Reply to "California Lawmakers Vote to Undo N.C.A.A. Amateurism"

NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

×
×
×
×