Michigan Legislature Passes College-Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness Bill
Yesterday, HB 5217 and HB 5218 passed the Michigan Senate and are headed to the Governor's desk, which I am told she is prepared to sign. Congratulations to Representatives Tate and Iden for championing this bi-partisan effort.
That legislation basically states that after December 31, 2022 colleges in Michigan and the NCAA must allow college-athletes to sell their name, image, and likeness (i.e., endorsements), and that college-athletes can have agents help them do those deals.
What does this mean? It means Michigan is at least a leader (following only Florida with an enactment date of July 1, 2021).
Elsewhere, the NCAA is supposed to vote on rules permitting the same which would go into effect on August 1, 2021. To complicate matters, the SCOTUS just accepted an appeal from the NCAA, which is not a good sign for college-athletes. But, if the Democrats win both Georgia Senate runoff elections in January 2021, then Sen. Blumenthal's proposal might become a reality. Significantly, Blumenthal's proposal includes revenue sharing for profitable sports like football and b-ball.
I wholeheartedly support revenue generating college-athletes - many of whom are black - from no longer being indentured servants. But the university and NCAA lobby is a massive, organized, well funded, permanent force to be reckoned with.
December 17th, 2020 at 1:18 PM ^
Time to go buy us some players from OSU.
December 17th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^
might need some coaches too
<ducks>
December 17th, 2020 at 1:22 PM ^
Woohoo! Get this going!!
December 17th, 2020 at 1:22 PM ^
It's ok for White, Hispanic and Asians to be indentured servants? Please don't bring race into an argument you're trying to be rational. It really doesn't help.
Revenue sharing seems good until you try to work out how. I'm sure there will be hidden money. As noted by dinner of the comments if that thread, Blumenthal's proposal would have major serious negative repercussions. It would need a lot of work to be doable. But then you have federal government involved. Not typically a good thing.
December 17th, 2020 at 1:24 PM ^
" It's ok for White, Hispanic and Asians to be indentured servants? Please don't bring race into an argument you're trying to be rational. It really doesn't help. "
No, of course not, and this bill ends that as well. But the history of brutal exploitation of black labor, as well as the fact that revenue generating athletes are disproportionately black by a wide margin, makes that aspect of it stand out.
December 17th, 2020 at 1:47 PM ^
The whining about racism is out of control and increasingly ignorant. There's plenty of information available to those who are still walking around without any understanding of the complexities of racism. If you don't know what aversive racism is, or how the amygdala reacts based on skin tone, or what gerrymandering is/was, or how implicit bias works via system 1 and 2 thinking, you can learn about it instead of desperately trying to avoid the conversation.
December 17th, 2020 at 3:40 PM ^
Jesus, you make the same typos I do. I routinely day dinner instead if some.
December 17th, 2020 at 1:22 PM ^
Let's goo!!!
This is not only the right thing to do, it will also massively benefit Michigan recruiting once it goes into effect.
December 17th, 2020 at 3:13 PM ^
Will it really benefit UM that much? Everyone will be able to do this and benefit from it. What makes people think this will benefit UM any more than other schools?
December 17th, 2020 at 4:01 PM ^
We have one of the largest fanbases which makes endorsements for U of M athletes particularly attractive.
December 17th, 2020 at 4:36 PM ^
Will that necessarily outweigh other schools tho? I get we have a huge fanbase, but we’re also still battling the SEC/OSU/other big time programs that have large fanbases...some of those fanbases have a borderline unhealthy fanaticism towards their teams that could potentially mean more endorsement money?
December 17th, 2020 at 4:56 PM ^
The hype that Michigan and Notre Dame game still gets (when it is played) I think Michigan has a huge appeal. It will be interesting to see how many local boosters' companies have endorsement deals with players.
December 17th, 2020 at 1:34 PM ^
This is a joke. Only a few athletes have the "name" to be of value in endorsements. Does the 3rd string right guard get a cut? Or will the athletes be competing to appear at the opening of a new car wash? This could create a schism between the very few "haves" and the plethora of "have nots." And what about all of the athletes in non-revenue sports?
Nothing like government involvement...
December 17th, 2020 at 2:12 PM ^
If cheerleaders can earn a buck, I'm sure the star softball pitcher can. Especially if she's playing for Carol Hutchins...
December 17th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^
It's called capitalism. You want the money, go out and earn it. If you are the 3rd string OG and not good enough to get an endorsement, that's on you.
December 17th, 2020 at 2:54 PM ^
Then why should the O line block for the star running back or QB?
December 17th, 2020 at 2:58 PM ^
Is this a serious question? I don't see any connection. They should block because that is why they are on the field and if they dont, someone else will.
December 17th, 2020 at 5:00 PM ^
Michigan may not lose players to G-league in basketball. Football, it will be a few high players, and maybe some group payouts where the whole starting line gets to make a commercial to protect.
December 17th, 2020 at 1:36 PM ^
California's law (the first to pass), has the same enactment date as Michigan's and they will be altering it with the new legislators in January.
The law could be effective as soon as Aug. 1, 2021 — 17 months earlier than the current date. Specifically, the bill would change the law’s effective date to either Jan. 1, 2022 or on the start date of the NCAA’s NIL rules changes. As currently proposed, that would be Aug. 1, 2021.
Also note the California law still allows more than the NCAA is saying they will approve
December 17th, 2020 at 1:42 PM ^
Should the perfect be the enemy of the good?
When it's breast cancer awareness month, do we respond with all cancers matter?
December 17th, 2020 at 1:48 PM ^
If you truly support Blumenthal's proposal then idk what to tell you. That thing is dumb dumb talk and a not a serious proposal. Even basic level analysis yields fatal flaws to the overall methodology. Its garbage.
Side note, my wife is from Connecticut so we travel there often and try to stay abreast of what going on in that state. I wouldn't trust any politician from Connecticut to come up with a proposal to alter the financial structure of any organization. Financially, that place is a mess.
December 17th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^
"Even basic level analysis yields fatal flaws to the overall methodology."
???
December 17th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^
Yeah, basic level of analysis. I think it was probably the part of their methodology where 1+1 no longer equals 2.
December 17th, 2020 at 2:12 PM ^
if it comes to pass that players can do what this legislation allows, other states will follow suit and lets face it....michigan players are noy as well known these days. this will only broaden the recruting deficit
December 17th, 2020 at 2:18 PM ^
How do I unsubscribe from this newsletter?
December 17th, 2020 at 2:32 PM ^
Did you just copy/paste an entire Jason Whitlock article? Why? What does this have to do with NIL?
December 17th, 2020 at 2:48 PM ^
lmao this is a new low.
December 17th, 2020 at 4:44 PM ^
Uh mods, do you currently exist? Cause ya’ know...Bolivia and all that.
December 17th, 2020 at 5:38 PM ^
I'm not sure it's Bolivia-worthy. The poster should have just said: "here's a link to a racially-charged article on black coaches by notoriously inflammatory (and former AA News) sportswriter Jason Whitlock" and then provided the link.
Epic fail by the poster, but copy-paste from a national relatively-mainstream (or at least established) media voice isn't ban-worthy IMO.
December 17th, 2020 at 5:40 PM ^
And yes, as is usually the case with Whitlock content, we're all dumber for having read it.
December 17th, 2020 at 2:56 PM ^
Michigan is just following what most states have done or doing already. The real story is that pay for play (for lack of a better term) is going to the Supreme Court.
December 17th, 2020 at 4:04 PM ^
I'm ok with the making revenue thing, but I'm afraid what's going to suck is that we are going to start to see nothing but generic photos on all publications, books, television ads everything as to prevent having to pay players for using their likeness to advertise, write stories, etc. Like back in the day when sports cards weren't allowed to show the athletes with the logos on their uniforms, helmets, etc. Everything could turn into a money grab.