GOP rep to introduce bill allowing NCAA athletes to profit from their likeness

ronnie mund

ronnie mund

Well-known member
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...g-ncaa-athletes-to-profit-from-their-likeness

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) said Thursday he plans to introduce legislation that would allow NCAA student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness.
Click to expand...

Walker argued that NCAA member schools would not be required to pay athletes themselves, but merely lift restrictions on student-athletes' earning potential.
Click to expand...

Thoughts? Personally I think this is the best outcome possible for this situation. Paying players is an impossible task, but there's no reason guys like Tua, Haskins, and Lawrence, who help bring in hundreds of millions for their schools, shouldn't be able to cash-in on it.
 
 
If it helps bring back the NCAA Football videogames, I'm all for it. Not sure that this bill will actually help the chances of that or hinder it.
 
This gets them around title 9 and paying women/nonrevenue sports


I doubt this fixes anything though. Now you can have boosters pay them essentially whatever they want
 
Arrogate said:
This gets them around title 9 and paying women/nonrevenue sports


I doubt this fixes anything though. Now you can have boosters pay them essentially whatever they want
Click to expand...

Bingo! We beat this dead horse over, and over and over....it's not that people don't want or feel the student athletes should get something for college sports that makes millions for their school, but it's the under - dirty side that would suddenly have free rein and boosters would have an open checkbook on paying recruits. It's the same issue we had 60-70 years ago.

Tua, Haskins, Lawrence will make their money in due time. How about we just keep college sports as it is now. You can't pay everybody, so just don't pay anybody. These kids get plenty, and the good ones are setting up their pro sports careers.
 
14Red said:
Bingo! We beat this dead horse over, and over and over....it's not that people don't want or feel the student athletes should get something for college sports that makes millions for their school, but it's the under - dirty side that would suddenly have free rein and boosters would have an open checkbook on paying recruits. It's the same issue we had 60-70 years ago.

Tua, Haskins, Lawrence will make their money in due time. How about we just keep college sports as it is now. You can't pay everybody, so just don't pay anybody. These kids get plenty, and the good ones are setting up their pro sports careers.
Click to expand...

What is your argument against letting players make money off their own likeness? That way the schools don't have to pay everybody.
 
There really is no "good" way of going about IMO.

I know this wouldn't really be feasible but let's say they can make money on their likeness. I would think one way of maybe curtailing rampant payments would be for any money to be reported to a third party (not the ncaa). That money made bc of their likeness would go to into a defacto trust fund where it can't be touched until they leave school, run out of eligibility, or reach a certain age. Allow a monthly stipend to be given to the player from this fund but not allow them to have complete access to the money while in school. Also maybe have a max amount they can make over their college career to curtail huge payments

This isnt really a good idea IMO bc there is still a lot of loopholes and it wouldn't prevent boosters from paying absurd amounts but maybe it curtails it somewhat.

Yes I understand this is essentially "liberal" viewpoint in managing their money.
 
Obviously there should be exceptions in withdrawing money. For example a family member needs money for medical bills

I think something like this idea would be a compromise all parties could agree to. By no means is it perfect but it is infinetly better than the system we have now.

Just look at Will Wade's comments about the offer he gave Smart. He implied he didnt sign right away bc he didnt give Smart's handler enough money bc most of it was going to smart's family and not his advisor.

This way players and their family get the money and not AAU coaches and money hounds who have little interest for the well being of the player
 
Athletes should be able to monetize themselves. Any argument against it is fighting the wrong battle.

As for the booster problem, a couple of things off the top of my head that may help. First, make it so a player must have signed with a program before they can be in contact with boosters or monetize their college football career with harsh penalties. This would hopefully reduce recruit tampering. Second, make it against the rules for boosters to give money directly to a specific player. If boosters want to dump money into the program, great. They can send it to the AD who can spend it on the football program as a whole. Third, there needs to be regulation on exorbitant compensation. Doing a local TV spot probably shouldn't see players rolling away in new Cadillacs.
 
Arrogate said:
There really is no "good" way of going about IMO.

I know this wouldn't really be feasible but let's say they can make money on their likeness. I would think one way of maybe curtailing rampant payments would be for any money to be reported to a third party (not the ncaa). That money made bc of their likeness would go to into a defacto trust fund where it can't be touched until they leave school, run out of eligibility, or reach a certain age. Allow a monthly stipend to be given to the player from this fund but not allow them to have complete access to the money while in school. Also maybe have a max amount they can make over their college career to curtail huge payments

This isnt really a good idea IMO bc there is still a lot of loopholes and it wouldn't prevent boosters from paying absurd amounts but maybe it curtails it somewhat.

Yes I understand this is essentially "liberal" viewpoint in managing their money.
Click to expand...

I've had a similar thought on how to handle the money/curtail the rampant cheating/overpaying. Mine was, for example:

Trevor Lawrence goes to an autograph signing event. Under my hypothetical made up rules, he is allowed to take home $x,xxx. For arguments sake let's say $1,000. Anything over that is his, but similar to your idea, it goes to a 3rd party that is accessible once he is drafted, exhausts eligibility or reach a certain age. So he makes $1,500 at an event, he leaves with $1,000 and the third party takes the remaining $500 that is paid out to him in 2 years when he declares for the draft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top