Last week, the NCAA announced that their athletes could “benefit from the use of their name, image, and likeness.” For most schools, their revenue-generating sports will be the only sports that feel its affects. For Stanford, however, their non-revenue generating sports will also be affected.
Katie Ledecky left the 2016 Olympics in Rio with four gold medals and as one of the most well-known names in the world of sports. More importantly, she won in dominant fashion, and ahead of college, expectations were through the roof. Ultimately, she reached those expectations, becoming a NCAA champion in five events as a freshman and in three events as a sophomore. However, her career was short-lived; she turned pro after two years at Stanford.
When she turned pro, she couldn’t have profited off her name, one of the biggest in sports, while competing on the Stanford team. In 2017, she ranked 29th in SportsPro’s list of the 50 most marketable athletes. NCAA rules, though, forbid Ledecky to profit off her name, image, and likeness. Certainly, this rule played a factor in Ledecky’s decision to turn pro. After turning pro, she signed a $7 million endorsement deal with TYR.
Stanford is a unique case for the new rule because their non-revenue generating sports house Olympians. In Rio, 39 Stanford affiliated athletes competed, and 16 won medals. In Olympic sports, like gymnastics, swimming, and track, Olympic winners have a short career and a short window to make a profit off their name following their success on the world’s biggest stage. There’s not as much money in women’s swimming, so when an lucrative endorsement deal is on the table, Ledecky will take it. If the NCAA rule had been in affect two years ago, Ledecky could have accepted the $7 million and still compete for Stanford.
Or consider Michelle Wie, who couldn’t compete for Stanford because she was a professional golfer. Every year, she would take a quarter off school to compete professionally. The school and the player could have benefitted from the ability to play collegiate sports and earn money professionally at the same time, allowing her to keep her game sharp while benefitting Stanford’s team too.
Still, the key word in the NCAA new rule is “benefit.” Athletes could benefit by earning cash, receiving gifts, or getting a trust-fund. There’s no telling what the NCAA might decide by 2021. Maybe the NCAA decides to not allow endorsement deals to pay athletes. Maybe the rule makes no difference for an athlete like Ledecky, and she would still turn pro. Ultimately, however, the NCAA needs to treat college sports how fans treat it—like a professional sport.
In most of the country, college football is professional football - or the only sport most fans care about. I drove to Cornell last weekend from Virginia, and even in upstate New York, I saw Penn State flags fly with pride despite the school being located three hours away. In Alabama, there are no professional teams, except for Alabama and Auburn football. Texas has their own channel, the Longhorn Network. In Norman, Oklahoma, the Dallas Cowboys are a three-hour drive away. And would fans in Ohio rather root for the sorry Browns or the prideful Ohio State University?
Even growing up in Los Angeles, I saw USC treated a professional team, filling the void of a NFL team. Players were treated like celebrities, and many fans had no affiliation with the school besides just living in the area.
In the Bay Area, professional sports are abundant. The Warriors have dominated basketball the past five years, the Giants baseball dominated the five years prior, and 49ers look like they could dominate football for the next five years. For the common sports fan in the Bay Area, Stanford is the fourth, or fifth, option to watch. Most of the country is not as blessed with professional sports, and college sports fill the void as the local professional team.
It’s time players in all sports can benefit from their hard work, accomplishments, and stardom with more than just a scholarship.
Comments
Just remove sports from college.
If you’re going to pay the athletes beyond the scholarship, then simply end the charade. Remove sports from college and let those kids who want to be paid to play sports, go be professional athletes. Once you start paying kids, you’re opening Pandora’s box on what these kids are going to do to get paid more money. How many women use performance enhancing drugs now? What do you think is likely to happen if endorsement deals are suddenly an option?
The NCAA has lost all control of this situation. You forget, SB-206 is a state law. The NCAA is now powerless to stop any state from allowing any type of profit model. There is nothing the NCAA can do to stop it if they can’t ban schools from the NCAA (which they won’t do on a state-wide level). The NCAA has lost this battle and there is no way for them to recover. What we are seeing now are the convulsions of a body with its head cut-off.
So what you’ve unwittingly admitted is that this would really change nothing for a future Ledecky. She didn’t really lose out an any money whatsoever. They only thing we might have gained is the prestige for Stanford’s program? Sorry, but I have to laugh out loud. We’re going to blow up the whole NCAA so Stanford can trout out Ledecky on their roster?
How about this? LA sports agency is going to create the Menudo of women’s swimming. They hire the best swim coaches in the country, convince LA Community College to hire them. Then they go around the country hiring the best women swimmers and enrolling them at LACC. The kids get signed for a pittance and now work for the a sports agency while "going to school." If one or two of them make the Olympic team every year and if they medal, boom, pay day for everyone. If they don’t, they get booted from the program. But they can train 80 hours a week because there is no NCAA limiting the hours (can’t stop people from working).
Oh yeah…this is going to be great.
By Blackjoy on 11.05.19 12:15pm
That’s correct.
The source of the problem comes from a misuse of collegiate athletics.
So many trains have left so many stations on this by this point, however, that the goose is well and truly cooked at this point. We are going to have college athletes getting financial endorsements (or autographed memorabilia, etc.) from boosters, and the best players will continue to be stockpiled at schools where the boosters are willing to provide that money, period. Can’t blame the kids for wanting the money — they’re human and money is better than no money. The system which created this is broken (the very concept of "professionalized collegiate sports" belies the broken-ness) because there is too much money being made by everyone in the system (colleges, networks) to un-break a broken system, and so we’re going to make sure it damned well stays as broken as possible by making even more people beholden to the endless money spigot that the current broken system creates.
And of course we will pat ourselves on our backs as we do so — well done. Well done indeed.
By Brendan Ross on 11.06.19 5:10am
Apples and Oranges
Though I think almost all posters on this blog feel this is a bad idea for either revenue producing (football) or non-revenue producing (everything else) sports.
Unlike football (for example), olympic level athletes actually get to compete at the highest level of their sport while they are in college. They don’t really "need" the development aspect of college sports to help them get to the next level (for the most part) or benefit from the exposure of being part of Stanford’s team. They do get access to great facilities and a chance to train and compete while they await their next turn on the big stage. And they get a great education for free. The very very few who might command some $$$ turn pro early and bank it. For many of them (swimmers particularly), their peak career years are early, starting at age 16 and often ending in the mid 20s. Giving up NCAA swimming or diving or running or gymnastics is just not that big a deal for them as it relates to their sport. It is like playing in the minor leagues when you are already a major league all-star.
For the olympic athletes, the $$$ are all in endorsements, not professional sports contracts. For footbal or basketball players, the $$$ are (mostly) in that professional contract – which they can leave college early for. Or not go to college (after a period of time). And for the few heisman trophy winners and the like, once they turn pro, they can cash in on endorsements as well.
This is just a bad idea for everyone involved.
By hoyaparanoia on 11.05.19 2:52pm