Started By
Message
re: Don't overlook the California situation with athletes endorsments
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:12 pm to Leto II
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:12 pm to Leto II
quote:
that allows a bunch of future male millionaires to make big bucks in college while the girls get nothing.
They women are entitled to take the endorsement money as well.
Of course they are.
How much are your female track athletes at Auburn going to make compared too what Cam would have made?
Whose autographed photo will bring more money in the campus book store...Bo Nix's or the softball catcher's?
1
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:15 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
How much are your female track athletes at Auburn going to make compared too what Cam would have made?
The same thing the male track athletes at Auburn would be making. You are comparing apple to oranges.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:15 pm to Leto II
quote:
As a poster pointed out on the Alabama board, it's always been legal.
Not sure what that means without context. An athlete has never been able to use their likeness, picture, name etc. for as long as I can remember. It's an NCAA rule, not a law.
The NCAA isn't the law. His point is that Tua can go out today and sell a bunch of autographed photos for $1,000,000.
He just can't play for Alabama any more.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:16 pm to Leto II
quote:
How much are your female track athletes at Auburn going to make compared too what Cam would have made?
The same thing the male track athletes at Auburn would be making.
Irrelevant.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:16 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
He just can't play for Alabama any more
Well, obviously. I'm not sure where anyone ever said that he could or where anyone ever deemed that "the law".
And who anchored this thread? So many bullshite threads on this POS and one with good discussion gets anchored? Wtf?
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:18 pm to Leto II
quote:
How much are your female track athletes at Auburn going to make compared too what Cam would have made?
The same thing the male track athletes at Auburn would be making. You are comparing apple to oranges.
No, I understand the issues behind equality between women's and men's sports.
You tell me...why do you have more women on scholarship to play basketball at Auburn than men? Why do you have more scholarship softball players than baseball players?
My point is that all this would do is allow elite male athletes to make a windfall, and there's no way that the politicians who gave us Title IX will ever sit still for it.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:19 pm to r2d2
California lefties ruin something loved by many again. (Was the goal)This new law opens up a bidding war for University Athletics. Yeller Feller, Jerry Jones, Nike, and the like (maybe even Nicks's Mercedes Dealership)can simply use sponsorship and ads legally to buy athletes. The amount of payment cannot be regulated. Now you have true ownership of athletes and the rich get richer. Ignorant.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:20 pm to Leto II
quote:
Well, obviously. I'm not sure where anyone ever said that he could or where anyone ever deemed that "the law".
It's the whole point of ttbe discussion. California passed a law saying what players can do...yet they've always been able to legally do it.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:20 pm to Dstllsu
Trust me, it will turn into indirect pay by the likes of shoe companies or sports companies with their own bias done on behalf of certain schools to get certain athletes.
California should work harder on potty training it's citizenry.
California should work harder on potty training it's citizenry.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:21 pm to 3down10
quote:
It will make the California schools ineligible with the NCAA.
So I don't know what this thread is really about.
The NCAA must do that or it is the end of amateur sports.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:23 pm to CrimsonShadow
quote:
It will make the California schools ineligible with the NCAA.
So I don't know what this thread is really about.
The NCAA must do that or it is the end of amateur sports.
No, they don't, and they won't. Elite athletes could have sued the NCAA any time since the invention of television, and they haven't. It isn't a winning case.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:29 pm to NPComb
quote:
Endorsement deals can't compete with Dodge Chargers, Mens Warehouse suits, and barbers.
Endorsement deals couldn’t compete with a suit or a haircut? Look, I get that you’re trying to troll. But this doesn’t even make sense and you just look like an idiot.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:29 pm to BamaGradinTn
Same principle...Antonio Langham lost his eligibility, and Alabama suffered significant economic damage simply because Langham basically hired a lawyer. Did Langham or Alabama sue? Of course not.
If there was a winnable case against the NCAA, it would have already been fought and won.
If there was a winnable case against the NCAA, it would have already been fought and won.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:31 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
No, they don't, and they won't. Elite athletes could have sued the NCAA any time since the invention of television, and they haven't. It isn't a winning case.
If not the NCAA would cease to exist. I know some here would celebrate that, and I agree they suck sometimes but it would not be good. That would mean the end of college football. Universities are not going to run semi-pro teams and semi-pro couldn't make it financially anyway. Some are incapable of thinking this through all the ramifications.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:54 pm to r2d2
Just another lawyers' payday!
The NCAA has no choice but to contest this with every means they have available, and they won't hesitate to disqualify ANY school with a "paid" player.
frick'in lawyers!
The NCAA has no choice but to contest this with every means they have available, and they won't hesitate to disqualify ANY school with a "paid" player.
frick'in lawyers!
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:57 pm to Leto II
quote:
Not sure what that means without context. An athlete has never been able to use their likeness, picture, name etc. for as long as I can remember. It's an NCAA rule, not a law.
It means exactly that, it's never been illegal for a player to do these things.
Businesses are allowed to have their own laws. I signed a non compete clause less than 2 weeks ago. It's legal for me to compete with that business if I want, but I agreed not too and now I'm under contract not too.
So they made something that was already legal...legal. Unless they are trying to dictate to the NCAA how to conduct it's business, which they have no right to do.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:07 pm to 3down10
quote:
Do you understand that it will kill college football if the NCAA allows it?
the only thing that really NEEDS to happen is the NCAA should be paying the Insurance policies of the athletes as relates to draft position money... if you really want to help college football and show good will to athletes/families... pay the insurance bills... Draft/Slot money to those families in case of injuries...
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News