It’s a real pleasure to outsource to Brian Cook the skewering of all the bad takes out there in the wake of California’s Fair Pay to Play Act becoming law. You should read the whole thing, as it’s full of examples of what I like to refer to as pseudo-economic rationalizations — just say you don’t want to pay players and leave it at that, folks — but I can’t help but zero in on what might be the dumbest rationalization referenced there.
If there is no value in an individual college athlete’s name because it’s all derived from the school’s brand, then why is anyone worried that the star quarterback might get more bank than his offensive linemen? After all, they’re all wearing the same jersey, right?
This is totally detached from reality. It should also help you understand how I can dismiss so many arguments in support of maintaining the status quo while respecting the underlying feelings of romance for it. Although if you are a romantic, the NCAA’s cynical milking of those feelings and its enablers’ support of that ought to offend you.
Get The Picture 
If a booster will be able to give a star athlete a huge amount of money, above the table, simply to entice him to play at that booster’s school, does that create real value in the college kid’s name?
LikeLike
I don’t know what you mean by “real value” there, but, unlike a scholarship, the booster’s money can be spent at Kroger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what you’re arguing is that value doesn’t lie in the player’s individual NIL, value lies in the player’s perceived worth to his team (the perception here being how much better some booster thinks the player will make his team).
LikeLike
The player’s value lies in whatever someone is willing to pay to use his NLI.
This isn’t that hard.
LikeLike
Nolan Smith isn’t getting paid just being Nolan Smith. He gets paid by being Nolan Smith…. who play AT… UGA.
LikeLike
His skills to play football have marketable value including name, likeness and image.
Michael Jordan’s value had zero to do with his relationship to the Chicago Bulls and everything to do with his inherent talent to play basketball.
LikeLike
Fans don’t buy tickets and donate money because of individual players. Sanford Stadium is full regardless of the individual players. The players receive hundreds of thousands of dollars regardless of their likeness. Comparing Michael Jordan the best player of all time and the most compensated through endorsements to a college football player on an 85 man roster is not a valid comparison.
LikeLike
So, you’re saying if the law is passed nationally, it won’t have any impact on player compensation? Then why worry about it?
LikeLike
Using your logic, Michael Jordan had no marketable value for his name, likeness and image for the 3 years he wore a North Carolina basketball jersey. All of a sudden because he was a professional, he had a market for his name because people would buy tickets to the Dean Dome whether he was there or not.
Sorry but that doesn’t make sense to me. Just say you don’t want players to be paid and keep the system as it is even though it’s ridiculously distorted.
If these guys had no market for their talents, why do bagmen run all over the South and why do people contribute to building programs to attract the best talent?
Your arguments hold water against pay for play. They mean nothing in the NLI debate.
LikeLike
Smith could also have played at any other school, I’ll digress on that point because Tom Brady has no value in and of himself to earn money playing football. He needs the Patriots (or any team for that matter) to give him a platform, but that doesn’t exclude him from making money off of his image, or getting paid to play for that matter.
LikeLike
They go together. Nolan Smith isn’t selling a jersey without a school. The school can sell jerseys without a name on them. They both provide value. The school provides hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarship money, housing, medical care, food and a monthly stipend top each player regardless of the performance. The player voluntarily opts to play for the school. Both win.
LikeLike
They opt to play for the school which is part of an illegal cartel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This one of those debates where the blind spots on both sides create a lot of angry back and forth.
Doug’s point, like most of Doug’s points, is absurd. It so is the opposite point of view, that the player is creating all the value.
Jake Fromm in a Georgia Jersey is worth 10000x more than Jake Fromm in a Georgia State Jersey. Period. Unarguable.
It’s a frustrating debate because at this point both sides are talking past each other.
LikeLike
Who is arguing that the player creates all the value?
The player creates as much value as the market is willing to pay for. The school creates as much value as the market is willing to pay for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice straw man argument, nobody is arguing that the schools don’t provide value, but you have people like yourself who argue that the players provide no value. The flip side of your argument is that UGA is a lot less valuable with walk ons playing than with Jake Fromm and DeAndre swift in those uniforms.
LikeLike
I have never argued that at all. This is what I mean by overheated reactions.
AJ Green’s jersey value was some portion AJ and some portion Georgia. How many AJ Green jerseys get sold without that Georgia connection? Zero.
The complication is finding that ratio. Because the two can’t really be separated. Riley Ridley is basically dead to Georgia fans now in terms of marketing. In with the new.
I think players as a whole are going to get way less than people think. Guys like Trevor and Tua won’t have to wait on their shoe deals – that’s a win. Recruits with signing leverage will squeeze as much as they can out of the system. Good for them then. In between, I just don’t see much change. And are people going to be ok with that, or do we just move on to revenue sharing?
LikeLike
They will have to wait for their shoe deals. They will sign an agreement that specifically states they will wear the uniform including shoes of the school’s choosing.
LikeLike
When you say the complication is finding that ratio ….100%. If the NCAA had any sense they would have put the line somewhere else besides 100% to the schools and 0% to the players. Now it’s going to be 100% players under these state laws. But I also agree schools will continue bringing in truckloads of money regardless.
Next question – are people going to be OK with that? I suppose for a while, but look at the college landscape….sports are a cash cow but tuition keeps going up and graduates have more student loans than ever before. Now, if college sports were a tax-paying business nobody could question how they allocate their own money, but they are actually a public charity. Thanks to that they get to not pay any taxes, can issue tax-free bonds, and can receive some tax-deductible donations.
It’s no wonder they donate some money back to the academic side…..but goodgodalmighty given the rest of the optics that is just a smart play. Is that enough? Time will tell.
LikeLike
So, you walk into the bookstore to buy a jersey. You can buy a #11 jersey for $50, or you can buy a #12 jersey for $25. Which one do you buy?
LikeLike
Fromm still wont get any of that jersey $$ unless The school gets on board and has an agreement to put his name on it. They can always argue #11 is Aaron Murray or whoever wore the jersey before. I imagine the school will want to protect their income by not allowing the athletes to use the official logos etc.
So you’d more likely be buying a generic red “Jake Fromm State Farm” tshirt like the “Humble yoself” line that Davin Bellamy created after his senior season – or still sewing the FROMM on yourself.
LikeLike
And what’s wrong with the school taking a cut AND Fromm getting a cut?
And you didn’t answer the question – do you buy the #11 or the #12? I’m pretty sure which one will be sold out.
LikeLike
I grew up in Mississippi… and I remember a WHOLE LOT of people (including me, my three siblings and my father) paying to line up for autographs from a player at Alcorn State.
Steve McNair. None of us were willing to pay a dime because he was an Alcorn State player. It was all HIM.
Just sayin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My only concern is that a Nike at Oregon or similar fan/donor/alum at any school could give bogus jobs (nothing new under the sun) to influence recruiting.
LikeLike
If Nike does that to favor Oregon, adidas or Under Armour will be more than happy to accept any Nike school’s apparel contract.
LikeLike
Related “Style Alert” post – Should UGA fans buy the shoes that will allow Nike to pay Oregon players more?
LikeLike
Now that’s a question. Gonna have to start making our own gear in house.
LikeLike
That’s a great question. Here’s a hypothetical: Nike sponsors UGA. A 5 star RB is being recruited by Oregon, whom Nike also sponsors. What does Nike have to gain by offering the kid money to play for a program that will put their logo on him anyway?
But… here comes Georgia Tech and the Adidas Company with the checkbook……
Now were negotiating! 😉
LikeLike
Fair. But cheating happens regardless and the way it works today is schools have their own “compliance” departments. Instead of shining a light on issues they bury them. Then there’s the NCAA which is wildly inconsistent. This is a perfect opportunity to create a new, independent watchdog organization
I might be crazy but I would have the new watchdog report to a committee that includes representatives from both schools and athletes. I mean if you are trying to stop cheating, why not let some athletes (who see what goes on) help you make the rules?
LikeLike
Hmmm… smells like collective bargaining to me.
LikeLike
Ummm….no. There needs to be a line of reporting if the watchdog uncovers cheating related to NIL. This committee would be where such cheating gets reported and where appeals can be filed.
LikeLike
This may drive the NCAA into the arms of the one organization that can make things the worst: The United States Congress.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If they have any sense at all they’ll hire competent representation to make sure they get a cut of any compensation that arises from brand recognition and further line their pockets. The universities themselves surely will, which will lead to athletes hiring representation to make sure their interests are protected.
It will be interesting for sure, and who knows what college sports will look like on the other side of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why does the school have any right to Fromm’s autograph signing funds if he didn’t have anything identifying him as a Georgia football player?
LikeLike
They have none. But to how many hometowns do you travel to get High School QB’s autographs? If payment for NLI is approved:
Warner Robins Ford can offer Jake a brand new F-150 and five grand a month to be on their billboard if he wins state in high school, but its not likely.
Warner Robins Ford can offer Jake a brand new F-150 and five grand a month after he wins state if he signs with UGA. It could happen, but why?How does the dealership know Jake will be anything other than a career backup?
Jake takes the Dawgs to the National Championship game his freshman year. Now Jake has recognition that he would not have had had he not been affiliated with the university. Warner Robins Ford offers him a brand new F-150 and five grand a month.
Do you see what I’m getting at?
LikeLike
That was not sock puppetry, Blutarsky. I was on a different machine and autofill blew my cover.
LikeLike
What a dumb take by Doug.
If you don’t think a Chevy dealer would give loaner trucks to the O-lineman and have a billboard with said O line pictured and a caption that reads “Tom Jumper Chevy….we get things moving!” or the like, then he’s lying to himself. Would it be better that they are wearing school apparel? Sure. Would there be any confusion if you saw that ad in Athens and the picture had Big Ben Cleveland, Cade Mays, et al.? Of course not.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, but I disagree personally. College athletes don’t move the needle for me, but I’m sure they would for some. I’m all about the school, because its my alma mater and brings me joy to be a fan. I support products that give sponsorship $ to the school/team. I’m not signing up for Hulu because they paid Todd Gurley some $$.
But what you’re describing above would absolutely happen 100%.
LikeLike
Just can not wait for the day when the QB drives around in a Bimmer, the receivers act like OBJ and Antonio Brown, while their team mates still need a second job to take the girl out. Senator, your points are spot on in regards to fundemental fairness, but everyone’s greed will turn college football into the NFL – which sucks.
LikeLike
This is so simple peeps.
All the $$$ that is flowing to athletes under the table from university boosters, will soon be flowing above the table from university boosters. Why is this so hard for some folks to wrap their brains around? The type of talent that is getting paid for him to “select” the hat at the HS gym ceremony is the same dude that will be “repping” the car dealership, the local construction company, etc.
And if the NCAA sets a cap on how much the player can get you can bet the $$ will start flowing below the table again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure how much money currently flows under the table. However much it is, I think there’s going to be a whole lot more flowing over the table, when Fair Pay to Play takes effect.
LikeLike
YUP. Forcing that $ to flow above the table will also create a more efficient market since everybody is operating out in the open. If Phil Knight wants to go bonkers with Nike endorsements to prop up Oregon, Under Armour and Adidas will be more than happy to fill the void for all the athletes at other schools. I’m amused at everybody that makes the ridiculous argument that uber wealthy boosters are just going to pay absurd gobs of $ to an entire roster. Those uber wealthy boosters still have finite resources and didn’t become uber wealthy boosters by inefficiently allocating their capital.
To steal a reply that Bill C. made to me yesterday on Twitter – “If Billy Bob’s Used Cars really wants to spend millions of dollars on player endorsements…well…the market will determine how stupid an investment that is and correct accordingly.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doesn’t the fact that someone is willing to pay money for something imply a level of value that has already been created? Therefore if a booster wants to pay a recruit $100k to play at a school wouldn’t that imply that the recruit’s services or at the very least potential is worth more than $100k? It’s like in the real world where no company is going to pay an employee $100k unless it thinks the employee is worth 100k.
Nobody is arguing the schools don’t have brand value but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think the best players add value to the school. It’s why LSU was promoting Ben Simmons before the kid ever stepped on campus.
This isn’t that hard people, it’s just taking the model for the transactions that occur literally millions of times every damn day in our economy and implementing it for the college branded sports entertainment industry.
LikeLike
Meant in reply to chopdawg
LikeLike
It’s a bit of a jolt on a Wednesday morning to be seeing all these “What a dumb take by Doug” comments, but yeah, Gottlieb doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
If a player’s NLI only derives it’s worth from the school he plays for, why was Willie Williams’ “recruiting diary” in the Miami Herald so wildly popular? Why were people on pins and needles watching Isaiah Crowell’s signing day announcement? (If anything, you could make the case that those two players’ NLI value was higher before they went to college, though their own bad decisions certainly played a big part in that.)
If you wanted to, you could look at it as a symbiotic relationship. The Jake Fromm and D’Andre Swift brands wouldn’t be worth as much without the UGA association, but the UGA brand wouldn’t be worth as much without Jake Fromm and D’Andre Swift, either.
LikeLike
If the universities and the NCAA can earn money off the student-athletes’ NLI, the only thing that’s right is that the S-A should be able to earn off his/her NLI.
If Bass Pro Shops at Sugarloaf Mills wants to bring Jake Fromm in to sign autographs, why does anyone care? If the Athens Ford dealer wants to give Andrew Thomas the use of a Raptor to make appearances at the dealership, as long as it doesn’t interfere with his athletic duties, why should anyone care?
LikeLike
‘Cause they wouldn’t be signing autographs and driving Raptors if they didn’t play for UGA, in your example. Shorter NCAA/UGAAA attorneys: “Y’all can make whatever you want, but we got’s to have ours.”
I personally DNGAS and neither do you I suspect, but they aren’t riding our brand for profit.
LikeLike
I do GAS … after Todd Gurley and AJ Green got thrown under the bus, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me.
LikeLike
Are you still sore about that? 😉
I should have been more clear. I don’t have a problem with TG, AJ, Katy Ledecki, et,al being compensated by whoever is willing to pay them to sign autographs, smile down from billboards, show up on a cereal box or anything else. Never have. Get all you can while you can IYAM.
However, I suspect he NCAA and the universities will have something to say about it and rightfully so if the notoriety that brings about the compensation is related to the brand, which in TG and AJ’s instances it most certainly was. Ledecki’s came from the Olympics but she honed her craft on Stanford’s swim team, right? The Universities should get a cut. The NCAA as well. But OTOH, what part of the ESPN/ WSB/ CBS contract should go to the players?
Negotioations, EE. That’s what we’re fixing to see. This will be the interesting part.
FWIW, Richt should have told McGarity to keep his trap shut. Handle it in house until forced to do otherwise.
LikeLike
Ledecky was the best female swimmer on the planet before she stepped on the campus in Palo Alto. Stanford had no impact on her marketability and brand. Not a good example.
My point is that the NCAA and its member institutions earn money off the players’ NLI through the network contracts, etc.
I don’t advocate for pure pay-for-play (therefore, I don’t think the conferences should share the money from the media packages with the players beyond the FCOA scholarship). I’m an advocate for the Olympic model nothing more nothing less. Student-athletes should be able to profit from their NLI.
LikeLike
I did not know that about Ledecky, which is kind of my point, and I get yours. What I’m driving at is competition for top recruits will lead to negotiation and representation regardless and who knows to what limits AA’s, agent’s, and athletes will go?
I’ve seen with my own eyes a high school baseball player with an agent tell the Coach when the kid was going to pitch and how many pitches he could throw. Is that what we are headed for?
LikeLike
I don’t think so because I don’t think there’s going to be pay for play meaning the college/student-athlete relationship as employer/employee. The current system doesn’t work and is clearly a labor-price fixing cartel.
LikeLike
I agree. It won’t be pay for play. What it will be is the universities, athletic associations, the conference, and the NCAA lobbying for their share of any NLI compensation because they provide the platform for the athlete to promote himself. The athlete/s will acquire representation to best protect their interest. Let the negotiations begin!
LikeLike
Regarding your question about “are we headed for” a time when a kid’s agent tells a coach when he will pitch and how many pitches he throws, obviously, according to you, it already happens and preventing the kid from making money on his name, image and likeness didn’t prevent it.
LikeLike
The kid was being recruited by a professional baseball program. The NCAA had nothing to do with it.
LikeLike