Jump to content


Do you support allowing college athletes to be paid for ''their likeness''?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

The video game was abolished years ago due to a lawsuit.  Can you provide a CURRENT and specific example of someone profiting off of the image of a player's likeness?  

What if espn runs a commercials leading up to a match up of ranked teams and they show players from those teams in the commercial. Espn gets money from running adds during that game that people are watching because of the players participating in it.

 

I have no problem with espn, fox , cbs or nbc having to compensate players in some way.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

45 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

If these multi billion dollar companies are going to continue to make insane amounts of money off the players they deserve a cut. In what other scenario does a company make so much money without compensating the people featured? 

 

However, I think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't lead to recruiting advantages. Otherwise you'll see power even more consolidated and it'll be the same schools getting the best recruits and winning over and over again. So, I don't think the money can come from the schools and maybe not even the NCAA.

 

Well, if universities have to pay players, that could mean less money for scholarships in other sports.  But maybe that's fair because, the truth is, other athletes benefit from the popularity of revenue sports.  Perhaps the money being spent on their scholarships should actually instead go to the players who are bringing in the fans.  We call that capitalism.  

Link to comment
Just now, LumberJackSker said:

What if espn runs a commercials leading up to a match up of ranked teams and they show players from those teams in the commercial. Espn gets money from running adds during that game that people are watching because of the players participating in it.

 

I have no problem with espn, fox , cbs or nbc having to compensate players in some way.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with paying college players, but I hope our beloved game of college football isn't detrimentally affected.  I presume that it would be as a result of government trying to manage it.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

The video game was abolished years ago due to a lawsuit.  Can you provide a CURRENT and specific example of someone profiting off of the image of a player's likeness?  

Nike and Adidas make a lot of money selling shoes and other items which college athletes wear. Nike got so much free publicity when Zion Williamson went thru his shoe this past season. Williamson didn’t get a dime (legally) from Nike despite being a walking billboard for Nike products while at Duke. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Nike and Adidas make a lot of money selling shoes and other items which college athletes wear. Nike got so much free publicity when Zion Williamson went thru his shoe this past season. Williamson didn’t get a dime (legally) from Nike despite being a walking billboard for Nike products while at Duke. 

That's a sponsorship though and the kids agreed to it when they signed their LOI.  You think Duke should just go sew their own shoes and or jerseys?  The NFL players dont get anything from their (the NFL) sponsors, when the uniforms are made by Nike, Adidas etc.  Kids teams get sponsors to buy uniforms for teams, should those sponsors now have to pay the kids because they go to a state title game and wear the uniform some small company helped pay for and have their logo showing their support for said sponsors?  In my mind those are completely different things.

Link to comment

I don't support paying college players or unrestrained profiting  from their likeness. It's collegiate amateur sports and I'd prefer it stay that way. Any player who doesn't like being "used" and "profited" from is free to forego their scholarship and all the other preferential treatment that comes with it and they can go pro.  It's pretty simple, if a college education with all kinds of help, tutors, housing, top notch food and nutrition, stipends etc. isn't enough reimbursement, nobody is forcing them to participate in that servitude. It doesn't matter how many millions schools or others are making. If ya don't like it, go out in the real world and see how much better you can do. Nobody is stopping them. Why? Because it is going to ruin the college game when we go down that path. We've already got more than enough professional sports leagues, college sports don't need to become another.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
19 hours ago, K9Buck said:

Virtually everything government touches ends up costing more and delivering less.

 

Again, false.

 

You asked for examples of "what isn't detrimentally affected once the government decides to step in and take over." The people who live in cities that were filled with smog 30-40 years ago think the Clean Air Act is great. My mom thinks Medicare is great. Having highways to drive on and a police force and a fire department are all great things. If these things were done for profit there would be a crapton of small towns that didn't have them. People take what they get due to the government for granted.

 

Sometimes policies preventing people from being cheated, hurt, or killed do cost companies some extra money, but that doesn't mean said policies are "delivering less."

 

 

Also, it's really weird to me that you're okay with the NCAA telling players they can't make money off their own likeness but you're mad about the government taking things over.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

That's a sponsorship though and the kids agreed to it when they signed their LOI.  You think Duke should just go sew their own shoes and or jerseys?  The NFL players dont get anything from their (the NFL) sponsors, when the uniforms are made by Nike, Adidas etc.  Kids teams get sponsors to buy uniforms for teams, should those sponsors now have to pay the kids because they go to a state title game and wear the uniform some small company helped pay for and have their logo showing their support for said sponsors?  In my mind those are completely different things.

 

This is patently flawed b/c even though you say NFL players don't get anything from the NFL sponsorships that is just flat wrong.  The salary cap is based off of league wide revenue so NFL sponsors and their funds are baked into the cap number.  The higher the sponsorship payments, the higher the cap grows, the higher contracts will grow.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Omaha-Husker said:

 

This is patently flawed b/c even though you say NFL players don't get anything from the NFL sponsorships that is just flat wrong.  The salary cap is based off of league wide revenue so NFL sponsors and their funds are baked into the cap number.  The higher the sponsorship payments, the higher the cap grows, the higher contracts will grow.

What about the rest of my post then?  When Nike says you get no more than this, salary cap is now stuck, no more money, so in sense no more they can do.  These are amateur sports and if you accept payments or gifts of any kind you are no longer an amateur.  Can't wait for high schoolers claiming they need to get paid because they wore some team sponsors insignia on their jersey.  Next thing you know league teams request money to go for their paid for uniforms.  If California's crap goes through and the NCAA lets other schools do it, this is the end of college football all together as it is no longer a somewhat level playing field.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Because it is going to ruin the college game when we go down that path.

 

 

I think this is the most important part of the argument. We want college football to stay college football, regardless of whether it's right to pay the players or not, or to pay them more than just what they get from the scholarships, etc. I think a large part of it is selfishness and I'm one of the selfish people so I don't fault people for that. I've never really liked the NFL. I like the bands, and that they're not all gonna make it to the pros, and that there are big underdogs who can pull off impossible upsets.

 

So on one side I have the fact I want it to remain an amateur sport, and on the other it seems wrong for people to make millions/billions of profit off of players who are getting tens of thousands. Especially if part of it is off their own likeness. It's hard for me to imagine not getting pissed that I can't sell my own photo.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

3 hours ago, LumberJackSker said:

Does a star quarterback for a national title contender get more than a backup on a bottom feeder from the sun belt?

I think this is the whole point. If the schools paid players, they'd probably have to pay every athlete of every sport of every gender the same.

 

If they allow players to profit off their likeness, then it's just the Olympic model. So yeah, a USC starting quarterback is going to have far more opportunities than the backup QB or the starter at Wyoming. Plus, the schools get to keep more money this way.

 

I think this will happen sooner than later. 

Link to comment

I think a percentage of DIRECT sales of jerseys, posters, autographs, etc etc should go in to a fund for a player once they graduate or have been out of school more than 3 years (or some number like that)

 

schools, tv, merchandisers, etc do make a crap ton of money off of athletes. So let’s say Martinez jersey sells $450,000 worth. His autographs sell $20,000 and because of a sweet BCS bowl other merchandisers sell $10,000. That’s $480,000 in his collegiate lifetime. 

 

If if he gets 10% of that after completion of school or after being gone for 3 yrs I have no problem with that. $48k? Tucked away in an escrow account that he’ll pay taxes on when he receives it? 

 

Now lets say Mo Barry sells $120,000 worth of merch in 4 yrs at 10%. $12k sounds good to me. 

 

Caleb Lightborn was here for 3 yrs and sold $8k. He transferred and won’t sell a dime at his new school let’s say. But he finishes school/degree and gets a check from his escrow for $800. 

 

Sounds about right. Make up any numbers you want or %.  I don’t see a problem with it if there’s a gap when they get paid.  

 

Or

 

they get nothing and like it. Just the way it is is fine with me too. I didn’t get any money from playing college football, it was just fine. 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

What about the rest of my post then?  When Nike says you get no more than this, salary cap is now stuck, no more money, so in sense no more they can do.  These are amateur sports and if you accept payments or gifts of any kind you are no longer an amateur.  Can't wait for high schoolers claiming they need to get paid because they wore some team sponsors insignia on their jersey.  Next thing you know league teams request money to go for their paid for uniforms.  If California's crap goes through and the NCAA lets other schools do it, this is the end of college football all together as it is no longer a somewhat level playing field.

 

We can throw they NFL thing out b/c they can sign with non Nike brands.  Brady is an Under Armor guy on-top of the league revenue cap thing. 

 

IMO I don't think the universities paying the athletes across the board is actually the move that matters as much, like it has been said the universities offer a lot with scholarships and that will be enough for a lot of people.  What I entirely support is people owning the rights to their likeness and being able to profit off of that.   If Adrian Martinez or Jazz Sweet can get a sponsorship deal to market themselves then more power to them.  If Roby could have hosted an autograph session at the outlet mall for 20 bucks a pop who cares.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...