(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.

The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

As long as it is arm's length transactions very few players will make anything. Name and likeness revenue is generally insignificant unless you are a big star.

If "boosters" were banned from entering into name and likeness agreements with anyone at the school they are a booster of then very few make anything, unless they are a Zion who has every shoe and apparel company lined up making offers.

Problem is my understanding of the Cali law is player can't endorse a product in conflict with an endorsement of the school. Then Zion would be limited to signing with Nike or no one while in college.

I hope there is no one out there that thinks it is a terrible deal if Joe Fourstar gets a couple bucks if fans buy a jersey with his name on it. Most fans I know would LOVE it because now you can only get a jersey with that player's number. To get the name you have to hope to snatch up a game worn when the school sells them off.