You're trying to make this situation too simple. One thing that strikes me as interesting is the last part of your post. Let's not forget there are your "Ivy League" type schools whose fundamental belief system is based on something completely different than what you suggest. Using economic terms, you suggest a notion of letting a capitalistic model run the system when the very essence of the system is based on a socialistic model. Mentioned previously is a booster paying an exorbitant amount for an autograph. There's a real mess waiting to happen. I see schools like a Wyoming complaining their players don't get as many autograph opportunities as those who attend Miami. Or, if you want to make it a closer comparison, say Virginia complaining about Miami's advantage. There's a solid point of discussion. I heard A&M was auctioning off seats at a table, eating, with Manziel just this past week. I recall two figures, 20 and 70K, but can't recall to what they applied.
Exactly. but then someone will say, "How much revenue does the womens golf team generate"? It is a never ending circle of headache.
Well, Division I is too big. Too many "have-not" schools in the same category as the "haves". I hear the NCAA is actually considering making another change. But yes, Title 9 would require us to pay all athletes, including minor sports and womens sports. But only up to 20 hours a week.
I'm not suggesting the school pay them for their participation. That's a seperate issue all by itself. No...I'm simply suggesting that you allow the individual the right to sell his own property. And I get the "people will start paying them $1,000 per autograph just because" argument, but what, right now, is stopping the same assholes from offering to pay a kid $1,000 to come wash their car? $10,000 to come paint their house over the summer vacation? Their time and energy is their property, just like their likeness and autographs. LaSalle said it best...how is a kid selling his autograph any different from selling his car or his speakers? It's HIS property. And Terry, this IS a capitalist society. If you have something somebody else is willing to pay for, you shouldn't be REQUIRED to give it away without proper compensation.
What he's saying is that NCAA athletics does not operate under a system of capitalism, at least in terms of how it applies to the athletes.
So here's a solution. First prong: Like @red55 said, it's only fair to pay student athletes for their practice time. I wrote for the Reveille when I was a student and got paid for my efforts. This only makes sense. And this money, which wouldn't be a lot, goes directly to the student at the time they earn it -- weekly, biweekly, whatever the normal pay cycle is. And this would be separate from the "laundry" money athletes get, if they still get that. Second prong: Allow student athletes to be paid licensing fees for use of their image/likeness in video games etc. Allow student athletes to be paid for their autographs. BUT the school must set up the licensing agreement and any autograph sales. AND the money has to be paid directly to the school, to be put into a trust for the athlete. The athlete and his/her parents will agree, when they sign the letter of intent, to allow this trust to be set up, for licensing/autograph proceeds to go into it, for an annual accounting to be made to both the athlete and his/her parents and for interest payments to made to the account. Along with a small (and I mean SMALL, fee to the university for administration; 1 or 2 percent per year). The trust would terminate and the money go to the athlete when their eligibility to participate in college athletics runs out. To be fair, the licensing agreement would have to be standardized among all schools with a sliding scale for payments. Something like a squad player gets x%, a 1 year letter man gets y% etc etc. The only official autographs would be through the schools, thereby diminishing role the autograph brokers currently play. Again, fairness would dictate that some standardization exist. It could be slotted: a one year letter mans' autograph goes for between x-y; a nationally recognized player's autograph (as determined by positional award watchlists, say) goes for between a-b. All of the autograph fees would be exclusive of the cost of whatever the athlete is signing, be it a helmet, photograph or whatever. During the season, athletes would be expected to sign for a maximum of one hour per week (according to demand) and during the off-season, up to five hours per week. Athletes would, of course, still be free to give away autographs as they see fit and any athlete caught obtaining any money for an autograph outside of the accepted channel would be subject to dismissal. There would be some kinks to it, sure, but I think that's workable. Fans would be assured that the autograph they bought was authentic and wasn't obtained by their athlete skirting any rules. Especially for bubble athletes -- T-Bob Hebert is the one who springs to mind -- who were popular but not necessarily going to make it to the next level, they would have a little scratch when their playing days are done.
Well, it is a NCAA violation for a kid to wash cars for $1,000 or work a summer janitor job at vice-presidents pay. It's because of the obvious . . . its a path for unscrupulous boosters to pay kids and get LSU on probation. And it makes an amateur athlete into a professional. Same thing with selling autographs. Sell them when you are off scholarship and an independent citizen. But not when on NCAA scholarship. If a kid has pocket money from his student worker job, he has no excuse for trying to sell his fame as an athlete while he is still an amateur.
These same rules would apply to ridiculous payments on autographs. What works for one thing should work on another. wjray has it just about locked down, I think. It's a workable model, and it's fair on all fronts. Sure, there are questions, but professional red-tapers should be able to work them out.
They do apply, which is why Manziel is up shit creek. It is a NCAA violation. Not sure why you want to make it legal. I want players focused on the game and his team, not how much cashola they can make selling THEIR autographs if they get some notoriety. It might tend to make hot dogs out of guys instead of team players. How about their offensive line teammates who can't sell their autographs for squat. How good will it go over for a few hot shots like Matthieu, Tebow, or Manziel to make serious megabucks when the second-stringers can not. Coaches will want to have no part of this. However many coaches feel that players should get minimum wage pay for time spent playing football for the university.
I like wjray's position. Organize it all through the school, put the cash in a trust fund, and at least then they'll get compensated. SOMEBODY is making money off of these superstars' noteriety. Why shouldn't that person get a cut? If they can't get a cut, well, then I guess there should be a law against making a profit off of a person that is unable to gain anything from it himself. To have all the stress of being a star while watching everyone but you get paid for it is a cruel fate, and more than they should ask of these "amateur" athletes.
