Give me a break Joey

[Cheeks]

This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.
Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial ..
 for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.

The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.

This is so wrong and I say this as someone that has been in the sponsorship business for 20+ years.  I’ve already explained this to you and the efficiency of spending.  You literally could not be more wrong on this if you tried.

You can spend $500k on Oklahoma or spend $30k on just a Jalen Hurts deal...are you kidding me?  The broad school deals where you get exposure to women’s soccer, tennis, track, men’s lacrosse, etc...those are “throw ins” and the value is small.  Simple economics and exposure ROI.  Even the revenue sports, you are restricted from doing anything with the star players...but now if you can, why not eliminate the middle man...the university?  There is no point in doing a school deal when you can spend much less to get the people you want anyway.  Sure, some sponsors will continue to use to do so out of “good will”, but you are crazy to think many will not and others will change their strategy.

Guess who is hurt in that situation?  The schools and mostly the non revenue sports.  These sponsorships pay for staff positions and resources for the very student athletes you are advocating for.

[Pakuni]

I agree with you. But part of this is then the athletes can't market their likeness to any athletic companies, because it would be a financial conflict of interest that would be prohibited by University agreements. So the athletes would get no compensation from these sources, and be prohibited from contracting with any other competitors, again financial conflict of interest.

In that case, how long until the athletes say they should be paid from these sponsorships by the University?

Well, this ultimately is a slippery slope argument, but is it now your contention that there simply aren't any opportunities out there that don't conflict with university sponsorships?
If so, I don't think that's accurate. What about signing autographs at a sports memorabilia show? Or making a personal appearance at a trade show or car dealership? Or appearing in an ad for a local physical therapy clinic.
I tend to believe there will be opportunities beyond shoe companies. And even then, assuming the California bill is the template, there's nothing that prevents a player from endorsing adidas while playing for a Nike school. He just has to wear Nike apparel for team activities.

But if you're right and there aren't significant opportunities out there, then all the chicken  littleism that's gone on here will be for naught and muguru will be elated.

[Uncle Rico]

You know everyone’s age and racial makeup here?  That is interesting.

As a 50+ white male, I can only comment on my history, experience that I have seen.  Some players will slack off, some will not.  Cannot wait for the scenarios where one guy on the team gets a NIL, and another one who is performing better doesn’t.  Or the coach decides to sit a NIL player on the bench and the drama that causes.  Oh it is going to be fun.  So much fun.

But let’s stop pretending you and others ONLY want NIL.  You know that is complete crap.  This is just phase 1 for you.  That’s how it works and to deny it is ridiculous.  People aren’t stupid.  5 years from now it will be more, 10 years from now, more.  Etc, etc.

You know what I want 5 to 10 years from now?  That’s interesting

[Uncle Rico]

Well, this ultimately is a slippery slope argument, but is it now your contention that there simply aren't any opportunities out there that don't conflict with university sponsorships?
If so, I don't think that's accurate. What about signing autographs at a sports memorabilia show? Or making a personal appearance at a trade show or car dealership? Or appearing in an ad for a local physical therapy clinic.
I tend to believe there will be opportunities beyond shoe companies. And even then, assuming the California bill is the template, there's nothing that prevents a player from endorsing adidas while playing for a Nike school. He just has to wear Nike apparel for team activities.

But if you're right and there aren't significant opportunities out there, then all the chicken  littleism that's gone on here will be for naught and muguru will be elated.

1992 Team USA was sponsored by Reebok and the Nike athletes still got paid

[lawdog77]

This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.
Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial ..
 for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.

The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.

It makes a lot of sense if courts rule that a school cannot prohibit a player from obtaining a NIL licensing agreement from whichever shoe company they choose. Makes alot of sense in basketball especially.

[forgetful]

Well, this ultimately is a slippery slope argument, but is it now your contention that there simply aren't any opportunities out there that don't conflict with university sponsorships?
If so, I don't think that's accurate. What about signing autographs at a sports memorabilia show? Or making a personal appearance at a trade show or car dealership? Or appearing in an ad for a local physical therapy clinic.
I tend to believe there will be opportunities beyond shoe companies. And even then, assuming the California bill is the template, there's nothing that prevents a player from endorsing adidas while playing for a Nike school. He just has to wear Nike apparel for team activities.

But if you're right and there aren't significant opportunities out there, then all the chicken  littleism that's gone on here will be for naught and muguru will be elated.

It is not really a slippery slope argument. It is a "what are you going to say when the athletes are still not allowed to partake in these contracts, because of a financial conflict of interest (FCI)?"

If it is enforced the same way as Universities treat everyone else, then, boosters/donors cannot contract with athletes as it is an FCI.

Similar to my previous comments on this issue, all I'm doing is highlighting the significant issues that will arise because of these bills. They will result in Universities having to hire additional counsel, meaning costs will likely significantly rise, and it will again come out of the pocket book of education.

[lawdog77]

You can spend $500k on Oklahoma or spend $30k on just a Jalen Hurts deal...are you kidding me?

I think UCLA's and Lousiville's most recent deals are aboutm 15 million/yr.

[Uncle Rico]

I think UCLA's and Lousiville's most recent deals are aboutm 15 million/yr.

Wisconsin is getting $96 million over 10 years from Under Armour. 

[Jay Bee]

This is why kids SHOULD be committing to University's/schools and everything about it rather than just a Coach or the program. That in and of itself would reduce transfer numbers.

Everyone who signs an NLI does just that. It's made VERY clear that you're committing to the school, not a coach, not a team.

Yet when kids get upset or sad, they forget what they agreed to and cry that it's not fair.

If you don't like the rules, don't play.

[Cheeks]

You know what I want 5 to 10 years from now?  That’s interesting

You have said point blank college athletics are a shamnesty , that amateurism doesn’t exist and players should be paid.  I don’t need to know what you want 5 to 10 years from now, you have stated what you want today.  Thanks

[Uncle Rico]

You have said point blank college athletics are a sham wary, that amateurism doesn’t exist and players should be paid.  I don’t need to know what you want 5 to 10 years from now, you have stated what you want today.  Thanks

Yes, they should be able to earn off their names and likeness. 

[Cheeks]

I think UCLA's and Lousiville's most recent deals are aboutm 15 million/yr.

Those are mostly value in kind deals by providing apparel...there is cash as well, but I’m talking about deals from Verizon, AT&T, energy drinks, soda, banking, etc.

Way way way more efficient spend to only go after certain players than an entire athletic dept.  I can spend 1/10 or at least 1/5th the amount without inefficiently spending it on things that have no ROI as an advertiser.  The problem is these schools need that money dearly to fund positions, etc.

I am pretty sure I am the only person on this board that has sold millions of dollars in sports sponsorships for professional and collegiate teams, including Marquette and also bought millions of dollars of sponsorships with schools, conferences, venues and pro teams. 

Schools will be hurt by this, positions will have to be cut, positions that are there to help student athletes.  Or, schools will have to budget for them and take away from somewhere else. Budgets are not endless, and that includes advertisers...if we can save a ton or money to get same ROI, we will. 

[Cheeks]

Yes, they should be able to earn off their names and likeness.

You have gone far beyond that already, this is just step one for you.

[muguru]

Yes, they should be able to earn off their names and likeness.

BS, you want them to be paid directly, by the Universities. You lied...typical...that runs rampant on the left.

[muguru]

Everyone who signs an NLI does just that. It's made VERY clear that you're committing to the school, not a coach, not a team.

Yet when kids get upset or sad, they forget what they agreed to and cry that it's not fair.

If you don't like the rules, don't play.

+1000, Jaybee just won the internet. This thread is DONE. Lock it up.

[Uncle Rico]

+1000, Jaybee just won the internet. This thread is DONE. Lock it up.

If my child signs a NLI with a university that fails to live up to their end of the bargain, you better believe they should be able to transfer without restriction

That includes the coach leaving.  No coach is telling a potential recruit, “I might leave before your eligibility is up.”

LOCK IT UP

[Pakuni]

This is so wrong and I say this as someone that has been in the sponsorship business for 20+ years.  I’ve already explained this to you and the efficiency of spending.  You literally could not be more wrong on this if you tried.

You can spend $500k on Oklahoma or spend $30k on just a Jalen Hurts deal...are you kidding me?

Well, since you say you're right you must be.

But let me make sure I understand you. You believe Nike would receive more value from sponsoring a single athlete - Jalen Hurts, let's say - than the entire Oklahoma program.
So, you believe they get a better deal by paying Hurts $30K, then spending somewhere around six figures-plus to produce an ad, then spend another six figures every time you want to air that ad. So, airing the ad about 10 times during major broadcasts costs them another $1 million. And then you're showing that ad to an audience during a break in the game when a large chunk of the audience is either looking at their phone, going to the bathroom, getting something to eat, talking with someone, channel surfing or fast forwarding the ads because they're watching on DVR.

You're telling us that's a better investment than spending, let's say $1 million a year, to put a swoosh on the jersey of Hurts' and every one of his teammates, and every one of his coaches, etc., for the audience to see during the game, when they're actually paying attention. And when it costs Nike nothing additional, because ESPN or ABC or Fox is airing this for them.

Hmmm.

If all this were true, why is Nike spending roughly $125 million a year to sponsor NBA jerseys?  Why is Rakuten spending $240 million a year to sponsor FC Barcelona's kits? Why is adidas paying the NHL $70 million a year to put its logo on hockey sweaters?
Are these all bad business deals, or do they maybe know a thing or two about getting exposure for their products?

[ATL MU Warrior]

Those are mostly value in kind deals by providing apparel...there is cash as well, but I’m talking about deals from Verizon, AT&T, energy drinks, soda, banking, etc.

Way way way more efficient spend to only go after certain players than an entire athletic dept.  I can spend 1/10 or at least 1/5th the amount without inefficiently spending it on things that have no ROI as an advertiser.  The problem is these schools need that money dearly to fund positions, etc.

I am pretty sure I am the only person on this board that has sold millions of dollars in sports sponsorships for professional and collegiate teams, including Marquette and also bought millions of dollars of sponsorships with schools, conferences, venues and pro teams. 

Schools will be hurt by this, positions will have to be cut, positions that are there to help student athletes.  Or, schools will have to budget for them and take away from somewhere else. Budgets are not endless, and that includes advertisers...if we can save a ton or money to get same ROI, we will.

Unless the soda company is willing to give up pourage rights, there is little danger they will walk away from school sponsorships

[Jay Bee]

If my child signs a NLI with a university that fails to live up to their end of the bargain, you better believe they should be able to transfer without restriction

That includes the coach leaving.  No coach is telling a potential recruit, “I might leave before your eligibility is up.”

LOCK IT UP

No, it literally explicitly excludes a coach leaving. Read what you sign. It’s simple.

[muguru]

If my child signs a NLI with a university that fails to live up to their end of the bargain, you better believe they should be able to transfer without restriction

That includes the coach leaving.  No coach is telling a potential recruit, “I might leave before your eligibility is up.”

LOCK IT UP

They are living up to their end of the bargain by giving them a scholarship, room and board etc...all for free. You're getting taken to the cleaners here Rico. have you had enough yet, or??

[Uncle Rico]

No, it literally explicitly excludes a coach leaving. Read what you sign. It’s simple.

You’re correct.  I did not know that was part of the NLI. 

[Uncle Rico]

They are living up to their end of the bargain by giving them a scholarship, room and board etc...all for free. You're getting taken to the cleaners here Rico. have you had enough yet, or??

You never answered the question about cheering for the transfers on Marquette’s roster? 

[muguru]

You never answered the question about cheering for the transfers on Marquette’s roster?

LOL Ballgame. Let's put it another way, you want hypocrisy at it's finest...YOU as well as many others here that SUPPORT transfers, were PISSED as hell and called the Hausers all sorts of names when they left. Now if you don't find any kind of hypocrisy in that, I wouldn't be surprised.

Yes, I cheer for the transfers that MU has. That doesn't mean I have to like all the transfers. And Jayce is a grad transfer so a little different. You know what too?? McEwen and Morrow played by the rules and sat out a year like they were required to do. They never filed a waiver or complained that it wasn't fair etc.

If you wouldn't make your child hold up his end of the bargain, and stay true to his commitment...that says a lot about you as a dad unfortunately. Instead you'd teach him that "it's okay son, it's okay to cry and whine and complain, we'll try to get our way".

[Uncle Rico]

LOL Ballgame. Let's put it another way, you want hypocrisy at it's finest...YOU as well as many others here that SUPPORT transfers, were PISSED as hell and called the Hausers all sorts of names when they left. Now if you don't find any kind of hypocrisy in that, I wouldn't be surprised.

Yes, I cheer for the transfers that MU has. That doesn't mean I have to like all the transfers. And Jayce is a grad transfer so a little different. You know what too?? McEwen and Morrow played by the rules and sat out a year like they were required to do. They never filed a waiver or complained that it wasn't fair etc.

If you wouldn't make your child hold up his end of the bargain, and stay true to his commitment...that says a lot about you as a dad unfortunately. Instead you'd teach him that "it's okay son, it's okay to cry and whine and complain, we'll try to get our way".

I didn’t call the Hausers any names.  I hope Joey gets his waiver.  Disappointed they left but that’s their choice.

Thanks for the parenting advice!

[Jay Bee]

“We didn’t agree with what we agreed to” is a disgusting stance, but that’s what many do.