Popular football players could now potentially be able to profit off being featured in a video gameGETTY IMAGES
The NCAA's move to allow college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness is a "landmark decision that could dramatically alter the economics of college sports," according to a front-page piece by Costa & Radnofsky of the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The move "came amid growing pressure from legislators," a month after California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act. The NCAA's governing board "directed its three divisions to immediately consider changing the rules governing such benefits for athletes, and to make any such changes no later than" January '21. The details of the new policy are yet to be determined, but the NCAA said it must be "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model." The directive "nonetheless paves the way for a scrambled financial landscape in college sports." The NCAA's decision is "expected to create opportunities for financial gain large and small for a wide range of athletes." For a tennis star, it could "lead to giving paid lessons to recreational players." For a gymnast with a "crowd-pleasing floor exercise, it might mean monetizing a YouTube channel." For a football player, it could mean being "featured in a video game." California state Sen. Nancy Skinner, who co-authored the Fair Pay to Play Act, said that she "saw the NCAA move as 'great progress' but had no intention of accepting the matter as settled" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/30).
CHANGING WITH THE TIMES: Ohio State President Michael Drake said the college landscape has "changed in the outside world." Drake, who also chairs the NCAA BOG, said: "The ability of people to monetize via the Internet, through social influencing and social media, that wasn't present five or 10 years ago. Those things have changed. Obviously the bill in California and the discussions with other legislators has put time pressure on this. We, as an organization and a member institution, listen to what's being said in the world. The world is changing, and it was time to modernize our rules to 21st century rules" (THEATHLETIC.com, 10/29). Colorado AD Rick George, also a member of the working group that was charged with looking into NIL, said the NCAA "took a big step" with the decision. George: "That's something to celebrate." George said of the next steps, "We want to make sure we have the right principles in place and make sure the right framework is in place that's fair and equitable for all institutions. Over next several months, that's what we'll be focused on" (San Jose MERCURY NEWS, 10/30).
ENGINE STARTER: In N.Y., Billy Witz notes NCAA President Mark Emmert "acknowledged" that the passage of the California bill "nudged his organization into action." Emmert: "There's no question that the legislative efforts in Congress and in states has been a catalyst to change. It's clear that the schools and the presidents are listening and have heard loud and clear that everybody agrees that this is an area that needs to be addressed." Witz: "How drastic that change will be, though, remains in doubt." The working group "will continue to hash out how far the changes will go and how they will be enforced" (N.Y. TIMES, 10/30). Ohio State AD Gene Smith, one of the leaders of the NCAA's NIL working group, said that the NCAA's new rules "would not follow the 'California model' of a virtually unrestricted market." He said that the working group "would remain involved in sorting out the details of how to implement new rules and that the NCAA would likely stay involved as the group in charge of regulating future endorsement deals" (ESPN.com, 10/29).
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM: AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco said, "We're moving in the right direction to the extent that there might be some ways that a student-athlete can capitalize on name, image and likeness that aren't directly related to competition, that aren't using their athletic skills." He added, "You don't want endorsements to be used as a recruiting tool by companies in a particular team's market. You've got to be really careful as to how to do that. But it looks like that committee's given it a lot of thought" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 10/30). ESPN's Dan Murphy said what the NCAA wants is "to be able to control and regulate a little bit what that market looks like to keep out potential negative impacts" ("OTL," ESPN, 10/29).
NOT SO FAST: USA Today's Nancy Armour said, "This is the NCAA being backed into a corner." She added, "We won't know if this is actually going to be a good deal for student-athletes until we see those details" ("Nightly News," NBC, 10/29). ESPN's Scott Van Pelt said this decision by the NCAA is "not them moving off their position at all." He added, "That's reiterating that they will decide what model they deem permissible." Van Pelt: "Let's wait and see what they're willing to actually do" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 10/30). ESPN's Jay Bilas called the NCAA's decision a "step, but it's not a very big step forward." Bilas: "I don't think the Board of Governors basically said to do anything but consider it and do it in line with the collegiate model, which is a made-up term. I don't think it's going anywhere. It's going to be so regulated, it will be of very little value to the player" (N.Y. POST, 10/30). ESPN's Rachel Nichols said, "It's a little hard for me to applaud people who are forced at knifepoint to make a change" ("The Jump," ESPN2, 10/29). In DC, Will Hobson notes the National College Players Association also criticized the NCAA's announcement as "largely meaningless." NCPA Exec Dir Ramogi Huma said, "This is a bit of smoke and mirrors here, which signals that the NCAA is still going to oppose players receiving real compensation" (WASHINGTON POST, 10/30). The Boston Globe's Bob Ryan said the NCAA "is going into this kicking and screaming," and in the "short run it's going to be much ado effecting very few" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 10/29).
POLITICAL GAINS: In Baton Rouge, Crisp & Alexander note the NCAA's decision on NIL "may also bolster efforts in Congress to pursue bipartisan legislation on the issue" (Baton Rouge ADVOCATE, 10/30). CNBC's Jabari Young said the NCAA has "to do something ... (because) once government interferes, there is no turning back. You have to abide by the law" ("Power Lunch," CNBC, 10/29). THE ATHLETIC's Andy Staples wrote, "Governments probably shouldn't be the ones making these rules. But lawmakers should act as watchdogs to ensure the rules are fair. And here's the only fair way to do it: Keep the rules simple" (THEATHLETIC.com, 10/29).
