UCF Loses $3M adidas Contract Over Nike Air Jordans

[russ_watters]

Heh - you thought this was spam, didn't you? No. What it is is delicious, cruel irony:

The University of Central Florida has lost its $3 million exclusive contract with adidas after basketball player Marcus Jordan's insisted on wearing his father, Michael's, Nike Air Jordans for the school's opening basketball game...

Several reactions come to mind:

1. Student athletes are not allowed to get paid, but the school can get $3 million for an endorsement deal by forcing them to wear adidas. How is this legal?
2. If he's breaking team rules, why not just suspend him? He's costing them a lot of money!
3. How much is Nike paying him?

I think the NCAA should be dissolved by congress. It (and the schools) are making money off the players without compensating them at a commensurate level. The players are (or were) wearing Addidas. Addidas should be paying them, not the school.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So here's I've heard happened:

When he decided to attend UCF he asked if he could wear Air Jordans and everything else Adidas. At the time an Adidas rep said it would be allowed when asked by the college, then Adidas changed their mind. But UCF decided to stick with allowing him to wear the shoes out of principle. I would be pretty surprised if the school isn't decked out in Nike gear next year or something similar.

The argument about college athletes being underpaid is a bad one. They get tons of free stuff from Adidas, which is only possible through their affiliation with the school. Furthermore they get a free college education (assuming they're on scholarship, which the good players in principle are) which is worth a nice chunk of cash. Also athletes get additional academic support from the school to help make sure they stay NCAA eligible. The sports that do make money also help to subsidize sports that don't make money, most athletic departments do NOT make money
http://www2.wjbf.com/jbf/sports/col...of_athletic_departments_are_profitable/32578/

this is a survey of division 1 football schools. If a school doesn't have a division 1 football team (by far the most profitable sports team a school can have) I would be shocked if the school makes money off athletics in general

 

[DrClapeyron]

A lot of athletes are payed through the AAU or a booster club. For basketball players, shoes have been the one clothing item they can choose...which everyone can see.

 

[Office_Shredder]

A lot of athletes are payed through the AAU or a booster club

I don't think so. This is an NCAA violation and would basically screw the school over. While it probably happens occasionally it's definitely not the norm. College athletes are supposed to be amateurs.

 

[russ_watters]

The argument about college athletes being underpaid is a bad one. They get tons of free stuff from Adidas, which is only possible through their affiliation with the school. Furthermore they get a free college education (assuming they're on scholarship, which the good players in principle are) which is worth a nice chunk of cash.

In this one example, the deal was $3 million. I don't know over what timeframe that is, but that is a couple hundred thousand per player on the roster! So unless the $3 million is over a timeframe longer than the athletes are in college, that's several times the value of all the perks of being a scholarship athlete. And remember: this is just the UCF basketball team (are they even ranked?!) and it is just one endorsement deal! How much is Tim Tebow missing out on? How much is the NCAA and Florida making by using his face and play? I'd bet his time at Florida has been worth $100 million for them*! That's tickets, endorsements, and more importantly, TV rights!

*Lebron's initial endorsement deal for Nike was $90 million over 7 years.

The sports that do make money also help to subsidize sports that don't make money, most athletic departments do NOT make money
http://www2.wjbf.com/jbf/sports/coll...fitable/32578/

So what? First, yes, most of the money is made by the big sports and by the big name schools. Obviously, you wouldn't pay a Temple basketball player $1 million - they just aren't worth that kind of money. But that doesn't mean the players who do bring in a lot of money shouldn't share in it. But second - why is it ok that a player who brings in a lot of money is subsidizing other sports? In High School, I'm pretty sure none of the athletic programs make any money! But that's ok because what is the point of an athletic program for a college? Marketing! And marketing isn't supposed to be profitable in and of itself.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Tim Tebow found college football so worth it that he skipped dropping out in his junior year to go pro just to play an extra year, so that's a bad argument

The 3 million dollar contract was over 6 years
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orl-ucf-michael-jordan-son-nike-adidas-102109,0,5608656.story

Only a couple of players in college athletics are actually worth that kind of money. Essentially they're donating it to the rest of the athletes at the school to allow them to play the game too.

 

[russ_watters]

Tim Tebow found college football so worth it that he skipped dropping out in his junior year to go pro just to play an extra year, so that's a bad argument.

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. He wanted a college education and an NCAA championship (and there is no "minor league" pro football...). Good for him - that doesn't mean he shouldn't still get paid for playing!

Only a couple of players in college athletics are actually worth that kind of money. Essentially they're donating it to the rest of the athletes at the school to allow them to play the game too.

Yes - and to the pocketbooks of the school owners and staff as well. Did anyone ask them if they were ok with "donating" it?

 

[Office_Shredder]

(and there is no "minor league" pro football...).

What? After your junior year you can enter the NFL draft

Yes - and to the pocketbooks of the school owners and staff as well. Did anyone ask them if they were ok with "donating" it?

Again, the school isn't making money on athletics as a whole. So nobody's getting rich off of this. And they're effectively donating it.. I'm trying to demonstrate how the athletes, as a whole, are paid what the athletes, as a whole, are worth, or maybe even more (since most schools lose money on athletics again). The college is giving these students an opportunity to play without having to worry about expenses, the fact that incredibly good athletes who could otherwise make tons of money on endorsements participate in this is not the school's fault. Nobody's forcing them to go to college, it's just how the system works for most people

 

[Moonbear]

I'm less inclined to argue over schools taking donations to have their team wear a particular brand of shoe than I am to complain over schools that take donations to provide soft drink beverage companies exclusive control of all vending machines and beverage sales on campus.

These are just ways universities make money to provide for their actual mission, which is to offer an education to students.

Who pays for their uniforms? The school or the players? If the school pays for the uniform, they should be able to tell them to wear anything they want to tell them to wear. If the players pay for them, they should be able to choose any brand they want.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Your logic fails here, where the school (essentially) paid for the Adidas but I'm sure Jordan supplies his own shoes

 

[russ_watters]

What? After your junior year you can enter the NFL draft

Ok - what does that have to do with the quote you were responding to or this thread in general?

Again, the school isn't making money on athletics as a whole. So nobody's getting rich off of this. And they're effectively donating it.. I'm trying to demonstrate how the athletes, as a whole, are paid what the athletes, as a whole, are worth, or maybe even more (since most schools lose money on athletics again).

Ok, you've mentioned several times now that most schools lose money on athletics: what about those that don't lose money? And what about individual athletes who could make money on their own (via endorsement deals)?

And "most" is not the opposite of "nobody", of course. The opposite of "most" is "some". If "most" schools (school administrators, coaches, etc.) don't get rich off sports, that means some do. So what about them?

You are not responding to the things I'm saying.

The college is giving these students an opportunity to play without having to worry about expenses, the fact that incredibly good athletes who could otherwise make tons of money on endorsements participate in this is not the school's fault. Nobody's forcing them to go to college, it's just how the system works for most people

Ok, yeah - that's how "the system" works...well I'm asking if "the system" makes sense and arguing that it doesn't. You aren't really responding to that or providing your own arguments.

 

[BobG]

Nobody's forcing them to go to college, it's just how the system works for most people

Not quite true. The professional leagues and the NCAA have an agreement that professional leagues won't hire college eligible athletes without some specific exceptions. Basketball gives out a lot of economic hardship exemptions, but they're still exemptions.

They also make it a one-way street. If a player gets an exemption and enters the draft, he's ineligible to play in college. If he guesses wrong and isn't quite physically mature enough for the pro leagues, his career is essentially over. (Edit: Actually, with the rise of European leagues, this isn't quite true. A player ineligible for college play can go play in the European leagues, now, and it's not such a bad deal anymore.)

Everything is still designed to restrict the opportunities of college players until the colleges have gotten their piece of the money. The NCAA even restricts athletes' ability to get non-school related jobs in their own time (too many alumni offered sham jobs to star athletes at outrageous wages).

The NFL and NBA escape having to support minor league teams, so have a free development system. NCAA rakes in huge amounts of money far beyond what a minor league baseball team could ever take in. The athletes risk having their careers ended by injury with almost no compensation (is a player that barely meets academic eligibility requirements really benefiting from four years of college?)

When you wind up with recruiting violations that put schools on probation, I usually have more sympathy for the athlete than the school. The athlete ought to get some type of compensation, especially if he can get it from someone other than the school. My favorite was Hart Lee Dykes, who put three NCAA football teams on probation and still never had any real type of NFL career. It was smart of him to get what he could, when he could.

In any event, hoping to make it big in professional sports is a losing proposition, even if the athletes were given a level playing field.

 

[dotman]

Your logic fails here, where the school (essentially) paid for the Adidas but I'm sure Jordan supplies his own shoes

Yeah, I heard he had a few extra pairs laying around his dad's house...

<chortle>

 

[Office_Shredder]

Ok - what does that have to do with the quote you were responding to or this thread in general? Ok, you've mentioned several times now that most schools lose money on athletics: what about those that don't lose money? And what about individual athletes who could make money on their own (via endorsement deals)?

You're trying to argue that the schools are screwing over the athlete. I'm saying no, other athletes are screwing over the athlete. You're picking the university as the bad guy because it's easier to point at an entity that seems to have a lot of money and say "They're the one holding down the little person" rather than point at other students on scholarship and note that they're the ones actually taking the money. If you're going to argue that schools shouldn't be making so much money off their athletes, you have to argue that they, well, make money off their athletes first, which you have yet to do successfully

And "most" is not the opposite of "nobody", of course. The opposite of "most" is "some". If "most" schools (school administrators, coaches, etc.) don't get rich off sports, that means some do. So what about them?

Ok, schools still aren't for profit entities. School administrators aren't raking in money hand over fist when their schools do, so I don't think that's a good comparison. On the other hand football coaches get paid tons of money regardless of whether the school is making money or not. If you want to argue that football coaches are overpaid, I will agree with you. That is all.

You are not responding to the things I'm saying. Ok, yeah - that's how "the system" works...well I'm asking if "the system" makes sense and arguing that it doesn't. You aren't really responding to that or providing your own arguments.

No, you're asking if the system is the college screwing over the athletes. I'm responding no. If you want to argue if college athletics will be improved by allowing professional athletes, you haven't really said much about it besides school administrators make too much money

To go back to the Tim Tebow thing, Tebow had a choice: Go into the NFL draft and make money or stick it out in college for another year. He found college football to be so rewarding that it was worth putting off the NFL for a year, so it seems to me that there is some value to the players in this process beyond gaining eligibility to join a pro league. Arguing about the risk of injury is kind of moot because while existent, most people who are surefire first round picks get insurance that protects them against loss of expected income due to injury.

I'll also add my personal opinion that college athletics would not be worth nearly as much money if the athletes got paid (because it would ruin the concept for the students at the schools, and the schools would have no way to afford this) but obviously I have no way of proving this.

If you want to argue that the NFL and NBA (which does have a development league, called the NBA development league actually) is screwing over young athletes, that's another issue. Don't blame colleges that going to one is the most effective way of getting a job in the NFL or NBA.

To bring up another counterpoint, Tim Tebow is only really worth so much because of the Florida brand name. The best player in the world could be at a small name school and would get little press coverage. And you have yet to demonstrate that any individual player is worth actual money to a college. Can you explain how Tim Tebow generates the school and the NCAA so much more money than if he did not exist? If not, then you haven't explained why he deserves to get paid in the first place

 

[BobG]

If you want to argue that the NFL and NBA (which does have a development league, called the NBA development league actually) is screwing over young athletes, that's another issue. Don't blame colleges that going to one is the most effective way of getting a job in the NFL or NBA.

The professional leagues bargain with the unions over player eligibility. Generally, the league/NCAA push for higher age limits and the unions push for lower limits.

In any event, the NCAA does prohibit it's athletes from getting personal professional advice about their career from a sports agent. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ca2314004e0b88b79268f21ad6fc8b25/2009_NFL_Educational_Memo.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ca2314004e0b88b79268f21ad6fc8b25 . This is equivalent to requiring employees to sign away their right to hire an attorney when it comes to labor matters.

 

[Office_Shredder]

In any event, the NCAA does prohibit it's athletes from getting personal professional advice about their career from a sports agent

No, that's not what it says

17. Am I permitted to have an advisor during this process?

YES, provided the advisor does not market you to NFL teams. However, an advisor will be
considered an agent if they contact teams on your behalf to arrange private workouts or tryouts.

You can get all the advice from whoever you want as long as they don't provide non-advisory benefits such as arranging tryouts with teams or negotiating over a potential future contract. I don't know if the no-agent system as is is the best, but it certainly does not actively prohibit students from getting advice on their potential professional careers.

 

[Pattonias]

It is illegal to pay your players in college, period. These endorsements are for equipment for the school, not for any particular players. I think this will end up playing out differently as the story develops.

On the other hand, I don't think college students should be payed to play sports. The students receive scholarships and should not be payed by the school to play. The goal of colleges is to educate and shouldn't be directing even more funds in order to pay the players.