Should Student-Athletes be paid for their name, image & likeness while scholarships?

[Kung Wu]

The real irony of this whole thing, to me, is members of a Labor Union bemoaning a 3rd party not paying Individual X what the Labor Union member thinks the 3rd party should be paying Individual X, all the while the Labor Union is....wait for it......literally refusing to hire and pay Individual X using, wait for it........age discrimination as the basis.

You're saying they are a bunch of youthists!?

[Shockm]

Just because they're receiving compensation doesn't make them employees. They could very well be considered independent contractors. The line dividing employees and contractors is razor thin, though, and it's been litigated countless times in the court system. I imagine what's happening now will ultimately be litigated as well.

The key, I believe, to this issue and related issues is to get the NBA to eliminate the one and done rule. Getting the pro-ready guys out of college entirely, and making their millions legitimately as soon as possible, greatly reduces (albeit doesn't eliminate) the pressure and opportunity for athletes to make big money while in college.

In basketball at least, if all the players are 4 year guys--or at least 2-3 year guys--with only a hope instead of an expectation of NBA greatness, there's less hype and therefore less money to be made. In essence, they are, you know, student athletes, not NBA guys biding time and sitting out their one year, all the while anxious to get their paycheck.

Football? Well, that's another story--this could spell the end of non-P6 conferences in FBS.

Then medical insurance, etc. wouldn’t have to be a part of their employment.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Yes, plain and simple, no caveats. They should absolutely be allowed to see the benefits of their name and likeness being used. It is essentially their property and as adults, they should be able to monetize it how they wish.

[Cdizzle]

Yes, plain and simple, no caveats. They should absolutely be allowed to see the benefits of their name and likeness being used. It is essentially their property and as adults, they should be able to monetize it how they wish.

Somebody tell the NBA players union.

[pie n eye]

Somebody tell the NBA players union.

Why do you guys keep saying this is a result of a push by the players union?

Sure, they ultimately voted for it but it’s my understanding that the rule was the brainchild of league management and team owners. Most of the players were against it but signed off as a compromise to gain other benefits.

[Kung Wu]

Why do you guys keep saying this is a result of a push by the players union?

Sure, they ultimately voted for it but it’s my understanding that the rule was the brainchild of league management and team owners. Most of the players were against it but signed off as a compromise to gain other benefits.

Looks like it was very clearly the brainchild of Commissioner David Stern. The owners didn't care really.

The union didn't fight it, they just wanted a lot in return for allowing it. Oddly though it looks like you are right that the majority of players were opposed.

So this is a case of the union not really representing their constituents the way you might expect.

From an article in 2005 when Billy Hunter was union director at the time:

Hunter would not say whether an age limit was brought up, but he again said he'd only yield ground on the issue if the union receives something substantial in return.

"I'm flexible on anything if it makes economic sense and improves the overall conditions for my constituents," Hunter said, adding that he believes a majority of current players are opposed to raising the minimum age.

...

"I'm still strongly philosophically opposed to it, and I can't understand why people think one is needed except for the fact that the NBA is viewed as a predominantly black sport," Hunter said.

....

Hunter said based upon his conversations with individual owners, he did not believe an age limit is a "must-have" issue for the league. Nor, he said, would the union let the issue scuttle what would otherwise be a fair agreement.

Side note: I don't understand what raising the age had to do with being a "predominantly black sport"? What's Hunter trying to say there?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Looks like it was very clearly the brainchild of Commissioner David Stern. The owners didn't care really.

The union didn't fight it, they just wanted a lot in return for allowing it. Oddly though it looks like you are right that the majority of players were opposed.

So this is a case of the union not really representing their constituents the way you might expect.

From an article in 2005 when Billy Hunter was union director at the time:

Yeah Stern and the Union passed it pretty quickly. Pretty controversial. There were quite a few kids at the time making the jump but couldnt really swim be it physically or mentally The players
through subsequent CBA's have made out like bandits via max contracts and other perks.

Side note: I don't understand what raising the age had to do with being a "predominantly black sport"? What's Hunter trying to say there?

Do you want to know or are you looking to have your own biases confirmed? You're only gonna get the latter here.

[Cdizzle]

Fair point and response. So let's (hypothetically) say your field was something in science, let's say astrophysics. And your work for the university (which we agree is property of the university) resulted in a substantial breakthrough or discovery. Then let's say someone wanted you to come speak at their event about the breakthrough, and they're willing to compensate you for your speech. Is that fine for an astrophysics student but not fine for an athlete?

Honest question, I'm not trying to set up a logic trap. I'm just trying to think through this issue and find parallels with other university endeavors.

Life is all about choices. I wouldn't have had a problem signing up for full tuition, full room and board, free healthcare, full professional guidance in my non-academic pursuits, with the stipulation that I could not accept money related to my astrophysics fame or endeavors until I was ready to no longer receive those benefits.

People act like there is no choice. Every individual is free to market their likeness and skills whenever they would like. Sometimes there are consequences. This is true in every walk of life.

As an aside, I don't think it would be tough to argue that Zion Williamson made 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars by attending Duke for 1 year. And I say good for him. This is all being made out as a one-way street where every athlete is unwillingly being taken advantage of.

[AZ Shocker]

The pressure will be on for other states to follow California new law. They'll have a competitive recruiting advantage.

What other coaches are saying:
https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizon...50d483fd6.html

[Kung Wu]

Do you want to know or are you looking to have your own biases confirmed? You're only gonna get the latter here.

I really want to know. I really don't understand his position or how he was trying to correlate those two points.

I don't know what "biases" you're implying I have?

[vbird53]

At what point is tuition/cost of attendance/room and board/likeness & exposure profits, taxed?--with the bill sent directly to the student athlete by the IRS. Right now, that bill is $0. If the IRS were to determine the student athlete receives $50,000 yearly (or more), the athlete had better be ready to pay that bill. I'm not just talking about the profits from their image, but the whole enchilada. Setting these athletes up as independent contractors could be/will be entirely detrimental and unfortunate. Also, these athletes had better be ready to perform their autograph signings and other value creating events without any mention of said University in promo or otherwise. University's do not take well to others profiting from the use of their name (issue in reverse).

i.e. athlete should not promote themselves as Quarterback of the Alabama Crimson Tide, unless the University of Alabama is directly compensating said athlete and not Tuscaloosa Ford. Alabama has the rights to its name, not the student, even under these newly crafted laws.

[Kung Wu]

I really want to know. I really don't understand his position or how he was trying to correlate those two points.

I don't know what "biases" you're implying I have?

Edit: Actually, you implying I have a bias about a topic I don't understand, sorta implies YOU have a bias about ME. That's a tangent I don't really care about though. I really have no clue what he is trying to say, and I want to understand his point.

[Dan]

At what point is tuition/cost of attendance/room and board/likeness & exposure profits, taxed?--with the bill sent directly to the student athlete by the IRS. Right now, that bill is $0. If the IRS were to determine the student athlete receives $50,000 yearly (or more), the athlete had better be ready to pay that bill. I'm not just talking about the profits from their image, but the whole enchilada. Setting these athletes up as independent contractors could be/will be entirely detrimental and unfortunate. Also, these athletes had better be ready to perform their autograph signings and other value creating events without any mention of said University in promo or otherwise. University's do not take well to others profiting from the use of their name (issue in reverse).

i.e. athlete should not promote themselves as Quarterback of the Alabama Crimson Tide, unless the University of Alabama is directly compensating said athlete and not Tuscaloosa Ford. Alabama has the rights to its name, not the student, even under these newly crafted laws.

Out of state tuition + room and board is $40-$60k. This does not include the insurance, specialized training, clothing, etc. I'd say around $80k/year all in. If they wanna be pros and get paid, they need to pay taxes like everyone else.

[vbird53]

Out of state tuition + room and board is $40-$60k. This does not include the insurance, specialized training, clothing, etc. I'd say around $80k/year all in. If they wanna be pros and get paid, they need to pay taxes like everyone else.

Could be more than that, I was just throwing a number... it could, maybe should all be taxable income.

[pie n eye]

I’ve always found it humorous that Jay Bilas (I’m not a fan) is a vocal proponent of paying college athletes. He’s made a career and probably a lot of money from discussing college athletics. Should he fork over part of the bill to pay athletes?