Have we ‘corrected’ a long-term wrong by making another misstep?
For the longest time, the NCAA had almost unlimited power to dictate how collegiate athletes could earn, and there were many public conflicts with big-name athletes about that matter. There was Reggie Bush, Johnny Manziel, and “Tattoo Ggate” at Ohio State, to name just a few headline situations. But this year, that control was slapped down by the Supreme Court.
The judges handling the NCAA a 9-0 loss, immediately opening the doors to a new world of college sports. The NCAA effectively threw their hands up after the decision was handed down, changing regulations on July 1st. Under the new guidelines, collegiate athletes can make unlimited income from the use of their name, image, and likeness.
Is it ‘game over’? Not quite. Concerns linger. Here’s my take.
As a longtime supporter of athlete’s rights, I’m excited to see athletes control their own destinies finally and for them to be able to do so outside the grip of the NCAA cartel. That said, the unlimited access to publicity and income for athletes brings the apocalyptic feeling that collegiate sports are forever going to be connected to an arms race between big schools of the Power 5 and everyone else.
Financially, Bryce Young is playing at just the right time (photo, The Spun)
Elite athletes have the opportunity to make a massive income before their pro careers begin. Estimates are the ‘Bama QB Bryce Young will be able to ink seven-figure NIL deals. And make no mistake about it, the Tide brand is significant in that possibility. With such a massive disparity in market value among collegiate brands, a small group of schools can essentially monopolize the recruiting landscape, ensuring that the 4-and 5-star prospects come their way.
And also, make no mistake about this: those bigger schools will have NIL-related programs and staff to entice/assist athletes. So, if recruiting and playing college ball comes down to which schools can promise the greatest paycheck, are we diving further down the rabbit hole of sustained dominance by a select set of programs?
If so, then we ‘corrected’ a long-term wrong by making another misstep. For decades, the NCAA profited handsomely off athletes without concern about the athletes’ financial well-being. But, now, we face a different and, perhaps, transformational possibility. We may be headed towards the inevitable split of the Power 5 from the NCAA. If that happens, will it be a good thing? What impact will it have on college sports writ large?
