Started By
Message
re: Cal Gov signs bill allowing Athletes to profit from their Image!
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:29 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:29 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
I don't think this is going anywhere, but if it does get any traction, look for the first move by the schools to be to take the players' names off the back. Najee wouldn't be entitled to squat from the sale of a #22 jersey.
They don't sanction sales with the names on the back. Only for players since graduated. Everyone you see with current players is a knock-off.
1
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:30 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Najee wouldn't be entitled to squat from the sale of a #22 jersey.
You would have to give Mark Ingram and Johnny Musso a cut as well.
Dose spaying for likeness mean we have to give Tua a cut of the TV revenue?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:31 pm to ATLabama
quote:
This is about ability to profit off of image likeness - which, is inherently a constitutional right. The point of the American Jurisprudence system is to protect citizens from even being put into position of agreeing to unfair terms and conditions. It's why the US government has anti-trust laws. They do this all the time.
The NCAA never wins. They lost the TV case in the 80's. Title IX.
They aren't going to win. Bitch and moan about politics all you want, but this is a losing argument you're just going to get mad about.
Then Herschel, Bo, Peyton, or Johnny Football would have sued if it was such a slam dunk case
They never did. That should tell you something.
Hell, Antonio Langham was denied the right to hire an attorney, and Alabama suffered significant harm as a result. Why didn't they sue? Because they didn't have a case.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:33 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
He is saying that the league is the brand and less so the player. People tune in to watch Alabama not some individual player.
I still don't get why it was posted in response to my comment about the University being a willing participant in a corrupt system.
Sure, the school is the bigger brand. But that doesn't mean some players don't have a brand themselves. If they didn't, the University wouldn't promote them. Their likenesses are on tickets, game day programs, stadium cups, mailers that go out, social media posts, etc. They obviously add some value to the brand or they'd just use generic stock images for those things.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:34 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
You would have to give Mark Ingram and Johnny Musso a cut as well.
Why you gonna leave Michael Vaughn out of this?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:38 pm to ATLabama
quote:
They don't sanction sales with the names on the back. Only for players since graduated. Everyone you see with current players is a knock-off.
Going forward they wouldn't even be replicas if there was never a name on it to begin with. The occasional 12 you see someone wearing with Stabler or Namath on the back is an obvious knockoff.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:40 pm to The Spleen
quote:
I still don't get why it was posted in response to my comment about the University being a willing participant in a corrupt system.
I wouldn't go so far to say that the NCAA is a corrupt system because there are far, far more real student athletes than there are big stars and they benefit from the system as is.
I think this is also going to be complicated by Title IX. They are going to say how can you pay male athletes big bucks and not give the women a cut?.....and before you tell me football is the money sport remember we are still talking about college athletics as a whole.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:52 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Sure, the school is the bigger brand. But that doesn't mean some players don't have a brand themselves. If they didn't, the University wouldn't promote them. Their likenesses are on tickets, game day programs, stadium cups, mailers that go out, social media posts, etc. They obviously add some value to the brand or they'd just use generic stock images for those things.
Stop it. You know logic has no place here.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:03 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Then Herschel, Bo, Peyton, or Johnny Football would have sued if it was such a slam dunk case
A lot goes into challenging a case at the nation's highest court.
One of the big "tick marks" is whether there is a challenge on a state law, which over-steps the 10th amendment. States have rights to institute rules/laws where the federal government doesn't speak. If such a law does not exist, then there is nothing to challenge - thus, no ruling from the highest court in the land.
Now that there is a state law going on the books, the NCAA will have a law to challenge. The USSC will have an opportunity to hear it, after it slowly makes its way through the federal court system.
The United States Supreme Court could rule entirely that it is (1) in the state of California's right to enact a law, and (2) it is within the NCAA's right as an organization to forbid it. I don't think that will happen, but an argument could be made.
Should the above ruling come down, states like North Carolina, Texas and Ohio will all enact similar laws, seeing the writing on the wall for prospects who want to have the opportunity to make money off their likeness. The NCAA will either (a) completely dissolve, or (b) enact a clearing house where they act as agents for athletes and take a cut of the endorsement money.
Anything other than an outright forbidden stance on this state law (which would be utterly out-of-character for a USSC panel that is conservative and implores heavy favoritism on states rights), will allow players to be paid. Schools won't stand for any sort of disadvantage.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:10 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Going forward they wouldn't even be replicas if there was never a name on it to begin with. The occasional 12 you see someone wearing with Stabler or Namath on the back is an obvious knockoff.
Fanatics, the #1 online retailer of licensed NCAA apparel, sells multiple former players jerseys. See HERE. Among former players you can find with a simple mouse scroll, are: Julio Jones, Derrick Henry, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Calvin Ridley, Landon Collins, AJ McCarron, Daron Payne, and Rashaan Evans.
Moreover, #12 jerseys with Stabler and Namath's names on them are licensed apparel. Mitchell and Ness produces quite a few "throwbacks" of collegiate teams, including our very own. They even have the audacity to sell them at the Supe Store.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:11 pm to ATLabama
quote:
Now that there is a state law going on the books, the NCAA will have a law to challenge. The USSC will have an opportunity to hear it, after it slowly makes its way through the federal court system.
Hasn't this already been looked at? Northwestern players tried to collectively bargain a couple of years ago to get compensated and were slapped down. The NLRB completely rejected this argument.
To be compensated, players would first have to be considered employees and this concept has been shot down.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:20 pm to My2Bits
If it affects us at all it will only be positive. But it is irrelevant at the moment
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:22 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Hasn't this already been looked at? Northwestern players tried to collectively bargain a couple of years ago to get compensated and were slapped down. The NLRB completely rejected this argument.
Creating a union and enjoying one was challenged on the grounds that unions in the United States of America are a right for employees. That is correct. The logic behind that ruling is simple - since they are not employees, they cannot create a legal union. That's it. That was the challenge and stance. The fallout is, you can't challenge as a union if it doesn't legally exist.
quote:
To be compensated, players would first have to be considered employees and this concept has been shot down.
*To be compensated by the employing institution. Since they aren't employees, they can't be in a union. Thus, they can't challenge compensation as such. This is not the same argument. California's law speaks to the fundamental right of being able to use your likeness and image to make money--union or employee status, be damned.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:29 pm to TideWarrior
It does not matter what California wants to do. They are not the governing body over the athletes. And I am not even referring to the NCAA. The conference will have to agree on it and just like the SEC it would have to be unanimous. Since teams in that state play for multiple conferences do you think those conference members that are in over a dozen other states are going to allow the advantage? No and then it would required their states to challenge the same thing. Not to mention the NCAA would slap a extra benefit tag on it and you really think any college will want that result. Who cares if they might try and sue the NCAA but the program will still take the hit with sanctions and suffer until it gets resolved in court. Which all these college agreed to be a part of the NCAA.
There is a reason this would not go into effect until fall of 2023. The goal is between now and then to get the other conferences on board and change the NCAA on this issue. So if for some reason it does happen then UA will benefit greatly from it.
There is a reason this would not go into effect until fall of 2023. The goal is between now and then to get the other conferences on board and change the NCAA on this issue. So if for some reason it does happen then UA will benefit greatly from it.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:30 pm to ATLabama
quote:
This is not the same argument. California's law speaks to the fundamental right of being able to use your likeness and image to make money--union or employee status, be damned.
Then that player isn't going to be able to leverage their connection or affiliation with the University in any way shape or form without consent.
I suppose Tua could go out a pitch Tuscaloosa Kia but would have to do so as Tua Tagovailoa......not Tua Tagovailoa the Alabama QB and not wearing any Bama gear.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:36 pm to ATLabama
quote:
Moreover, #12 jerseys with Stabler and Namath's names on them are licensed apparel. Mitchell and Ness produces quite a few "throwbacks" of collegiate teams, including our very own.
They may be licensed, but they aren't authentic throwbacks because they aren't replicas of what was worn by the players.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:38 pm to ATLabama
quote:
California's law speaks to the fundamental right of being able to use your likeness and image to make money--union or employee status, be damned.
Further to this, employers have the right to limit what you do outside the scope of your employment with respect to receiving compensation.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:39 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
I suppose Tua could go out a pitch Tuscaloosa Kia but would have to do so as Tua Tagovailoa......not Tua Tagovailoa the Alabama QB and not wearing any Bama gear.
Exactly.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:39 pm to 14&Counting
That is the key is that university has the right to how their logo and name is used not the player. Now if they come to an agreement maybe the player might make a few 1000 is they are really known but most especially those outside of FB and BB would make very little if anything. Who wants to buy a Tua photo without UA logo in it or him in a jersey?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:43 pm to TideWarrior
I'm still shocked that a state like California did this, because the only ones who wpuld benefit are a relatively small number of elite male athletes, most of whom will become millionaires anyway. We haven't seen the outcry from feminists yet, but it's coming.
Page 4 of 7
Latest Alabama News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News