Should College Football Players be Allowed to Make Free Market Money?

No, it would completely destroy a recruiting process that is already dramatically flawed. It would open the door for recruits to need contractual promises of autograph signings before signing.

It would offer major incentives for larger fan base schools to offer to recruits in return for their signature. Under these circumstances, A recruit would be dumb to sign with MSU or Ole Miss when he can sign with Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, etc due to them having double or greater the amount of fans. If the fan base is bigger & more national, it offers much great financial avenues. Say bye bye to Simmons, Cam Akers, Kylin Hill, AJ Brown, etc.. All those players would have had financial reasons to sign with other SEC schools.

This is the conversation on Bo Bounds this morning &, since I don't call into the show, I thought I'd bring the discussion here.

Bo doesn't understand why Katie Ledecky can make more than $100,000 + at the Olympics but Leonard Fournette can't sign autographs on the quad at LSU. The answer is easy, making money on the Olympic team is not an incentive & enticement a school can offer to beat other schools in a recruiting battle. It's really that simple IMO

Anyway, I think Bo & Jackson are missing the boat on this discussion. For whatever reason, the media, not just Bo, has had a ton of trouble getting this & figuring out the real reason why college football players can't be paid on the free market. Not sure why the media Jay Bilas, etc can't wrap their arm around the unintended consequences of allowing players to make money on the free market.

Now, I wouldn't be opposed to the Power 5 schools breaking away & all paying the players a standard amount, which couldn't be used as a recruiting enticement since everyone would be getting the same amount of money.

No. Universities are academic institutions. The players at those universities are students. That being said, they are already being paid and paid well. If they manage what they are getting now well they will come out of it with a degree and no debt. That gives them a major leg up on most of their peers.

There is nothing stopping the advocates of paying college athletes from starting a pay for play minor league system similar to what we have in baseball. I sometimes wish it would happen. I'd still go see MSU play.

In terms of autographs, I think the actual number of people that could benefit in the college football world is much smaller than you would think. Could the Leonard Fournette's of the world probably make some money from memorabilia dealers? Sure. But lets think about the big picture. Do you want Lyndell Wilson's autograph? Because he was a 5-star, consensus #1 OLB in the nation last year who signed with Alabama, and a guy who could be the next Reggie Ragland and playing on Sundays. But 99% of America probably has no idea who he is right now. Therefore, his marketability for autographs is extremely limited. The only argument you can really make is that money for autographs or other personal nuances from players provides an avenue for legal booster payments. Johhny Moneybags can walk up to Leonard Fournette and say thanks for the autograph, here's $50,000 for your trouble and there's nothing the NCAA can do about it if its legal. But lets face it, these players are all getting that money anyways, so it really doesn't matter. Of course, you could tweak it to allow only "fair market value" for signatures and leave that open to interpretation of the NCAA, or set a hard cap at like $2 per signature or something.

Where I draw the line is with the school's involvement. School's can't be putting on fan days or special autograph sessions for any particular player for them to charge money for their signature. Anything the players get should be on their own time and using their own resources. But honestly, if the school isn't involved and the players want to get what they can while they are marketable, I don't really have a problem with it. They are already doing it and getting away with it anyways.

Pay for autographs/appearances, etc.? No. I do think the NCAA and the conferences need to force some sort of more progressive cost of attending allowance/stipends for all athletes. The reality is that the NCAA, the conferences, and the schools make big money (at least in P5). Kids should be able to have some spending money since they can't work (and don't say they can, athletic programs are year-round now regardless of sport) and in many cases don't have parents who can afford to send them extra $. And yes, they will spend that money stupidly like all college students, but they will be able to get a pizza whenever they want, or go to a movie, etc. like most normal students.

If you pay football players you have to pay everyone else in sports that lose money for the school.

This will make scholarship sports too expensive for most schools not in the P5 to maintain, and would probably end up destroying college athletics.

It would be better to force the NFL to allow players to be drafted out of high school and sent to a development league. At least you'd clear out some of the BS surrounding recruiting, and level the playing field a bit more for everyone else.

I'm kind of on the fence about it. Some of these kids come from very poor families & could use the money. On the other hand, its a huge can of worms that may not need to be opened.

I'm also looking at it from their perspective & putting my self in their shoes. When I was 18-19 years old I didn't have a pot to piss in. My parents told me at 18, "son you're grown now, if you want something, go get it. You're on your own". If I had that opportunity then I would have jumped on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuadrupleOption

If you pay football players you have to pay everyone else in sports that lose money for the school.

This will make scholarship sports too expensive for most schools not in the P5 to maintain, and would probably end up destroying college athletics.

It would be better to force the NFL to allow players to be drafted out of high school and sent to a development league. At least you'd clear out some of the BS surrounding recruiting, and level the playing field a bit more for everyone else.

---

That's why you let them make money on their own, but don't have any school sanctioned payments or inducements for football players. Let women's basketball players go on eBay and sell their autographs too if they want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

That's why you let them make money on their own, but don't have any school sanctioned payments or inducements for football players. Let women's basketball players go on eBay and sell their autographs too if they want to.

---

Then you legalize paying players in recruiting. Here you go AJ Brown, here is $315,000 for your autograph. This system would just lead to the richest schools having the best football teams.

Harvard would be a national power in football within 5 years. Here you go Leonard Fournette, here's 5 mil for your autograph

Like most professional sports, allowing market compensation without some sort of salary cap/revenue sharing system would make it very difficult to maintain parity across a decently large league. Instead of the major markets dominating, it would be the schools with the major and committed alumni bases.

But should a system be put in place that allows players to get closer to a market based compensation? Absolutely they should.

If the NFL were no longer allowed to exclude young players from their draft, it wouldn't be as much of an issue and that is probably where focus should be, but if you take it as a given that teh NFL is going to be allowed to have a minimum age limit, then something should be done at the college level.

None of these players are worth a dime outside of the schools they play for until they are NFL eligible. If you want a true free market, go start your own amateur league paying the players and see how well that does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Then you legalize paying players in recruiting. Here you go AJ Brown, here is $315,000 for your autograph. This system would just lead to the richest schools having the best football teams.

Harvard would be a national power in football within 5 years. Here you go Leonard Fournette, here's 5 mil for your autograph

---

That's why I said in my other post that you could include language to limit it to either fair market value or set a fixed cap on how much per signature. That would curb against boosters exploiting the rule, so they'll just have to keep giving out their $300,000 for free like they are doing now. It would really be no different than if the players sold something that wasn't related to their likeness. Some 5-star RB might have an 87 Chevy Cavalier with 300,000 miles on it that they want to sell on eBay that some booster could pay $100,000 for if they wanted. I'm honestly not sure there is even any NCAA rule against that, but there probably is. Whatever that rule is, just make it the same for autographs since they are essentially the same thing (goods / services being sold on the free market by an individual).

I say yes. No one has made an argument about fairness. Obviously these players are "commodities" since everyone agrees that there is money for them out there to make. Why would you stop a person from making the money that people want to legally pay them?

Most of these players will never play professional sports and will never receive a pay check. The benefit of having these players at their school far outweighs a scholarship and that's why athletic departments spend millions on facilities to entice players to come to their school.

Jerseys and autographs is money that is not coming from the university coffers at all so you can't say that schools can't afford it.

Who cares if it is an inconvenience to colleges and universities? Figure it out. Universities figure out ways to pay coaches millions. If they wanted to limit money to only what is in a signed contract reviewed by the school's compliance office that would solve most of it right there. It would make the school responsible for any over payments.

Once again it is not fair to limit a person's ability to make money that people want to pay you. You can hate it all you want to but eventually the change is going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reason2succeed

I say yes. No one has made an argument about fairness. Obviously these players are "commodities" since everyone agrees that there is money for them out there to make. Why would you stop a person from making the money that people want to legally pay them?

Most of these players will never play professional sports and will never receive a pay check. The benefit of having these players at their school far outweighs a scholarship and that's why athletic departments spend millions on facilities to entice players to come to their school.

Jerseys and autographs is money that is not coming from the university coffers at all so you can't say that schools can't afford it.

Who cares if it is an inconvenience to colleges and universities? Figure it out. Universities figure out ways to pay coaches millions. If they wanted to limit money to only what is in a signed contract reviewed by the school's compliance office that would solve most of it right there. It would make the school responsible for any over payments.

Once again it is not fair to limit a person's ability to make money that people want to pay you. You can hate it all you want to but eventually the change is going to happen.

---

That's fine, but just realize that you are completely legalizing the ability for boosters to pay recruits.

In a perfect world, absolutely. In the real world, helllllllll no.

ETA: I think many folks make this an emotional issue. They think of the small handful of "superstars" that miss out on possibly making some nice cash off a variety of revenue streams using their name and likeness. That sucks for them. A lot of these guys end up in the NFL and get good money or endorsement so they end up alright. For the college only superstars that miss out on the NFL gravy train, I feel for them. As we all know, life isn't fair.

For the remainder of football players, they don't miss out on anything and their current arrangement is a pretty sweet deal all things considered. There are just too many negatives involved with authorizing separate income possibilities for these folks. Boosters will corrupt it and then you have to consider the other athletes in the sports that are in the red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckDOG

In a perfect world, absolutely. In the real world, helllllllll no.

---

Agree. Looks great on paper, but the unintended consequences are dramatic unless the money is strictly regulated. A free market system for boosters to pay recruits would basically relegate MSU & Ole Miss to Sunbelt schools

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Then you legalize paying players in recruiting. Here you go AJ Brown, here is $315,000 for your autograph. This system would just lead to the richest schools having the best football teams.

Harvard would be a national power in football within 5 years. Here you go Leonard Fournette, here's 5 mil for your autograph

---

The richest schools (that don't have high academic requirements, like Harvard) already have the best football teams.

The question is how can a kid like Katie Ledecky can go to the Olympics win gold capitalize on that with endorsements & money & still be able to swim in college but a football player sells his own jersey & he's ineligible. The logic in those 2 just don't add up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

The question is how can a kid like Katie Ledecky can go to the Olympics win gold capitalize on that with endorsements & money & still be able to swim in college but a football player sells his own jersey & he's ineligible. The logic in those 2 just don't add up.

---

You're right. It doesn't add up. It's conflicting and hypocritical. It exists because the NCAA knows that the college football world and the other sports that generate money don't have any act right and will exploit it.

Nobody cares about the swimming. The sport goes on as it normally does whether the 2 or 3 swimmers the public can name get endorsements or not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

The question is how can a kid like Katie Ledecky can go to the Olympics win gold capitalize on that with endorsements & money & still be able to swim in college but a football player sells his own jersey & he's ineligible. The logic in those 2 just don't add up.

---

No one cares about fairness when you are talking about "these kids" though. "Life isn't fair" is a sad cop out for not doing what is right. With that attitude we'd all be governed by feudal lords in England.

When you go to work for an employer, the legal arrangement is usually that your work belongs to the employer. You are free to leave your employer and sell your talents and image to another employer or market, pursuant to whatever arrangements there are in transferring.

College football is pretty much the same thing. You want a Cam Newton at Auburn to be able to market himself as Auburn's QB, or at the very least profiting from his accomplishments at Auburn? Sorry, belongs to Auburn. That's what he signed up for.

Don't like it? A player is free to go somewhere else and market themselves.