Started By
Message
re: What happens when these laws to allow players to get paid collides with Title IX?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:06 am to GatorBait24
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:06 am to GatorBait24
quote:
There is also a bylaw that says the school already owns likeness with scholarship. This is for 3rd party’s I don’t understand why this is so difficult.
I’ll use Auburn as an example here. Auburn has a contract with Under Armour. Let’s say Bo Nix signs a big contract with Under Armour for them to use his likeness in advertising. Then the top player on the women’s soccer team wants the same deal with Under Armour and of course can’t get it because Nobody gives a shite about women’s soccer, especially in Alabama. You don’t think she will sue Auburn under Title IX for supporting discrimination with their Under Armour contract?
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 10:07 am
2
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:06 am to GatorBait24
quote:
They can’t this is capitalism, you are worth what someone is willing to pay you. Just like real life.
Well no, not even close.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:07 am to Darth_Vader
Your Auburn education is serving you well today... 
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:07 am to 0
quote:
to equal that particular playing field.
That’s not the goal. Field hockey players aren’t having millions made on there backs. The least we can do is let players do what every other college student can do. Profit from there likeness.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:09 am to Quicksilver
quote:
The law would also allow the women’s field hockey team to profit off their likeness. A private contract with a company using likeness wouldn’t be a Title IX issue because the school isn’t the one paying them:
Yes, but that won't stop women from whining about it. And many in the media will go along with the ridiculousness the way they went along with the women's soccer team bs.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:09 am to Philippines4LSU
quote:
ll all fade into obscurity when the same politicians pushing this stuff realize that it would in essence destroy Title IX.
This is a lazy take and in no way true.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:10 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Your Auburn education is serving you well today...
Can’t come up with a logical reply so you resort to insults. Tells me that you know already you’ve lost.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:11 am to DivePlay
quote:
Fools making the change does terrify me yes. Change does not automatically mean correct or improvement.
Does it automatically mean the opposite?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:11 am to GatorBait24
quote:
The least we can do is let players do what every other college student can do. Profit from there likeness.
Actually. Every college student can't profit from their likeness and compete in amateur athletics.
There is professional athletics. Like going to play baseball out of high school.
And amateur athletics. Like going to play baseball at a college out of high school. They are different for a reason.
In professional sports baseball, you can be any age and ability. You can make money on your likeness.
In amateur baseball, there are lots of restrictions on eligibility. The quality of play is relative to the players who meet that eligibility. That isnt the same in professional sports.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:11 am to nes2010
Offensive lineman: Gift card from Golden Corral
Pretty boy QB : 100 grand from Nike
This should work out well.
Pretty boy QB : 100 grand from Nike
This should work out well.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:12 am to GatorBait24
quote:
There is also a bylaw that says the school already owns likeness with scholarship. This is for 3rd party’s I don’t understand why this is so difficult.
How would a player get paid for their likeness if they do not own it, as you stated. The law would mean the school no longer owns the likeness.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 10:13 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:13 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Can’t come up with a logical reply so you resort to insults. Tells me that you know already you’ve lost.
No, I've given you the same answer 3 times and you refuse to hear it.
quote:
Except the student athletes won't be employees of the schools and the schools won't be paying them. Everything that happens will be the student athlete working 1 on 1 with sponsors willing to pay the athletes directly for their image/name/likeness.
Therefore, title IX won't apply as it doesn't represent "financial aid" as described in Title IX.
quote:
They do pay them. It's called Scholarship and cost of attendance money. You simply write the language into the financial aid agreement each student athlete must sign to attend. It's within the new laws, NCAA guidelines and Title IX.
quote:
As I said before, you simply write a clause into the financial aid agreement that allows the school to use the players likeness. The compensation for that use is the scholarship and the cost of living payments that the schools pay the players. Both parties sign and agree. Basic contract law. Open and shut.
Furthemore, the players receive free meals, books, health care, access to the strength and conditioning programs, etc, etc that all could be considered compensation.
I therefore reasonably assumed your reading comprehension skills are on an Auburn level...
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 10:14 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:13 am to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
Do these new laws say a player cannot be paid by the school? If the school is making money off of the players likeness, then why shouldn't they get paid by the school? I haven't read the new laws, but does it say the school itself cannot pay them? What about private schools?
Scholarship+ all the other stuff will be counted as compensation and gets schools of the hook for paying for likeness. End of story open and shut.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:14 am to GatorBait24
quote:
Scholarship+ all the other stuff will be counted as compensation and gets schools of the hook for paying for likeness. End of story open and shut.
Source in the laws that state this?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:14 am to DivePlay
quote:
AHAHAHA...oh my sweet, innocent, child.
Go ahead tell me where capitalism touched you.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:16 am to nes2010
quote:
Yes, but that won't stop women from whining about it. And many in the media will go along with the ridiculousness the way they went along with the women's soccer team bs.
THIS^^^^^^^^^
I am still shaking my head at those of you saying "well the rules say this so they can't sue or expect this".
Guess what. You may be right...the current "rule" may not have that covered. But they don't have to sue, they can go one better. If enough get together to complain they will have the rule makers change the rules. Why bother getting a lawyer when you can lobby the rules themselves to change.
If you don't think that will happen you are either too young to have seen this happen or not paying attention.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:16 am to Lonnie Utah
Again with the insults. Pathetic.
My whole point is it’s obvious once this thing gets going female athletes will sue once they see male athletes making more money then they can. And all it will take for them to sue their school is when a male athlete signs an endorsement with a company the school also has a contract with. That will open the door to suing the school under Title IX.
My whole point is it’s obvious once this thing gets going female athletes will sue once they see male athletes making more money then they can. And all it will take for them to sue their school is when a male athlete signs an endorsement with a company the school also has a contract with. That will open the door to suing the school under Title IX.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:18 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
use Auburn as an example here. Auburn has a contract with Under Armour. Let’s say Bo Nix signs a big contract with Under Armour for them to use his likeness in advertising. Then the top player on the women’s soccer team wants the same deal with Under Armour and of course can’t get it because Nobody gives a shite about women’s soccer, especially in Alabama. You don’t think she will sue Auburn under Title IX for supporting discrimination with their Under Armour contract?
No just because Auburn is signed with UA, doesn’t mean Bo can’t. UA is its own entity and Auburn has no jurisdiction over who they sign, therefore senior soccer player has nothing to sue Auburn for. It’s not Auburn sponsor deal. It’s Bo’s as an individual.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:18 am to GatorBait24
quote:
No just because Auburn is signed with UA, doesn’t mean Bo can’t. UA is its own entity and Auburn has no jurisdiction over who they sign, therefore senior soccer player has nothing to sue Auburn for. It’s not Auburn sponsor deal. It’s Bo’s as an individual.
I dont think you understand the teeth of title ix.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:19 am to 0
quote:
Well no, not even close
Expand, I’ll do my best to clear up what your questions are.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News