[Goose]

Maybe.  But I expect some work around. The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 


If it becomes an employee issue, college sports as we know them are gone.  So there is going to have to be some negotiation to work out a viable solution.  Interesting to see if Congress gets involved.

While an athlete MAY wish to be compensated for the use of his name or likeness, nothing says that he must insist on it. In some cases it may enhance his value if he gets his name out there, or he may just regard it as a "cost" of doing business. If somebody won't let Stanford put his name on a billboard, fine. That won't kill anything. It is the "knock on" effects of this rule about paying guys to play sports that will be the problem. If the congress doesn't get involved, amateur sports is dead. No organization could collude with independent teams to enforce any regulations. This has been a known issue for years. It is just finally being litigated and the judgements are just now coming down. It only takes a few guys who insist on getting paid by a booster in order to play and you have the problem. The University could do something about it if they wanted to, but the conference or NCAA could not. If one of the PAC-12 members says it is ok if their athletes get paid, nobody else can say a word. Will Congress act? I would bet not until much damage is done, if then.

[Goose]

Maybe.  But I expect some work around. The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 


If it becomes an employee issue, college sports as we know them are gone.  So there is going to have to be some negotiation to work out a viable solution.  Interesting to see if Congress gets involved.

While an athlete MAY wish to be compensated for the use of his name or likeness, nothing says that he must insist on it. In some cases it may enhance his value if he gets his name out there, or he may just regard it as a "cost" of doing business. If somebody won't let Stanford put his name on a billboard, fine. That won't kill anything. It is the "knock on" effects of this rule about paying guys to play sports that will be the problem. If the congress doesn't get involved, amateur sports is dead. No organization could collude with independent teams to enforce any regulations. This has been a known issue for years. It is just finally being litigated and the judgements are just now coming down. It only takes a few guys who insist on getting paid by a booster in order to play and you have the problem. The University could do something about it if they wanted to, but the conference or NCAA could not. If one of the PAC-12 members says it is ok if their athletes get paid, nobody else can say a word. Will Congress act? I would bet not until much damage is done, if then.