Should college athletes be compensated for commercial use of their perception?

Exploring whether college athletes should be compensated for commercial use of their perception

Guys, I’m watching college football on ESPN! Leave me alone! Don’t turn the channel! And don’t interrupt me until the game is over!

Clamorous words from a die-hard college football fan on a typical Saturday night. That fan who’ll hit you upside the head if you touch the remote. Especially when the big dogs are playing. Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and LSU. Of course, there’s more than these five.

These five institutions are known for having elite athletes. Elite athletes exist at all institutions. But being “elite” wasn’t always the initial thought for those athletes. It was a scholarship. A dream traveling through their minds while preparing for practice inside the locker room.

More from Sir Charles In Charge

• Dillon Brooks proved his value to Houston Rockets in the 2023 FIBA World Cup
• NBA Trade Rumors: 1 Player from each team most likely to be traded in-season
• Golden State Warriors: Buy or sell Chris Paul being a day 1 starter
• Does Christian Wood make the Los Angeles Lakers a legit contender?
• NBA Power Rankings: Tiering all 30 projected starting point guards for 2023-24

Whistle blows. It’s time for practice.

Then, there’s perception. Not perception in the locker room. But something you never hear about. Commerical perception. Apparently, the perception has intermixed with capitalism. Pay to be perceived? This is new. Not old. Should college athletes be compensated for their image in commercial media? Stay with me.

Whistle blows twice.

People I’m not a capitalist; I’m just a columnist. An intellectual with the research. Not a numbers guy. They’ll be able to answer that one better than I would. We’re not playing politics either. Neither of us will win.

Perception and law. They both coincide with the narrative, but there’s been supreme opposition about this. From players, coaches, parents, and the tyrants behind it all.

In California, Senate Bill 206 also known as the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” was introduced by the state’s 9th district. According to California Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill allows colleges and universities in California to compensate student-athletes for the use of their likeness and image. This means that athletes cannot be punished for accepting endorsement revenue from outside entities.

Newsom signed the bill into law. It’s not scheduled to officially pass the Senate until 2023. Could there be pervasive opposition if the bill passes through the Senate? Absolutely. But why?

Here’s the perfect scenario.

For example, I’m a star shooting guard at the University of Michigan and was a five-star prospect coming out of high school. I’ve garnered national attention and recognition since I’ve been at Michigan. From the fan base to the girls checking me out on campus; essentially I’m that guy. I’m also a candidate for Naismith Player of the Year as well. Jealousy and envy come with all this.

Then, there’s this guy named Joe Young. Young was also a top high school basketball recruit. There’s a difference between myself and Young. He doesn’t have the notoriety and attention that I have. Why? Because Joe Young is second string. He only sees the floor when we’re up a bunch of scores.

Next, Nike shows up to practice. They want to film a commercial featuring Young and I. There’s a problem though. He doesn’t get the same attention from Nike that I received because his “perception,” isn’t as prominent as mine. Nike films the commercial. They send Joe and I checks.

After taxes, I received more money for the commercial because of my “image.” But Joe Young received less. Although Young isn’t the star shooting guard; shouldn’t he receive the same amount if we appeared in the same commercial? That’s where fairness comes into play. This isn’t fair.

An egregious scenario where controversy might ensue. Even the thought of a lawsuit could happen. Why? It’s simply not fair. Not fair to who? Joe Young.

There’s no reason why Joe Young shouldn’t have received the same amount for the commercial. Although he’s not the “star;” he should still receive the same amount. People might say, “Joe already has a full-ride scholarship, he doesn’t need extra money.”  Well, I do too. That’s true. But sports are only one aspect. Survival is another. A Naismith Player of the Year candidate with no food in my dorm? That sounds absurd. Fairness will be a big deal regarding this issue.

For years, the NCAA has accumulated billions of dollars in revenue from collegiate athletics. Some feel it’s subjugation; essentially slavery. Harshly written. Subjugation and sports? That’s a harsh conversation to have. But it needs to be discussed.

Subjugation and sports? By definition, subjugation means to conquer. And no, I’m not saying players are being conquered by coaches. They’re being conquered by economics. Capitalism; Classism; the two entities that control us systematically.

Initially, the narrative states that you’re a “student,” first, and, “athlete,” second. That’s what we’re told by the educational system. Ordinarily, that’s the case. In this case, being a student lies outside the narrative.

If Senate Bill 206 is passed in 2023; that entire notion could be taken up in a courtroom. Numerous reports say that if passed, the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” would grab the attention of more colleges and universities nationwide who could potentially pass a similar law. Will lawsuits ensue? Only time will tell.

Common sense will soon take precedence over this issue. How long? Who knows. Common sense tells you that a college athlete deserves to be compensated for their image. The athlete’s identity is being utilized for ticket sales, raffles, advertisements, branding, etc. It’s deeper than endorsement deals and glamour. Glamour isn’t always the best. In situations like this, it’s never the best.

As a journalist, I envision this being problematic on several levels. Why? With economics comes discrepancies.

Discrepancies?

Absolutely. With the NCAA, the judicial system, athletes, coaches, parents, institutions, etc. No one is above the law. The system. The governing body of American soil. No one is above that. And because of this, economically speaking; the winner of it all; is the people behind the scenes. The capitalists. Not the athlete. It’s all perspective. But it makes sense.

Remember the scandal surrounding current NFL quarterback Terrelle Pryor at Ohio State nearly a decade ago? That scandal involved “perception,” and “money.” Pryor was a highly-touted recruit coming in, and after making thousands of dollars autographing memorabilia; his “perception” became more about the scandal, and the “money” he attained.

Again, it’s all perspective. If I’m a college athlete, I should be compensated for my name. Compensated for my perception. Perception is reality. Capitalism is reality. Everyone works. Everyone pays bills. Everyone needs food. Everyone has to survive. College campuses offer room and board, a meal plan, and other amenities. But as a college athlete, you’re away from home. No family. Just you. Sports, then survive? No. It should be the other way around.

As an athlete, you’re being perceived daily by fans, coaches, and teammates. Why not get compensated for it? Again, this is all perspective. The law has the final call.

Pay to play? Should college athletes be compensated for their image?

Four more years until the verdict is heard.

2023 is the final answer.

Whistle blows. “Practice is over guys, hit the showers.”