This Johnny Manziel business has me thinking about player compensation from an entirely different angle. I understand the reasons why the schools and the NCAA can't pay players, as it would bankrupt more than half of the athletic programs in the country. But why can't the overachievers cash in on their celebrity? What right does the NCAA have to say that a private citizen can't be given money by another private citizen for something as simple as an autograph? If anybody wanted to pay ME for my autograph, I'd take the money, and nobody would have anything to say about it. My question is...why is an agreement or an arrangement between two private individuals anybody's business but theirs? J. Manziel's athletic prowess is his PROPERTY, and he has a right to do with it what he wishes. That being said, Johnny Foosball is a douche, and I'm glad to see him get a dose of humble pie...but the fundamental argument remains.
So if Mettenberger has an agreement with a Bama booster with deep pockets to put a little more air under his deep balls or throw open receivers about 5 yards short on 3rd down, then that's nobody's business but theirs? Once you introduce above-the-table money into the equation for "amateur" athletes, even for seemingly innocent things like autographs, you're opening up a massive can of worms down the road when it comes to where you draw the line.
Then why restrict this to the NCAA? Why does the NFL allow it, when similar agreements like this can be made? If something like you describe is happening that affects more that just the two involved, THAT's when the NCAA should step in and say "NO!"
NFL athletes are already paid by their team according to the terms of a contact. Amateur athletes are not, by definition. Right now the line is very clear: if you accept money for activities related to your sport, you are no longer an amateur and therefore ineligible. When money changes hands for college athletes, you now have the burden of determining what is admissible compensation and what isn't. And who gets to decide which transactions only benefits the two individuals and which are detrimental to the team? How unified would a locker room be when a star player is rolling in money but a 2nd string backup isn't? Why would memorabilia autographs be OK but corporate endorsements aren't? You think the NCAA can enforce a system more complex than the one it already has when its Keystone Cops enforcement arm bungles even the simplest of compliance investigations? For people who want to see something approaching parity in college football, this would be a bad idea. Schools could even structure scholarships where they take a cut off the proceeds of any transaction made by the player. Not just autographs, think of the big sponsorship money that can get involved. Top draft picks then get a nice payday both in college and the pros. Top programs with the biggest stars keep getting richer, while smaller or rebuilding schools are now at a worse competitive disadvantage. And these are just a couple of things off the top of my head. Many people would agree that the NCAA bylaws are archaic, overly complicated, and need revision. I think most people would even be OK with larger scholarship stipends to keep up with the cost of living and expenses associated with the sport. But outright payola opens up a pretty big rabbit hole.
Lets see, a person in Baton Rouge selling a players autograph, tells a high school player if you come to LSU, I will pay you $1,000 per. Yea, I don't see a problem.
A thousand??? He's getting phucked. Without meaning to, you said a lot right there. No one wants parity. Parity with all the "others" but when it comes to "their" team, they want an advantage. There is no and will never be parity. To those who don't know, it goes something like this: "Here's a briefcase with 50K for you; 50K for your grandma...
They shouldn't get paid to play, but when somebody else makes money off of their performance, they SHOULD be compensated for it. Royalties or GTFO. Should be simple enough. I could do it, if they needed somebody. Always looking for the next career change. Is this really much different from the star player getting all the tail, fame, and potential NFL draft position? It's all part of competition. If you're the second-stringer, work harder. Up your game. Or get used to playing second fiddle. After all, there's ALWAYS someone better than you, and there's not really anything you can do about it. There is no such thing as parity in real life. There are winners and losers. Why not allow them to do corporate endorsements? Jackholes like EASports already use their likenesses to up their profits without so much as getting the players' permission. They might as well get something for it. There is not, hasn't ever been, and will never be, anything resembling parity in major college football. There are the haves and the have-nots. The fact that the schools are allowed to make money off of these kids' performances will always result in some colleges having better facilities and better brand recognition than others, therefore making them more desirable. The "rich get richer", as you say below. At least then they would get a cut of the money made specifically off of them. You can regulate out sponsorships like the Scam Newton fiasco. Again, I'm talking about players getting a cut of the money made off of their likenesses, autographs, etc.. I'm not suggesting they get money just for participating.
Obvious cheating scenarios can be regulated out. Everything in life needs a governing body to oversee, and this is no different. It could be done to where an application would have to go through the NCAA beforehand, where an appointed authority would have the right to approve, with amendments if need be.
What if he sold his autograph and donated it all to charity. I wonder how the NCAA would react to something like that.
