fame.

It has always felt disingenuous to me to see a system where coaches makes 7 or 8 figures, colleges rake in television money, and the talent on the field/court legally can't pursue outside compensation because "they are students."

The system is well-overdue for an overhaul and the NCAA either has to get on board and figure out how to make it work, or risk becoming (more of an) irrelevant joke.

Serious question: who is the last major college sports star to be declared academically ineligible? Is it because athletes today are more academically inclined than 25-30 years ago?

HereBeforeCoachK
10-30-2019, 11:21 AM
But then Burr would have to also explain whether he thinks the kid getting an AB Duke scholarship (full-ride to Duke! extremely selective group!) should also have that scholarship taxed as income, if she happened to decide to get a job working in the library while she's a student.

Actually, not necessarily so....and please don't assume you know he could or couldn't do that. I could take a stab at it off top of my head. But again, I would hope we can move on from Burr before this gets to be a fully political thread. You have pushed it that way already.

HereBeforeCoachK
10-30-2019, 11:22 AM
Substitute "track and field scholarship." How does it work now?

I think you could make a distinction between revenue sports and non revenue sports here.....kinda like non profits versus for profit corporations under tax law. This is a quickie off the cuff stab here on my part.....just throwing it out for consumption. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I imagine a reasonable case could be made.

moonpie23
10-30-2019, 11:38 AM
two people that i don't usually agree with:

Jay Bilas "it's a stall tactic"

Adam Gold "it will only work if it's UN-regulated" - also said "the ncaa will never really do anything until a federal court orders them to"




i agree with both on this..

JimBD
10-30-2019, 12:53 PM
Cheaters will always be cheaters. The cheaters who are now willing to make under-the-table payments to recruit athletes will just funnel those payments thru promotional firms to make it look like they are paying for the athlete's likeness. The schools and their suppporters who have the resources and willingness to spend the most money will get most of the best athletes. It will be a bidding war. College football and basketball will basically become professional sports. The winning programs will basically become those with the deepest pockets. Of course allowing athletes to make money off their likeness will simply legalize what is already going on to some extent.

In my opinion, many colleges which are unable or unwilling to participate in this bidding war will have to either drop football and basketball or participate in some sort of minor league.

Bluedog
10-30-2019, 01:06 PM
Serious question: who is the last major college sports star to be declared academically ineligible? Is it because athletes today are more academically inclined than 25-30 years ago?

No, it's because major college athletes tend to "cluster" into specific majors that are especially friendly to the time/physical demands on the sport, universities now dedicate hundreds of thousands to personal tutoring and tutoring centers, and athletes get priority regbistration. So, basically, my argument is that athletes are given a lot more academic support and programs have been tailored to set them up for more academic success (so as to not have to deal with eligibility issues), with more oversight/hand-holding.

I don't know the answer to your question necessarily but Notre Dame did get their runner-up football year vacated based on two guys getting illegitimate help/support from a tutor on an exam...and the cheats got nothing for decades of much worse stuff...

SupaDave
10-30-2019, 01:11 PM
Cheaters will always be cheaters. The cheaters who are now willing to make under-the-table payments to recruit athletes will just funnel those payments thru promotional firms to make it look like they are paying for the athlete's likeness. The schools and their suppporters who have the resources and willingness to spend the most money will get most of the best athletes. It will be a bidding war. College football and basketball will basically become professional sports. The winning programs will basically become those with the deepest pockets. Of course allowing athletes to make money off their likeness will simply legalize what is already going on to some extent.

In my opinion, many colleges which are unable or unwilling to participate in this bidding war will have to either drop football and basketball or participate in some sort of minor league.

Some good points here but the truth is that this will really only affect such a small percentage of athletes that it won't be that hard to track per se. These athletes would surely be given W2s or something to track their earnings.

What this really brings to mind is what you are alluding to - the money being laundered through businesses. Ohio State REALLY comes to mind (tattoos anyone?) b/c they have basically been doing this for the last two or three decades. Instead of "working" at the car dealership, those players will become "Brand ambassadors" and still get free rental cars and the like.

Preferential treatment might be given on loans and other matters important to those who are leaving less savory living conditions.

But the caveat, is that MOST of the kids affected (See: basketball), will have very short lives in college anyway and the NBA will likely eliminate that as one of their problems (especially with the G-league expansion).

For example, a kid like Emoni Bates will never have to worry about this situation.

Lar77
10-30-2019, 01:18 PM
My guess is that the NCAA will allow income that is "incidental" to activities in a sport. No direct or indirect payments from the school for being on the team other than scholarships and benefits related to sports activities.

Scholarships won't be taxed, unless all scholarships are, which kind of defeats the purpose of having scholarships. But what about other non-athletic benefits - tutors, for example.

Yes, the local dentist could pay someone to appear in an ad or wear a mouth guard, if they play for the local university, but that will be taxed.

The consequences of this could be wide-ranging. Can you imagine an athlete charging ESPN for an off court interview (Yes Jay, I'll walk 94 feet with you. How much?).

I guess names might be coming off jerseys

hudlow
10-30-2019, 01:50 PM
I guess names might be coming off jerseys

...and have to wear face masks?


9901

JasonEvans
10-30-2019, 02:23 PM
...and have to wear face masks?

9901

If some team starts wearing wrestling masks as part of their uniforms I may have to rethink my rooting interests. The awesomeness of that cannot be understated. The intimidation factor alone would be worth 5 points every game. Embiid came the closest...

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Z9b3hjJTidfINEBL6jT0awk47k4=/1400x1400/filters:format(jpeg)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10684975/usa_today_10794173.jpg

devildeac
10-30-2019, 02:32 PM
This is pretty scary, too, with colors and or "school" name NSFW:

9902

CameronBornAndBred
10-30-2019, 02:40 PM
If scholarships are taxed, that doesn't favor Duke at all.
If an elite recruit knows he is going to get taxed for going to school, why would he choose the much more expensive option over that of cheaper Carolina or some other state school?

devildeac
10-30-2019, 02:59 PM
If scholarships are taxed, that doesn't favor Duke at all.
If an elite recruit knows he is going to get taxed for going to school, why would he choose the much more expensive option over that of cheaper Carolina or some other state school?

Did you mean cheater?

;):rolleyes:

HereBeforeCoachK
10-30-2019, 04:46 PM
I guess names might be coming off jerseys

Penn State was that way for a long time......I think it was 2012 or so they started putting names on the back.

Indoor66
10-30-2019, 06:19 PM
I don't think Indiana has ever had names on uniforms.