Savvy Jack on Player Likeness

[IrishLax]

Notre Dame AD: College players should be paid for using their name

 

[BeauBenken]

I've been against schools paying players, but open to the idea of players earning money for their likeness.

Jack's idea that NOT paying the athletes actually seperates them further from the rest of the student body is a new take though.

 

[Redbar]

Here is the real "gangsta"!

 

[BGIF]

I've been against schools paying players, but open to the idea of players earning money for their likeness.

Jack's idea that NOT paying the athletes actually seperates them further from the rest of the student body is a new take though.

Same here. I had not thought of them being not be able to work at a summer internship but then again all I hear from students who do get those internships is they are slaves (unpaid workers) in a suit and tie.

 

[MNIrishman]

Same here. I had not thought of them being not be able to work at a summer internship but then again all I hear from students who do get those internships is they are slaves (unpaid workers) in a suit and tie.

Which internships? Unpaid internships where one contributes to the work of the company are generally illegal.

I'd think the $200k scholarship that athletes earn would generally beat out the approximate $20k/yr upper bound for highly-paid summer internships+ the value of part-time jobs on campus. Even if you earned $8.50/hr (The upper limit for student hourly rate when I was there in 2010) and worked 20 hours a week during the school year, you'd earn less than $7k over the school year. Over four years, assuming you have a GREAT internship each summer and work every minute the athletes are practicing, you'd still come out way behind the football players financially with the same or greater time investment in jobs available to students.

I don't know that I buy the "not working" argument that Jack is employing.

I'm still somewhat on the fence about the issue of using the athletes' images, since the school provides a platform for football players that is largely unavailable to the student body as a whole. However, I ALSO think that schools shouldn't be using the athletes' names and images to be earning a profit unless they revisit how they distribute those profits.

 

[NDdomer2]

My company pays $20/hr for internships. The unpaid "internships" can only go unpaid if student gets some sort of class credit to my understanding.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I thought the analogy to the merit scholar who is also a musician was the most apt. Taylor Swifts brother goes (went?) to ND, imagine if she wanted to go. Would the school try to force her to give up all rights to her royalties if she wanted to participate in theater? Of course not.

 

[GoldenDome]

My company pays $20/hr for internships. The unpaid "internships" can only go unpaid if student gets some sort of class credit to my understanding.

I am pretty sure that it depends on the internship and if they can calculate some sort of profit from the work being done. Most HR internships are unpaid because it is difficult to find how much the work is actually being done. However other internships like accounting may be easier to contribute to actually monetary figures do to the nature of the work and how it contributes to actual profits.

 

[MNIrishman]

I thought the analogy to the merit scholar who is also a musician was the most apt. Taylor Swifts brother goes (went?) to ND, imagine if she wanted to go. Would the school try to force her to give up all rights to her royalties if she wanted to participate in theater? Of course not.

Hmm that's an interesting point of view. I suppose my answer to that would be that I don't see the analogue with Taylor Swift, exactly, since she established herself independently of the institution. That's not the same since football players receive a great deal of free publicity from their participation in athletics, and so the University can be attributed the rights (or most of the rights) to the profit from that publicity. This is especially true since almost no football player is nationally-known prior to being associated with a national university. Even great football players from lesser-known universities have very little national recognition most of the time because fame is primarily derived not from their ability as individuals, but from the name and logo on their uniforms.

I prefer the analogy that says that the athletes are like product developers at a major company----I'm going to use the example of a designer at Apple. A designer might sign on to Apple for $60k a year. He creates the design for a product that eventually becomes 20% of the revenue stream for Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, and his name is on the design patent. His product is worth literally billions (or at least hundreds of millions) of dollars! Shouldn't he get a share of the profits? After all, without him, there is no product. No one else could come up with exactly the same design for an iTurd, and that design has been praised by iSh*t lovers everywhere. His subtleness, his attention to detail, his incredible sync with customer needs----it's a masterpiece, truly, and the media world has recognized that so much that his name alone adds value to future products. Shouldn't Apple pay him more than the $60k a year he agreed to when he signed on to the company, so he can share in the profits his work earns for Apple?

Of course not. He was only able to find success because of the incredible reputation of Apple, because of the world-class marketing team, the Triple-A rated support of the Moron Bar, and the customer's unending faith that any iCrap squeezed out by Apple is worth a fortune. And if he had been designed an unsuccessful product, he would still be owed his salary---all the risk was taken up by Apple, who also took upon the responsibility of manufacturing, shipping, and sales, without which the design, unpatented because no one would otherwise pay a ridiculous sum to get it patented, would languish unused in a cabinet somewhere.

Of course, it's a free market and our theoretical designer has the freedom to withdraw from Apple at any time and start his own company, so he can profit in scale with his success. But he finds that he never appreciated the sheer amount of work that went on besides his product design to create something that people wanted to buy---and without the Apple name backing him, his iSh*t is just perceived as regular sh*t, and sales don't go well.

Athletes receive an education, room and board, and various per diems, gifts, equipment, and other benefits worth more than $60k a year, and the fact that this isn't in cash is irrelevant---it's a compensation package they agree to when they sign up, and they are, of course, perfectly free to not sign up and instead choose another option, like acting as a regular student. If they were a regular student, they could be free to utilize their athletic talents as they see fit without the gravity of NCAA rules holding them back. They could take on the time and effort of organizing a team that people want to watch, of branding it and selling it and using their theoretical accounting degree, for which they are paying full price, to make financial statements for ticket sales and pay the taxes on these. They are free to do all this at any time, since no one is forcing them to play football for any university. That's really difficult, obviously, but entrepreneurs make this choice to give up the assurances of a big company to create a startup all the time, with all the risks and financial losses that entails, when they feel that their compensation or personal inputs to the enterprise or even the use of their name are not satisfactory.

Or football players can STFU, recognize that they are in a position of incredible success and envy among their peers, and that if they would like to trade places with someone who is $150+K in debt who works their part time job every moment they're not in the classroom or working on problem sets, they are perfectly free to do so, and no one will question them if they would like to sell their image themselves. Of course, they may find that such a route will not get them what they seek.

 

[BGIF]

Which internships? Unpaid internships where one contributes to the work of the company are generally illegal.

I'd think the $200k scholarship that athletes earn would generally beat out the approximate $20k/yr upper bound for highly-paid summer internships+ the value of part-time jobs on campus. Even if you earned $8.50/hr (The upper limit for student hourly rate when I was there in 2010) and worked 20 hours a week during the school year, you'd earn less than $7k over the school year. Over four years, assuming you have a GREAT internship each summer and work every minute the athletes are practicing, you'd still come out way behind the football players financially with the same or greater time investment in jobs available to students.

I don't know that I buy the "not working" argument that Jack is employing.

I'm still somewhat on the fence about the issue of using the athletes' images, since the school provides a platform for football players that is largely unavailable to the student body as a whole. However, I ALSO think that schools shouldn't be using the athletes' names and images to be earning a profit unless they revisit how they distribute those profits.

IF the athletes get compensated for their names do they in turn have to reimburse the school for the Tutoring Program which the other students don't get? "Extra Benefits"?

Do they reimburse the school for the extra medical treatment they get?

How many students get a free MRI after a collision on the Quidditch Field or for Frisbee Finger?

How much is an athlete's Training Table Meal Plan compared to the Student Plan?

Does the Cross Country Team get a reduced rate Meal Plan in fairness?

 

[MNIrishman]

IF the athletes get compensated for their names do they in turn have to reimburse the school for the Tutoring Program which the other students don't get? "Extra Benefits"?

Do they reimburse the school for the extra medical treatment they get?

How many students get a free MRI after a collision on the Quidditch Field or for Frisbee Finger?

How much is an athlete's Training Table Meal Plan compared to the Student Plan?

Does the Cross Country Team get a reduced rate Meal Plan in fairness?

Seems like the most fair way to do this would be to take away guaranteed scholarships, pay players student wages for participation time, then pay starters a fraction of a scholarship corresponding to the team's performance. Or do changes only work to give athletes more money?

 

[BGIF]

I thought the analogy to the merit scholar who is also a musician was the most apt. Taylor Swifts brother goes (went?) to ND, imagine if she wanted to go. Would the school try to force her to give up all rights to her royalties if she wanted to participate in theater? Of course not.

Swift couldn't be forced to give up her royalties but she also wouldn't be compensated by ND for performing in a school production of Our Town or The Wizard of Oz.

Booth Tarkington, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Joshua Logan, Jimmy Stewart, David E. Kelley, and Brooke Shields all wrote, acted, produced or directed in productions put on by Princeton's Triangle Club. They weren't compensated although Shields already had a SAG card.

 

[BGIF]

Seems like the most fair way to do this would be to take away guaranteed scholarships, pay players student wages for participation time, then pay starters a fraction of a scholarship corresponding to the team's performance. Or do changes only work to give athletes more money?

Or give them a flat sum scholarship regardless of contribution. Hmmm, they already get that.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Swift couldn't be forced to give up her royalties but she also wouldn't be compensated by ND for performing in a school production of Our Town or The Wizard of Oz.

Booth Tarkington, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Joshua Logan, Jimmy Stewart, David E. Kelley, and Brooke Shields all wrote, acted, produced or directed in productions put on by Princeton's Triangle Club. They weren't compensated although Shields already had a SAG card.

Right, and my understanding of Jack's quote was simply that the NCAA should stop preventing players from getting compensated for their likeness. I do not think he was arguing that schools should be directly paying them salaries (though I guess you could get argue that that's exactly what any deal with EA would look like...)

 

[IrishinSyria]

Hmm that's an interesting point of view. I suppose my answer to that would be that I don't see the analogue with Taylor Swift, exactly, since she established herself independently of the institution. That's not the same since football players receive a great deal of free publicity from their participation in athletics, and so the University can be attributed the rights (or most of the rights) to the profit from that publicity. This is especially true since almost no football player is nationally-known prior to being associated with a national university. Even great football players from lesser-known universities have very little national recognition most of the time because fame is primarily derived not from their ability as individuals, but from the name and logo on their uniforms.

I prefer the analogy that says that the athletes are like product developers at a major company----I'm going to use the example of a designer at Apple. A designer might sign on to Apple for $60k a year. He creates the design for a product that eventually becomes 20% of the revenue stream for Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, and his name is on the design patent. His product is worth literally billions (or at least hundreds of millions) of dollars! Shouldn't he get a share of the profits? After all, without him, there is no product. No one else could come up with exactly the same design for an iTurd, and that design has been praised by iSh*t lovers everywhere. His subtleness, his attention to detail, his incredible sync with customer needs----it's a masterpiece, truly, and the media world has recognized that so much that his name alone adds value to future products. Shouldn't Apple pay him more than the $60k a year he agreed to when he signed on to the company, so he can share in the profits his work earns for Apple?

Of course not. He was only able to find success because of the incredible reputation of Apple, because of the world-class marketing team, the Triple-A rated support of the Moron Bar, and the customer's unending faith that any iCrap squeezed out by Apple is worth a fortune. And if he had been designed an unsuccessful product, he would still be owed his salary---all the risk was taken up by Apple, who also took upon the responsibility of manufacturing, shipping, and sales, without which the design, unpatented because no one would otherwise pay a ridiculous sum to get it patented, would languish unused in a cabinet somewhere.

Of course, it's a free market and our theoretical designer has the freedom to withdraw from Apple at any time and start his own company, so he can profit in scale with his success. But he finds that he never appreciated the sheer amount of work that went on besides his product design to create something that people wanted to buy---and without the Apple name backing him, his iSh*t is just perceived as regular sh*t, and sales don't go well.

Athletes receive an education, room and board, and various per diems, gifts, equipment, and other benefits worth more than $60k a year, and the fact that this isn't in cash is irrelevant---it's a compensation package they agree to when they sign up, and they are, of course, perfectly free to not sign up and instead choose another option, like acting as a regular student. If they were a regular student, they could be free to utilize their athletic talents as they see fit without the gravity of NCAA rules holding them back. They could take on the time and effort of organizing a team that people want to watch, of branding it and selling it and using their theoretical accounting degree, for which they are paying full price, to make financial statements for ticket sales and pay the taxes on these. They are free to do all this at any time, since no one is forcing them to play football for any university. That's really difficult, obviously, but entrepreneurs make this choice to give up the assurances of a big company to create a startup all the time, with all the risks and financial losses that entails, when they feel that their compensation or personal inputs to the enterprise or even the use of their name are not satisfactory.

Or football players can STFU, recognize that they are in a position of incredible success and envy among their peers, and that if they would like to trade places with someone who is $150+K in debt who works their part time job every moment they're not in the classroom or working on problem sets, they are perfectly free to do so, and no one will question them if they would like to sell their image themselves. Of course, they may find that such a route will not get them what they seek.

You have to compare apples to apples though. Everyone who goes to ND finds themselves in some way backed by the weight of the university's brand name. The real question here is why are football players restricted in what they can do when full-ride merit scholars are not? If a Notre Dame literature major on a full ride scholarship published a book he wrote over the summer that was based on a creative writing project he did in class with extensive help from the professor, would the University try to restrict him from getting any compensation? He clearly benefited from his relationship with the university, and you could argue that he would never have been in a position to profit from the book without the help of the university. Yet, we might think that -at most- he probably should donate some money to university sometime down the line. Nobody would argue that the university can simply claim all profits from the sale of his book.

Also, I'm not sure you realize just how restrictive the NCAA rules are. They go far beyond preventing players from profiting from their association with the university. They can punish players for doing a legitimate summer job that has nothing to do with football. Since a lot of those summer jobs have become prerequisites for getting real jobs after school, the NCAA rules bind football players to the sport in a way no other student is bound. In effect, a football player's summer job is expected to be football. This, I think, gets to JS's point about becoming defacto minor leagues. A student-athlete is preparing for a future outside of sports and the current rules bar them from doing that in important ways.

 

[koonja]

.

 

[adsnorri]

IF the athletes get compensated for their names do they in turn have to reimburse the school for the Tutoring Program which the other students don't get? "Extra Benefits"?

Do they reimburse the school for the extra medical treatment they get?

How many students get a free MRI after a collision on the Quidditch Field or for Frisbee Finger?

How much is an athlete's Training Table Meal Plan compared to the Student Plan?

Does the Cross Country Team get a reduced rate Meal Plan in fairness?

All of these things are provided by the university because they want their product(the athlete) to perform better, in turn so they can make more money. A simple and very small investment to yield much greater returns.

Facebook was created during Mark's time at Harvard, in Harvard dorm rooms, most likely using some of the Harvard equipment. You don't see Harvard asking Mark for money?

Students do not get the same things as athletes because they do not provide the same amount of money to the university tenfold. The university is simply giving the athlete free room and board and a Value of free education to make them millions. HOWEVER neither of these things pays the bills now or keeps the lights on and food on the table at home where some of these athletes(Many) have multiple siblings at home with a mom trying to provide.

Outside of this fact, it is the American way(Capitalism) to get paid for your likeness. I understand the Apple analogy but is not the same. Apple is not selling the designers name, producing a video game of him, creating marketing specifically for the designer. The designer gets paid(and may even get free tuition reimbursement) to produce a product. The athlete gets room and board and education as well as a small stipend which is petty. He does not get money to survive like normal people do. He also has much more risk involved with no monetary commitment.

 

[MNIrishman]

Maybe universities should offer them nothing whatsoever beyond the free publicity of athletic participation and see if kids still sign up to be a part of that? It's a free market economy, no one's stopping the players from selling their image but the guy who signs the dotted line on an NLA.

Players are free to be normal students and sell their likeness. They choose not to.

And non-football students (especially graduate students) as a whole and often as individuals contribute more to the university than football players. So unless you're suggesting that each individual student be rewarded in turn with the profit he brings in (research leading to a major grant, TA'ing for minimum wage), I'm not sure I buy your argument. That also means that players who never start would have to return the value of their scholarship, since they don't make the University money.