In a surprising revelation, Big East commissioner Val Ackerman told Sports Illustrated that the NCAA is considering allowing its athletes to sign endorsement deals.
If college sports’ governing body is considering this drastic move away from its established ideology on payment for athletes, it’s likely that they see it as a chance to put more money in their own pockets, but let’s explore this possibility under the assumption that the athletes will actually negotiate and receive the full value of their endorsement deals.
Ackerman was prompted by SI to discuss the possibility of athletes signing endorsements, and said: “That’s one that’s actually under consideration, I believe, by the NCAA. It’s actually a time right now where student-athlete interests are being closely examined. I don’t have an answer for you on that one today, but I will say that and a number of other topics are under review, and I think rightly by the NCAA, and it’s very possible that over the course of the next year or two as these ideas work their way through the legislative system, you could see changes.”
It’s not exactly loaded with details or promises, but it’s doubtful that she would have given such an answer if there weren’t at least preliminary discussions taking place. A CBS report discovered that the topic is not currently on the NCAA’s upcoming governance agenda, but conference commissioners are among the few who may suggest legislation for consideration at these meetings, so it’s within her power to change that fact. Is this the right time for change, though?
Currently, athletes are prohibited from receiving payment for the use of their likeness until they forfeit their amateur status — meaning they would no longer be able to compete in NCAA sports. Also, back in October, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a 2014 district court decision that allowed players to earn up to $5,000 per year from universities on the basis that offering compensation unrelated to education expenses would send college athletics down a slippery slope. There has been little development on the matter ever since.
Allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals would take the pressure of determining a fair compensation off of the NCAA and the universities, but that doesn’t make it a sensible solution.
One obvious implication of this change would be creating a recruiting advantage for schools with rich local businesses. Only the top college athletes would receive endorsements from mega-brands like Nike and Under Armour, while most of the deals would be struck locally. This could essentially create a bidding war between different schools, forcing athletes to make a more complex decision, balancing their preferences of schools with their desire for compensation.
It’s also possible that endorsements could create tension between teammates, especially in sports with large rosters like football where the vast majority of players would likely be without their own deals. If the minority of players were earning a livable salary while others were earning nothing, it would conceivably lead to a locker room divided.
The counter-argument is that this solution would give athletes a fair share of the value that they generate by playing for universities, and it could keep them in school longer. The NCAA still wouldn’t be paying athletes a dime so the market would determine the fair rate for any endorsement deal and where some athletes in the past might leave college early to support their families, they could now earn money while finishing their degrees.
These would undoubtedly be positive effects, but the NCAA is going to have to carefully consider what other issues may arise from so dramatically changing their stance of student-athlete amateurism — the list is extensive.
College athletes probably do deserve to start receiving, at the least, a piece of the merchandise revenue that they are largely responsible for generating, but a situation in which billionaire alumni could lure high schoolers in with rich endorsements is far from ideal.
