Going Pro

I’m sorry I haven't written in a while but I've been very busy.  I look forward to getting back on track with the weekly blog; there is so much to say this season and we are only two weeks in. 

By far the most anticipated matchup of the year gets underway this weekend when the Texas A&M Aggies host National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide.  September 14th has been circled on the calendars for both of these teams since the Aggies upset the Tide in Tuscaloosa last year. There are so many storylines here: Alabama celebrity coach Nick Sabin complaining about up tempo offenses and lobbying for rules changes, the Game Day crew visiting College Station, and the Aggies being a factor in the SEC conference race in only in their second year.

But the one storyline we could never get away from all spring and summer long was the continuing saga of Johnny "Football" Manziel. (by the way, I dictated this essay into my iPhone and the obviously self-serving device autocorrects Johnny Football to Jony Ive!  If you understood that joke consider yourself a total Apple nerd!). From Johnny Football at the casino to Johnny Football tweeting to Johnny Football ditching the Manning family Academy

, we never heard the end of it.  And with torrid detail, the media kept yearning for more.  To these off-season hijinks I say good riddance and I am happy to get back to watching him play. 

But there is one Johnny Football story from the summer that is worthy of further discussion: the now infamous incident of signing memorabilia.  Manziel was punished and suspended for one half of the Rice game for not doing everything he could to prevent someone from profiting from his likeness.  NCAA athletes are not permitted to profit from their likeness this by selling T-shirts, signing footballs for money, trading signatures for tattoos, etc.  When the story broke about Manziel and other big-name college football athletes signing memorabilia for profit in Miami in January, Yahoo’s Dr. Saturday blog pointed out that the NCAA was selling jerseys of Manziel and other star players on their website.  The site allowed you to search for a jersey by the player’s last name.  Immediately after this was publicized the NCAA removed that search function and later removed the shirts for sale from the website. 

Until the NCAA was exposed for their blatant hypocrisy, it felt free to profit from the player’s likeness while restricting the players to do the same.  Which then begs the important question, who owns the player’s identity?  The universities who provide a free education?  The NCAA who attempt to regulate the administration of college sports?  The alumni boosters who pay for shiny new stadiums and state of the art workout facilities?

Uh, no.

The players who are 18 or older own their own likeness.  Period.  And right now, the class action lawsuit led by UCLA grad Ed O’bannon lawsuit seeks to hold the NCAA accountable to that standard.  Judging by the reaction of the NCAA, this case has real merit.  In the past few months, they closed their on-line store and ended their license agreement with EA Sport’s video game (as did the SEC).  At a recent conference I attended on Sports and Society, half of the presenters made some reference to the O’Bannon lawsuit and the changes it may bring to the game. 

So where do we go from here?

Until the O’Bannon suit runs its course, the NCAA is welcome to continue its charade of maintaining the spirit of amateurism.  And, perhaps in the spirit of fairness, there is some value in all students playing by same rules, from Johnny Manziel to the 3^rd rower on the women’s crew team.  My brother Kurt posted some very well-written articles supporting amateurism and make a cogent argument against paying college athletes.  I prefer to think of it this way: if you decide to pay your stars because they sell tickets and merchandise, how will you stop with the quarterback?  Then you will pay the offensive lineman who will never play a day in the pros.  And since Title IX clearly requires equal treatment, payments will be extended to an equivalent number of female athletes, etc. 

See how this gets messy?  A full ride scholarship at a major university is ample compensation for every athlete’s time, whether they are prepping for a career in the NFL, training for the 2016 Rio Olympics, or those who go pro in something other than sports.

But speaking of Olympics, there is another option- the so-called “Olympic Model”.  Don’t pay the athletes.  But allow them to use their own talents and ingenuity to sell themselves if they so desire.  We don’t restrict non-athletes from running a hot dog stand on campus, why should athletes be denied free enterprise?  If softball pitching superstar Jenny Finch can get some money for endorsing a softball glove, good for her.  And that third rower on the crew team might be a complete unknown to us but she’s a big celebrity in her hometown of Ottumwa, Iowa.  And if Johnny Manziel wants to take a little money for signing some footballs, so be it. 

Fight On,

Hans

PS.  I did not address the latest growing paid-athlete scandal in the SEC; I will watch that story as it unfolds and comment in the near future.  Also, yes, its true, Lane Kiffin sucks.