+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20
Results 191 to 194 of 194

Thread: The "Amateurism" Dilemma in Collegiate Recruiting

  1. #191
    ^ Gawin na din kasi sa UAAP at NCAA ito, actually gawin na sanang nationwide, all universities and colleges, private and State.

    Cap the allowance by pegging it to the legislated minimum daily wage, make it say 80% of minimum wage, para hindi naman katumbas ang manggagawa sa manlalaro.

    Sa pagkakaalam ko nasa P540 per day ang minimum wage ngayon. So 80% of that is P432, siguro naman buhay na sa P432 kada-araw ang isang high school or college student.

    Also assume the athlete "works" six-day weeks, like the ordinary minimum wage worker. So P432 x 24 days in a month = P10,368. Bahala na siya sa buhay niya kung may ipapadala pa siya sa pamilya niya from that amount.

    Sagotin na din dapat ng school ang school uniform (kung meron), load (P500 card per month, bahala na si athlete na mag-budget), dorm (kung more than 4 kilometers away from the school si athlete, or kung galing ibang bayan or ibang lalawigan), bahala na si athlete sa toothpaste, shampoo, sabon panligo at panlaba niya kung sa dorm siya.

    Bukod pa ito siempre sa tuition and other fees na dapat sagutin ng school.

    No more i-Phone, no more Samsung Galaxy S, no more cars, no more condos, no more "won-game bonuses", after-game team lunches and dinners, kahit sa Shang or Nobu pa 'yan, sure, basta walang abutan ng pera, "pandagdag pamasaghe", "pandagdag load" or any of that other bullshit.

    No more concert tickets, no more jobs for mom and dad or whoever, no more "signing bonuses", and especially NO AGENTS.

    Junkets for "team building" or "training", whether in some nearby beach resort like in Real, or in Boracay, or even overseas whether in Hong Kong or even Europe and the US, sure, go knock yourselves out. As long as the athletes don't get "pocket money" or "walking-around cash" or any other bullshit on those trips.

    Then form a fulltime team of investigators, maybe four to five guys, one of whom is their boss, reporting directly to the Commissioner, conducting random and covert lifestyle checks. One strike only, and you're out. Let us say some volleyball players are seen at the craps table in say, Solaire, boom, you're out. After a fair hearing of course. For all we know, you might be a Tiu and you were born loaded, so just prove that was your own money and we'll call it a day. Of course if you are a scholarship student who is the family breadwinner, Lordy did you pick the wrong time to be in a casino.

    Unfair? Sure. What, you think life is fair? We're just trying to standardize things a bit here. We'll make mistakes of course, and there will be adjustments, but we need to start somewhere and we need to start now.

  2. #192
    From Time ...

    In Historic Move, NCAA Board Unanimously Agrees to Allow College Athletes to Profit From Their Fame

    The NCAA Board of Governors took the first step Tuesday toward allowing amateur athletes to cash in on their fame, voting unanimously to permit them to “benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.”

    By RALPH D. RUSSO / AP Updated: October 29, 2019 2:31 PM ET

    (ATLANTA) — The NCAA Board of Governors took the first step Tuesday toward allowing amateur athletes to cash in on their fame, voting unanimously to permit them to “benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.”

    The United States’ largest governing body for college athletics realized that it “must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes,” the board said in a news release issued after the vote at Emory University in Atlanta.

    The NCAA and its member schools now must figure out how to allow athletes to profit while still maintaining rules regarding amateurism. The board asked each of the NCAA’s three divisions to create the necessary new rules beginning immediately and have them in place no later than January 2021.

    “The board is emphasizing that change must be consistent with the values of college sports and higher education and not turn student-athletes into employees of institutions,” said board chair Michael V. Drake.

    A group of NCAA administrators has been exploring since May the ways in which athletes could be allowed to receive compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses. The task force, led by Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman, presented a status report Tuesday to the Board of Governors, composed of university presidents.

    The NCAA’s shift came a month after California passed a law that would make it illegal for NCAA schools in the state to prohibit college athletes from making money on such activities as endorsements, autograph signings and social media advertising.

    California’s law goes into effect in 2023. More than a dozen states have followed with similar legislation; some are hoping to have laws in effect as soon as 2020.

    The NCAA has said state laws that contradict the national governing body’s rules could lead to athletes being declared ineligible or schools not being allowed to compete.

    There is also a federal bill in the works, sponsored by North Carolina Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Walker, that could prevent the NCAA and its member schools from restricting its athletes from selling the rights to their names, images and likenesses to third-party buyers on the open market.

  3. #193
    NCAA clears way for athletes to profit from names, images and likenesses

    1:50 AM CT

    Dan Murphy, ESPN Staff Writer

    The NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to start the process of modifying its rule to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

    The board directed the three separate divisions of the organization to immediately begin figuring out how to update their rules in a way that maintains a distinction between college and professional sports.

    The board members said in a release Tuesday that all changes should make sure student-athletes have the same opportunities to make money as all other students, maintain the priorities of education and the collegiate experience, and ensure that rules are "transparent, focused and enforceable" and do not create a competitive imbalance. The board wants each division to implement new rules by January 2021.

    "We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," board chair Michel Drake said. "Additional flexibility in this area can and must continue to support college sports as a part of higher education. This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

    The association's board of governors gathered Tuesday morning in Atlanta on the campus of Emory University for its final regularly scheduled meeting of 2019. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East commissioner Val Ackerman presented recommendations to the board members on how to modify the NCAA's rules on students profiting from names, images and likenesses. Smith and Ackerman have spent the past several months spearheading a working group that was appointed to evaluate the issue.

    The working group was formed in May, months after a pair of lawmakers proposed bills to make the NCAA's rules about endorsement deals illegal. In California, Democratic state senator Nancy Skinner wrote a bill that was signed into law in late September. That law will prohibit California schools from punishing their athletes for accepting endorsement money starting in January 2023.

    However, Smith said Tuesday that the NCAA's new rules would not follow the "California model" of a virtually unrestricted market. He said 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.

    U.S. Congressman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) proposed a bill to change the federal tax code in a way that would likely force the NCAA to give all student-athletes the right to sell their names, images and likenesses. The current proposal would create an unrestricted market for college athletes to seek endorsement deals. Walker said earlier this month that he hoped to bring his bill to a vote in early 2020, which could mean it would go into effect in January 2021.

    Walker said Tuesday that he plans to continue moving forward with his proposed legislation to make sure the NCAA's announcement this week turns into real action.

    "We clearly have the NCAA's attention. Now, we need to have their action," Walker said. "While their words are promising, they have used words in the past to deny equity and basic constitutional rights for student-athletes."

    More than a dozen states have expressed interest in creating laws similar to California's in the past several months. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last week voiced his support for a bill introduced in his state that could go into effect sometime this summer if passed in its current form.

    The variety of solutions proposed in different states prompted NCAA leaders including president Mark Emmert to say that they would prefer a uniform national law or rule that applies to all members of their association.

    Smith said that state and federal laws provided the NCAA with "a kick in the butt" to speed up discussions that had been occurring for several years. He said he did not know if the changes the NCAA ultimately decides to make will be enough to appease legislators who would like to see an unrestricted market.

    Walker and Skinner both said they would be willing to modify their legislation or work with the NCAA to create new rules, but that they felt legislative pressure was necessary to force college sports' leaders to act.

    Skinner said Tuesday that she was optimistic about the steps the NCAA took Tuesday but will be closely monitoring the details of how rules change in the next few years. The NCAA has put the onus on leaders from its different divisions to figure out those details as they decide exactly what parameters will be put in place to govern new opportunities for students to make money.

    Emmert said he expects member schools will quickly agree that college athletes should be able to profit from activities that aren't directly related to activities unconnected to being an athlete, but "the devil is in the details" when it comes to deciding what type of change will come in allowing things like sponsorship deals that are directly related to a student's popularity for being an athlete.

    Ramogi Huma, founder of the National College Players Association, said he viewed Tuesday's announcement as a failure that doesn't go far enough to show the organization is truly interested in supporting athletes.

    "The NCAA has failed on this issue once again," Huma said. "This is another attempt at stalling on this issue."

    Another federal bill that will likely allow for some NCAA regulation is expected soon. Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, a Republican from Ohio and former college and professional football player, plans to introduce his own legislation in the coming months. Gonzalez played wide receiver at Ohio State during Smith's first two years as athletic director for the Buckeyes. Gonzalez said he has talked to Smith about ways to install "guard rails" to avoid unintended negative consequences while making what Gonzalez considers to be some necessary changes.

    Gonzalez previously said he wanted to hear what Smith and Ackerman proposed at Tuesday's meeting before introducing new legislation.

    The NCAA's typical legislative process runs from November through April. The deadline to propose new rules for the board's consideration is this week, but exceptions have been made in the past to consider late proposals. After soliciting feedback from leaders of all three divisions of college sports, the board votes on proposed rules during their annual April meeting.

  4. #194
    From The Atlantic ...

    The LSU Championship Game Further Exposed the NCAA’s Hypocrisy

    With the recent victory, the association has shown signs that it cannot defend its amateurism model for much longer.

    Stephen A. Miller

    The unfairness in the LSU case is particularly galling, and it highlights the NCAA’s difficulty in convincing the public that it is enforcing a principled system.Kevin C. Cox

    College-sports fans have generally become desensitized to the cognitive dissonances of the NCAA’s amateurism policies. The rules, which prevent the payment of cash or other “extra benefits” to student athletes or their families, are necessary to retain the purity of amateur competition, according to the association. Without such restrictions, supporters argue, NCAA sports would devolve into just another minor league of professional sports, with capitalism becoming the athletes’ sole driving source of loyalty to their university. These guidelines usually operate in the public consciousness as a low hum—background noise that doesn’t distract from the compelling sporting events that audiences allow themselves to enjoy. But every now and then, the humming erupts into a roar. And in those moments, viewers are forced to confront the system they have embraced. Odell Beckham Jr. delivered one of those moments last week.

    Beckham, the wide receiver for the Cleveland Browns who played for Louisiana State University, was unsurprisingly excited to watch his alma mater challenge Clemson University in the national championship game on January 13. He was so excited, in fact, that he ran onto the field after LSU won and began congratulating the team. With the cameras rolling, Beckham made a big show of pulling money out of a fanny pack and stuffing wads of cash into the LSU players’ hands. Later, when he was in their locker room, Beckham bragged on social media that he would recoup the money he had handed out simply by selling the cleats of one of LSU’s top players.

    As performance art, Beckham produced a masterpiece. He was roaring. He was brash. It was shocking. The bold nature of his conduct—intended to mock the NCAA’s amateurism rules on national television—ensured that the association (and, by extension, LSU) would exercise its power to send a message to others contemplating violations of this nature.

    Because the NCAA depends on maintaining the status quo, it has gone to great lengths—through litigation, lobbying, and public-relations efforts—to convince the public and its member institutions (i.e., universities) that deviation from the amateurism model would result in the destruction of college sports. LSU dutifully issued a statement last week expressing its intent to cooperate with the NCAA in enforcing these rules, announcing the school’s intent to “rectify the situation.”

    The NCAA reaps billions of dollars each year from television contracts for its sporting events, and profits from those and other lucrative partnerships are distributed to member institutions. Those funds provide a significant boost to academic programs across the country, but a good chunk of the money is poured back into the athletic programs. Schools often funnel that money toward huge salaries to attract the best coaching talent and create state-of-the-art facilities to distinguish themselves to recruits. Clemson’s head coach, Dabo Swinney, earned more than $9 million this season—more than most NFL head coaches—while LSU’s head coach, Ed Orgeron, earned nearly $6 million (including a $500,000 bonus for winning the championship). Clemson announced late in 2019 that it would undertake a substantial renovation of its football stadium at a cost of almost $70 million. Similarly, LSU recently unveiled a $28 million upgrade to its football facilities. If these teams had to share their NCAA money with players, they likely wouldn’t be able to afford all these luxuries.

    Can the players push back against a possible NCAA order to return the Beckham money? In theory, yes. But they would more than likely be deterred. The NCAA has the power to declare the players ineligible for future competition, and a high-level college-football player surely stands to gain more than a wad of cash from Beckham in terms of athletic development, exposure to pro scouts, and reputation building. Even if a single player refused to return the money (such as the Heisman winner Joe Burrow, whose NCAA eligibility has ended), the NCAA may choose to punish the entire LSU program for its “failure to monitor” violations of the amateurism rules. Most likely, the LSU players will be persuaded to forfeit the cash. Thus, with a healthy dose of institutional pressure, they will presumably join the long list of athletes forced to bend under the power of an amateurism model that has become unmoored from common sense, fairness, and consistency.

    But with each incident like this one, and the public scrutiny that follows, the association’s contradictions become harder to ignore. Commentators have critiqued the hoarding of wealth by the NCAA and the efforts to keep it away from the athletes who bring in that money. Professional athletes and even TV announcers employed by the very networks that pay so richly to broadcast NCAA games openly mock the credibility of the association’s model.

    The unfairness in the LSU case is particularly galling, and it highlights the NCAA’s difficulty in convincing the public that it is enforcing a principled system. Prior to the national championship, Beckham asked for and received the NCAA’s permission to give every LSU player a set of wireless headphones worth hundreds of dollars. If the NCAA thought that gift was a permissible practice under the amateurism rules, how can it credibly take the position that the same guy giving the cash equivalent of those headphones to some of those same players violates amateurism rules? It is certainly hard to see much of a difference in the receipt of “extra benefits,” except for the brazenness of the nationally televised one.

    The roar of this incident will soon return to a low hum. But the NCAA has shown signs that it cannot defend the current model for much longer. Responding to court losses and pressure from state legislatures, the association is exploring a plan to permit athletes to profit from their “name, image, and likeness” within limits that remain to be defined. When that sort of relaxation of the amateurism rules does not destroy college sports, the NCAA will hopefully move toward a more equitable model that allows players to receive a bigger share of the wealth they create.

    Stephen A. Miller is an attorney based in Philadelphia, where his practice includes the representation of student-athletes in eligibility disputes with the NCAA.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Visitor count:
Copyright © 2005 - 2013.