Instead of giving money to the University directly, they can give money to Jerseys etc. which has the players likeness and part goes to the player. This will take money from the overall sports budget which will hurt all sports, mostly the Olympic sports.
California legalizes college athlete endorsements
- Thread starter simply1
- Start date
What is the percentage of D1 athletes who could externally make money off of their name/image.... Less than 1%?
You don't think local businesses will eat this up? The 1% you must mean profit nationally?
Less than 0.01%. According to the NCAA there are 460,000 D1 student-athletes.
http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes
Last edited:
Big donor could and will find a way. IMO
There are many schools out there with donors chomping at the bit to pay high end talent to come to their schools, unfortunately ISU doesn't have donors capable ($$) of that.
Gavin Newsom:
Why not both? Because a money free for all will destroy the sport, period. Programs with money already have advantages, and some schools are already cheating to an extent but it would become insurmountable under this free for all.
99% of athletes are already receiving far more than their actual athletic market value as-is with their current benefits. They are free to go hit the G-league or overseas if they feel they can make more, but there's a reason they don't now: there's no better offer than what NCAA institutions provide right now in terms of benefits and exposure.
Schools that can afford to offer them will still offer them. The vast majority of schools lose money on athletics.
This could go bad in a lot of different ways. Simply injecting more money into a system only makes it more corrupt.
Last edited:
No, just a way for them to bring in more income tax.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
Give me a break. We're already in a money free for all, and college sports are doing just fine. Don't give me that tired "Destroy the sport" nonsense.
Let's just limit it to ISU. 570 athletes. I'm just going to ballpark 30 of those athletes could probably make a little bit of money off of some appearance fees and small time local commercials. Nothing substantial but a little extra side cash. Maybe, a few guys like Purdy and Tyrese could make more than that. None of them are relevant enough to make serious cash on national endoresements.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
This law costs the schools nothing, though. They aren't paying for anything more than they already are. It's not pay for play. It simply allows the athletes to make money off of their likeness if they are able. The school doesn't pay them.
Exactly. The amount of athletes this law would positively impact is minuscule compared to the amount of athletes that would be negatively affected.
We really arent though. The nonsense is entirely on your end. You've bought into this ******** that the athletes are somehow deprived here, when any analysis of the situation shows that all but the top few players receive more from institutions than their actual market value. The tiny percent that have more market value than the NCAA is already offering are free to go elsewhere and find a better option if they want. I mean, look at g-league players, making 35k\year, and realize that 99% of college basketball players arent even good enough to make those rosters. Yet athletes generally receive somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k in benefits per year, more than a lot of them will receive once they graduate..
Things can always get worse. Sure, some programs have advantages now, but things arent as lopsided as say womens basketball is. That's the future for MBB and FB with this. A small number of programs that can gobble up the talent even moreso than now, paying players that would be starters elsewhere to come ride the pine for a few years in exchange for guarantees of large 'likeness' money. Players often have offers from better schools but turn it down to play immediately at a school like iowa state. Suddenly sitting for 3 years is a better offer when it comes with 100k\year attached.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,126
- 29,380
- 113
Are you serious? How many years in a row have we seen Alabama and Clemson in the playoff? It's already ridiculously lopsided, man. This law won't break anything that isn't already broken.
So what happens in the case where a school is currently full on scholly's but arranges endorsement deals to pay for high end athletes to walk on (endorsement will pay all school costs plus thousand in spending money)?
Essentially it is going back to the days of no scholarship limits.
Essentially it is going back to the days of no scholarship limits.
