Today, in Econ 101

I’m not trolling here; this is a serious question for those of you who think that college athletics are a glorified internship for players like Sony Michel, who don’t merit cashing in on their name because their value at that level is solely derived from the institution which jersey they wear.

Michel’s been out of school for less than half a year.  He hasn’t played a down in the NFL yet.  As such, isn’t it logical to argue that most, if not all, of his economic value is derived from his time spent at Georgia?  And if so, shouldn’t some of that Old Spice endorsement money be sent back to Athens?

Point here being that almost nothing has changed between January 1 and today, other than the threat of ineligibility being lifted.  His name has value all along that time line, so what benefit is there to him waiting to cash in?

25 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

25 responses to “Today, in Econ 101

  1. Keese

    I guess you could argue that there’s somewhat of annuity value withrespect time played in college, right?!

    Like

    • Dawg1

      “As such, isn’t it logical to argue that most, if not all, of his economic value is derived from his time spent at Georgia?”

      Reaping a share of 100+ years of the economic benefit “Goodwill” isn’t nothing.

      Like

  2. Hogbody Spradlin

    Smile Sony!

    Like

    • Comin' Down The Track

      Ha! I was thinking his face was, like, ” Something smells awful. I hope it’s not this perfume kit… ’cause now I have to act like I like it.”

      Like

  3. Atticus

    He was cashing in….to the tune of about $30,000 per year. UGA made a ton of money before him, made a ton with him and will make a ton without him. They should just increase the stipends and establish lifetime paid up healthcare.

    Like

    • Russ

      Add “allow the players to profit from their names” to that list and I’m right there with you. Let the schools market for the players and pay the players a (healthy) portion of that income. For example, people weren’t buying a 34 jersey because of Buzy Rosenburg. They bought it because of Herschel. So Herschel should have received 50% of every jersey sold.

      Like

      • Atticus

        I don’t have a problem with that although I think it needs to be considered to go into a fund they receive when they leave. If not it opens up a Pandora’s Box.

        Like

        • “It opens a Pandora’s Box.”

          As long as the student-athlete pays tax on any proceeds, why should any payment for name and likeness be withheld?

          Like

          • Atticus

            Its not withheld just goes into an investment fund. If you open it up immediately then it creates a huge issue where companies could compensate recruits for their likeness or buy 1000 jerseys just to get them to commit. Someone who is a huge booster at a big company could funnel a lot of money and I don’t think this would be the purpose of opening everything up. Right now the system works. College football is popular, kids who otherwise may not be able to afford a college education, food and housing are getting those benefits regardless if they ever play or not and the ones that are very good get compensated well in the NFL. In my opinion there would be way to many unintended consequences….but what do I know?

            Like

            • “Right now the system works” … except for the fact that the NCAA and its members have a labor price-fixing cartel to limit their cost of doing business and those same boosters who would “buy 1000 jerseys” are leaving bags of cash on a recruit’s front porch to get them to commit to said school.

              When Jeffrey Kessler is done with the NCAA, Mark Emmert is going to wish he had relented on the ability to trade on name and likeness years ago.

              Is the education of value? Yep. The problem is the coaches and academic advisors generally keep football and basketball players in majors that aren’t worth the paper they are printed on to keep them eligible and demand a year-round commitment that keep those who aren’t going to become professional athletes from doing internships or other things to help them get ready for life after sports.

              I used to be one who fretted over the “unintended consequences” of student-athlete compensation. Guess what? There are unintended consequences to every decision we make whether that’s where to go for lunch today or a decision to change jobs. For people who think the UCs are only bad, the market tends to find them that are good as well.

              Like

          • Got Cowdog

            Damn. Now I have to drink two beers.

            Like

      • Sides

        If players are allowed to profit from their name should they be allowed to do it while wearing the schools uniform? I would think that a player would have a lot more commercial value in a UGa uniform than in street clothes.

        Like

  4. ASEF

    The Food Network and other cable entertainment goliath require kickbacks when their personalities garner outside endorsements. It’s why Emeril left FN, and I could go on with other networks and stars.

    Don’t give the NCAA any ideas.

    Like

  5. j4k372

    “As such, isn’t it logical to argue that most, if not all, of his economic value is derived from his time spent at Georgia? And if so, shouldn’t some of that Old Spice endorsement money be sent back to Athens?”

    wow

    Like

  6. The Dawg abides

    I’m all for it. Local BMW dealers and the like are great, but one thing that concerns me are the shoe companies. Once college players can have endorsement deals, it can’t be limited to just that set of amateurs. Nike, Under Armour and Adidas will lock up the top high school players. And anyone who thinks they won’t use these contracts to force those kids to the schools they have deals with are just as naive as those clinging to the current amateur model.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MGW

      I don’t watch the NBA, but do those guys all have to wear the “team’s” brand of shoes or do they get to wear the shoe of whoever endorses them?

      Because that doesn’t seem to be an issue in any of the pro sports so why
      would it be an issue in college?

      Like

      • MGW

        Seems more likely that the schools’ endorsement deals would just be less valuable. Isn’t the only reason the kids are forced (pushed, encouraged, whatever) into specific schools now because thats the only way they can make sure the kids are wearing their stuff?

        Like

        • The Dawg abides

          That does seem to be at the center of the current basketball mess. And you’re right, ultimately the schools would have to relent on making players wear the shoes of whatever company they contract with. More power to the players. I remember when the cocks switched to Under Armour and Stephen Garcia publicly ripped the shoes. He caught a ton of flack from the AD and Spurrior and had to reissue a statement saying how great he thought the shoes were.

          Like

      • They have to wear the uniform of their team, but the shoes are not part of the uniform. Professional team athletes can wear whatever brand of footwear they choose.

        Said apparel manufacturer (say Nike) can’t put an adidas athlete in their advertisements without payment even though he is wearing a Nike jersey.

        Like

  7. John

    This seems like a non-sequitur.

    Michel’s time at Georgia increased his economic value thus he owes Georgia? That principal isn’t applied in any other context. For example, at my first job I gained skills and experience that made me more valuable to my subsequent employer. No one would suggest I should pay employer 1 a portion of my increased salary from my subsequent employer.

    In fact, the opposite is often true. People accept unpaid internships etc. where they are not paid so as to increase their value in the market at a later date. They perform work and their employers benefits from the work performed at a discount. The economic exchange that takes place is the reduced price work for the experience/credential/whatever that increases your value.

    This seems disconnected from the question posed at the end: “His name has value all along that time line, so what benefit is there to him waiting to cash in?”

    Well… probably not any “benefit” to anyone but that doesn’t have anything to do with the suggestions that Michael owes Georgia something.

    Like

    • John, the first set of questions were rhetorical in nature, meant to illustrate the lack of logic of those who support amateurism.

      As I clearly stated in the post, the real point is in the final paragraph.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Ben O.

    No benefit in him having to wait, I agree. Although I’d push back a little bit that nothing’s changed. He was drafted by an NFL team in the interim, and that team being the Patriots, he even used #Patriots in the post – indicating this was at least partially targeted to Pats fans. Would he have an Old Spice deal if he was drafted by the Chargers? Maybe, maybe not.

    Like

  9. Don’t most college graduates cash in AFTER their college career is over and not before?

    Like