Let's face it. All player's images are not worth the same.

I don't see why you should compensate a player just because he plays in a televised game. At least not compensate him more than the value of his scholarship. In a blowout, a lot of kids see mop up duty in the last couple of minutes. And what exactly is the "image" of an anonymous third string right guard wearing a football helmet?

If somebody wants to feature a player in his company's TV commercial, that's a different story. But doesn't that just scream potential abuse? How can you possibly regulate it if that company is owned by a booster?

What if ESPN or Fox uses a clip of a recognizable basketball player in a promo? Can't somebody come up with a standard payment for each such use, just like actors have a scale of payments when they appear on the Tonight Show? The problem here, of course, is that it's hard to crop out from the clip the unrecognizable player who just got posterized in that promo. Should he be compensated for his "shame"?

In theory, players shouldn't lose all control of their image to people who will profit from their use. In practice, how do you manage it? And if you can't manage it, why can't you forbid it (which is the current default position of the NCAA)?

I don't know the answer.

(05-17-2018 03:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's face it. All player's images are not worth the same.

I don't see why you should compensate a player just because he plays in a televised game. At least not compensate him more than the value of his scholarship. In a blowout, a lot of kids see mop up duty in the last couple of minutes. And what exactly is the "image" of an anonymous third string right guard wearing a football helmet?

If somebody wants to feature a player in his company's TV commercial, that's a different story. But doesn't that just scream potential abuse? How can you possibly regulate it if that company is owned by a booster?

What if ESPN or Fox uses a clip of a recognizable basketball player in a promo? Can't somebody come up with a standard payment for each such use, just like actors have a scale of payments when they appear on the Tonight Show? The problem here, of course, is that it's hard to crop out from the clip the unrecognizable player who just got posterized in that promo. Should he be compensated for his "shame"?

In theory, players shouldn't lose all control of their image to people who will profit from their use. In practice, how do you manage it? And if you can't manage it, why can't you forbid it (which is the current default position of the NCAA)?

I don't know the answer.

The school should provide them with an education, room & board, books, and other incidental supplies, and meals.

Then the players should be able to sell their own images for whatever they can get. And that they pay tax on. That way the schools don't lose their tax-exempt status, but the players are entitled to make money off their own persona. They aren't paid to play but they are paid to advertise. The school is not responsible for their ad money, or the taxes they owe on them.

(05-17-2018 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 03:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's face it. All player's images are not worth the same.

I don't see why you should compensate a player just because he plays in a televised game. At least not compensate him more than the value of his scholarship. In a blowout, a lot of kids see mop up duty in the last couple of minutes. And what exactly is the "image" of an anonymous third string right guard wearing a football helmet?

If somebody wants to feature a player in his company's TV commercial, that's a different story. But doesn't that just scream potential abuse? How can you possibly regulate it if that company is owned by a booster?

What if ESPN or Fox uses a clip of a recognizable basketball player in a promo? Can't somebody come up with a standard payment for each such use, just like actors have a scale of payments when they appear on the Tonight Show? The problem here, of course, is that it's hard to crop out from the clip the unrecognizable player who just got posterized in that promo. Should he be compensated for his "shame"?

In theory, players shouldn't lose all control of their image to people who will profit from their use. In practice, how do you manage it? And if you can't manage it, why can't you forbid it (which is the current default position of the NCAA)?

I don't know the answer.

The school should provide them with an education, room & board, books, and other incidental supplies, and meals.

Then the players should be able to sell their own images for whatever they can get. And that they pay tax on. That way the schools don't lose their tax-exempt status, but the players are entitled to make money off their own persona. They aren't paid to play but they are paid to advertise. The school is not responsible for their ad money, or the taxes they owe on them.

Should a player be able to prevent ESPN from using his image from game footage in a promo unless they pay him? Or CBS, or any of the other networks who show NCAA Tournament games?

(05-17-2018 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 03:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's face it. All player's images are not worth the same.

I don't see why you should compensate a player just because he plays in a televised game. At least not compensate him more than the value of his scholarship. In a blowout, a lot of kids see mop up duty in the last couple of minutes. And what exactly is the "image" of an anonymous third string right guard wearing a football helmet?

If somebody wants to feature a player in his company's TV commercial, that's a different story. But doesn't that just scream potential abuse? How can you possibly regulate it if that company is owned by a booster?

What if ESPN or Fox uses a clip of a recognizable basketball player in a promo? Can't somebody come up with a standard payment for each such use, just like actors have a scale of payments when they appear on the Tonight Show? The problem here, of course, is that it's hard to crop out from the clip the unrecognizable player who just got posterized in that promo. Should he be compensated for his "shame"?

In theory, players shouldn't lose all control of their image to people who will profit from their use. In practice, how do you manage it? And if you can't manage it, why can't you forbid it (which is the current default position of the NCAA)?

I don't know the answer.

The school should provide them with an education, room & board, books, and other incidental supplies, and meals.

Then the players should be able to sell their own images for whatever they can get. And that they pay tax on. That way the schools don't lose their tax-exempt status, but the players are entitled to make money off their own persona. They aren't paid to play but they are paid to advertise. The school is not responsible for their ad money, or the taxes they owe on them.

Should a player be able to prevent ESPN from using his image from game footage in a promo unless they pay him? Or CBS, or any of the other networks who show NCAA Tournament games?

Not if the footage is from an actual game. He/she received their remuneration for that with their scholarship, incidentals, meals, room & board, etc. It is implied in the acceptance of the scholarship and therefore actual games and the footage of actual games belongs to the school, as do the jersey and number of the player.

If an advertiser wants to use game footage to advertise something other than an upcoming game, then they should pay the school the license fee for their logo and trademarked images, and the player for their image.

Seems to me some of these issues aren't settled law, and may be addressed in one or more civil cases working their way through the courts. I'm not sure a judge will assume that anything is implied if it isn't explicitly set forth in a contract. And even then, one could rule that some restrictions on compensation aren't legal even if they are included in standard contracts (like LOI's).

I might agree that some of these points are the way things should be, but a judge might not agree.

Players don't want the actual value of their likeness.

They want a cut of the TV money.

Most players on Alabama's team last year have a likeness value that might not feed them at McDonalds.

The whole discussion is all theoretical unless:
1. Players get a defined cut of the TV contracts or
2. Boosters are permitted to pay prospects directly under the guise of being an endorsement deal.

How about as it deals with sports video games? What is fair compensation??

(05-17-2018 11:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  How about as it deals with sports video games? What is fair compensation??

In that case, I would say whatever the video game company is willing to pay and the player willing to accept. No pay, no likeness.

That compensation could either be a fixed, negotiated amount or a royalty based on units sold. And I don't accept the argument that such payments must be held in escrow until the player gives up his NCAA eligibility. Why should he have to wait? He needs the money while he is in school, not later when he already is earning a professional salary.

The reality is that, if he is good enough to merit being featured in a video game he isn't going to be a college player for very long anyway. There will, at any given time, only be a handful of such players. And if there were a lot of them, most of them would be getting paid very little anyway.

The point is, the NCAA shouldn't have a say in this. Their only concern with pay for image is whether such pay gives an unfair recruiting advantage to a school based on something other than the name on the front of the jersey.

My concern isn't so much with the star player getting paid for his image or name for its legitimate commercial value. It is more with using that as a loophole to pay the players whose name has little or no commercial value, but whose talents collectively play an important role in their college team's success on the field.

The outstanding pulling guard who opens the holes for the star running back probably isn't going to help the local car dealer who pays him for the use of his name or image as an endorser of his products to sell more cars. The real motive of that dealer is to help his favorite team win games, pure and simple. He could just as easily get that benefit by slipping him cash under the table, the old fashioned way.

But there are rules prohibiting that, and for obvious reasons there are also rules prohibiting above the table payments as a product endorser. But if we aren't careful about what we allow by way of rules allowing a player to profit from his name, image or likeness, we open the door to a world where high school athletes can sell their talents to the highest bidder, and the schools with the deepest pockets will always be the highest bidders.

Then we may as well forget about NCAA enforcement entirely, and just let the IRS worry about whether all this income is being properly reported.