Coming soon: NCAA v. California

Except he’s not making money as a representative of the school. He’s making it on his own. If he poses for an advertisement, he’ll be wearing a generic uniform unless the school gets its cut.

The have-not programs already are not getting top-tier talent. Where have you been?

 

Nope. It’s his own name he’s making money off of.

 

That will be up to the courts to decide. He won't be making money because of his name. He'll be making money because he's the QB at a university.

 

Not much, no. But some.

 

Which has to do with how private businesses value the QB at the university. Private businesses are not subject to Title IX.

 

Again, we'll see how it plays out. Private business are not subject to it. Definitions of athletes status as public or private remains to be seen. I'm sure when male athletes are raking in piles of cash their female counterparts (and their attorneys) will just sit quietly on the sidelines and ignore the gender gap.

 

You're trying really hard to make it seem like this is a complicated issue. It's not a complicated issue. Title IX is an absolute non-factor here.

(And overall this law is interesting in its ability to pressure the NCAA into doing the right thing, but on its own it ain't much. The whole "making money off the endorsements" thing is a dodge from the real issues here.)

 

I guess we'll see. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But this very well may be Step 1 toward killing a golden goose. Most college lose money on athletics. Without having to pay a dime to athletes, most of those will lose even more in the form of lost revenue as interest wanes, which I believe will happen. It's nice that the stars at Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, etc., will make a few bucks. The nobodies at the nobody program will stand to lose millions over their lives as colleges cut programs, which again, I believe will happen. Hope it's worth it.

 

I will say while I appreciate the sentiment - the Legislature really laid a stink bomb on its universities, pretty much guaranteeing that they face significant legal costs no matter which way they go on the law.

 

From a Title IX perspective, female athletes (and non-revenue athletes as a whole) could see a significant change in their lifestyles.

Imagine if Katie Ledecky had been able to capitalize on her Olympic success with endorsements while at Stanford instead of slipping back into the shadows.

 

For the 109th time. The schools are not shelling out the money for athlete endorsements.

Schools that already are losing money are generating plenty of revenue, but are spending too much.

As for the “interest wanes,” you’re repeating the same cries that the traditionalists wailed about when professionalism came to the Olympics and free agency came to the major sports. Instead, interest grew.