I don’t think they should be paying the kids to play, but I do think anything sold with their likeness should pay royalties to them!
Senior Member
I don’t think they should be paying the kids to play, but I do think anything sold with their likeness should pay royalties to them!
Senior Member
I can agree with this.Originally Posted by Woodiewacker82
Do I think the water polo team should be paid, or the third string kicker on a major D1 football team, they shouldn't. But I'm all for royalties being paid to kids that are having their likeness used for profit by the schools and the NCAA. Everything from football jerseys to video games to shoes. I wouldn't have a problem with the royalties being paid to them AFTER their eligibility is finished up as well. Connor Shaw and Taj Boyd come to mind. There were a ton of jerseys with their names/numbers sold on them while they played at USC and Clemson. I might be wrong because I don't keep up with it too much, but neither really succeeded in the NFL. They didn't get 'rich' after they left college, at least not due to football. What would be wrong with paying them a percentage of the profits they brought into the school/NCAA?
Senior Member
From the article. That is exactly what the bill does.
The bill would allow student-athletes to hire agents and be paid for the use of their names, images or likenesses. It would stop California universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money. But it would forbid athletes from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their school’s existing contracts. If it becomes law, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2023.
This is another fun one. NCAA has the right to kick the schools out, but how the hell is this the federal commerce clause?
The NCAA believes the bill is unconstitutional because it violates the federal Commerce Clause , and would consider challenging the bill in court if it becomes law.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks