Tag: NCAA name image likeness

J.R. Smith, former NBA player who became a college golfer, gets groundbreaking Lululemon NIL deal

The former NBA star is Smith is Lululemon’s first male golf ambassador.

J.R. Smith went to the NBA immediately following his high school graduation in 2004. The two-time NBA champion was a first-round draft pick of the New Orleans Hornets, but also played for the Denver Nuggets, New York Knicks, Cleveland Cavaliers and Los Angeles Lakers during his 16-year career.

After a long and successful career in the NBA, Smith walked on to the North Carolina A&T golf team in 2021. He is currently in his second semester of his freshman year as a full-time student.

According to ESPN’s Nick DePaula, J.R. Smith signed a name, image and likeness deal with Lululemon, a popular activewear brand. Smith is Lululemon’s first male golf ambassador. Smith is not able to wear Lululemon at NCAA sanctioned events, but he can wear Lululemon in the company’s branded advertisements.

Smith has been a hot topic in college sports not only because of his professional basketball career but his willingness to go back to college and earn his degree. Smith signed with Excel Sports Management for NIL representation in January and his agent, Lance Young told ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski at the time that many golf apparel and equipment manufacturers were interested in sponsoring Smith.

[afflinkbutton text=”Evolution Short Sleeve Polo – $88 at Lululemon” link=”https://shop.lululemon.com/p/men-tops/Evolution-Polo/_/prod6020330?color=52877″]

We occasionally recommend interesting products, services, and gaming opportunities. If you make a purchase by clicking one of the links, we may earn an affiliate fee. Golfweek operates independently, though, and this doesn’t influence our coverage.

Former Sooners’ Linebacker warns about the potential impact of Name, Image, and Likeness

A new era has created an opportunity for student-athletes to earn income through NIL, but a former Sooners linebacker warns about the impact it may have on the game.

Name, image, and likeness (NIL) has created a debate among college sports fans who grew up watching their favorite teams and players during the amateur era of college athletics. Much like the Big 12 with the future departures of Oklahoma and Texas for the SEC, what it once was is no more. Many aren’t fond of the idea that third-party sources will pay student-athletes for opportunities to use an athlete’s name, image, or likeness for advertising or promotional purposes.

While the players at the top of the NIL hierarchy stand to make upwards of millions of dollars profiting off of their likeness, former Oklahoma Sooners legend Brian Bosworth is concerned about the impact it could have on players and the future of collegiate athletics.

In an interview with USA TODAY Sports College Writer Paul Myerburg (subscription required), Bosworth shared his candid thoughts on NIL.

He spoke about many of the potential pitfalls of NIL in today’s game. 

When you put people around that now are incentivized by the money, it takes the passion of the path of success and the dream that you’ve always had as a football player and an athlete and puts it not in the back seat, it puts it in the trunk or maybe even the trailer that you’re dragging behind you. Because someone else is driving the ship. Someone else is making the decision for you.

Money can certainly become a driving force in a player’s life as he attempts to balance classes, practice, film sessions, studying, workouts, and games. In an already busy life, a NIL deal can become a distraction from what the player was brought to the school to do; play football.

In the USA TODAY Sports piece, Bosworth speaks on his own experience getting caught up in the fame and what that did to his and the University of Oklahoma’s reputation. If NIL were a reality in the 1980s, there’s no doubt that Brian Bosworth would have been one of the most profitable players of the time.

For players today, Spencer Rattler, in particular, it takes a village to help manage the expectations that he has to fulfill on a daily basis.

From the athletic department to the coaching staff, to his agent Lee Steinberg, to his family, Rattler has a ton of people in his corner helping him navigate the NIL life.

In the article, Bosworth also brings up concerns about what it could do to locker rooms where some players are making millions and some are making nothing. Sure, it can be an issue. However, that never seems to be an issue in NFL locker rooms when the quarterback is making more than $40 million a year and the last guy on the roster is making the minimum.

There are certainly challenges to navigate as athletic departments and players wade into the waters of NIL. That’s why you’ve seen many schools create whole programs to help their student-athletes manage the potential minefields and find a way to make some extra cash while in school.

Brian Bosworth has experienced much of what football has to offer both in college and the NFL. He understands the highs and the lows. His opinion certainly carries weight and should provide a warning sign for universities as they venture into the unknown of the Name, Image, and Likeness era.

Could BYU’s NIL arrangement for football walk-ons lead to something similar for college golf programs?

BYU’s 36 walk-ons all got NIL deals in a way that will could change college athletics forever, and that includes college golf.

Why does BYU football matter in college golf? Because the Cougar program might have just devised an NIL (name, image, likeness) strategy that could play out down the road on college golf teams.

In men’s college golf the NCAA allots 4.5 scholarships for a Division I men’s golf program. Could this model be applied to a college golf team to allow an entire roster to not have to have to pay for tuition?

The waters of the NCAA’s name, image and likeness rules just continue to be really murky.

There aren’t really set guidelines on what deals players are allowed to participate in outside of a few distinct categories. It also is largely left up to schools to legislate players in their own ways.

So, of course with so many grey areas in play, boundaries are bound to be pushed. And that seems to be what’s happening with BYU’s new NIL deal for its players involving one of its partners, Built Brands, LLC.

Built Brands produces Built Bar energy products, which are essentially protein bars. On Thursday, BYU posted a video on social media with founder, Nick Greer, handing out deals to the walk-ons on the team.

As part of the deal, Built is paying the full tuition for the year for the 36 walk-ons on BYU’s roster, per the Deseret News. They’re also compensating the entire roster of 123 players, though the figures weren’t made clear.

In return for paying the player’s tuition, the team will wear Built Brands branded helmets in practice and participate in Built Brands events. They’ll also include Built “fueling areas” in the two football locker rooms.

Look, this is pretty good news. Anything that pays for the education of these student-athletes and properly compensates them for their work on the field is a pretty great thing. At the end of the day, that’s what matters most.

But this feels like a pretty huge loophole that could change the shape of college football as we know it.

BYU just got one of its partners to not only compensate its players but also pay the entire tuition for a year for their walk-ons. These players are no longer walk-ons — the entire “walk-on” concept disappeared when this deal was inked.

And that’s not a bad thing at all. The players should be paid. But BYU could easily use this as a recruiting pitch for future athletes. It’s not a scholarship, but it feels almost if it’s presented as one.

That last point is very important. This is not a scholarship. It’s a business deal. And as a business deal, this will be taxed. So does that mean the players will have to pay money on their tuition anyway? That’s an important question that needs to be answered.

Now, that doesn’t mean this is a bad deal or this is something the players shouldn’t do. By all means, when money is presented to you and the deal is right you should take it. But there’s reason to be skeptical about BYU’s intentions with all of this.

They’re just the first to do this. Other teams will almost certainly follow suit and offer these sorts of deals as perks to student-athletes.

And as they do, protections for these students will be more essential than ever on the back end.

This story originally appeared on ftw.usatoday.com.

USGA will waive ‘most NIL-related breaches’ to help college golfers navigate new landscape while retaining amateur status

The USGA addressed the NCAA’s temporary NIL policy and how it fits into the Rules of Amateur Status, helping college golfers find footing.

When the NCAA’s interim policy on name, image and likeness went into effect on July 1, the rules of engagement effectively changed right in the middle of the summer amateur golf season. It made some college golfers leery of the landscape and left them treading lightly where NIL was concerned so as not to jeopardize their amateur status.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Golf Association addressed the updated NIL policy and how it fits into its Rules of Amateur Status by announcing it would waive most NIL-related breaches for college golfers through the end of the year as long as the player retains his or her NCAA playing eligibility.

The USGA already had proposed modifications to its Rules of Amateur Status in February, putting them up for review and soliciting feedback before a planned adoption at the start of 2022. The new rules, if adopted, would marry nicely with the NCAA’s NIL policy but also generally simplify the USGA’s definition of amateurism.

Note that the USGA’s response to NIL does not waive the Rules of Amateur Status entirely for college golfers, and amateurs not currently on a college golf roster should be particularly careful. Thus, the USGA has not opened a free-for-all for all amateur golfers, but rather tried to address a short period of uncertainty for those players who identify as both a college and amateur player.

For instance, the current Rule 6, Use of Golf Skill or Reputation, under the USGA’s Rules of Amateur Status still prohibits college golfers from earning money by providing golf instruction and giving lessons.

According to a USGA memo on NIL: “The interim approach is intended to provide a short-term solution that has the minimum impact possible on the amateur game and administrators until the new Rules of Amateur Status come into effect and we believe that by adopting this interim position for collegiate golfers only, we are minimizing the impact on administrators, while trying to ensure that collegiate golfers attending the same institution can receive the same benefits from use of their name, image and likeness.”

The USGA identified three guiding principles for college golfers navigating the NIL landscape but still wanting to compete as an amateur golfer:

  • The NIL-related actions are allowed under the NCAA’s interim policy.
  • He or she remains on a team roster while the NIL-related activities take place.
  • There are no other breaches of the Rules of Amateur Status in connection with the NIL activities. An example of this would be providing golf instruction, which while still OK per the NCAA is not allowed under the Rules of Amateur Status.

In addition to providing guidance for student-athletes, the USGA’s clarifying memo on NIL also provides guidance for tournament directors, which includes the suggestion that a question be added to tournament entry forms that would help identify which players have taken actions to benefit from their NIL or even that a specific tournament adopt its own policy on logos, promotions, advertisements, etc. (albeit well in advance of the competition).

Any college golfer who is planning to benefit from the new NIL policy should, the USGA notes, be prepared to provide proof of NCAA eligibility before competing in an amateur golf competition.

[lawrence-related id=778114081,778089882]

A growing army of Barstool Athletes includes a handful of college golfers. But what does it all mean?

A handful of college golfers are among the list of Barstool Athletes, but many details around the concept remain to be fleshed out.

In college athletics, July 1 marked the start of something of a free-for-all. In a monumental shift for the NCAA, athletes can now begin to accept endorsements for the use of their name, image and likeness while still competing for their university.

So what now? Well, the landscape remains a little uncertain – and for golfers, at least, a little bit complicated. While the USGA opened a month-long feedback period in an effort to update their Rules of Amateur Status in February (in effect, the USGA is working to simplify its definition of amateurism), the new Rules were not scheduled to be adopted until Jan. 1, 2022.

In the meantime, Barstool Sports is doing what it does best: meeting the new NIL landscape with open arms. And college golf is very much included.

Two days after college athletes were cleared for these new endorsement opportunities, a fleet of college athletes had been picked up as “Barstool Athletes.” The Twitter handle Barstool Athletics (@stoolathletics) had garnered over 23,000 follows by July 3. There’s only a loose definition for what it all means.

A video of Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy also circulated on social media during which Portnoy gave a brief background of the concept. On July 1, Portnoy said, Adelaide Halverson, a volleyball player at Jacksonville State, DM’d Portnoy asking to be the first Barstool Athlete. The company agreed to send her Barstool merchandise, Portnoy said, and thus the Barstool Athlete program was born. The requests began pouring in after that.

“Listen, how do you become a Barstool Athlete?” Portnoy said in the video. “If you play Division I sports and you blink at me, we will sign you.”

Barstool has since set up an online application for interested athletes.

By July 3, Portnoy had sent an email message to those players accepted into the Barstool Athletics program. In the message, obtained by Golfweek, Portnoy noted that Barstool had received “literally 75,000 or so applications we are going through.” It had dedicated 15 people to the task.

Portnoy also assured athletes that Barstool was not asking for signed contracts or exclusivity, but there are few specifics beyond that. The object is to help athletes amplify their own brands.

Two of the first golfers announced as Barstool Athletes on July 1 were Oklahoma’s Logan McAllister and Auburn’s Mychael O’Berry. Mississippi State’s Ashley Gilliam, Alabama’s Canon Claycomb and incoming Christian Brothers freshman Jonathan Shuskey were later accepted into the program.

The early stages of Barstool Athletes feel a lot like the Let Them Play Classic, which came together quickly in May after the NCAA Women’s Regional in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was controversially canceled because of heavy rains and subsequent course conditions. For Barstool, it was a successful first foray into college golf, and featured a field of 47 players.

So far Gilliam, a rising junior, is the only player from that field to become a Barstool Athlete. Gilliam set the Mississippi State scoring record (a 70.61 season average) as a freshman and played this year’s Augusta National Women’s Amateur.

Given what the LTP Classic grew into from such a seemingly spur-of-the-moment beginning, Gilliam has confidence that the Barstool Athlete program will be similarly successful.

“We really went into it with no expectation of it being how big it actually was and we were blown away with how amazing the tournament was,” she said. “You could walk up to that tournament and not know it was any different than any college tournament.”

Still, Gilliam acknowledges that she and fellow college golfers are treading lightly in the NIL landscape until hearing how the USGA will react.

According to Golf Channel reporting, the USGA is “assessing the interim policy” from the NCAA regarding the NIL concept and would provide an update by July 6.

“Honestly, we still don’t know stuff with the USGA so, obviously, all the golfers are being super careful,” she said. “We’re not signing anything, nothing like that because we obviously are waiting to see what the USGA says.

“It’s just kind of weird, the timing of everything because we’re not really sure about the USGA stuff.”

Despite the awkward timing, the fact that all the Barstool Athletes chatter unfolded on social media — Barstool’s playground — was right in Claycomb’s wheelhouse.

“I saw Portnoy tweeted out something with their first athlete and I knew after that tweet it was going to blow up,” he said. “So I followed it pretty closely over the next few hours. Then they posted a Google Doc, just kind of a sign-up sheet. I did that pretty early – I think it was two minutes after they posted it.”

He heard back 15 minutes later.

Athletes like Claycomb all across the college spectrum have scrambled to understand exactly what the new NCAA terms mean over the past week. Claycomb found it helpful that Alabama organized an informational Zoom meeting for its golf team last month to answer some questions.

Claycomb’s outgoing personality plays well on social media, and that will be an advantage in this new landscape.

“I think NIL is going to play really well into my hands just because I understand how all of it works from a social media standpoint,” he said. “It seems like for golfers, that’s going to be probably the most influential way we can do things.”

Barstool has also shown an interest in the diverse stories that athletes bring to the table. Shuskey, a 39-year-old staff sergeant in the U.S. Army set to retire later this summer and embark on a college-golf career, is a prime example. After sharing his background on Twitter on July 2, Shuskey became a Barstool Athlete. Even though that didn’t come with a lot of initial answers, Shuskey trusted Barstool’s reputation as being ahead of the curve on things like this.

“That’s the reason that I told him yes, and didn’t hesitate to tell him yes,” Shuskey said. “I know this is what they do and they’re really good at it.”

Portnoy recognized in his message to athletes that there would be strength in numbers. As for now, Barstool will continue to do what it does best: react quickly and figure out the details later.

As Portnoy said in his initial video, “We may become the most powerful agency in the world.”

[lawrence-related id=778113661,778113265,778112602]

NCAA Allows Players To Profit Off NIL. The NCAA Wins … AGAIN: Daily Cavalcade

College athletes are now allowed by the NCAA to profit off of their name, image and likeness. Here’s the key thing you’re missing …

College athletes are now allowed by the NCAA to profit off of their name, image and likeness. Here’s the key thing you’re missing …

College Football Daily Cavalcade: The NCAA allows players to profit off of NIL

– Contact/Follow @ColFootballNews & @PeteFiutak

Sorry if this take sucks, it’s not my fault …

The NCAA just ate everyone’s lunch and made them think they’re full.

[mm-video type=playlist id=01f1343a1wt7q817p7 player_id=none image=https://collegefootballnews.com/wp-content/plugins/mm-video/images/playlist-icon.png]

Basically, this means Reggie Bush wasn’t actually history’s greatest monster.

With over 20 states and counting passing laws and rules allowing college athletes the ability to profit off of their name, image, and likeness – unfortunately abbreviated to NIL – the NCAA changed its lifelong stance on amateurism and decided it’s now kosher for the student-athletes to – within certain boundaries – make money and get benefits for being who they are.

And the NCAA managed to sound magnanimous about it.

The governing body of college athletics – okay, sort of, but whether or not the NCAA really does have the authority to rule like it does is a thing for another day – will now go by whatever the NIL rules each state has or will put in place, mainly because it was going to happen anyway.

Throw in the 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA couldn’t restrict athletes from receiving education-related benefits – punctuated by a scathing rebuke from Justice Brett Kavanaugh – and it might seem like this is a wee bit of a rough patch for the kids in Indy.

You think the NCAA just lost? You think the NCAA just conceded? You think this is the beginning of the evil empire’s downfall?

Bless your heart.

The NCAA might have fallen assbackwards into this situation, but it just pulled off an all-timer of a business model win.

Let me ask you this, with the allowing of student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness, does the NCAA actually have to pay college athletes? Nope.

Do the schools have to pay college athletes? Nope. EVERYTHING is adamantly the same when it comes to colleges being able to directly pay players or incoming recruits. That’s still a no-no.

Does the NCAA have to deal with the impossibly sticky Title IX issue of having to pay the same amount and give the same benefits to female athletes as they do the males? Nope – at least not yet.

Are the college athletes able to unionize? Nope – at least not yet. (That, by the way, would be the potential death blow. Once they figure out the legal way to do that, everything changes.)

Does the NCAA, or do the schools, have to give anything they don’t already provide to the backup punter on the friendly neighborhood MAC program near you? Nope.

Does the NCAA, or do the schools, have to give anything they don’t already provide to the Heisman-caliber quarterback or the first round NFL Draft pick on the defensive front? Nope.

Now try out these two key questions.

Do the NCAA and schools lose any revenue whatsoever from what they’re already bringing in? Nope, and in fact, this likely has the opposite effect with several cash-strapped star college athletes likely to stick around a little longer rather than turn pro early. That ties into this …

Are the players about to be paid, promoted, and marketed by others without the NCAA and the schools having to drop a dime? Yup.

And you think the NCAA might be losing here? It just pulled off a miracle.

The NCAA just 1) advanced its brand, 2) increased its power and relevancy, 3) kept its revenue stream, 4) avoided having to pay the athletes – aka The Labor – 5) got anyone and everyone else to pay for The Labor, 6) will generate more revenue because of that, and 7) …

WON.

Best of all for the NCAA and the colleges, the ball will be kicked off on Saturday, August 28th, and to John Q. Fan the whole NIL debate will be a non-factor.

Okay, agents. Time to go to work.

[protected-iframe id=”361699434b6d70baf15f631ed2408ac1-97672683-92922408″ info=”https://www.googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js” ]

NCAA adopts temporary policy on name, image and likeness in seismic shift for college sports

The NCAA stands on the edge of the most fundamental change to the college sports landscape since Title IX was implemented nearly 50 years ago.

Breaking with a long-held stance on athlete compensation, the NCAA Division I schools’ top rules-making group Wednesday approved policy changes that will greatly enhance athletes’ ability to make money from their name, image and likeness, beginning Thursday.

The decision announced by the NCAA came hours before laws or executive orders in more than a dozen states that will have the same impact were set to take effect.

The setup will remain in place until federal legislation or new NCAA rules are adopted.

“With the variety of state laws adopted across the country, we will continue to work with Congress to develop a solution that will provide clarity on a national level,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement. “The current environment — both legal and legislative — prevents us from providing a more permanent solution and the level of detail student-athletes deserve.”

Now, the NCAA stands on the edge of the most fundamental change to the college sports landscape since Title IX, the gender-equity law that was implemented nearly 50 years ago.

Under the new arrangement, college athletes will be allowed to engage in activities, including endorsement deals, leveraging social media for pay, and getting compensated for coaching, making personal appearances and signing autographs.

They will be able to do all of this in an environment that, at least for now, will have far fewer fixed boundaries than the schools had anticipated would be in place in the wake of a vote on a detailed set of rules changes that had been set for January.

Schools in states with laws about athletes’ name, image and likeness (NIL) activity “are responsible for determining whether those activities are consistent with state law,” the association said.

Schools in states without NIL laws will be able to develop their own policies, with the NCAA saying only that the association will be maintaining its “prohibitions on pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements.”

A question-and-answer document addressed the specific issue of whether schools can arrange NIL opportunities for athletes by saying: “During the interim NIL policy, the expectation is that schools and student-athletes will not use NIL transactions to compensate for athletic participation or achievement or as an improper inducement.”

“It puts a lot of burden on schools on how to proceed,” said Tom McMillen, president and CEO of the LEAD1 Association, a group representing Football Bowl Subdivision athletics directors. “Schools could be very permissive, and it would help them in recruiting. That’s a possibility. I don’t know that there’s a downside to being permissive.”

Said Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher: “I think the values of institutions will shine through. This is a good day. We’ve been talking for eons about modernizing our rules. This will be a dynamic process and we need a national solution.”

Wednesday’s decision is the culmination of a series of events over the past 12 years that have pressured NCAA schools into abandoning a standard of amateurism that they defended through legal battles that have cost the association and major conferences hundreds of millions of dollars in legal settlements and attorneys’ fees.

There have been a series of antitrust suits, starting in 2009, that built toward a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA last week. And there have been state legislative changes on athletes’ behalf that began in California in 2019, and spread to a Florida law that established July 1, 2021 as an effective date other states have been racing to match.

The NCAA had been set to vote on detailed rules changes regarding NIL in January, but tabled the matter when the Supreme Court decided in December to hear the case on which it ruled last week and then, days before the scheduled vote, the Justice Department raised concerns about the plan.

Meanwhile, federal lawmakers began taking interest in the issue, introducing several bills that expired as the 2020 Congressional session wound down and Democrats regained control of the Senate.

In 2021, while the NCAA remained on hold, the number of states passing laws with a July 1 start date began rising rapidly. That prompted the association to step up efforts to seek federal legislation. However, five bills this year also have stalled as the NCAA has sought not only a federal legal standard on athletes’ NIL activity, but also protection from continued antitrust challenges. Democratic lawmakers have responded by demanding improvements from the schools in other benefits for athletes, such as health care and safety standards.

“Today’s decision from the NCAA is a welcome acknowledgment that college athletics must do more for college athletes,” Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement. “However, today’s interim action is no substitute for a national standard that not only gives our student athletes the ability to control their own name, image, and likeness rights, but also includes health care, safety, scholarship, and transfer protections.”

Blake Lawrence — the CEO of Opendorse, a sports technology company that works to help athletes build their endorsement value — said in an interview with USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday: “We are preparing for 100,000 student-athletes to register on our platform in the next 48 hours. There’s already 30,000 (registered) and we’re expecting to see 100,000-plus more.”

Ryan Detert, CEO of Influential, a firm that connects social media influencers with brands and works with a number of Fortune 500 companies, also predicted a sweeping and lucrative total marketplace over the remainder of this year.

“I would be very surprised if it’s not (a total in the) low tens of millions of dollars being put into the hands of both major-college athletes and nano-, micro-influencers that may not just be in the major sports like basketball, baseball, football — but (in) every possible sport. Lacrosse, women’s soccer, everything” Detert told USA TODAY Sports “… I know we’re going to do several million ourselves, just based on the current pipeline and interest. And it makes a lot of sense because we’re doing these Gen-Z and millennial campaigns with some of the biggest brands in the world.”

Asked about the types of activities and money that may be involved, Lawrence detailed a wide range of possibilities.

“It is clear that there are a handful of student-athletes on each team that are doing things like their own merchandise line, so using maybe a Shopify landing page to sell merchandise online, starting tomorrow,” Lawrence said. “Others that have a car dealership that’s already going to provide them a free car starting tomorrow. I mean, there is a lot of different things happening, that’s for sure. …

“I would say that these initial offers, there are some that are in the five figures, there are some in the four figures and others are more around the hundred-dollar range. I have yet to be made aware of anything that’s in the six-figure range, in terms of opportunities in the marketplace, but I’m sure there will be some at some level.”

Follow colleges reporter Steve Berkowitz on Twitter @ByBerkowitz

NCAA changing outlook on name, image and likeness, moving toward temporary solution

NCAA considering temporary solution where schools in states with NIL laws will follow them, schools in states without will make own rules.

The NCAA appears headed toward a temporary solution regarding college athletes’ ability to make money from their name, image and likeness that will involve many schools setting their own individual policies on the matter, two people familiar with the association’s deliberations told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The NCAA Board of Governors and the Division I Board of Directors — the association’s top policy-making groups — are scheduled to hold a joint meeting Thursday with an eye toward moving the membership toward a policy stance rather than a rules change.

While some of the particulars of that policy remain to be determined, the basic construct currently under consideration would have schools in states with laws related to name, image and likeness (NIL) follow those laws and schools in states without NIL laws decide for themselves how to proceed. The schools in states without NIL laws would then police themselves.

“What’s going to drive people nuts is that everything is going to be gray,” one of the people said. “Nothing is going to be black and white. Chaos may be too strong a word, but clearly there’s going to be uncertainty for a period of time. That’s just going to be life.”

Eight states have passed laws that will allow athletes to make money from their NIL beginning July 1 or whenever their schools choose. Bills with July 1 effective dates are on the desks of governors in three other states. Altogether, about 15 states could have NIL laws in effect by Sept. 1.

OPINION:  Supreme Court isn’t buying NCAA model, and neither are the rest of us

ANALYSIS:  What NCAA ruling means for college sports, athletes

NCAA:  President Mark Emmert says legal maneuvering in Alston case not done

Because of this, NCAA President Mark Emmert has been adamant that the association must find a solution for athletes in states without such laws.

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in the Alston antitrust case is prompting the association’s change in approach from what in January had been a highly detailed set of rules changes that included a variety of limits on athletes’ NIL activity and had been was set for a vote by the NCAA Division I Council, the division’s day-to-day policy-making panel.

The high court unanimously ruled that the NCAA’s rules on athlete compensation are subject to detailed antitrust analysis, and such an analysis showed that the association’s limits on education-related benefits for athletes violate the law.

Because of Monday’s ruling, “we’re going to have to have low to no regulation going forward” until a federal law is enacted that would override the state laws or the association can sort rules that it believes are compatible with the Supreme Court ruling,” said the other person familiar with the deliberations.

That means the extensive rules proposal that was to have been voted on in January is “not operational anymore because of the ruling on Monday. Low to no regulation will be the only way (for now). The January proposal does not offer that.”

Follow colleges reporter Steve Berkowitz on Twitter @ByBerkowitz

USGA seeks to simplify Rules of Amateur Status with proposed changes to sponsorship, prize money and professionalism

The USGA and R&A proposed major changes to the Rules of Amateur Status to make the concept of amateurism easier to understand and apply.

What is the distinction between a professional golfer and an amateur one? The U.S. Golf Association would like to simplify the answer to that question.

Together with the R&A, the governing body is proposing significant changes to its existing Rules of Amateur Status that would make the concept of amateurism easier to understand and apply. New rules would clearly define three ways in which an amateur would cross the threshold into professional golf: by accepting a prize in excess of the $750 limit, by accepting payment for giving instruction or by accepting employment as a golf club professional or membership of an association of professional golfers (think the PGA Tour or LPGA).

Among the key changes proposed for the existing Rules of Amateur Status is the elimination of all sponsorship restrictions for amateurs. The USGA is also proposing that there be no distinction between cash prizes and other prizes – which could eliminate that mountain of pro shop credit competitive players often find themselves holding at the end of a season.

The governing body has taken a holistic view in crafting their proposed changes, approaching amateurism from the perspective of club golfers, elite amateurs and everyone in between.

As with all significant changes to the game, the USGA now enters a month-long feedback period for its proposals. That period closes on March 26, 2021, with the new Rules scheduled to be adopted on Jan. 1, 2022.

“We’ve definitely redefined what amateurism is through these proposals,” Craig Winter, USGA Senior Director, Rules of Golf and Amateur Status, told Golfweek. “We’re interested to hear what the public thinks, but we are very comfortable and at this time, we need amateurism in this game to keep its core alive and strong.”

The backstory

Conversations about modernizing the USGA’s Rules of Amateur Status initially began in 2017 as the organization tackled an overhaul of the Rules of Golf.

During that process, the organization recognized that its current Rules don’t reflect amateur golf as a progression for elite young players looking to chart a path to professional golf or serve the large number of players who, in chasing that goal, lose their amateur status through participation on cash-prize tours without ever making an impact on the professional game.

Interestingly, in the process of the conversation about what it means to be an amateur, the USGA and R&A kicked around removing all limiting factors for amateurs, period. That’s addressed briefly in the USGA’s proposal as “open golf.”

The concept was short-lived.

“We thought about it, we really did – do we need a set of amateur status rules for this game?” Winter said. “And we believe that there’s just a tremendous amount of value to what that brings to this game.”

Winter noted that the USGA’s modernization effort was largely driven by a desire to level the playing field for players using amateur golf as a way to work their way up in the game.

Tournament and travel expenses add up quickly at the top level, presenting a hurdle for many families. Winter said the USGA has fielded many questions about how to get help with those expenses. Amateurs are generally prohibited from receiving it – with exceptions coming in the form of national teams and scholarships – and even if they do receive approved outside assistance, they can’t advertise or promote it.

Financial means often end up becoming a determining factor in who can pursue tournament opportunities at the highest level and who can’t.

Sponsorships are very closely tied to expenses, and the USGA’s proposed elimination of those restrictions would certainly open the door for elite amateurs – like those who might win a U.S. Amateur or U.S. Women’s Amateur – to benefit from sponsorship by larger companies. Still, it will also allow more people to take part in amateur competitions.

“There’s a thought that this helps democratize,” Winter said.

A familiar concept

An unsurprising element of the USGA’s proposal addresses the familiar concept of a player using his or her name, image or likeness for promotion and advertising purposes. Those words have appeared in NCAA headlines as the governing body of college sports moves toward a landscape in which players can benefit financially from their success and popularity as a college athlete.

The NCAA’s new terms were likely to be at odds with the USGA’s current rule of prohibiting amateurs from appearing in promotions or advertising – even those without a financial benefit. The issue of self-promotion in golf garnered national attention in January 2019 when Lucy Li, who frequently played in USGA championships and was selected to the 2018 U.S. Curtis Cup squad – appeared in an Apple Watch advertising campaign. Ultimately, Li was determined to have breached the USGA’s amateur rules, but was allowed to retain her amateur status.

As the USGA notes, the current social media landscape makes it extremely difficult for national governing bodies to monitor whether players are in violation of the current rule. This is another area in which the proposed updates serve to simplify the concept of amateurism.

“We know there have been challenges in that area,” Winter said. “It’s not even specific to those that make it to the news, but if you look at social media and the impacts that it’s had, how prevalent it is for the younger generation, we’ve been challenged by where the rule is for quite some time. Even in early 2018, and even late 2017, we were pretty confident this is the direction we needed to move and we tried various limiters but none of them seemed to work in the way that was necessary.”

From top to bottom

Perhaps no proposal reaches into the heart of amateur golf at the everyday level – think club championships and weekend games – like the USGA’s attempt to more simply define prizes. Currently, amateurs are prohibited from accepting a cash prize in any amount – hence, the abundance of pro-shop credit. The proposed new rule would eliminate the difference between cash and non-cash prizes, and only designate a maximum value of $750.

Another layer? Side competitions or those happening off the golf course entirely – like long-drive contests, skills competitions and even putts from half court at a basketball game – would now fall outside the USGA’s scope.

“To get to kind of the soul of amateur golf, we want to preserve what is so good about this game and by removing the cash, non-cash distinction – you’ve hit it on the head,” Winter said. “So much of the focus in what we’re trying to do – amateur status is about your eligibility to play the game. It’s about playing and competing.”

By establishing clear ways in which a player forfeits his or her amateur status, the USGA’s proposed changes would actually reduce the ways for an amateur to become a non-amateur simply by playing the game. That would create less confusion over the checking of a box or a simple declaration of being a professional.

Until a player collects a prize in excess of $750 or accepts membership into an organization of professional golfers, the threshold is not crossed.

“The rules of amateurism, they really are defining professionalism,” Winter said. “They’re defining an amateur and a non-amateur and the only way you can breach the rules by playing and become a non-amateur is to accept a prize.

“It’s a bit different than we think about the world today, and that’s why a lot of what we’re saying here is we’re redefining amateur status to be easier to understand and apply.”

[lawrence-related id=778088927,778087342,778086418,778086173]

Justice Department warns NCAA over transfer and name, image, likeness rules

At issue is the prospect of athletes being offered deals that college ADs say could be viewed as thinly veiled recruiting inducements.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division leader sent a letter to NCAA President Mark Emmert on Friday that expresses strong concerns about the association’s direction on rules regarding athletes’ ability to transfer and to make money from the use of their names, images and likenesses.

Proposed changes in both areas are scheduled to be on the agenda of Monday’s meeting of the Division I Council and Thursday’s meeting of the Division I Board of Directors.

But in the letter — a copy of which was obtained by USA TODAY Sports — Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim says one part of the NCAA’s prospective approach to regulating athletes’ involvement in name, image and likeness deals “may raise concerns under the antitrust laws.”

More generally addressing other rules that will remain in place, he wrote: “Ultimately, the antitrust laws demand that college athletes, like everyone else in our free market economy, benefit appropriately from competition.”

Delrahim took the additional step of addressing the NCAA’s desire for Congressional intervention now that six states have passed various name, image and likeness laws. The NCAA would like federal legislation requiring changes in the association’s name, image and likeness rules to include protection from legal challenges to the alterations it makes as a result.

“While the Division expresses no views on the need for any such legislation,” Delrahim wrote, “should Congress deem such legislative immunity necessary we would anticipate it will be the narrowest possible immunity and one that would contemplate a collective representation of college athletes’ rights as a condition of any such immunity.”

In an interview with USA TODAY Sports, Delrahim said that he wrote the letter to Emmert in connection with the upcoming NCAA meetings, as well as conversations between Justice Department officials and the NCAA that cover several years.

“Because we understand that the NCAA is considering changes to their rules,” Delrahim said, “we want them to benefit from the Antitrust Division’s views as part of our ongoing dialogue, so as to avoid any misunderstanding on what the law requires.”

Delrahim’s views on the NCAA are not new. He has expressed them in various forums as far back as 2018. He is an appointee who will be leaving the Justice Department just before the upcoming inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden. But his letter includes a closing reference to David Lawrence, a career official in the department who is chief of the Competition Policy and Advocacy Section. In the interview, Delrahim also expressed confidence in the likelihood of a continuity of approach to the NCAA by the Biden administration.

The transfer rule change would address the five remaining Division I sports in which athletes generally are prohibited from playing for one year if they change schools. Under the proposal, athletes in Bowl Subdivision football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and men’s ice hockey would no longer have to sit out the first time they change schools.

But the letter takes issue with other aspects of the transfer process that are set to remain in place, and Delrahim, referencing prior interactions between the department and the NCAA, wrote:

“Our expectation is that our engagement with the NCAA over its transfer rules will … result in the NCAA’s removal of unnecessary anticompetitive barriers that stand in the way of college athletes transferring between schools. Of course, the Division stands ready to enforce the antitrust laws if necessary.”

Athletes must notify their current school of their intention to transfer before contacting, or being contacted by, another school. And once athletes provide notice of their intent to transfer, NCAA rules allow schools to reduce or cancel their financial aid at the end of the ongoing academic term — or immediately if notice is given between academic terms.

“Thus,” Delrahim wrote, “college athletes must risk losing their current scholarship – not to mention alienating their coaches — in order even to explore the possibility of transferring to a new school.  The NCAA … should consider seriously whether these rules, taken together, unreasonably deter students from entering the transfer process and, as a result, leave college athletes without a competitive alternative to their current school.”

Delrahim’s letter uses equally strong language in addressing not only the NCAA’s proposed approach to name, image and likeness.

While the NCAA’s proposed changes would give athletes new and significant abilities to make money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) and other activities, they include various restrictions and would require athletes to disclose their name, image and likeness activities to what is described as “an independent third-party administrator.” While numerous details about this entity remain undefined, the NCAA’s required statement of rationale for rules change says the disclosure requirements will “ensure integrity of the recruiting process,” and “evaluate NIL activities for possible malfeasance.”

At issue is the prospect of athletes being offered deals that college athletics administrators say could be viewed as thinly veiled recruiting inducements.

Delrahim wrote: “Pursuing a goal of promoting amateurism does not insulate the NCAA’s rules from scrutiny under the antitrust laws. … The antitrust laws limit the NCAA’s ability to restrict competition among college athletes, coaches, and schools.  For example, if the NCAA adopted a rule that fixes the price at which students can license their NIL, e.g., based on what the NCAA determines to be a ‘fair’ market value, such a rule may raise concerns under the antitrust laws.”

In the interview, Delrahim expanded on this idea in the more specific context of the proposed third-party administrator.

“The devil will be in the details – who’s on that board and who they answer to. … because who appoints them and what their points of view are can be outcome-determinative,” he said. “While we applaud efforts to increase integrity in the process, we must be very careful to ensure that a board does not operate as a backdoor way to limit competition. You know, athletic directors’ and coaches’ salaries are not subjected to such a process. We want to ensure that the NCAA imposes only the narrowest form of competitive restriction that is necessary.”

[lawrence-related id=778081608,778077031,778070222]