The NCAA’s top governing body announced on Wednesday it supports a proposal that will allow college athletes to receive payment for their likeness through endorsement contracts and the such.
However, it stops well short of letting the players own the full rights to their likeness and leaves room for either the NCAA (of if the NCAA had its way, the federal government) to regulate how it is all applied.
It is a step in the right direction, but still falls short in the freedom it would allow players to profit off of their image and likeness.
While student-athletes would be permitted to identify themselves by sport and school, the use of conference and school logos, trademarks or other involvement would not be allowed.
Therefore, you might see a Jalen Suggs commercial for a local Spokane business next season, but you would not see Suggs in a Gonzaga Bulldogs uniform or any branded Gonzaga-related clothing.
Senator Chris Murphy, who has been working on the issue on the national level, did not seemed too impressed with the NCAA’s announcement.
This proposal is one step forward, one step back.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) April 29, 2020
The NCAA wants to limit athlete endorsement deals in a way that could make them totally impractical.
And the NCAA wants Congress to give it total power of athletes' compensation. That should be a non-starter. https://t.co/G83zfkHf1i
Either way, it is a not-so-complex issue that definitely has a complex solution. The NCAA has dragged its feet in an impressive fashion on the issue for quite some time. After California passed a law allowing players to sign agents and make money off of endorsement deals, it became rapidly clear that the NCAA’s game plan of keeping its head fully submerged in the sand for the next eternity was not feasible.