Could anyone please provide the background story of this item. What is the goal of the bill (no spending $$ for athletes?) and what is the UA stance?
There’s going to have to be federal NIL legislation. Otherwise 50 states will have 50 different laws and the schools in states with more generous laws for the athlete will have a huge recruiting advantage. I do not know the details of this proposal, or how it compares with the laws already passed in Florida or California (although if I had to guess I’d say it was probably patterned after Florida as an SEC state). It’s already beyond the point that the NCAA can fix it; these state laws supercede the NCAA rules.
Here you go, educate yourself!
Interesting. And not very specific. A lot of limitations though. Enough co-sponsors that I think it will probably pass unless UA comes out against it.
The UofA is for it, that’s why Yurachek and Pittman were there testifying for it.
As written now, it keeps the universities in control of any use of mascots, logos, fight songs,etc.
Treylon Burks could not go do a TV commercial for a Fayetteville car dealership while wearing his uniform, with Arkansas Fight playing in the background. So it’s kind of like pro athletes now doing commercials for products which are not “official” for the NFL, MLB etc. Burks can toss a football around, catch passes, or even wear a generic football uniform and out-jump a generic opponent for a pass while talking about how great Ford trucks are.
Burks also would not have a right to wear Nike shoes/apparel in practice or a game just because he signed a promotional contract with them. So no headbands, wristbands, temporary tattoos, face paint etc to promote energy drinks.
The athletes can have registered agents to handle their promotional side hustles, but they can’t hire an agent until they enroll in school(sorry high school phenoms). They can’t do ads for beer, casinos, guns, weed, performance enhancing drugs, etc.
The bill states that there is no requirement that the schools to act as agents to drum up promotion business for the players. On the other hand, there’s nothing in the bill to keep the UA from cutting a deal where it gives the players a cut from commercials for “official” products. If the NCAA and/or the feds said such ads were kosher, the universities would be in position to partner with players to make some more money.
As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, this opens up all kinds of things.
There are two twins, basketball players on Fresno State’s women’s team. Not big stars athletically, but they have a huge following on social media. Those girls can monetize the hell out of that without involving car dealers or Nike or any boosters. Apparently its a thing that people with huge lists of followers can make a very nice living just on the size of those lists, like six or seven figures nice, and making an occasional post promoting some national product like apparel.
The Fresno girls:
I get the the arguments for this, and I also know there is NO stopping this. It isn’t all bad and again, I get the fairness issue of a kid owning and getting paid for his image. That said, I am 100% convinced that the big boys will be able to use this to their advantage.
UofA vs. a mid major school for a kid, it will help UofA. Common sense just says a kid is more likely to get a sponsor if he is a UofA running back vs. being a ULM or ASU running back.
UofA vs. USC or Alabama. I strongly feel that it is very likely that USC or Alabama can “find” supporters who will give sweetheart deals to even their 3rd string players. I don’t think Arkansas will be able to do nearly as much. And before it is mentioned, yes, I know Wal-Mart is in NWA, but I don’t see them being the type who would have any vested interest in UofA winning, certainly not enough for them to give a sweetheart deal to our 3rd team DT, a deal that doesn’t make any economic sense (Wal-Mart advertises nationally) but only makes sense if you are a huge supporter of a school and just want to help it out.
Nothing to be done. “It is what it is.” Just another hill to climb to try to catch up and stay up with the big boys.
This is a recap of the hearing in Little Rock yesterday.
Alabama has one Fortune 500 company based within its borders. So does Kentucky. Louisiana has two (so does Oregon but one of those is Nike). Arkansas has five. There ought to be some way we can leverage that.
I hope you are right.
Bama’s is Regions Bank. Kentucky is Humana health insurance. Yum! Brands (owner of KFC and name on the Louisville arena) is just outside the top 500. Louisiana’s are Entergy, the electric company that also covers most of Arkansas, and CenturyLink/Lumen telecommunications (yes that’s their name on the NFL stadium in Seattle).
Actually on the 2019 list we had six: Walmart, Tyson, JB Hunt, Murphy USA, Windstream and Dillard’s. Windstream slipped out in 2020 but is still in the top 600.
There’s one other point I’ve seen raised before: If companies are asked to provide NIL money for athletes, that could cut into money they give to the schools for buildings or coaches’ salaries or scholarships for minor sports or whatever. The pool of money isn’t endless. Maybe Bama can’t afford to pay Saban’s replacement $10 million a year because they’re paying all their redshirting offensive linemen.
And the local car dealership that’s already giving $50,000 a year to the home team’s Foundation may cut that to $25,000 and give the other $25,000 to the start running back to do an endorsement. The money well is not endless and bottomless.
The other consideration is upsetting the rival. Let’s say Regions uses $$200K and spreads it amongst some Tide players for commercials. A whooooole bunch of Auburn fans will pull their money out of Regions, I bet.
Very possible. Or they’d have to match it with $200K for the Bagmen. But that starts getting expensive.
I am more than certain that I know next to nothing about the money supporting the Arkansas program and less about anyone else’s programs, so I am probably way off base in my economic assumptions. That said I wonder how many, as someone said , car dealers making $50,000. annual donations to the program. I understand there are some big donors, but my assumption, correct or not, is that they don’t grow on trees.
While not against the kids getting managed stipends to ensure they are not broke during their college years, I am extremely concerned that college sports will be forever changed by this and while some kids and families will benefit in the short term the long term result might hurt more kids than it helps. And yes, I know the NCAA, Major Universities, Coaches and Agents have created this current situation that magnifies the issue with the huge amounts of money each are making, which many would say is at the expense of the kids.
I personally don’t see how that is in any way “good.”
I like to see fair compensation for talent/fair market value. If someone wants to pay someone else to endorse their chicken wing shack or Toyota dealership, I’m all for it.
But the point of the post was that the donor was going to give less to the University. I don’t see that as good.