Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

Player likeness

bigdawg2223bigdawg2223 Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

If no one has heard there’s a bill in the works to allow players to profit from their likeness. What do you guys think about this?


Very touchy subject I know

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/north-carolina-lawmaker-set-to-introduce-bill-that-would-require-ncaa-to-allow-student-athletes-to-profit-from-likeness/

Comments

  • PharmDawg2054PharmDawg2054 Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I'm all for it, why not get money to sign autographs if you want to? Why not get money to coach a camp during the summer if you want to, etc.

    The school nor the NCAA are giving the players this money, why not let them try to make money on their own if they want to.

  • dawgnmsdawgnms Posts: 5,169 mod

    The University makes money off the players no product to sell to CBS and ESPN without them. Go for it make the money

  • benjaminwgreggbenjaminwgregg Posts: 677 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I'm fine with this, as long as there is some kind of regulation to prevent boosters from using it to entice players to certain schools. Imagine if Phil Knight gave every Oregon recruit a nike endorsement deal?

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 6,761 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I weighed in on this on another thread some weeks back and IIRC I got crucified. Maybe the mods will protect me this time around. 😄

    1. I think college players should benefit from use of their likeness, 100%.
    2. At the same time, I am 100% against paying undergraduate students directly.
    3. I think a fund should be established, and 90% of proceeds from use of player likeness should go into the fund. (The other 10% can go to the cost of administering the fund or to the NCAA, so they still have skin in the game.)
    4. The fund, in turn, should be used to provide:

    (a) additional benefits to college players while they're in school (e.g. job programs, internships, transportation costs, and the like);

    (b) health insurance and disability insurance, especially for players who are injured during their playing careers; and

    (c) post-graduate programs (job training, continuing ed, financial support) for players who don't go on to professional careers.

    In short, I don't think simply paying players is the answer. In my mind, that will totally change things and not necessarily for the better. BUT, I agree with OP and others that the system, and especially the NCAA, is currently and has been for a long time, unfair to college athletes.

    Billions of dollars are being made, and there are so many ways the wealth could be shared in a way that is more equitable. I just wish the NCAA had been proactive about this 40 years ago. At this point it's likely to come down to litigation, which rarely produces the best result.

  • bigdawg2223bigdawg2223 Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Well, I agree that it should be regulated for sure if it happens. I’m not so sure it should though because for the most part it’s JUST going to be football and basketball players. I think if we’re going to pay players for their likeness it should be done one way. Apparel, pictures, etc etc; any money made from that goes to the player. So, jerseys, t-shirts or whatever, the players get a percentage of that and it’s a flat price across all sports. If Jake Fromm’s jersey sells more than Tuas so be it. If this LAX player sells more than this baseball player so be it. I feel like this way it keeps the agents and boosters out of it for the most part

  • CatfishCatfish Posts: 1,703 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Agree, just think an outside entity should administer the fund, the NCAA already makes much more money off these men and women than it deserves.

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The largest chunk of excess money the NCAA produces comes from the basketball tournament and then meechandising and championship ticket sales. Football revenues are controlled by the conferences and individual schools. The NCAA isnt making millions off of the football players, and what they do produce is redistributed to the schools. Only half of the NCAA’s money is distributed to Div 1 schools. The rest goes to the little guys. Of those, approximately zero of the athletics programs are profitable.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    It's LONG overdue.

    If it does pass and schools avoid paying by not using players' likeness, I'd advise players to sit out a game or 2 to get administrators' attention.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    bigdawg. There's no viable reason why only football and basketball would be included. Just make it a per sale benefit like any business. Those who bring in the most revenue would benefit the most, welcome to America.

  • bigdawg2223bigdawg2223 Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I meant football and basketball would be making the money more than other sports. Which I believe in turn would cause other sports to cry foul. Which is a whole other can of worms. Btw your statements are kind of contradicting aren’t they? You advise players to sit out if colleges don’t use their likeness but those that bring in the most revenue benefit the most? I could see it the other way if colleges don’t use players likeness they’re going to lose a little bit of money but won’t have to pander to the divas. It’s a very slippery slope no matter how you look at it. I think money would ruin what college football is and I don’t like that the government is stepping in on this. In my opinion the government has no business forcing this even if players should be paid.

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The big schools would benefit the most and would find ways to artficially boost “revenue”

    Yella Wood woild start stamping player’s likeness on the ends of pieces of lumber.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited March 2019

    bigdawg, no doubt allowing the market to dictate profits would sew the seeds of discontent, again though, welcome to America.

    Hell I'm discontent over a baseball player who really contributes little to society getting a 330 million dollar contract. It's the worst system other than any other system ever attempted by mankind.

  • bigdawg2223bigdawg2223 Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Can’t argue with that logic, Hell im ok with paying them 330 million but pay our teachers more than 30k a year.

  • Acrum21Acrum21 Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    "Come try our new Nick Fairley 6x6's. They're foundation you need for your next d-line or back porch"

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The idea it's in big programs' interest to pay players for the use of their likeness seems incorrect to me. They already have huge markup on items with players' jersey numbers on them. Their resistance to profit sharing will be a dirty fight if it comes to that.

  • FirePlugDawgFirePlugDawg Posts: 5,480 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Likeness - what are typical player "likenesses" that the colleges use?

    Likeness that counts for a player share would be something other than normal sport promotion. Things like roster pictures (even if in a retail program or memento book), group/team photos, and candid snaps of players used to illustrate online or press releases should NOT count as a likeness qualifying for compensation. The tricky one is a photo used in a team/school advertisement, perhaps. Might depend on the copy with it. "See Fleet O'Foot break his x record, this week" Yes? No? If Fleet posed for a photo but the ad copy doesn't mention him - Yes?

    Merchandise would always qualify for compensation. A banner with Fleet's name or likeness would qualify. Photographs for framing - same thing. Probably not an item with a team photo - ?

    Then there is player initiated efforts. Not keen on that. Sell autographs/merchandise? Get an endorsement deal? Not for me.

Sign In or Register to comment.