“It sounds like it could open the door for teams to buy players. If it does, that will destroy college football as we know it.”
—Mike Leach, Washington State University
It appears as though the NCAA really didn’t have much of a choice. The outfit that regulates college sports—or tries to—was either going to change the rules on college athletes making money, or it was going to go the way of the NIT. That is, it wouldn’t be relevant much longer.
The news reports called this week’s decision a “major step” toward allowing college athletes to make their own money. We shall see. The NCAA’s board voted to permit students playing sports in college to cash in—or at least “benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.”
This will most definitely benefit some players. The best players. At the highest profile schools. In the most popular sports.
The starting quarterback at Bama in 2024 will make some dough appearing in a local car dealer’s TV ad. Bank on it. A starting basketball player at Duke might find himself on a billboard promoting athletic gear. Bank on that, too.
One kind of college athlete will benefit most: the female athlete. Right now there are few professional outlets for top gymnasts or starting pitchers for championship softball teams. After this ruling, these women will be able to make some money while still in college, where often female athletes have their highest profile. That point shouldn’t be dismissed. Certainly female athletes won’t ignore it.
But there are still more questions than answers with this week’s decision.
THE NCAA had little choice but to say something, to do something, to announce something. California had passed a bill called the Fair Pay to Play Act, which allows athletes to benefit from their image—not to mention hire an agent and take steps toward becoming a real pro. If the NCAA would have remained in the past, or just the quickly disappearing present, then the best players might have flocked to schools in California. And nobody outside California wanted that. Other states were already lining up to introduce similar bills so that their State U. could compete.
But the NCAA’s board ruled that student-athletes could “benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.” What in the world does that mean? Until this week, the “collegiate model” was one of amateurism, and the only payment allowed was a stipend from the schools for incidentals, which amounted to a few thousand bucks a year.
Consistent with a collegiate model? There’s nothing consistent about it anymore.
The NCAA ordered its three divisions to create the necessary new rules immediately, and have them in place “no later than” January 2021. So the rules could be different for SEC teams and the Southland Conference. We will see how different. Specifics in this latest ruling are spare.
Some folks think the specifics are so lacking that nothing in the ruling is real. Sally Jenkins of The Washington Post said as much in Tuesday’s paper: “Look closely at the NCAA’s supposed grand concession to allow college athletes the rights over their own names and likenesses, and note that it contains zero specifics, an almost infinite number of potential restrictions, and doesn’t actually say anything about money. It’s the organization’s classic signature, that blowhardy nothingness.”
Others think just the opposite. Another columnist back east, who covers Duke basketball, says everything will change. And, luckily for him, this ruling could mean that Duke basketball will remain the “richest blue-blood” of programs for years to come, even after Coach K retires. Why, combine Duke’s basketball history with a fan base that can brag of millionaires and billionaires paying six figures for the best seats at their games, and Duke fans are already salivating like Pavlovian dogs.
Now imagine the rich fans in Texas and Florida and California shelling out for the best players. Or rather, shelling out to pay the best players to use their images on billboards off the interstate. How does five figures sound, son?
The only thing we know for sure: There are plenty of questions yet to be answered. And that’s just from a reporter’s point of view. Now think of the coaches and athletic directors who are having meetings right now, trying to figure out if they can give a kid a bagel with cream cheese on it, or if that would violate an NCAA regulation right now.
World-changing?
Foot-dragging?
We’ll all know the answers. In a few years. But here’s something else you can bank on: College athletics isn’t going to get less shady because of this latest decision.