F the NCAA

[jfish26]

The short answer is (no pun intended): just do it.

But here:

How to pay NCAA athletes like Zion Williamson without costing colleges a dime

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... c47a96d739

Yes, Williamson and other college athletes receive scholarships and small financial stipends. But that amounts to far less than what they are worth. According to a 2012 study by the National College Players Association (NCPA) and the Drexel University Sports Management Program, the annual fair market value for the average NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision football player at the time was $137,357; for the average big-time men’s basketball player, it was $289,031.

The truth is, the NCAA operates a deeply unfair system. That’s why I have introduced Senate Bill 206, also known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, in the California State Legislature. Under SB 206, college athletes in California would finally be able to receive compensation for their work via corporate sponsorship deals — much like Olympic athletes are allowed to do.

Under my bill, if Williamson played at UCLA, the University of Southern California or another major California school, he would be allowed to sign a basketball shoe contract with Nike or Under Armour that likely would be quite lucrative. (A Forbes contributor recently estimated that a shoe deal for Williamson could be worth up to $10.5 million a year.) And so if he were to suffer a career-ending injury in college, he would not be left empty-handed.

[...]

It’s not just about top-tier men’s sports. Look what happened to Missy Franklin, one of the great female swimmers of all time. After winning four gold medals at the 2012 Olympic Games, Franklin chose to attend my alma mater, the University of California at Berkeley, rather than turn pro and sign sponsorship deals with Speedo or Tyr. But while at Cal, Franklin suffered back problems. She finally turned pro in 2015, giving up her NCAA eligibility, but she never regained her top form and is now retired after debilitating shoulder injuries — deprived of the full compensation she should have received.

And look at Katie Ledecky, perhaps the finest female swimmer in history. She recently surrendered her eligibility at Stanford University after turning professional and signing sponsorship deals. The NCAA, in other words, gave up its chance to feature the world’s greatest female swimmer in this year’s championships just so it could cling to an outdated concept of amateurism.

Noted sports economist Andy Schwarz, who along with Huma helped craft SB 206, also pointed out to me recently that the legislation could be a boon to women’s sports overall. How? Under SB 206, universities could sign richer sponsorship deals for men’s basketball and football, because they would be allowed to feature individual athletes. And those bigger deals, in turn, would likely trigger Title IX rules that require funding be shared with women’s college sports programs.

Finally, the Fair Pay to Play Act would not require a dime from California schools or taxpayers, but it would help relieve the substantial pressures on California star athletes to turn pro early, and instead allow them to stay in school and earn their degrees. After all, isn’t that what college sports are supposed to be all about?

[PortlandHawk]

If the NCAA is worried about losing money or other students not getting money , or something, why can’t the NCAA/school get a flat percentage of the total shoe/image deal made by a member of the basketball or football team. That means the team/schools boat rises as the player they sign gets cash. I hope this makes sense.

[jfish26]

If the NCAA is worried about losing money or other students not getting money , or something, why can’t the NCAA/school get a flat percentage of the total shoe/image deal made by a member of the basketball or football team. That means the team/schools boat rises as the player they sign gets cash. I hope this makes sense.

It is certainly true that there are ways to implement this sort of thing where all boats rise (except perhaps coaches' and administrators').

[Deleted User 75]

Ncaa taking a commission sounds right up their alley.

[jfish26]

It'd be a form of rent-seeking, sure, but it's at least closer to the right outcome.

[twocoach]

If the NCAA is worried about losing money or other students not getting money , or something, why can’t the NCAA/school get a flat percentage of the total shoe/image deal made by a member of the basketball or football team. That means the team/schools boat rises as the player they sign gets cash. I hope this makes sense.

Kansas gets $14 million and a ton of uniforms and equipment from Adiidas every year? You think they will still get that money if all their best players are signed with and wearing Nikes?

The notion that this would "cost" schools zero money is patently absurd.

[jfish26]

If the NCAA is worried about losing money or other students not getting money , or something, why can’t the NCAA/school get a flat percentage of the total shoe/image deal made by a member of the basketball or football team. That means the team/schools boat rises as the player they sign gets cash. I hope this makes sense.

Kansas gets $14 million and a ton of uniforms and equipment from Adiidas every year? You think they will still get that money if all their best players are signed with and wearing Nikes?

The notion that this would "cost" schools zero money is patently absurd.

Except when you acknowledge - as you must - that the money to pay players directly is already being spent. It's just being spent very inefficiently, on payoffs to buffoons like Fenny and hangers-on who run AAU programs.

[Deleted User 75]

Some don't seem to get it....Nike would still pay a guy and let them wear team issued Adidas gear during games and official team functions...in fact they are. It's right there in the FBI evidence from trials.

This isn't happening (mainly) because they want the players wearing their gear in college for advertising purposes. They are doing it because they want the players to sign with them with the turn professional. They want to be in good graces with the next Kyrie, Harden, CP3, Lebron, KD, etc.


And it's hilarious that a reason for not changing the rule would be "well then Adidas will give the colleges less". The colleges make plenty.

[Deleted User 75]

Or....we can double down on the rules and everything will go right back to the same tomorrow. Money under the table. Makes no difference to me how the players get it. They're going to get it.

[jfish26]

Or....we can double down on the rules and everything will go right back to the same tomorrow. Money under the table. Makes no difference to me how the players get it. They're going to get it.

I agree they're going to get it.

I disagree that it makes no difference how. Just like a lot of other things, the players getting money in legal, reported and monitored ways is significantly safer for the players and their families. It would also result in the money getting taxed, which is fairer for everyone else.

[twocoach]

Some don't seem to get it....Nike would still pay a guy and let them wear team issued Adidas gear during games and official team functions...in fact they are. It's right there in the FBI evidence from trials.

This isn't happening (mainly) because they want the players wearing their gear in college for advertising purposes. They are doing it because they want the players to sign with them with the turn professional. They want to be in good graces with the next Kyrie, Harden, CP3, Lebron, KD, etc.


And it's hilarious that a reason for not changing the rule would be "well then Adidas will give the colleges less". The colleges make plenty.

"The colleges make plenty". I hate lazy responses like this. So easy for you to spend other peoples money. $10 million a year less means that programs get dropped and upgrades dont happen.

Oh, and in 2017, the University of Kansas Athletic Department posted a $19 million operating deficit. And that's before the huge bills for the KU football facility upgrades come due. So no, they don't "make plenty" to where they can just casually turn away from $10 million a year.

And you really think Adidas would be OK giving Zion $20 million a year while wearing Duke Nike stuff? They would be making a Zion Adidas shoe that Zion wouldn't even be wearing? OK.

[jfish26]

Some don't seem to get it....Nike would still pay a guy and let them wear team issued Adidas gear during games and official team functions...in fact they are. It's right there in the FBI evidence from trials.

This isn't happening (mainly) because they want the players wearing their gear in college for advertising purposes. They are doing it because they want the players to sign with them with the turn professional. They want to be in good graces with the next Kyrie, Harden, CP3, Lebron, KD, etc.


And it's hilarious that a reason for not changing the rule would be "well then Adidas will give the colleges less". The colleges make plenty.

"The colleges make plenty". I hate lazy responses like this. So easy for you to spend other peoples money. $10 million a year less means that programs get dropped and upgrades dont happen.

Oh, and in 2017, the University of Kansas Athletic Department posted a $19 million operating deficit. And that's before the huge bills for the KU football facility upgrades come due. So no, they don't "make plenty" to where they can just casually turn away from $10 million a year.

And you really think Adidas would be OK giving Zion $20 million a year while wearing Duke Nike stuff? They would be making a Zion Adidas shoe that Zion wouldn't even be wearing? OK.

Your points are valid. They're not important enough, though, to keep athletes from getting money.

[twocoach]

Some don't seem to get it....Nike would still pay a guy and let them wear team issued Adidas gear during games and official team functions...in fact they are. It's right there in the FBI evidence from trials.

This isn't happening (mainly) because they want the players wearing their gear in college for advertising purposes. They are doing it because they want the players to sign with them with the turn professional. They want to be in good graces with the next Kyrie, Harden, CP3, Lebron, KD, etc.


And it's hilarious that a reason for not changing the rule would be "well then Adidas will give the colleges less". The colleges make plenty.

"The colleges make plenty". I hate lazy responses like this. So easy for you to spend other peoples money. $10 million a year less means that programs get dropped and upgrades dont happen.

Oh, and in 2017, the University of Kansas Athletic Department posted a $19 million operating deficit. And that's before the huge bills for the KU football facility upgrades come due. So no, they don't "make plenty" to where they can just casually turn away from $10 million a year.

And you really think Adidas would be OK giving Zion $20 million a year while wearing Duke Nike stuff? They would be making a Zion Adidas shoe that Zion wouldn't even be wearing? OK.

Your points are valid. They're not important enough, though, to keep athletes from getting money.

I agree they should get money. I am just responding to these dumb "all ya gotta do is this" comments that act like this is some super easy fix with no bad consequences or impacts.

The folks that have the attention span of a meme think you can just let show companies pay athletes and voila are very shortsighted. There will be negative ripples throughout athletic departments if they aren't very careful in how they implement it.

[jfish26]

100% yes, agree.

[Deleted User 75]

A Democrat saying "so easy to spend other people's money" made me spit out my Polynesian sauce. Holy dumbfuck batman.

[Deleted User 75]

"The colleges make plenty". I hate lazy responses like this. So easy for you to spend other peoples money. $10 million a year less means that programs get dropped and upgrades dont happen.

Oh, and in 2017, the University of Kansas Athletic Department posted a $19 million operating deficit. And that's before the huge bills for the KU football facility upgrades come due. So no, they don't "make plenty" to where they can just casually turn away from $10 million a year.

And you really think Adidas would be OK giving Zion $20 million a year while wearing Duke Nike stuff? They would be making a Zion Adidas shoe that Zion wouldn't even be wearing? OK.

Your points are valid. They're not important enough, though, to keep athletes from getting money.

I agree they should get money. I am just responding to these dumb "all ya gotta do is this" comments that act like this is some super easy fix with no bad consequences or impacts.

The folks that have the attention span of a meme think you can just let show companies pay athletes and voila are very shortsighted. There will be negative ripples throughout athletic departments if they aren't very careful in how they implement it.

Suck. My. Dick.

Nowhere did I say any of that. I just said your comment was dumb because it's already happening (there are Nike guys funneling money to players who end up at Adidas or UA schools,,,I didn't dream that up...it's right there in the FBI evidence..they do it to stay in good standing, build goodwill, and then switch over when they go pro). You literally dreamed the rest up in your mind. As usual.

[Deleted User 75]

And when you say stuff like "paying Zion 20mil a year while in college" it shows how little you actually know....JFC.

Like I said, gameplay is not THAT important. That is only a small part of the advertising and endorsement deals. So yes, I'm sure Nike would be okay if Zion wore Adidas shoes for 2 hours twice a week. As long as they had him once he's pro. Has his own shoe. Commercials. Etc.

[Deleted User 62]

Your points are valid. They're not important enough, though, to keep athletes from getting money.

I agree they should get money. I am just responding to these dumb "all ya gotta do is this" comments that act like this is some super easy fix with no bad consequences or impacts.

The folks that have the attention span of a meme think you can just let show companies pay athletes and voila are very shortsighted. There will be negative ripples throughout athletic departments if they aren't very careful in how they implement it.

Suck. My. Dick.

This? Again?

[Cascadia]

The folks that have the attention span of a meme

That’s Illy

[Deleted User 75]

A clown is always a clown...but what do you call someone who keeps going to the circus only to complain about the clowns?