Did NCAA Really Agree to Allow College Athlete NIL Compensation? Nope

NCAA Name Image Likeness NIL Pay college athletes

On Tuesday, the NCAA’s working group released its decision on the college athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation issue. Or did they? All of the headlines immediately read that the NCAA allows college athlete NIL compensation. At first glance, the NCAA’s statement would lead one to believe that they did just that. The statement read that “the NCAA’s top governing board voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image, and likeness.” However, when looking a bit closer it becomes very apparent that the NCAA never used the word compensation in the context of allowing NIL payments. The NCAA danced around the compensation issue without ever calling it compensation.

In fact, the NCAA was not clear at all about how they plan to address the college athlete NIL compensation issue. They essentially addressed the issue without truly addressing the issue. Their statement is riddled with unclear ambiguous language that essentially renders the NCAA’s true stance on the issue unclear. The NCAA’s lack of clarity should come as no surprise. After all the NCAA is only addressing NIL compensation after being forced to do so.

The NCAA was Strong-Armed into Addressing College Athlete NIL Compensation

2019 has been a volatile year for the NCAA. State and federal lawmakers have become increasingly vocal about the injustices that plague the college athletics system. Several lawmakers introduced legislation to remedy those injustices. In January, Washington State Senator, Drew Stokesbary, introduced legislation to allow college athletes in Washington state to profit from their NIL. Soon after, Congressman Mark Walker introduced the Student-Athlete Equity Act. Under the Student-Athlete Equity Act, the NCAA would lose its tax-exempt status if it does not allow college athlete NIL compensation. While these bills were being introduced, lawmakers in California were debating the Fair Pay to Play Act. All of this led the NCAA to create a working group to address the NIL compensation issues.

However, the working group did not work fast enough for California. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act into law. Under the law, college athletes in California will be allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness and sign with agents starting in 2023. In spite of the NCAA’s efforts to thwart the Fair Pay to Play Act, it still became law. As a result, the NCAA’s working group had no choice but to acknowledge the need to “modernize” their rules in favor of college athlete NIL compensation. The NCAA was forced to either move towards NIL compensation or to at the very least appear to be moving towards NIL compensation. It seems as though the NCAA has chosen to appear to be moving forward with college athlete NIL compensation.

The NCAA Has Chosen to Give the Appearance of Moving Towards College Athlete NIL Compensation Instead of Truly Moving Towards it

While the NCAA has everyone saying that they have decided to allow college athlete NIL compensation, that is not exactly true. In fact, the NCAA never used the word compensation in that context. The NCAA voted to allow college athletes to “benefit” from the use of their name, image, and likeness, not to be compensated. It is not clear what “benefit” actually means. What kind of “benefit” will the NCAA allow? How are NIL benefits different from NIL compensation? However, what the NCAA did make clear is that the “benefit” will be done “in a manner consistent with the current collegiate model.” In true NCAA fashion, the NCAA spared no expense in making it clear that they are dedicated to preserving as much of the current collegiate model as possible. In fact, the NCAA set out a list of guidelines that are dedicated to doing just that.

The NCAA’s Rule Modernization Guidelines

As a part of its effort to allow college athletes to “benefit” from their NIL, the NCAA has urged each division to consider modernization of its bylaws and policies. To help each division with doing that, the working group created a set of guidelines for each division to consider. However, those principles and guidelines seem to be more about ensuring that the divisions create bylaws that maintain the NCAA’s commitment to amateurism.

For example, the NCAA has urged its divisions to amend their rules so that athletes receive similar treatment as other students. However, the guidelines provide a caveat that will allow athletes to be treated differently when there is a compelling reason for doing so. However, in true NCAA fashion, there is no clarity on what is a permissible compelling reason for different treatment. Additionally, the guidelines require that the amended bylaws maintain a “clear distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities.” This is clear amateurism perservation language.

The NCAA also urged that the bylaws be amended so that it is clear that “compensation for athletic performance or participation is impermissible.” In fact, that is the only context in which the NCAA made reference to compensation. They mentioned it to reiterate that compensation related to athletic performance is not permissible. Furthermore, the NCAA instructed that the bylaws be amended with the caveat that “student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university.” Again, their true focus is on preserving amateurism.

The NCAA’s Statement is not the Earth Shattering Development it was Made out to be

While the NCAA’s statement is noteworthy, it is not the groundbreaking development it was made out to be. It is noteworthy because the NCAA finally acknowledged that college athletes should be allowed to “benefit” from their NIL. However, it is not groundbreaking because the NCAA is still committed to preserving the farce of amateurism. After all, the NCAA is only addressing this issue after realizing that they had no choice. The NCAA was very careful not to say that college athletes are allowed to receive compensation. They strategically used the word “benefit” and neglected to define what a “benefit” would be.

While some of the guidelines addressed the betterment of college athletes, there was a heavy focus on protecting amateurism. The guidelines also created more questions than answers. It is for these reasons that the NCAA’s statement feels like a half measure that was intended to slow down the momentum of related legislation. Furthermore, the statement does not address college athletes’ ability to sign with agents. The NCAA addressed this issue during the summer for elite men’s basketball players. The NCAA needs to address this in the broader context as the Fair Pay to Play Act and other proposed legislation seeks to allow college athletes to sign with agents. The most useful finding that comes out of this statement is the fact that the NCAA has acknowledged the need for change. However, what form the NCAA will allow that change to take is still very unclear.

Kawhi Leonard v. Nike, Inc.: The Fight For “The Klaw”

Kawhi Leonard files lawsuit against nike over claw logo

With the series tied 1-1 heading into Game 3 of the NBA Finals between the Toronto Raptors and the Golden State Warriors, much talk has been centered on the Raptors’ pursuit to overthrow the latest dynasty to grace the hardwood. However, Raptors’ Kawhi Leonard has become the subject of a storyline off the court.

The Battle of Intellectual Property Rights

Kawhi Leonard’s Registered “The Klaw” logo with the USPTO

On June 3, Kawhi Leonard filed a federal complaint against Nike asking the court to declare that Leonard is the author of “The Klaw,” the logo commonly associated with Leonard throughout his professional career. The complaint further states that Nike committed fraud on the Copyright Office by seeking registration of the logo.

Leonard is the owner of six trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Three applications include “The Klaw” logo for use with various goods and services such as basketballs, backpacks, and apparel.

The issue is Nike’s alleged ownership of the logo. United States Copyright Law grants owners the exclusive right to display their works as they see fit. Without the ability to reproduce the logo, Leonard’s trademark registrations are essentially useless. But copyrights are assigned solely to the authors of the works, and therein lies the rub. The complaint states Leonard created the logo in “late December 2011 or January 2012”; however, Nike’s copyright registration claims the company authored the logo in 2014. The facts surrounding these dueling timelines will play a vital role in the court’s determination.

The Nike Agreement

Even if Kawhi Leonard created “The Klaw,” that may not be enough. After being selected in the 2011 NBA Draft, Leonard signed a contract to provide “personal services and expertise in the sport of professional basketball and endorsement of the Nike brand and use of Nike products.” Such contracts usually include a “work for hire” provision, which typically read as follows:

Athlete hereby unconditionally and irrevocably transfers and assigns to Company all right, title and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to all materials, including all works of authorship, developed with Athlete’s involvement or by or on behalf of Athlete hereunder as part of the Services or otherwise in connection with this Agreement (“Works”).  Athlete agrees to complete and provide Company with any documents requested by Company to evidence Company’s ownership of such Works as well as the assignment of any and all rights.

The complaint mentions that any personal services provided did not constitute copyrightable material and/or constitute a “work for hire.” However, the complaint fails to attach the contract. If a transfer of rights language is included, Leonard’s claim fails, and Nike has a claim for ownership rights in “The Klaw.”

Will Leonard Prevail?

Nike has a history of staunchly defending intellectual property rights, so the company will not go down without a fight. It took Roger Federer until April 2019 to reclaim the rights to his “RF” logo despite leaving the company to sign a 10-year deal with Japanese clothing brand, Uniqlo, in 2018. New York Times reporter Marc Stein reported that the Los Angeles Clippers looked into purchasing “The Klaw” from Nike in order to boost their anticipated free-agency pitch for the coveted star. Settlement or purchase may be the best bet to resolve what may be Leonard’s toughest case on (or in) the court.

Follow Alan Wilmot on Twitter and Instagram @alanwilmotlaw

Compensation and Education: Launch of the Historical Basketball League

historical basketball league cities map compensation and education
compensation and education HBL map

The Historical Basketball League who’s aim is to focus on compensation and education announced the following eight cities for the launch of the league’s inaugural season set to take place in June 2020:

  • Atlanta, Georgia
  • Baltimore, Maryland
  • Charlotte, North Carolina
  • Raleigh, North Carolina
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Norfolk, Virginia
  • Richmond, Virginia
  • Washington, DC

Focusing on the east coast with the intent to expand to other parts of the United States in the near future, the HBL seeks to challenge the NCAA-model by offering top players the opportunity to earn compensation while also obtaining a college degree. The HBL will offer players up to $150,000 based on their market value and will assist each player “in building a personal and professional brand that will extend on and off the court.”

Promoting Personal Brands Through Use of Name, Image, and Likeness

The NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group was created to analyze proposed federal and state legislation and determine whether student-athletes may receive benefits (i.e. compensation) based on the use of their name, image, and likeness. The NCAA provided the committee with a strict mandate: (i) potential benefits must be tied to education, and (ii) no models that could be perceived as “pay-for-play” may be considered.

These guidelines make it virtually impossible for student-athletes to receive benefits in exchange for the use of their likeness. However, California’s bill (and other states) should force the NCAA to loosen up its parameters. In the meantime, there are a number of ways the HBL can help build player brands through increased fan engagement and other means that could also benefit the league.

One platform is INFLCR, a software that allows athletes and teams to deliver personalized content across social media. INFLCR has partnered with a number of universities and athletes to build brands, and the Historical Basketball League could benefit greatly in the promotion and marketing of its product by doing the same.

Another is Gatorade’s “Highlights” app. Though catered to younger athletes to help capture and share athletic feats, Gatorade’s app provides another great branding tool and way for athletes to control their marketing. Users can brand their highlights with their names, numbers, teams or positions. This provides the most popular players with a way to increase their marketability and commercial value.

Historical Basketball League: The Future of College Basketball

The NCAA Basketball corruption case resulted in prison sentences for each of the individuals involved. The universities implicated at trial have resorted to claiming “victim” as a way to alleviate their roles. That stance, coupled with the NCAA’s refusal to take overt investigative action, have some questioning whether corruption in the college ranks will ever be addressed.

HBL’s Andy Schwarz notes that schools violate rules because the value of obtaining a five-star recruit exceeds any punishment the NCAA can provide. This finding emphasizes the HBL’s importance. The recent decisions of RJ Hampton and Kenyon Martin Jr. show athletes are tired of being exploited. The NCAA rules are arbitrary and antiquated, but change is on the horizon. Boasting a management team led by two-time champion David West and an advisory board featuring two individuals with Google-experience, the forward-thinking Historical Basketball Leauge has a real shot of establishing itself as the premier college basketball league for domestic and international talent. The HBL has already begun scouting athletes for its inaugural 2020 Season, identifying potential coaches, and engaging individuals to serve as ambassadors for its respective teams.

Credit: Myles Brand

CEO Ricky Volante often states, “Amateurism is a con,” and that the collegiate model should first benefit the student-athletes, not the coach or institution who profits from their labor. The HBL is coming, and many – including the NCAA – are beginning to take notice of compensation and education.

For more information about the HBL, check out CEO Ricky Volante’s interview with Unafraid Show’s Kassandra Ramsey

Follow Alan Wilmot on Twitter and Instagram @alanwilmotlaw

RJ Hampton Going Pro Basketball May Change College Basketball

RJ hampton turning pro instead of playing college basketball

On Tuesday, the number 5 ranked college basketball recruit in the ESPN Top 100 RJ Hampton, shocked the college sports world when he announced that he would forego college to play professionally in Australia. He made the announcement on ESPN’s Get Up. Hampton will play professionally with the National Basketball League’s (NBL) New Zealand Breakers.

Immediately after Hampton’s announcement, the sports world was abuzz about what this will mean for the NCAA and college basketball. The NCAA, the schools, the conferences, and coaches are facing criticism for the current college sports model where they make billions of dollars while the players are limited to a cost-of-attendance scholarship.

The Current College Sports Model

The current college sports model can be summed up in one word – UNFAIR. The NCAA governs college sports. The NCAA makes rules that it’s member schools follow. The bedrock of those rules is the principle of amateurism. College sports are regarded as amateur sports that the players only engage in for their love the game. Thus, college athletes do not receive any payment but may receive a scholarship. Meanwhile, the NCAA, the schools, the conferences, the coaches, and sports administrators make billions of dollars off of college athlete labor. Does this really seem fair?

No, it is not fair. More and more people are acknowledging the unfairness of the current college sports model particularly in regards to D1 men’s basketball and football. The issue has been litigated in court in several cases. Recently state and federal lawmakers have proposed legislation challenging the college sports model. The bills propose allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. Due to the progress of these proposed bills, the NCAA has created a working group to address the issue. Now, whether Hampton realizes it or not, his decision poses another challenge to the current college sports model. Hampton’s decision could have a detrimental effect on college basketball especially if future top recruits follow in his footsteps.

Will RJ Hampton’s Decision Detrimentally Effect College Basketball

Hampton is the only one of the five top recruits to decide not to play college basketball. From a college basketball fan entertainment perspective his absence is not likely to have a profound effect this upcoming season. College basketball will still be the same product that it has been and fans will surely tune in. However, Hampton’s decision could have an effect on college basketball down the road. This is especially true when considered with the mounting challenges that college sports is rightfully facing.

As the NCAA addresses the proposed legislation and continues to fight in court, the college sports model is also being challenged directly. Specifically, the NBA’s G-Leauge new program presents a competitive problem for college basketball. Last fall, the G-League announced that it would allow elite athletes who are 18 years old to enter the G-League and receive a select contract valued at $125,000.

Furthermore, the NCAA may soon be threatened by a start-up basketball league that seeks to pay its players and give them scholarships. That league is the Historical Basketball League (HBL). Projected to start in 2020, the HBL plans to give it’s players an option where they are not forced to choose between pay and education. These new options and the example set by Hampton may encourage future top recruits to take a non-traditional route to the NBA. If this happens, college basketball may be in for a real change.

Change is Inevitable to the Current College Sports Model

RJ Hampton is not the first player to opt out of college for a professional overseas league. However, his decision is still a big deal. Hampton is a top 5 recruit who chose to “buck the system” and pursue his NBA dream another way. Hampton echoes the sentiment that so many others are thinking. That sentiment is that athletes can always go back to college. However, athletes only have a finite amount of time to make money off their athleticism. Why should athletes be forced to spend that time playing in college for drastically under their fair market value? The answer is they should not.

Hampton’s decision and reasoning has the potential to have a domino effect. Others are likely to follow suit, especially if Hampton makes it to the NBA. Hampton will get paid to play professionally and prepare for the NBA. It is a really attractive option for similarly situated prospects. Given this realization, the NCAA will eventually have to make a change. Hampton’s decision may be even more incentive for the NCAA’s working group to do the right thing and allow college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. One thing is for sure, the current college sports model is going to have to change if it wants to retain elite talent.

Follow Kassandra Ramsey on Twitter @Court_2_Court

NCAA May Be Forced to Pay Players For Their Name, Image, Likeness

College Athletes NCAA Name image Likeness

The NCAA is finally acknowledging the push to allow college athletes to receive pay from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Both federal and state lawmakers have introduced bills seeking to allow college athletes to profit from their NIL. On May 14, the NCAA shocked college sports fans when they announced their creation of a working group to “examine issues being highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation related to student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness.”

With this announcement, the NCAA acknowledged the growing support for allowing college athletes’ to profit from their NIL. Some of the efforts have made quite a bit of progress. However, will the NCAA’s acknowledgment of this issue actually lead to real change that benefits college athletes? Will the NCAA finally do the right thing and allow college athletes to finally receive some of the benefits that their skills provide to so many coaches and college sports administrators?

College Athletes Give up the Right Profit From NIL When They Agree to Play

One may wonder why such legislation is even necessary. It would seem that people would automatically receive compensation for the use of their name, image, or likeness. However, that is not the case for college athletes. College athletes are prohibited from profiting from the use of their name, image, or likeness. Those who violate the rules risk losing their eligibility. College athletes have been suspended something as simple as signing an autograph. In 2013, Johnny Manziel was suspended for doing just that.

The ability of college athletes to profit from their NIL was addressed in federal court in O’bannon v. NCAA. While the case made some progress for college athletes, it did not result in blanket allowance of NIL compensation. Both federal and state lawmakers around the country have acknowledged the injustice of precluding college athletes from such compensation while the NCAA and its member schools generate billions of dollars each year from college sports.

Will the NCAA’s Working Group Result in NIL Compensation

Will the NCAA’s working group result in NIL compensation for college athletes? Initially, it would seem that the NCAA will do what it always does. That is, find a way to avoid allowing college athletes to receive any compensation in the name of maintaining its farce of “amateurism.” Afterall in the press release, the NCAA stated that the working group would be focused on “maintain[ing] the clear demarcation between professional and college sports.”

Allowing college athletes to profit from their NIL would certainly blur that line. College athletes would be able to sign endorsement deals similar to professional athletes. However, it is hard to imagine that it would blur the line any more than the billion-dollar broadcasting deal the NCAA has with CBS Sports and Tuner, a division of Time Warner already has. It clearly benefits the NCAA and college sports administrators for things to remain as they are. However, the creation of the working group signals that fact that the NCAA realizes that it needs to act before it is forced to act. The NCAA could be forced to act soon.

California Legislation Could Really Become Law: NCAA Athletes Pay

About a week after the NCAA made its announcement, the Fair Pay to Play Act in California took a giant leap forward. The California Senate voted 31-4 to pass the bill.

The bill is headed to the state Assembly for further consideration. The bill seeks to allow college athletes to hire agents and profit from their NIL by 2023. The Fair Pay for Play Act will make it illegal for California colleges to punish college athletes for receiving compensation for their name, image, and likeness. If this Act makes it through the state Assembly, the NCAA would be forced to change its rules, at least for colleges in California.

The Federal Legislation Could Affect the NCAA’s Non-profit Status

In March, Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina introduced the Student-Athlete Equity Act. If signed into law, the act will make the NCAA’s status as a non-profit contingent on the NCAA allowing college athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. It is about time the NCAA be forced to actually do something to warrant still being considered a non-profit. The Act is currently under review by the House Ways and Means Committee. If this bill becomes law, the NCAA will have to change its rules for colleges nationwide.

The NCAA may Enact Change Given the Progress of the Proposed Legislation

Considering the progress of the Fair Pay for Play Act and the Student-Athlete Equity Act, the NCAA may actually feel forced to revise its rules. In an effort to avoid being told what to do, the NCAA may revise their rules to allow college athletes to receive some compensation. Furthermore, 2020 democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang believes that is time to pay college athletes. He plans to make the issue apart of his campaign. Here again, a politician is taking a stance against the NCAA’s exploitive system. The issue of paying college athletes is going to continue to grow. With that realization, the NCAA may actually revise its rules in order to maintain its control.

Follow Kassandra Ramsey on Twitter @Court_2_Court

Negotiating the CBA: The Biggest Issues Facing the NFL and NFLPA

CBA: NFL NFLPA Roger Goodell DeMaurice Smith

The above is a far cry from 2017 when NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith declared the likelihood of a strike or lockout of the 2021 NFL Season “almost a virtual certainty.” What’s changed? At the time, one major issue was the league’s position on national anthem protests, which was eventually settled after the NFLPA filed a grievance in 2018. The NFL’s profitability is also motivation for resolution, with yearly revenue approaching nearly $14 Billion per year.

No major issues have surfaced during the groups’ two formal sessions, with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell describing the discussions as “direct and open.” But it’s a long way to 2021. Below are some of the biggest issues surrounding extending the current NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement:

Stadium Credits

It’s laughable a group of billionaires believe they are entitled to benefits to finance stadiums. Stadium credits are player-funded allowance, taken from NFL revenue before it is split with the players to alleviate costs associated with construction. Owners used their full amount of credits provided with the 2011 CBA. With the league looking to build new stadiums in Las Vegas and Los Angeles and renovate existing ones in other cities, this topic has developed into a strong negotiation point.

Players receive roughly 47 percent of revenue earned by the league, down from 50 percent due to the last round of negotiations. With stadium credits decreasing the total amount of sharable revenue, the NFLPA must fight to (1) decrease the amount of allocatable stadium credits or (2) increase their revenue share. Otherwise, it will be the players, and not the billionaire owners, left footing the bill.

Marijuana

Credit: The Dan Patrick Show

Last week, the NFL and NFLPA announced the creation of a “Joint Pain Management Committee” to research pain management and alternative therapies. In other words, the NFL is slowly opening the door to players using marijuana as a means to combat injury. On the heels of XFL Commissioner Oliver Luck stating the XFL would “prefer not to test for marijuana,” coupled with the legalization of marijuana in California, Nevada, Colorado, and other states, it only makes sense for the league to modify its stance.

Two-time Super Bowl champion Chris Long recently admitted to using marijuana throughout his playing career. The NFL tests for the drug once per year, usually within the first two weeks of training camp. Once passed, players are free to smoke at will. At this point, the NFL’s policy is merely for show, and the next iteration of the CBA should remove punishments for use.

Guaranteed Contracts

Kirk Cousins is the first quarterback in NFL history to sign a fully guaranteed multi-year deal. Notwithstanding, players still struggle to obtain their worth. This is the reason why players such as Russell Okung and Todd Gurley believe a strike is necessary.

Owners of one of the world’s most violent sports should not be able to escape paying fully guaranteed contracts. Why this issue isn’t presently being discussed brings into question the seriousness of the current state of negotiations. NFL careers can end at a moment’s notice. If a structure for greater guarantees is not obtained now, the NFL will continue to kick this bucket down the road.

Follow Alan Wilmot on Twitter and Instagram @alanwilmotlaw

Ice Cube Plans First Minority Owned Sports Media Company From Disney Sale

Ice Cube Disney Regional Sports Networks

Win it “for the culture!” That is exactly what Ice Cube said he plans to do with perhaps his biggest venture to date. Ice Cube is the co-founder of the Big 3, a professional three-on-three basketball league. Through his role with the Big 3, he could change the landscape of sports media. Ice Cube has assembled an all-star team to bid for and to create content for 21 of the regional sports networks (RSNs) that Walt Disney Company (Disney) is required to sale. If Ice Cube and his team are successful, a minority-owned sports media platform would be born. The birth of such a platform would be a major win for the culture.

Disney was Forced to Sale the RSNs

Last year, Disney came to terms in a deal to acquire 21st Century Fox (Fox). To finalize the deal, Disney was forced to sale 22 of Fox’s regional sports networks. Disney was forced to sale the RSNs so that they would not have a monopoly on sports media as Disney already owns ESPN. Enter Ice Cube and the Big 3. Last fall, Ice Cube and the Big 3 entered the bidding war for the networks. Ice Cube teamed up with LL Cool J, Magic Johson, Snoop Dogg, Serena Williams, Carolyn Rafaelian, and a host of others to buy and create content for 21 of the networks. The twenty-second network, the YES Network, is being sold separately.

Ice Cube’s Sports Media Company Would Be The First of It’s Kind

In a Twitter post regarding the bid, Ice Cube stated: “I’m trying to shatter the glass ceiling so we can all fly!!!”

If Ice Cube and his all-star cast are successful that is exactly what will happen. Glass ceilings will be shattered and the culture will surely fly. There will be minority-owned major sports networks centered around diverse stories told from diverse perspectives. The platform could tell stories that are often overlooked in mainstream media. The Big 3 and its partners want to create a sports network that provides fresh and interesting content. They want to target the younger generation. In fact, Serena Williams stated that she became involved because it is important to have diverse voices to deliver content to young people.

Having diverse voices is essential so that all sides of a story are given adequate consideration and publicity. Imagine a network where Colin Kaepernick is able to effectively convey the reasons he took a knee free from purposeful mischaracterizations. Imagine a network where the unavoidable intersection between sports and politics is celebrated and not deemed a distraction. A minority-owned sports network that allows such programming is needed and would be a major win for the culture.

Creating Such a Platform is no Easy Feat

Ice Cube has put together an impressive team in his bid for the RSNs. However, the bid has still been met with obstacles. Specifically, Ice Cube and the Big 3 have had an issue with Charter Communications (Charter). They allege that Charter has attempted to thwart the Big 3’s bid for the RSNs. As a result, the Big 3 has asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate the sale.

In addition to Big 3’s issue with Charter, the still fairly new basketball startup is up against some major players in this bidding war. It is reported that Sinclair Broadcasting may be the top bidder. Even with all of the obstacles, Ice Cube and his team are still trying to acquire the RSNs. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful. One thing is for sure. The simple fact that Ice Cube and Big 3 are even viable contenders for the networks is a big deal and if they do acquire the RSNs it will be a major win for the culture.

The NCAA Twitter Account Keeps Getting Roasted During March Madness

NCAA Twitter keeps taking Losses During March Madness

It is college basketball’s favorite time of year, March Madness! It is also the NCAA’s favorite time of year. The non-profit organization rakes in big bucks from essentially free labor. While the NCAA may be all smiles financially, the organization has endured a public relations nightmare. Since the beginning of March Madness, the NCAA has been subject to some pretty heavy criticism via Twitter.

First, the NCAA faced well-founded criticism due to a commercial depicting a fairytale life for college athletes. The NCAA also faced criticism stemming from two tweets. In one tweet, the NCAA completely disregarded the women’s March Madness tournament. Lastly, the NCAA was criticized for a tweet from 2016. In that tweet, they seemingly boasted providing a benefit to college athletes that should be a given.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

The “Student-Athlete” Day in the Life Commercial

The NCAA released a commercial intending to depict a day in the life of a college athlete.

https://youtu.be/9tkhaW94HwY

In the above video, the athlete starts out in bed, goes straight to class, and then to practice. After practice, the athlete mingles with friends before playing in his game. After the game, the athlete studies before winding down to get a good night sleep. The athlete appears to be coasting through his day with no stress and no worries. He appears to have no problem balancing the challenges and responsibilities of being a student with those of being an athlete.

In sum, the commercial depicts a very false narrative of a perfect college athlete life. A life where college athletes maintain the perfect balance between academics, athletics, and social time. Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to college athletics knows that the commercial cannot be representative of reality. It logistically does not make sense, especially when just one factor is considered. That factor is travel time for games. The miles between each game simply do not add up.  

The Commercial is not a True Representation

Consider the makeup of the Big 10 Conference. The Big 10 is made up of schools on the East Coast and the Midwest. Maryland and Rutgers are on the East Coast while Nebraska and Wisconsin are in the Midwest. When travel alone time is considered, there is no way that the depiction in the commercial can be accurate. There is no way college athletes are almost always able to leave their game, study, mingle with friends, and get sufficient sleep. This is especially true when early morning training sessions, team meetings, regular practice time, and individual practice time are added to the equation. Individual practice time is necessary to stay on top and earn playing time. Based on these factors alone, there is no way the commercial can be an accurate representation.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

The Commercial’s Inaccuracy Led to a Twitter Firestorm

Twitter instantly criticized the NCAA and the commercial. Everyone from college athlete rights advocates to pro athletes criticized the NCAA for the commercial. Some made videos of what is a more accurate representation of the daily life of a college athlete.

Current college athletes criticized the commercial, saying that it simply is not true. The commercial is completely unrealistic and only serves one purpose. That purpose is to further promote the sham of amateurism.

The NCAA was Rightfully Criticized for Their Tweet Ignoring the Women’s March Madness Tournament

The NCAA again faced well-deserved criticism when they made a tweet completely disregarding the women’s basketball tournament. Even WNBA star Breanna Stewart commented on the NCAA’s total disregard for the women’s tournament.

The tweet stated that they were no more March Madness games happening until Thursday. However, this was not true. The women’s basketball tournament was in full swing during the gap days of the men’s tournament. The NCAA again was instantly faced with another Twitter firestorm.

With that tweet, the NCAA showed how they really view the women’s tournament. The NCAA could have taken the days that the men were not playing as an opportunity to promote the women’s tournament. Instead, they completely disregarded the women’s tournament and further promoted the men’s tournament. This marketing misstep leads one to question just how much does the NCAA really value Title IX and creating equitable opportunities for women’s sports? Or is Title IX just another tool in the NCAA’s belt to justify not sharing more of the college athletics revenue with the athletes?

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

The WiFi Tweet From 2016

The NCAA was forced to address a tweet from 2016 where they stated that they provide free Wifi to particpants in the March Madness tournament.

When the tweet resurfaced, it appeared that the NCAA was boasting about providing athletes with a resource that should automatically be given. However, the NCAA clarified that they made the tweet in 2016 to address accounts that college athletes did not have the WiFi access needed to complete their assignments. The NCAA’s tweet was in response to a tweet from a college basketball player in 2016 who tweeted about not having internet access to do his school work.

However, the real issue is in the fact that such a tweet was even necessary at all. It should have never been a question about whether the NCAA made sure that the participating athletes had everything they needed. After all, the NCAA prides its self on providing college athletes an opportunity to get an invaluable education. However, the NCAA and the college athletics system as a whole has been under much criticism for its inability to live up to the reality of that ideal. It is precisely for that reason, that an old tweet from 2016 can resurface in 2019 and instantly cause another Twitter firestorm for the NCAA.

The NCAA Could Avoid These Firestorms if They Shared the Wealth

The NCAA could save itself from a lot of these Twitter firestorms by sharing more revenue with college athletes. If the NCAA allowed college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, their image would improve drastically. However, the NCAA is unlikely to ever do that. The NCAA certainly will not do that while they are fighting to reclaim the ability to limit the amount of education-related benefits college athletes can receive. It seems that the NCAA prefers to fight PR nightmares than to give college athletes a more equitable piece of the pie.

College Football Coaches are Threatened ​by ​NCAA Transfer Portal

Transfer Portal NCAA college football

What an interesting college football off-season this is shaping up to be. College football players are wielding their newly found freedom with the NCAA’s transfer portal. Last summer, the NCAA announced the creation of a new transfer portal that would allow college athletes to pursue transferring to another school without first obtaining their coaches permission. […]

Continue reading

Stop Calling Travis Scott and Big Boi Sellouts for Performing at Super Bowl Halftime

Super Bowl Halftime Big Boi Travis Scott

The Super Bowl, America’s most anticipated and exhilarating sporting event of the year is rapidly approaching. It is also one of music’s most anticipated and exciting events of the year. Everyone waits to see who will headline the halftime show, just as everyone waits to see what two teams will face off for the Lombardi Trophy. Being asked to perform for the Super Bowl is one of music’s greatest honors. Such a request is symbolic of “making it” as a music artist. Being asked to perform at the Super Bowl carries a certain level of prestige. Some of the greatest entertainers of all time have graced that stage. Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Prince have all performed during Super Bowl halftime. It would seem that any and every artist would jump at the opportunity to perform for the Super Bowl. Right?

“I said no to the Super Bowl…You need me; I don’t need you.”

Perhaps before 2016, any artist would have jumped at the opportunity to perform at the Super Bowl. However, things have changed. Ever since the NFL blackballed former San Fransico 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for protesting racial injustices, there has a been a growing trend amongst the hip-hop community to “say no to the Super Bowl.” Hip-hop mogul Jay-Z reportedly declined the invitation to perform during Super Bowl LII last year. He confirmed the story this summer in the hit Apes**t. In that song, he stated: “I said no to the Super Bowl/You need me, I don’t need you/Every night we in the end zone/Tell the NFL we in stadiums too.” In the video, he had men kneel signaling to everyone that he declined the offer in support of Kaepernick.

This year’s Super Bowl halftime performance was met with the same trend. Various artist including Rihanna and Cardi B reportedly declined the invitation to perform. Accordingly, declining the invitation to perform at the Super Bowl has become a showing of solidarity with Kaepernick. However, is saying no the Super Bowl the only way to show support for Colin Kaepernick and the cause he sacrificed his career for? Apparently, some think so given the reaction to Travis Scott and Big Boi agreeing to perform in this year’s halftime show. The rappers have been called sellouts for their willingness to perform for the league that is continuing to blackball Kaepernick. However, when all things are considered surrounding their agreements to perform labeling them as sellouts is an incorrect assessment.

It is Foolish to Call Big Boi and Travis Scott Sellouts

Before this question can be answered, it is important to understand some of the context surrounding this year’s Super Bowl halftime performance. Super Bowl LIII is going to take place at the Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia. Atlanta is and has been a hotbed for hip-hop for the last 20 plus years. Given this prime location, musicians and fans alike expected the halftime show to be a who’s who of Atlanta hip-hop royalty.

Unfortunately, those expectations were crushed when the NFL announced that the Calfornia native pop group Maroon 5 would be Super Bowl LIII’s headlining act. First and foremost, Maroon 5 is a deserving act. However, fans were rightfully outraged as they could not understand how the NFL could overlook all of the musical talents that have come out of Atlanta. Therefore, fans were outraged that artists such as Usher, Ludacris, Jermaine Dupri, and a host of other Atlanta artists were snubbed for the halftime show.

After the outrage regarding the lack of Atlanta artists, it seems that they tried to make it right by asking Big Boi to join the show. Big Bio is an Atlanta native and is one half of the legendary group Outkast. Once Big Boi accepted he became the subject of unfounded criticism.  He accepted the opportunity to perform at the same Super Bowl that everyone was initially upset had no Atlanta representation.  Then all of a sudden everyone was upset with him for accepting the bid.

Big Boi was immediately regarded as a sellout for accepting the very opportunity that everyone was upset was not given to an Atlanta artist. In what world does that make sense? It cannot be both ways. One cannot be mad that no Atlanta artists were initially represented and then be mad when an Atlanta artist takes the opportunity to represent the city. Perhaps that is the very reason Big Boi decided to perform, to represent his hometown and all of the musical greatness that has hailed from Atlanta.

There is More Than One Way to Show Support

How can someone who garnered a donation to a social justice cause in exchange for their performance be deemed a sellout? Before Travis Scott finalized his agreement to perform, he made the NFL agree to donate money to a social justice cause. Specifically, he made the NFL agree to match his $500,000 donation to Dream Corp. This donation is proof that “saying no to the Super Bowl” is not the only way an artist can show their support for social causes.

Opting out of performing for the Super Bowl is a great way to show support for Colin Kaepernick and the causes he sacrificed his career for.  It is nice to see some members of the hip-hop community come together and refuse to do the Super Bowl performance as a sign of solidarity with Kaepernick.  However, that does not mean that is the only way to show support. Travis Scott supported social justice issues with his donation.  Big Boi is representing Atlanta for all those who wanted to see Atlanta represented on the stage.  With all things considered Travis Scott’s and Big Boi’s willingness to perform doesn’t make them a sellout.

Most importantly, you have no right to call anyone a sellout if you watch the Super Bowl or have watched one single second of NFL football since Kaepernick has been blackballed.