Name and Likeness Law Signed by Kemp

[85Escape]

It kind of blows my mind some of y'all are so upset about these kids getting paid. The NCAA makes billions and these schools make millions of dollars and y'all don't think the actual product should get any piece of that?

And please don't come at me with the "they get a scholarship, meals, a place to sleep and workout, and some cool swag." Go spend a week in the life of an athlete at GT and you might think about it differently. Once TV took over college athletics (especially football), the whole amateur thing went out the window. The top 15 schools gross over $1.5 billion in revenue. The bottom 5 (power 5) schools gross close to $150 million. Those aren't quite NFL numbers, but it's not quite amateur numbers either.

I'll add that unless you're a football player or Mark Texeira type player in another sport, the school doesn't give a crap about you after you leave. It may have gotten better, but I spent the better half of a decade chasing a dream playing minor league baseball after my Junior year and when I tried to come back to school the AA wouldn't even help me get signed up for classes. I had to go through the regular channels (which I had never done in the past) to try and figure out how to finish my degree.

So I'm sorry if you don't like the kids getting paid, but save the small few, the school doesn't care about most of the athletes that come through their programs anyway. If they can make some money while making the school millions, I'm all for it.

I also understand most of it will be for the best football players, but even if some of the better baseball, golf or other sport players can even use get some free meals or a little cash in their pocket, it's better than nothing.

TL/DR; Most arguments for NIL are weak. One is not. It is enough.

I'm conflicted about the whole thing because, like so many things in life, it's not a simple situation. Yes, I can see the argument that 'the schools make <insert large sums of revenue and pretend it is profit> dollars a year on TV contracts' and the 'kids get nothing.' It typically goes pretty much along the lines of: "X makes $$$. -> They are so greedy and undeserving. -> The 'kids' get nothing (because 'do it for the kids never gets old'. -> They are being exploited. -> They deserve a piece of the pie. -> etc."

That whole argument train is so tired and flawed that I fail to take it seriously and it really pushes me to be against the NIL push. Frankly, to me, it reeks of victim-mentality with a hidden subtext of race-baiting. Pretty much the standard 'us against The Man' weakness that dominates American society at the moment.

The truth is that everyone involved in this affair knows pretty much what they signed up for, and it's a cooperative attempt to take advantage of American love for sports to get what they (parents, kids, schools, networks) can out of it. In 99+% of cases the SAs were THRILLED to get the free-ride to school in exchange for playing a sport representing the school. Another kid would be more than happy to take that free ride, and for 95% of athletes the drop-off in performance likely wouldn't be all-that great (bell-curves are awesome that way.) I would have been more than thrilled, personally, to exchange a 20 hour a week (on average) job for _complete_ free ride to school. So to discount that really, really weakens the argument of those who are baffled by those who oppose the NIL question.

And the vast majority of people who argue against NIL rules really have zero problem seeing others 'get theirs.' To argue otherwise is just standard straw-man tactics and not even a very subtle attempt at that. Most people who are opposed to NIL are fighting for the very concept of amateur athletics. The reasonable arguments against NIL are attempts to fight the slippery slope of the 'money sports' going from amateur to professional. I think it's a legitimate concern for Basketball and Football; although likely too late.

All that being said, there is one legitimate argument that comes down hard on the NIL question. That is, any college kid can get a job while in college and be paid. That includes Student Athletes that are on scholarship as long as the pay is reasonably connected to actual work (and not just a booster-job.) So SAs should be allowed to take jobs as 'models' (for instance) in that situation, right? So the fact that their notoriety stems from their athletic performance should not be a determining factor if they can take a job selling their name, image or likeness, just like they can sell their time today. In fact, I'm not even sure rules should have been needed, as I can't see how schools or the NCAA can restrict a player from getting compensated for being a model or selling a product with their name on it. So, I think that SA's should be able to be fairly compensated for their NIL as I think it is a job just like any other. But that should not, in my opinion, include being paid by the school itself for their NIL related to the sport activity that they have signed a contract to participate in exchange for an education.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So, for those who are more knowledgeable about this: how much money do you think our guys are going to be able to get for their NIL?

I'm still not sure how much actual impact this will make for most of these guys.

 

[forensicbuzz]

So, for those who are more knowledgeable about this: how much money do you think our guys are going to be able to get for their NIL?

I'm still not sure how much actual impact this will make for most of these guys.

It's going to depend on whether this is an avenue boosters are going to be able to exploit to funnel money to the kids. If it is, I could see hundreds to thousands to starters, with a few kids making decent money. The fact that they can't touch the money until after they graduate is the wildcard here. That may make it to where only a select few actually make bank.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The fact that they can't touch the money until after they graduate is the wildcard here.

I didn't see that in the text of the law. Where is that stated? The only thing I see is that if the 75% is withheld it is to be dispersed after they leave or for former players who have left.

 

[GT_EE78]

So, for those who are more knowledgeable about this: how much money do you think our guys are going to be able to get for their NIL?

I'm still not sure how much actual impact this will make for most of these guys.

back in the good ole days (when it was just a bag of cash that the rest of us didn't have to hear about) the "shoe guys" seemed to set star salaries in the $50K to $100K range - so thats what i'd guess from 3rd parties for an average 5star guy. Zion or a Heisman candidate could go much higher. The Cali state law capped college provided benefits (beyond tuition,room,board) at $6K annually.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

back in the good ole days (when it was just a bag of cash that the rest of us didn't have to hear about) the "shoe guys" seemed to set star salaries in the $50K to $100K range - so thats what i'd guess from 3rd parties for an average 5star guy. Zion or a Heisman candidate could go much higher. The Cali state law capped college provided benefits (beyond tuition,room,board) at $6K annually.

That's all well and good, but how much do you think a player like Sims or Gibbs could reasonably expect to negotiate their NIL from a legit company like Coke, Waffle House, Chick-Fil-A, etc.?

 

[85Escape]

I wish they'd just pay all SA's a stipend for living expenses. Maybe $30k/year. All equal pay for being a SA. Or maybe stepped for years at the school to encourage them to stay at the same school. But it would break most schools and cause schools to stop non-revenue generating athletics. Which would increase T9 issues. It certainly feels like a death spiral at this point.

 

[ncjacket79]

TL/DR; Most arguments for NIL are weak. One is not. It is enough.

I'm conflicted about the whole thing because, like so many things in life, it's not a simple situation. Yes, I can see the argument that 'the schools make <insert large sums of revenue and pretend it is profit> dollars a year on TV contracts' and the 'kids get nothing.' It typically goes pretty much along the lines of: "X makes $$$. -> They are so greedy and undeserving. -> The 'kids' get nothing (because 'do it for the kids never gets old'. -> They are being exploited. -> They deserve a piece of the pie. -> etc."

That whole argument train is so tired and flawed that I fail to take it seriously and it really pushes me to be against the NIL push. Frankly, to me, it reeks of victim-mentality with a hidden subtext of race-baiting. Pretty much the standard 'us against The Man' weakness that dominates American society at the moment.

The truth is that everyone involved in this affair knows pretty much what they signed up for, and it's a cooperative attempt to take advantage of American love for sports to get what they (parents, kids, schools, networks) can out of it. In 99+% of cases the SAs were THRILLED to get the free-ride to school in exchange for playing a sport representing the school. Another kid would be more than happy to take that free ride, and for 95% of athletes the drop-off in performance likely wouldn't be all-that great (bell-curves are awesome that way.) I would have been more than thrilled, personally, to exchange a 20 hour a week (on average) job for _complete_ free ride to school. So to discount that really, really weakens the argument of those who are baffled by those who oppose the NIL question.

And the vast majority of people who argue against NIL rules really have zero problem seeing others 'get theirs.' To argue otherwise is just standard straw-man tactics and not even a very subtle attempt at that. Most people who are opposed to NIL are fighting for the very concept of amateur athletics. The reasonable arguments against NIL are attempts to fight the slippery slope of the 'money sports' going from amateur to professional. I think it's a legitimate concern for Basketball and Football; although likely too late.

All that being said, there is one legitimate argument that comes down hard on the NIL question. That is, any college kid can get a job while in college and be paid. That includes Student Athletes that are on scholarship as long as the pay is reasonably connected to actual work (and not just a booster-job.) So SAs should be allowed to take jobs as 'models' (for instance) in that situation, right? So the fact that their notoriety stems from their athletic performance should not be a determining factor if they can take a job selling their name, image or likeness, just like they can sell their time today. In fact, I'm not even sure rules should have been needed, as I can't see how schools or the NCAA can restrict a player from getting compensated for being a model or selling a product with their name on it. So, I think that SA's should be able to be fairly compensated for their NIL as I think it is a job just like any other. But that should not, in my opinion, include being paid by the school itself for their NIL related to the sport activity that they have signed a contract to participate in exchange for an education.

Just to be clear you realize none of the NIL laws allow for the school to pay athletes right? As best I can tell that’s your concern and that’s not what has been proposed.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Just to be clear you realize none of the NIL laws allow for the school to pay athletes right? As best I can tell that’s your concern and that’s not what has been proposed.

See, I didn't get that from his post. My takeaway is that non-athletes can go out and get a job. Any job. Anywhere. They can work at McDonalds or even get a high paying gig with a company in the degree field they are working in. For instance, my son-in-law, who graduates this Thursday with a Computer Science degree from Augusta University, has been working for two years for a local IT firm making $15 an hour as a part time employee. Nothing prevents a regular student from doing that. It's against ALL NCAA RULES for a student athlete to do so, however, and that is the major unfairness in this situation.

 

[GT_EE78]

That's all well and good, but how much do you think a player like Sims or Gibbs could reasonably expect to negotiate their NIL from a legit company like Coke, Waffle House, Chick-Fil-A, etc.?

I don't know of any benchmark for that so it's just speculation.
4star guys would only have value for local or in-state advertising.
maybe 10K to 30K annually from corporations ............
but then how would you exclude the "shoe guys", future agents and booster owned small businesses?

 

[forensicbuzz]

See, I didn't get that from his post. My takeaway is that non-athletes can go out and get a job. Any job. Anywhere. They can work at McDonalds or even get a high paying gig with a company in the degree field they are working in. Nothing prevents a regular student from doing that. It's against ALL NCAA RULES for a student athlete to do so, however, and that is the major unfairness in this situation.

All student-athletes can go get a high-paying gig in their degree field as long as the pay is commensurate with the work being performed. So, if one of our guys was a computer science guy and got a gig writing apps that went viral, he could make plenty money.

What they can't do is go get a job at some engineering consulting firm or whatever and get paid at a rate inconsistent with the work he's doing. Our kids have summer internships that pay decent money all the time. It's just decent money for what an intern makes. Part of the problem is that with their sport, they already have a second job.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I don't know of any benchmark for that so it's just speculation.
4star guys would only have value for local or in-state advertising.
maybe 10K to 30K annually from corporations ............
but then how would you exclude the "shoe guys", future agents and booster owned small businesses?

So do you think there are players at every school that can garner this kind of new revenue from companies that didn't have this expenditure budgeted already, or will there only be a few players nationwide that can garner that kind of deal? I'd honestly be shocked if you see a normal 4* get more than $5k a year and that only as insurance to lock him in in case he explodes on the scene. The Trevor Lawrences and Zion Williamsons probably make bank. Companies simply can't afford to dole out that much cash to hundreds of players each year.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't know of any benchmark for that so it's just speculation.
4star guys would only have value for local or in-state advertising.
maybe 10K to 30K annually from corporations ............
but then how would you exclude the "shoe guys", future agents and booster owned small businesses?

That's the rub with it all. Do you exclude them? Can you exclude them? Should you exclude them?

 

[Coloradojacket]

This whole thing is really getting stupid. We are talking about 1% of 1% of Student Athletes. Right now we have no one on the roster who will bring in any extra money and we will get no one. No one went to more Clemson games because of Trevor Lawrence. He is gone and I promise you the stadium will be full again next year. One might argue, "well Trevor helped get us to the National Championship", and I would counter saying that there were 5 big uglies up front that did more to accomplish that than a QB. If you are a great player, the NFL is waiting for you in 3 years. So I contend a lot of legislatures and people are wasting their time on this. Players are paid to play now. Free scholarship, stipend and room and board. And if you state, well they make millions for the school, so what, the guy programming at Amazon making 60k over in India makes billions for his company. It is their choice to do so.

 

[Lotta Booze]

We are talking about 1% of 1% of Student Athletes. Right now we have no one on the roster who will bring in any extra money and we will get no one.

I don't believe this is true at all

 

[85Escape]

Yeah, my point in the too-long post above is that SA's can get a job as long as it is pay that is reasonable for the work. I can't understand why we need special laws allowing that work to be selling their image or likeness, nor why their name on a product makes it a violation of NCAA rules. As long as the compensation is commiserate with the work/product, then it should be okay. So, for Trevor, he should have been able to sell his likeness as long as it wasn't in a Clemson jersey. Some car dealer could have been able to put up on a sign saying "Trevor Likes My Cars!", right? No picture, just the name "Trevor" would be enough in the Uplands and the Low Country. As long as the pay is within reason for someone with his national exposure, I don't see how that is a violation of his amateur status. Now...when he does it as a player then it is a different situation.

Let's take the hypothetical and say that Jamie Foxx's kid (no idea if he has one) is a great basketball player and wants to play for Tech. We recruit him and (as part of one of his dad's connections) he is on an advertisement for toothpaste. Should he not be able to sell his likeness suddenly when he signs an athletic scholarship? That'd be weird, and the NCAA would lose that lawsuit I suspect. So why just JF's kid? As long as they are using their NIL as a player than I really fail to see how NCAA amateur rules apply. Any lawyers want to educamate me? What are the rules for amateur status..what things can you do and what things can't you do?

 

[WreckinGT]

Yeah, my point in the too-long post above is that SA's can get a job as long as it is pay that is reasonable for the work. I can't understand why we need special laws allowing that work to be selling their image or likeness, nor why their name on a product makes it a violation of NCAA rules. As long as the compensation is commiserate with the work/product, then it should be okay. So, for Trevor, he should have been able to sell his likeness as long as it wasn't in a Clemson jersey. Some car dealer could have been able to put up on a sign saying "Trevor Likes My Cars!", right? No picture, just the name "Trevor" would be enough in the Uplands and the Low Country. As long as the pay is within reason for someone with his national exposure, I don't see how that is a violation of his amateur status. Now...when he does it as a player then it is a different situation.

Let's take the hypothetical and say that Jamie Foxx's kid (no idea if he has one) is a great basketball player and wants to play for Tech. We recruit him and (as part of one of his dad's connections) he is on an advertisement for toothpaste. Should he not be able to sell his likeness suddenly when he signs an athletic scholarship? That'd be weird, and the NCAA would lose that lawsuit I suspect. So why just JF's kid? As long as they are using their NIL as a player than I really fail to see how NCAA amateur rules apply. Any lawyers want to educamate me? What are the rules for amateur status..what things can you do and what things can't you do?

From the NCAA rules:

The student-athlete's compensation does not include any remuneration for value or utility that the student-athlete may have for the employer because of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following that he or she has obtained because of athletics ability;

It's impossible for any athlete to take on any paid promotional role that doesn't violate that.

 

[85Escape]

From the NCAA rules:

It's impossible for any athlete to take on any paid promotional role that doesn't violate that.

Thanks. So there's that. Seems like it would be hard to enforce if put to the right test (say perhaps the case of someone who got paid to be a model in HS and then signed a scholarship.)

I wonder how this applies to something like YouTube. So if a SA created a YouTube account and got re-numerated for the number of views, where would that fall? What if the content was playing video games, but it was reasonable that they got a big following due to their role on the Lacrosse team for UVA? How about other medium where popularity is a way to generate income, although it is more self-employed rather than 'for an employer'. Hmm.

Dunno, seems like you could easily design a situation that would cause the NCAA all sorts of trouble.

 

[GT_EE78]

but then how would you exclude the "shoe guys", future agents and booster owned small businesses?

That's the rub with it all. Do you exclude them? Can you exclude them? Should you exclude them?

I have doubts that anyone would be able to exclude them.

So do you think there are players at every school that can garner this kind of new revenue from companies that didn't have this expenditure budgeted already, or will there only be a few players nationwide that can garner that kind of deal? I'd honestly be shocked if you see a normal 4* get more than $5k a year and that only as insurance to lock him in in case he explodes on the scene. The Trevor Lawrences and Zion Williamsons probably make bank. Companies simply can't afford to dole out that much cash to hundreds of players each year.

Sure, I'd expect QB,RB and WR at a P5 school to have value and get offers.
I have doubt that unplanned budget would limit them much, they probably already have ROI models ready for when the legal dust settles.
I can't disagree with your estimate but guess that you're assuming "today's value" plus some contract duration limit.
I don't see what would stop a shoe company from writing say a six year contract with signing bonus that could extend into one's potential pro career.
If it was you that said something about "unintended consequences" then i agree with that bigly.

 

[ncjacket79]

See, I didn't get that from his post. My takeaway is that non-athletes can go out and get a job. Any job. Anywhere. They can work at McDonalds or even get a high paying gig with a company in the degree field they are working in. For instance, my son-in-law, who graduates this Thursday with a Computer Science degree from Augusta University, has been working for two years for a local IT firm making $15 an hour as a part time employee. Nothing prevents a regular student from doing that. It's against ALL NCAA RULES for a student athlete to do so, however, and that is the major unfairness in this situation.

I get that just pointing out that the concern he seemed to have about schools paying athletes will still not be allowed under any of the NIL laws that have been passed or proposed.