PRESS RELEASE – OCTOBER 15, 2019
For immediate release
For more information:
Dr. B. David Ridpath, Ed.D.
President
The Drake Group
www.TheDrakeGroup.org
740-677-2642
The Drake Group Calls Upon the NCAA to Work with Congress to Install a System Allowing College Athletes to Earn Revenues from Outside Employment and Commercial Use of Their Own Names, Images and Likenesses
WEST HAVEN, CONN —
Throughout 2019, state and federal legislative bills were filed regarding the rights of college athletes to commercially exploit their own names, images, and likenesses, all of which had different provisions and all of which directly challenged National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) amateur status rules. During this period, the NCAA also appointed a special committee to reexamine its rules regarding this issue. Additionally, the media reported strongly expressed opinions of various NCAA, conference, and institutional athletics administrators who maintained that allowing athletes to exploit their own NILs could not be accommodated without causing profound negative changes in the nature of college sports. The Drake Group President, B. David Ridpath commented, “The Drake Group strongly disagrees with these contentions. We believe that national collegiate athletics governance organization control of athlete outside employment is overly restrictive. University commercial exploitation of athlete NILs in conjunction with college athletic events can and should coexist with athletes’ rights to independently commercially exploit their own NILs without using the names or affiliations with their institutions. It is the purpose of the Drake position statement we are releasing today — Compensation of College Athletes Including Revenues Earned from Commercial Use of Their Names, Images and Likenesses and Outside Employment — to offer a detailed example of how this outcome can be accomplished.”
Ridpath continued by providing an overview of the proposal, “The position paper shows a way in which institutional revenues are not utilized to pay athletes; rather athlete income is derived from outside third-parties for the athlete’s own services or NILs. Collegiate athletic event revenues continue to be exclusively owned by the institution and shared with athletes only through athletic scholarships and the provision of educational expenses. Recommended new rules should and could govern such previously impermissible outside employment and NIL licensing. With respect to NILs, we propose that an independent commission be responsible for setting standards (which would require a limited antitrust exemption from Congress) and a national NIL eligibility center be responsible for implementation of the standards. We recommend that all college athlete outside employment agreements (not relating to the use of an athletes’ NIL) be reported to the athletes’ respective institutions and a national NIL eligibility center. We recommend that athletes be permitted to employ agents to negotiate arrangements for employment and NIL licensing. More particularly, all non-de minimis NIL agreements would be registered with the eligibility center and the athletes’ respective institutions and be consistent with the standards set by the independent national commission. Moreover, the institution or its representatives of athletics interests cannot directly or indirectly initiate such arrangements which is consistent with current NCAA rules. We recognize that prohibiting the institution, sponsors, alumni, and boosters from initiating such arrangements represents a compliance challenge. However, we believe that systems proposed — reporting requirements coupled with the establishment of ranges of fair market rates and other standards — are sufficient controls contrasted to current outright athlete employment prohibitions that precipitate under-the-table transactions and that are rules violations. Further, we believe that reporting requirements would reveal the improper employment practices of individual alumni or boosters. Ultimately, the possibility of rules violations is always present, but we believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant and these fears should not be a justification for the current one-sided revenue advantages of the institution.”
