tv College Sports Governance Compensation CSPAN May 1, 2018 5:03pm-7:04pm EDT
we need it think about them as individuals and everybody's rights should be equal. ♪ >> voices from the states, part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. next on c-span2, a discussion on the potential implications of allowing college athletes to receive compensation. speakers include former gorge r georgetown university men's basketball coach, john thompson iii, and nba player nigel hayes who is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the ncaa over athlete compensation. >> so, hello, every one. i'm tom faherty, director of the aspen institute sports in society program. welcome to the new building at
the aspen institute and our future of sports. we look at biggest intersection of time of sports and society. completely in line with the mission of this sports in society program to convene leaders, facilitate dialogue, facilitate dialogue and help sports serve the public interest, thank you. first event was hosted in january. it was on the future of football, we asked what if flag football was the standard way of playing football up until the high school level? a number of leaders come together through diversity of perspectives and we talked that one through. this series is not so much about what should happen but what would happen. taking a conversation in the bloodstream already and giving stakeholders, lead, the opportunity to really think it through. you know, it is really about
looking into a crystal ball as best we can. today's event is about college sports. it comes in the wake of last week's report from the commission on college basketball appointed by the ncaa and chaired by condoleeza rice. the commission was convened in the wake of federal bribery and fraud charges. prosecutors allege hundreds of thousands of dollars were used to influence recruits on where to attend college. 10 people have been arrested including coaches at arizona, usc, auburn and oklahoma state. hall of fame coach rick pittino as you know lost his had job. the commission made several is recommendations getting rid of the one and done rule, that players are forced to go to college to make their way to the nba and stronger penalties for coaches that violate ncaa rules. we're here to explore the key issue that the commission didn't address, which is the financial value of ncaa athletes. many observers believe that
widespread under the table payoffs occur because athletes simply have more value than the scholarship provides. meanwhile the courts will be addressing these athletes compensation issues through the kessler case which is coming up this year. secretary rice did say in her post-report comments that the legal picture as it becomes more clear, the ncaa should reconsider its treatment of college athletes name, images, likeness or nil, a term you will hear a lot of today. full disclosure here, secretary rice is a trustee of the aspen institute. we were not consulted on her report nor was she consulted in us selecting this program topic or shaping any of its content. we did invite her to participate as a speaker. she declined citing a scheduling conflict. the ncaa we invited to send a representative. they declined as well. a couple of house keep keeping
items. there will be two panels today. a great conversation and there are a lot of smart people in the room here. we want to leave opportunity for q&a we want the opportunity to ask a few questions. the panels will be concurrent. we'll not take a break. if you need to get up to go to the bathroom or have a sidebar conversation, feel free to do so, if you can, be mindful of cameras in the room. maybe you can walk out of this door on that side, make sure you go out that one. it is obviously, it is on the record. the conversation will be archived for future use. and before we get started i would like to thank marilyn and michael glossman, who are in the front, made the entire conversation here possible. they are allowing us to ask these big questions, go through this exact of essentially scenario planning, take these very difficult ideas that are out there but are promising and really think them through.
i want to thank you, marilyn and thank you, michael for making this series possible. the, to lead the conversation on what if college athletes were allowed to receive outside income from sponsors i would like to introduce john solomon, our editorial director. john, as many of you know, was an award winning reporter with cbs sports for many years. before that with alabama.com in birmingham, and knows this topic inside and out. of you have great respect for john. i do as well. that is why he is working with our program. i would like to bring john up to get us started. >> great, thank you, tom. [applause] thank you all so much for being here today. we think it will be thoughtful and enlightening discussion in athlete pay in college sports. let me start with a show of hands. raise your hands if you think college athletes should be allowed to be paid by their
universities? okay. all right. raise your hand if you think college athletes should be allowed to be paid from outside sponsors off their own name? okay. interesting. now raise your hand if you think the system is just fine as it is and that scholarship is adequate compensation. okay. interesting responses. i asked this because there are different definitions of what paying players actually means. the lawsuit before the courts right now, so-called jeffrey kessler case called for free agency for players. colleges being able to pay players beyond the value of their scholarship. where this goes nobody quite knows but today we'll talk about a merrimented form of compensation, the so-called olympic model which players could receive outside income from other entities. this could mean players being paid for commercials, for autographs, speaking appearances, jersey sales, video
games, all sorts of merchandise. to help you understand a little bit about this couple of key definitions of terms today, it is important to know what these terms mean. the olympic model you will hear a lot about today is the athletes making endorsement money from outside sources. for a long time olympics had stringent rules similar to the ncaa. if you made money you couldn't be able to compete in the games. the olympics evolved over time. now pro athletes are allowed to compete in the olympics. you have a lot of countries even paying medalists bonuses for winning particular games and the olympics remain very popular. another key term to know is name, image and likeness. you will hear that referred to as nil. this is the right of the individual to control the commercial use of his or her identity. throughout this conversation
we'll have couple assumptions what the olympic model will be and focus on it a little bit more. individuals can get individual and group endorsements. they could go out on their own get endorsement money, pool their rights together collectively on a team, maybe collectively on a school, perhaps even the university be a part of it as well. we'll assume agents and business managers would represent athletes. they would need that to understand the legal, complex issues of the legal issues and they would need to be able to represent them. we're also going to assume athletes would pay taxes on outside income and we're going to assume colleges would not be sharing tv dollars with athletes. so why do we talk about the olympic model? for a couple reasons. one is that public sentiment is changing. you see here "the washington post" did a survey in 2017 that showed 66% of americans now support college
athletes being allowed to earn money through merchandise sales. also many people in college sports believe that the olympic model would be the least-disruptive approach if it were adopted. in other words, theoretically wouldn't cost the colleges any amount of money and it might be able to alleviate potential concerns with title ix and women sports. ncaa president emeric said the olympic model deserves consideration within the college sports. there are 460,000 ncaa athletes are getting a pretty good deal right now. they get a scholarship. allowed to have access to a quality education and they are able to compete at a really high level. but we also know that college sports is a big business. right now athletic director salaries, coaching salaries, administrator salaries continue to rise. the money is basically
controlled by two sports, football and men's basketball and controlled within five conferences, so-called power five, the sec, the acc, pack 12, big 12 and big 10. the data came from the knight commission on intercollegiate athletics. from 2005 to 2015 combined revenue of those major conferences increased by 266%. important to note athletes are seeing benefits through unlimited deals that athletic departments provide, athlete's assistance fund and additional value on the college scholarship through what is called cost of attendance stipends. we know athletes have more value than what they're allowed to receive. ea sports pub lickly said if ncaa rules allowed it they would have the college athletes to have individual names in video games and pay them for it.
a notre dame basketball player, appeared on "dancing with the stars," from her newfound popularity sinking couple final shots at the final four. we see stories about football and basketball players getting paid under the table. so what if ncaa athletes could profit off their games? that is what we'll talk about today. implications in number of areas, athletes compensation, educational achievement, ncaa governance, women sports, high school and youth sports and fan interest. after today's session you will receive an email with a survey that we open you all will fill out. it will allow to us take a deeper dive and it will be material we'll use to shape the conversation for college sports leaders, athletes, policy makessers in the future.
we hope today you will join the conversation on twitter. you cap follow us @aspen sports. let's introduce the first panel up on stage now. we are pleased to have diverse group of people and people knowledgeable on this topic and people within the world of college sports. >> almost didn't make the step. >> you made the step, john. john thompson iii from georgetown and member of commission on basketball that made recommendations to secretary condoleeza rice. dan is the director at clemson university. he is a recent college football playoff selection committee member. we also have andy schwartz. andy is a sports columnist and partner at oskr, and chief
strategist of the historical basketball league. thank you all for being here. really appreciate it. want to start with quick questions. 30 seconds right down the line. we'll start with you first, andy. what was your reaction to the rice commission report that came out last week and the recommendations? >> i'm, it struck me there was a lot of asking other people to change their way of acting and a doubling down on ncaa things. so nba, nbpa, change the way thaw collectively bargained and we'll enforce our penalty as lot more. >> dan, what do you think? >> i thought they did a really good job. coach, congratulations for being on the committee. this is a complex question and a lot of issues around it but trying to centralize into four or five areas where they can look to have some substantive change i think was very positive. >> john, you were on the commission. did you feel you all did a good job? did you address everything you
wanted to? >> to, we didn't address everything. i think we slowly started to turn the ship in the right direction. there is a lot that wasn't addressed. there is a lot that has to be hashed out even more. i think coming out of it the understanding and the forming the cohesiveness between the ncaa, the nba, the players association, with the understanding that you know, what we're talking about here is a window from roughly 12 years old to, if you have a great nba career at 33 years old. it is important that those entities work together instead of separate. i don't think it was putting stuff off on other people but understanding that the one and done rule which is a players association rule does affect intercoliegic athletics. you have to have them working together. think we're heading in the right direction. >> start with andy doesn't line, the commission didn't address nil payments.
should college athletes be allowed to make money off their name? >> my answer is yes but i always give the caveat that i don't think we people out in the world have the ability to say yes or no to that question. we have rights as americans and to abrogate them because they're college athletes because they're colleging a lietz, i think is wrong. >> i don't blow so. i believe strongly in the collegiate model. education and as it relates to college activity so, no, those two things, amateurism and education are the bedrock for our model. >> john? >> i think that it is time to start having these discussions, to figure out exactly what that would look like, or if it would be just a free open market. you know i do think that once, as we go down this road, and not just this road, we're going down that road, think i what gets lost in the narrative is the
value of education it is too easy to say scholarship and move on to the discussion. we're teaching a segment of the youth, there is no value in our education. i don't think that is a good thing as we go forward but i do think it is time to start figuring out how it should look. >> john, the commission cited the legal uncertainty why not addressing ni almosts right now because of the kessler case i assume. if not for the legal issues right now and uncertainties was there enough support right now on the panel to eventually do nil payments? >> because of what is going on with our judicial system we did not spend enough time for me to be able to answer that question. i think the thought was, i forget exactly how dr. rice worded it, but it is an issue needs to be addressed, needs to be looked at. the ncaa needs to alter the current model i think was the
feeling of the exactly what that can look like we need to wait until the jenkins case and everything else gets hashed through first before you actually can go down that path. >> we'll go through hypothetical world. we'll hash this out, we'll have all the solution, and figure it all out. dan in a hypothetical world the olympic model exists and players can make money off their name, image and likeness. as an athletic director what is high on your radar how this could impact your athletic department? >> i think the olympic model, the way you showed up on the screen there, it doesn't marry into education. as long as we're part of the university system and collegiate circumstance you have to have that at the time they are back and forth with education -- tether. whether there is olympic model with students or not. as coach said here, there is value to the education and there is value that needs to be understood and recognized as you
move forward. >> john, the concern we often hear from people say don't pay players and don't do the olympic model, the endorsements won't actually see what we see from the olympics. it will not be the swimmer getting a legitimate sprite endorsement let's say. it will be boosters and alumni pooling together businesses and doing sort of a pay-for-play through endorsements. is that what you think would end up happening? >> 100%. that is not to say that is necessarily wrong but if you go down that road, it is going to be someone's job, whether institution is hering out seed person or someone already there, to go out and solicit endorsement deals for players. i read where tom mcmillan, i believe he was speaking, in one of your articles was speaking, we like this idea, i don't want to paraphrase him wrong, we like the idea of letting athletes use their name, image and likeness
but we don't want to use it to become a recruiting tool. it will. if we go into this thinking it won't that is very pollyanna issue dan, would there be endorsement coordinators for lack of better word? you hire everybody else in a athletic department. is that what would occur? >> certainly would be that opportunity within a program if we did go down this path. would you have to look to regulate it in some way, shape or form. the thing you worry about, there is a lot of work and things happened over the last couple years as it related to the balance that a student athlete has between their athletic endeavors and their academic endeavors. all the time management work that was done over the last couple years. by doing this, you would be injecting a third avenue, which would be their time to create their endorsements and you worry about that because right now it's, it's very difficult for them to deal with the time
issues that they have right now, putting forward the opportunity to, you know, get endorsements. i don't know how many of the student athletes would be actually able to take up on that but those would be additional time opportunities they would need that could change that balance that the student athletes have with education and athletics. >> andy, would this impact recruiting and is that a bad thing if it does? >> i think you will see it just like john said, used as a recruiting tool, but i think people miss though, it is not likely to change outcomes in substantive way. we'll not see ball state suddenly able to get football players going to alabama because ball state has all of this endorsement money waiting to get thrown at things. the talent goes where the schools are willing to spend the most on a program and to the extent to which that money gets shifted from boosters giving
money to the school, to boosters giving money directly to athletes it is still the same sort of pool of demand. >> john, it's a fair point. right now there already is competitive imbalance. the same schools essentially, most often make the final four, most often win the national championship, most often go to the college football playoff. what would be different if athletes were making money off their name? >> i don't think that would change anything. other than the athletes make money off their name and likeness but in terms of shifting the hierarchy, i don't think that will happen. i don't think that will alter anything at all. >> dan, would it make a difference? >> ault different changes that happened in the ncaa over the last 25 years have not altered that competitive balance or imbalance way some people look at it. so i don't believe this would either. >> andy, for better or worse, there would be a difference based on endorsement payments,
based on locality. so wouldn't there definitely be more alabama football players getting car commercial than say vanderbilt football players in nashville? is there anything wrong with that if there is that difference? >> i think could you probably look at locker rooms across the country and clemson has fabulous facilities and other schools don't. it will mirror that. it is this idea that -- >> so economists always get teased for making predictions that come wrong. in 1956 the very first sports economic paper free agency in baseball would change competitive balance. what are we 60 years later. simon who wrote that paper was completely right. the restrictions on earnings generally speaking don't improve or hurt competitive balance. so, yeah, vanderbilt has less revenue generation capability. if the fans care less about vanderbilt football so the
endorsement of a left tack well will not have quite the same oomph in tennessee as an alabama endorsement would, they will get less. i don't think that is bad. that is the they have slightly less prestigious coaches, they have slightly less fancy lockers. >> for all of you, any one of you can jump in on this, when do you think the nil payments would occur for players? would it come in the recruiting process or would it come after they have shown some performance in college? >> in the current olympic model how is it structured? so katy lidec get her money. >> katy got $115,000 for a bunch of olympic medals and allowed to compete in the ncaa which is whole different issue for amateur. >> is it put in trust she can't touch until her eligibility -- >> michael phelps might be
better example. he chose to give up his amateur ism. that is more what it would look like so it wouldn't be impediment. he could do advertisements as he wanted and received money for prizes as well. during the olympics itself, individual endorsements can't compete against a olympic sponsor but outside the olympic weeks they're free to whatever they want. the reason katy lydeck didn't do it because she couldn't take a athletic scholarship at stanford. >> you're question whether it comes to the process sooner or later and katy lidecki, she got her reward after performance. that is an important piece as well. >> but that will not happen. of the for some people, they come out of the blue and produce, yes it will happen.
but i think my previous answer, it will become, good or bad, it's a fact, that left tackle in high school, he knows, he has opportunity walking in the door this is on the table before you play one down of football for school x because we want you to come here. >> you can imagine zion williams, monetizing his youtube account. he has more views and going to college next year. in a world where you can't get they are commercializing their names as teens in high school. >> referring to part of the recruiting process. you were talking about the will that be part of a core effort
for an institution when recruiting a special athlete? i think the presumption is, it is going to be for the zion williams for the world, uber-athletes. in this world that we're in, that left tackle that might be your third backup is not really that good is going to have some endorsement deal. >> no, i agree. >> off of some institution. whether or not it is elite. >> i think the rice commission emphasis is not, emphasis on one and done guys,, i went and looked, during the direct pro phase, there were only nine athletes went directly from high school to the pros. even just looking at a set of adidas athletes named in the various indictments it is more than that. so the value proposition often times, we hear, there is only two rounds of the nba draft, that is 60 athletes, half of them are from europe, there are only 30 people worth anything at the collegiate and high school
level there is value far deeper than that. one of the things we haven't answered yet, like, who, who is going to commercialize the rights? we assume athletes would do it themselves. they have a right to do it. there is certainly a model, if clemson or georgetown wants to recruit athlete, here is what we think your rights are worth. we'll go do it. we'll make sure you don't overextend yourself. we own the rights. we're giving you up front payment and we'll give you 25% of whatever the revenue that comes in from that. that would be a very different model. >> dan, do you think athletic departments want to attach their names and trademarks to group licensing with athletes? i could see the way it goes. want to be new revenue source. they want control over what advertisements are used, what products they're endorsing. but on other hand they could see, no, we really don't want to have any piece of this. you have got the ability to make
money off your name, image and likeness but you're on your own, can't use our marks and your name? . . >> that's on your program is advertising a competitor from one of your sponsors. so there's this confusion in the marketplace. so i think that somewhere down the line there would have to be controls pulled together between the institution and the student-athlete to be able to make sure that everyone's interests are aligned. >> you also would have athletes who have endorsements that may conflict with the athletic department endorsements. >> right. >> you have, you're a nike school. what if a delaware shawn watson, won a national championship, he's in college and says i'm going to sign with under armour, and i want to wear under armour
products. what does that look like? >> that's a problem. i really believe that -- [laughter] there is that whole other end of the educational aspect of this and the scholarship and the coaching and the strength training and the sports medicine that is funded through a lot of those sponsorships. so if you were going to run down this rocky road, you would need to have some type of, contract is probably the wrong word, but some kind of conditions with your student-athletes to say this is the areas where the university has that right with these types of whether it's a apparel, shoes, soft drinks, etc., this is our domain here. >> go, john. >> and i would agree and echo. if we go down this rocky road, you would have to carve out and pull separate categories that
are nonnegotiable. and so just to use an example, in the nba nike won the contract. everyone wears nike uniforms, nike warm-ups, but they can wear whatever shoes that they want. and so they're still, so you wouldn't have, you know, on the same team, and you're wearing hypothetically under armour uniform, i'm wearing a nike uniform, he's wearing a reebok uniform. we hold these rights, you can go get everything else. >> andy, there are ways that pro sports leagues have figured this out, right? >> that's right. so dan mentioned contracts, i think that's a great word for what you'd have. when you are out recruiting an athlete are, you offer him a scholarship which is effectively a contract now, and that offer would also include some negotiation over nil rights in the pros, and as an example as a plug, the historical basketball league which is a league that we're forming, our goal is to
say -- very much like the nba, which is that the league owns the rights to a league-wide apparel deal. every team in our league will wear whichever apparel company sponsors us. athletes will have the right to choose their individual shoes, and that revenue that they go out and generate is going to be shared something like 80% for the athletes and 20% for the league. and the contract that athletes would sign once we get launched is effectively a division of rights between these are the things that the school owns completely, you don't get, these are the things you own completely and the school other than say, maybe, you know, like a morals clause, like you can't go and endorse an alcohol or something like that. go do what you want. and then there's this zone in the middle where we're sharing our assets. if you're in an ad, we have to get approval, and we're going to split it by some percentage. maybe sec schools share 50/50,
maybe pac-12 say, well, maybe living on the west coast is more fun, so 60/40. [laughter] >> andy, i want to get your thoughts on potential legal confrontations. they're often getting dragged into court, cost of attendance cases. with to olympic model, if that were to occur, how do they have to think through this so they don't get dragged into court regarding antitrust violations? >> okay, so i have to be careful. if jeff kessler hears me say anything about that case, i'll get many trouble. in general, the real problem with the ncaa is not any particular rule it makes, but the fact that it controls 100% of the market. there are 351 division i schools, there are 130 fbs schools, and they are all commonly making agreements. so the simplest, easiest way to
avoid antitrust problems is not to make a one-size-fits-all rule. and dan rasher and i, who wrote a paper in 2000, where we suggested if each conference made its own rule, you would have -- depending on the sport -- you'd have a dozen competitive conferences that could balance off whatever, whatever needs there are for keeping a lid on things if people think like, look, we can't have that. but at the same time, there's competition. so if the big ten is too restrictive with its rules, they'll start to lose talent to the big 12 and things like that. so the simplest way is not to have a blanket rule but, rather, say in units of one or twenty schools, go make some rules. >> andy, you've never been on an ncaa committee, have you. >> that's correct. [laughter] >> that's a wonderful, wonderful idea but, gosh, i mean, the ncaa
right now is grappling, we're all grappling with the transfer issue between our student-athletes and there are 800 student-athletes in the sport of men's basketball to transfer every year, and that seems to be a real issue. they transfer, by the way, into the same system they left even though they have the ability to leave at that point in time to play professionally. but they value the collegiate experience. my point in all that is it is very difficult to move forward with these rules, and coaches have been in this business as well as i have. the time spent on committees and moving forward with rules and understanding and consensus is just quite different. and not because it's a problem with the individuals, it's a problem with having so many disparate opinions and people looking out for their interests. >> right. >> this is a classic argument for why socialism is bad and why capitalism is good, it's because capitalism doesn't need
committees. [laughter] >> john, you were going to say something? [laughter] >> i think that there is, in addressing or commenting on both of your comments, an understanding that how the ncaa goes about its business and makes those decisions needs to change. and will change. and i think that's one of the things coming out of the commission headed by dr. rice. there's an understanding that so much gets bogged down and lost, and that has to change. you have to have an outside, separate entity that can just make decisions so you aren't swirling for years and years and years trying to decide on an example you used, the transfer. so, you know, that change is coming. >> and that's a valuable piece. and i think out of all the things that came out of the rice commission, that might be the most valuable. the idea of taking an issue,
putting together inside folks from member schools, outside experts, people from very different backgrounds to attack a problem and bring those back to the ncaa and its membership, i think, is going to be one of the long-term benefits of what we've seen come out of the rice committee, because it does -- we do think there's going to be a much, much quicker appetite for change. >> let's talk also about women's sports. andy, you've studied title ix some. how should we think about title ix implications if there's an olympic model, and the differences between if it's an individual endorsement or if it's, you know, group licensing with a university and a pool of athletes? >> sure. so title ix is a little complex and people, i think, often think of it as saying something along the lines of if you pay a man a million dollars, you have to find some woman and pay her a million dollars too, and that's not the way it works. i'm going to simplify it down for this which is once you have
your male/female athletic ratio, something like 54% men and 46% women participating in college sports. then the financial assistance that you provide to athletes as a school has to be like plus or minus 1% of that. to comply with the financial parts of title ix. it's different from both the sexual assault parts, but also even the participation parts. this is just the financial piece. with the hbl, because we're planning to pay athletes maybe up to $100,000 a year, we wrote the department of education and said to them we're a third party, how is that going to affect the schools. they kind of gave us an answer which is like you should assume if you are working with a school that title ix's going to kick in. so we're budgeting for a proportional payment to women. this nil regime would probably work the same way. it's an open question whether nike gives a men's basketball player at a particular school a million dollar endorsement,
whether that's too far away from the school to be seen as kicking in, but say it did. then almost certainly in this war we're talking about, the schools would say, wait a second, if you give him a million dollars, you're imposing something like a $900,000 cost on me that i'm going to have to give to my women athletes. so part of that contract that we talked before, your sponsor has to agree to reimburse me. so that means the athlete only gets $600,000 and the school gets $400,000 to cover the title ix piece or there's a complementary payment on the side. that's the sort of thing that, you know, title ix is law, and ncaa rules are just rules. and so the rules will have to adapt to the law, not vice versa. >> maybe i was unclear. in this hypothetical scenario that we're discussing, the athlete would go on their own with their agent and solicit9
outside -- >> they could do that, or the other way is they do group licensing with the university. >> okay. because if they do that -- and i may be wrong. i'm not positive about title ix law. if they do that, that's outside of the institution, and there would be no title ix implications, i think. i'm not positive. >> i mean, i would have thought this too except for when the department of education told us that our summer league that we, you know, we're just paying them to have a summer job. yeah, but because they're college athletes, you should assume. it would have to be tested. it strikes me that -- but i agree with you. as written, you would think that's, you know, that has nothing to do with the school. >> dan, do you have any thoughts? how does title ix factor in? >> i'm not an attorney, certainly not a title ix expert, but it seems to me that there is that, there is a correlation because they are, they're college student-athletes, and this is coming forward because of their collegiate experience and the fact that they're on the men's basketball team or
football team or women's softball team. so there's going to be some title ix implications. what those are, i really don't know. >> now, for the group licensing piece you can easily imagine that the school would have a group license, and the primary generator of the, like, the whole team at once would come from football and maybe men's and women's basketball and maybe a couple other sports. softball's getting more popular, things like that. almost certainly the wise thing to do there would be to have that groupies shared across all -- group piece shared across all athletes because that's school money, right? and so it's no different than financial aid. now, the thing is that title ix is thrown out as a problem more than it's actually observed. if you go and look at schools, very few of them even if they're doing a good job on the male/female ratio compared to their undergraduate thing, very few schools especially if they have football meet the financial proportionally rules now.
nothing happens now because the department of education doesn't enforce it. it requires somebody to complain. but like, you know, you could go through and probably off the 130 fbs schools, i doubt 50 of them comply. but you'd want to stay close as this rule evolved. >> right. >> john, i wanted to ask you also about coaching. say you're a coach, college basketball coach, and your players now are making outside money. does that change anything for you as a coach, how you deal with them, how you coach them? would there be concerns as a coach about that? >> i'm not sure. you know, i think that we talk about the transfer, being able to transfer and play right away might affect coaching more so than if they're making outside income. i'm not sure how or if that would change. so in asking the question how do you think it would possibly alter how -- >> well, you wonder, this is
what you may hear from people who say you shouldn't pay players, does it become harder dealing with some of the players? do they have more allegiance to their sponsors as opposed to the team? is it more difficult for them to juggle academics and sports and sponsorships, you know, all at once? would there be different entities pulling at them? >> well, i mean, dan mentioned earlier how much of a time commitment is this new pod going to take, how much of a time commitment are their endorsements. so that's new. everything else you're dealing with anyway. right now you're dealing with are they listening to the person at the barbershop -- [laughter] that rule's dynamic you're dealing with already. i don't think -- and i may be wrong -- that, you know, adding, i mean, the pros deal with it now. if you're getting paid, those guys still have to be coached. so i don't know that would affect how you go about the
day-to-day coaching of your team. but in terms of the time constraints and time limits, it actually could be a factor there. >> i also wanted to talk about youth sports and high school sports. i think this is another potential implication. so, you know, the aspen institute sports authority program, one of our big initiatives is project play and we reimagine youth sports through the core values of health and inclusion. and one thing that we've seen when look at youth sports is that it's created a lot of commercialization of youth sports, sort of the chase for the college scholarship. there's a lot more money that parents pay, there's a lot more demands, there's the specialization in one sport. and a lot of it turns out to be unhealthy. in a world where athletes can make this endorsement money in college, what kind of downstream impact do you all think that has on youth sports and high school sports? does there become a chase for endorsements, so to speak? >> well, i think, yes, because
everything, you know, trickles down from the top, you know? you, you know, allen iverson braids his hair in an nba game, and everyone else -- well, not everyone, a lot of people start braiding their hair. kobe puts on a sleeve, and every third person puts on a sleeve. and what happens at the nba, for the most part, will trickle down. if you open up that door, will little billy's mom and dad start to think, he's 14 years old, because they're thinking now at the youth age how can i best prepare my child for this scholarship or this opportunity. and so that will eventually, i think. how, i don't know, but that will eventually also become part of the equation. >> i think you would be creating, if we talk about little league parents and how difficult they could be to their young people and with those young people's enjoyment of sport, throw a dollar piece into
that, and i think it just, it just creates incredible problems coming down the path for those, for those young people as they go on not only with their high school career, but as they move into college and maybe for the rest of their life as well. that'd be very difficult. >> the other thing though is that there are some of these athletes, players who do have a lot of value before they even enter college. andy, you were talking about zion williamson. i wanted to read the instagram followers for some prominent high school basketball players, williamson, 1.5 million follow's. mac -- [inaudible] joining to georgetown, 526,000. and according to influencer.co, these players could command anywhere from $90 to $1400 per post on this one social media platform alone. so, i mean, andy, what do you tell those athletes who have
value before even entering college? >> you're being exploited. [laughter] i don't know, what do you mean what do i tell them? like, why -- >> well, why they can't be allowed to have of a share of this money. >> well, i mean, the economic answer is because the ncaa is an economic cartel that gets together and fixes prices so that profits flow from athletes to great people like this on the stage and to universities as a whole. and that to date, the courts haven't seen fit to break up that cartel. but it's -- i think in some sense it stems from an idea that money is bad for some people. right? so, like -- >> dan's talking about, oh, think about all these horrible parents and if the allure of money is out there, it'll make them all the worse. i think that if they're bad, they're bad. and i think that if they're good, they're good. and i don't know if it's like, this private organization of
colleges' job to change how america parents. i would say if you look at it from a rational point of view, if you think -- like, parents make bad decisions now. they make bad decisions to spend a lot of money on a traveling team to try and get a scholarship, and it may not be a profitable decision to the extent which the scholarship is more valuable, it tips the balance to maybe being a slightly less rational decision or maybe being a rational decision. >> andy brought the cartel into it. [laughter] >> just an economic term. >> the numbers you read, i mean, i'm sitting here thinking, whoo, i need to get my followers up. [laughter] >> you didn't have a twitter handle. >> i'll retweet you. >> so what i said in my initial statement, i think there's time to have this discussion, to figure out what the future looks like are. but i also think in a certain line of thinking you're placing
no value on education. so georgetown university roughly -- i hope the president doesn't get mad if i get these numbers wrong -- you know, scholarship, full boat next year is $72,000. so over the course of four years, $the -- 290, something like that? that's real money. so you are getting -- and that's why i say we're devaluing and education saying, well, that doesn't mean anything. you're not getting anything. you are getting an education. and it's teaching kids, i think, to place no valuen on education at all when we say that means nothing. that means a lot. now, that doesn't answer the question could a select few get more doing this? should we look at name, image and likeness, which i think we should which is why we're having this kiss course here. but you -- discourse here. but you can't say -- my math is off -- means nothing. because they're getting
something tangible, that's real, that means something. >> and that's just the tuition that is being paid to georgetown. that's not the cost of the other benefits that they receive from conditioning to medical care, to academic advising, to how they travel, where they travel and all the other life experiences that go on to that. so it does become, it does have a multiplier effect for those student-athletes. >> so just to be clear, when i talk about exploitation, i am not in any way saying that what the schools offer or is zero. at all. i think that college educations are valuable, and you can value them at something like four times the cost of attendance. because that's the market price. but exploitation in an economic sense is about the gap between one's market value and what one gets. so if somebody works at a job in a one-company town and they only make a dollar a day like in the depression and if there had been competition they would have gotten $3, they didn't get nothing, but they were exploited
by $2. just to be clear, when i say cartel, nothing to do with truck cartels -- [laughter] >> i wasn't sure. >> i thought it was oil. >> in economic terms it simply means a group of independent companies that come together and agree on common pricing like, for example, what a scholarship is. >> and you are correct, there are the special athletes that use that same example, that 280, 290 on their own could possibly make more. probably -- could make more, okay? but is the value of the number 12 man on that team who's also getting that 290 worth -- he's making out. >> well, okay. here's the argument i would make, why did you when you were making offers, why'd you give him a full scholarship if he wasn't worth it? >> that's how the system is. >> except you could have given him less. partials are allowed -- >> not in a lot of sports
though. >> they are allowed, you just can't share them. you could keep the money for the -- >> that would be a walk-on. >> no, there are max schools that -- mac schools that give 50% scholarships in football. >> not in ncaa division i. >> yes. i told you we'd have this argument. [laughter] >> hold on, you guys got together and talked -- >> the counterrule says if you give somebody -- [audio difficulty] you can't share that scholarship with somebody else. it doesn't mean you have to give them a full scholarship, but because athletes are worth it, they get it. you'll see it at a few schools at the tail end of the value chain that athletes don't get full scholarships because they're not required. whereas in e equivalency sports, you can take that 50% and give it to another person. >> let's move on. it's a little bit in the weeds a little bit. [laughter] i want to open the floor for some questions for q&a. if you have a question, raise your hand.
we'll have microphones come down to have you ask your question, and please identify yourself as well. right over here. >> thank you. mike -- [inaudible] with george mason university and former journalist and now in academia, doing research on college sports. first, i want to emphasize that nobody has a license on someone's ability, right? in terms of somebody being good or bad, you know? that depends on -- we don't know, right? so i want to say, having said that, the system that the soccer leagues in britain used is being used in this country in amateur leagues and stuff, and i think that could be something we could look at as a way to sort of, you know, get young people, you know -- [inaudible] players playing in the summer in those leagues. they don't get paid much, but at least it's guiding them in the
right direction to become professionals. so maybe something like that could be formed in the different sports. i know it's difficult for football, but, you know, in the different sports. i just wanted to share that. >> great, thank you. other questions? yep, in the back. over here, we've got a question. >> thanks for doing this. my name is michael pointer. i was a sports writer for more than 20 years primarily at the indianapolis star, covered a lot of college sports. now work in communications for a labor union here in town. before i ask my question, i want to put one thing in perspective. the ncaa will fight anything that they feel like lessens their power. mr. schwartz is correct, it's an economic cartel. and anytime they feel like their power is threatened, they're going to fight it. prime example is title ix. it passed in 1972, they didn't recognize women's sports for another ten years, and even after they did, they kept fighting and fighting full
implementation of it. it wasn't until the early 2000s when the department of civil rights started threatening the take away money from all the schools. not just athletic money, but academic money. now you're going to hear a lot of talk about them throwing themselves behind title ix -- >> [inaudible] >> so anyway, just to put that in perspective. for all the panel, what is so threatening about a kid going out and making outside money or being able to transfer without penalty, these are things that all students have the power to do if they're not in athletics, and mr. rad coe slip said this is all about education. well, those are things that you can do that are part of the educational process. [audio difficulty] university who works as an r.a. to pay for his education, but he could transfer and do whatever he wants on the outside. why is that so threatening to you all, except for maybe mr. schwartz, to give these students the power to do that?
>> john, do you have any thoughts on this? the basic economic fairness question. so if you're a normal student, you can make money off your name, image and likeness. if you're an athlete, there are a different set of rules. yet we often hear athletes should be integrated within the community, but there's a different set of rules i think is what he's getting at a little bit. >> yeah. and as i said, in ending the previous question you said we're getting in the weeds a little bit. i think as we go forward, we're going to have to get in the weeds. you can't progress just doing the surface topics. and so that's where, you know, at the end of the day we all may end up in the same place, but we have to hash it out and go through the weeds. to your question, and i'm going to be repetitive, when you say repeat the end part of that, a normal -- a non-athlete can what? >> a non-athlete could go out and make money off their own value. natalie portman, you know, was a movie star, and she made "star wars" while she was a college
student. so what's to prevent a college athlete to be able to -- they have some value, why can't they -- >> and i think that's why we're having this discussion. i think what gets lost in that is they are getting that $290,000. and so your son or daughter is working, i forget where you said they were working. they're working, but these people -- and so that's part of the equation. i also said that it's teem for this discussion -- time for this discussion. we have to move forward. we can't get stuck in how it's always been, so this is how it always should be. i think there's a realization that we are at that point with the ncaa, with the general public, with academia, with the sports world in general, that we're at that point. you can't just make statements, you have to go for the details. >> right. right here in the front. >> andy, i have a question for you. if the ncaa is a cartel, economic cartel, why aren't they leading the charge to go, to
create, to take advantage of the financial opportunity? that seems to be out there based on, you know, just jv-ing with these super athletes. >> sure. >> where there's a whole economic opportunity. >> these are facts that came out in public, in court during to ban noncase. clc, which is now called img college, it's a licensing group that focuses on college, figured that there was a billion dollars of lost individual name, image and likeness or joint team individual, name and likeness that was being left on the table. and this was in 2004 that on team stuff the nfl or and the nba combined it's about equal to what the ncaa does on team stuff. but on individual stuff, this was basically a billion dollars a head. it's a lot of money, so why leave that on the table? well, i think that there are a
couple reasons and one is that while the pie might grow, having 100% sometimes feels better than having 67% of a bigger pie because of things. where is this going to go. there might be a recognition it might even tip the other way. so i think there's a concern with the unknown. there is an element of indoctrination. so, like, i never say the word student-athlete, but it's very difficult to get someone that's worked within the ncaa to not say it. they're trained to, even at press conferences, would you like to speak with the student-athlete, things like that. there's a mindset thinking, gosh, we can make more money, why don't we do this? final thing though, myles brand, before he passed away, was trying to do this. he just said but we can't share it with the athletes. and the schools actually stopped him and said, look, if we go one step further in commercializing it, we'll end up having to share. so they chose rather than share to just not go there.
and a great example of that is the ea video game. real fast, sorry. so literally after that case, the o'bannon case settled on that piece of it, ea said, great, now we can make the game. the ncaa said you can't use our licenses if you're going to make the game. so they preferred, basically, to take their ball and go home, no one could play if it meant they had to let everyone play. >> real quick, we're going to have to wrap up. we'll get to more questions on the second panel. right down the line i want just a quick answer for you. if the olympic model happens -- we'll start with you, andy -- who or what is the biggest winner or loser? >> i think schools should be really careful about allowing the money not to go through them. if it's a true to olympic model, schools will be the big losers. and of so will women. a world in which schools and athletes partner together where title ix is better enforced ask where schools do better. >> dan? >> i think as we go down this
road, this hypothetical road, i think there's opportunity for all enterprises to share in this and be able to come out better on the back end of it. >> john? your thoughts, biggest winner, biggest loser? >> i haven't studied it enough to be able to answer that and to totally understand. that's an honest answer. women could lose out a lot. but i think that it's important as we go down this road to understand that we have to hash out everything and that in all of this, you know, does it -- it shouldn't -- whatever world we end up being that the academic component is still important. and so if you're making money off of your are own likeness, that's great. but we still have these benchmarks and still the progress towards the academic degree and the academic component is still important. it shouldn't alter that. >> thank you very much. this was a great panel. please give a round of applause. [applause]
we'll bring our second panel up to the stage now. [inaudible conversations] >> great. we'll get started here with the second panel. appreciate you all being here on this panel as well. let me introduce first to your immediate right is bernadette, the atlantic 10 conference commissioner, former women's basketball coach at georgia tech, and i believe you're
joining the division i men's basketball chief in the fall? be is that right? great. next to bernadette is nigel hayes, nigel just finished his rookie season in the nba, he's a former wisconsin basketball star, and he's a plaintiff in the jeffrey kessler v. the ncaa and the conferences over athlete compensation. and then we also have gabe feldman, tulane sports program director and the associate provost for ncaa compliance. like we did with the first panel, we'll start with you, gabe, and just go down the rhine quick 30 seconds -- line, what did you think of the recommendations? what did you make of it? >> i think it's a good start to get that diverse group of people in the room for those who were expecting fundamental shifts in the ncaa model and the relationship between student-athletes and universities. but there were some provocative and fairly bold suggestions in there, and i'll just highlight one that hasn't really been talked about much, and that's
that there should be more and earlier involvement from agents and that agents should have a closer relationship with student-athletes. that is a shocking thing for anyone associated with college athletics or the ncaa to suggest. and if you had mentioned that 5, 10, 15, 50 years ago, that was almost a taboo subject, the effort to get agents as far away as possible from student-athletes. so i think that was an interesting, provocative suggestion that's going to require a lot more thought and for us to get into the weeds. but i think overall the suggestions are in the right direction. but, obviously, not enough if you're looking to provide at lot more for student-athletes. >> nigel, what'd you think of some of the regulations? >> i didn't directly read it, i was informed by, you know, yourself. i've been listening to you, and one of the biggest things, i guess, left out was the nil and them addressing paying the athletes. again, like you said, everything's a start. nothing will be perfect once you create it, but at least the ncaa is making, you know, plans to
try and make things betters for all parties -- better for all parties. >> bernadette, what'd you think? >> actually, i thought that the report was very well done. i thought the commission was a real powerhouse commission. i think there's a lot of credit to mark to appointing the commission outside of the ncaa jurisdiction to give as much independence and transparency as possible. i think that the commission was extremely diligent and very purposeful in exactly what they identified. and i think they were also very open, and this is not just wave the wand and everything's going to be cured and intercollegiate athletics or the sport of basketball, but that it takes truly a team to be able to really delve into all the issues that are being faced. it's a very complicated issue, and i think that the commission really opened up and provided for a lot of transparency, and
now we'll see the follow up to the commission which i think is going to be critically important that this report does not just sit on someone's desk, that now the membership takes ownership for the recommendations. >> to nigel's point, nil wasn't addressed directly, you know, in terms of recommendations. just real quick down the line, we'll start with gabe again, do you think college athletes should be allowed to make money off their name? >> yes. and i start with the point of why shouldn't they be allowed like every other individual in this country that has a right to their name, image and likeness. there must be some compelling reason to not allow it. the compelling reasons that have been given in the past for the ncaa are to protect amateurs and to protect education. i think you can accomplish all of those at the same time. i think you can allow student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness while protecting amateurs and protecting their education. >> nigel, i assume you believe they should. >> are yes. [laughter] >> bernadette, how about you? where do you stand on it?
>> i think that the commission addressed it in a way, obviously, identifying all the legal issues that are surrounding it right now. and that maybe this wasn't the exact time. but i think we've heard une give chi that there's an openness to be able to strategically look at the possibilities of what the use of name, image and likeness for student-athletes in an amateur setting within intercollegiates, within higher education, and that's a topic that's going to really need a lot of discussion and a lot of work. >> there's an irony here, the lawsuit that's pending that gave the commission pause in terms of giving a specific recommendation, we keep referring to it as the kessler litigation. that's brought on behalf of the student-athletes, one sitting right next to me, and we can't even give them credit -- [laughter] we refer to it by the lawyer's name. >> that's fair. as a reporter, i always wrote the kessler case. i think more people were
familiar with it that way. nigel has done some interviews, jeffrey kessler does as well, but it's a fair point. >> i made one today. [laughter] >> gabe, you -- you know, to bernadette's point, you have i thought through this question about nil. you wrote a white paper in 2016 explaining one possible framework, one concept of what paying athletes for names, images and likenesses would look like. you presented it to collegiate athletics. talk us through what that concept would look like and what it would do. >> well, the concept is similar to the main point you laid out earlier, and it would allow for group licensing, individual licensing, so you can do a deal as part of your university, as part of your team, as part of the conference, but you could also do your own individual deal. you wouldn't be able to use the logos or the marking of the university physicals they allowed you. there would be strict regulations both in terms of how much time you spent on it to keep in mind time management concerns, when you'd be able to
do them, how much you'd be compensated for to make sure as best as we can these are not abuses of a system, that you're actually being paid for your name, image and likeness and not so you attend the school. although i understand there's some overlap. there would have to be control over agents, you would need agent representation, and i think this would have to be vetted so that any third party who wanted to enter into an endorsement deal with a student-athlete would have to be vetted by some centralized body that would say we agree you can have a relationship with our student-athlete because we think you're a legitimate organization, we think you will have legitimate things for the student-athlete to do, and they can monitor how much compensation they're being paid. so this would be completely transparent. but i think it would have to be centralized for the most part so we don't put too much burden on the individual institutions. >> bernadette, could the model work? what do you think about it in this hypothetical world if the olympic model existed? >> well, i'm not going to weigh
in on whether or not it would work or not. i think that your white paper was very well done. i had the opportunity to read the white paper, and i think, again, it is a, it's a document that provides for a tremendous amount of information, a tremendous amount of detail and a possible road map if this were to continue to get legs, so to speak, to be able to happen. so will it work, can it work, i don't know? i don't have a crystal ball to answer that, but i think that it's worthy of discussion and of presentation and heavy consideration. >> gabe, you wrote in the paper that nil agreements, if properly monitoredded and regulated, can enhance potentially not detract from the educational experience. can you explain a little bit what you mean by that? >> well, sure. i think you can add an educational component to endorsement deals. and i get laughed at a lot, but if a requirement was you had to do a reflection paper or
something that would give you academic credit, it could actually be used to help an athlete when they turn pro to give them some financial literacy, to better prepare them for the real world. and just like we allow internships and exalternativeships for all of our students, we provide an academic component where they're doing real world skills and tying it into the educational model. so i think these can enhance each other, not to mention taking a lot of pressure off the student-athlete in terms of financial these be, i think it - financial needs. i think it could take a lot of pressure off the ncaa who will continue to get attacked as long as they have rules that are more restrictive than necessary. >> gabe, are there any legal concerns for the ncaa with your model whether it comes to antitrust law, labor law, tax law? are you possibly creating a model where there are antitrust
risks and maybe they're going right back -- >> yes, there are risks. there are absolutely risks, but we're not operating in a world right now where there are no risks. the ncaa is getting sue every other month. so they're in a minefield right now, and i think they're opening themselves up to attack because their system is so restrictive. i think if you make it a little less restrictive, then it eases up the attack, and you can better defend the overall system. will it raise potential antitrust issues, title ix issues, labor issues? yes, yes and yes. but i think there are ways to modify the system to better defend it. but one thing we know about sports, and i think this is a theme that came out in the first panel, is that the courts treat sports like their own little special entity. whether it's the ncaa, whether it's baseball through their antitrust exemption, that people look at sports differently than they look at almost any ore facet of society -- other facet
of society. which means it's very difficult to predict how these cases will come out. there's no guarantee that any system will be fully protected. could it lead to some congressional exemption that would say, look, we're going to change our model, but we need to make sure we are exempt at least in some ways from legal attack, then maybe that's the solution. none are risk-free but, again, the status quo is certainly not risk-free. >> nigel, you're one of those who are i suing the ncaa and the conferences. what caused you to file a lawsuit? and this came only after, i think, it was your freshman season at wisconsin. >> yeah. it was introduced to me by one of my teammates at the time. he just saw me as a potential i like to use the term athletic student. [laughter] as an athletic student that, you know, at the time due to the trajectory of me playing and generating a name for myself on the court and also being, you know, intelligent enough to be able to convey and speak on these ideas of why we need to be compensated for our efforts, and
it's just something i thought, you know, in the long term if it doesn't help me immediately, it'll help a nigel hayes that'll come years down the road. for me, it was kind of a no of of -- to-brainer. >> college athletes typically don't put their foot in the water like that. they don't often take stands like this. what kind of reaction did you get from the public and from your teams and coaches? >> the teammates supported me and had my back, coach bell, he was on committees, he's always fighting for the rights for us as players to be able to, you know, be able to be compensated for everything. and, you know, again it's just something that i think is necessary, and i think it's something that could be
implemented without, you know, that much difficulty. again, i'm not as, you know, intelligent on all the laws and everything, again, like the other panelists. but i just think it's something that it can be implemented that whatever you do, you know, you can always start and grow it. i mean, you can ask the panel, the room, everyone maybe everyone would say they're proud to be american. that's why we have amendments they didn't get to right at the beginning. i'm sure we can start with a model and amend it as we go, because it won't be perfect from the beginning. as long as we start somewhere, you know, we can always amend and make it better. >> when you were in college, wisconsin sold a t-shirt in the university bookstore with some famous words that you said at an ncaa tournament press conference made famous with a stenographer, and you started, i think, having fun with some of the words. and they sold it at the bookstore. and they eventually pulled it. >> they did. >> they did, right? >> yeah, they did. >> what's that like when you see
words that you spoke, that you made popular being sold, and you're not getting a cut out of it. >> it was a little bit of like, wow, really? it was kind of like a very prideful moment, but then it was just immediately, like, the reason they pulled it was, again, the me not being paid for what i literally said they put on a t-shirt. it wasn't even that cool, they just put words on a shirt. i think that just shows, again, the difficulties that arise with not being able to compensate athletes for what they do. i'm sure there are people that would have liked to have the shirt. i spoke to people who said they got one of the shirts before they stopped selling it, and i autographed the shirt. i just think if we're allowed to do that, everyone benefits, you know? i receive whatever cut if that happens, the school generates because people are going to the bookstore, they may buy that shirt, they may buy something else while they're in the store. the people are getting a sense
of happiness and joy by getting the shirt. because, you know, they may like what i do on the basketball court or like what i do off the court. so i think all parties win, you know, if the system is implemented where we're allowed to be compensated. >> did the shirt sell well? >> it sold so well, they had to stop selling it. [laughter] >> no, no, i thought they were concerned about the appearance of athletes' names, images and likenesses. >> yeah. it was selling like hot cakes. [laughter] >> okay. >> people were lined up at, like, four a.m. to get those things. [laughter] it was causing too much trouble on state street, so they had to take them down. >> i want to talk about competitive impact. we talked about it earlier. you're commissioner of a conference that doesn't have football, so you come from a little different position. you don't have the money or the exposure or, candidly, the governance power that comes with football in the ncaa. do you think that if an olympic model occurred, there would be a difference in competitive impact whether it's, you know, from schools in your conferences, your league compared to, you
know, those in the power five? >> well, i would kind of agree with the first panel in that, you know, we've had changes in legislation and rules and permissible and more permissible rules for 30, 40, 50 years, and in a sense the balance has not changed. but i think in terms of how something like that would be implemented would be critically important. and i do think, that, you know, student-athletes when they are being recruited, they are looking at the overall support for the institutions, the academic curriculum of which where they're going, the geography, the location and country. west coast, east coast, middle of the country. so i think there's a lot of facets. [audio difficulty] or one decision would change a competitive balance. >> and if you think competitive impact makes a difference, gabe? >> again, it's hard to see how it would have a significant
difference, and it just seems like with most of the rules the rule only has to be in force, and the restriction only has to be in place if it's going to provide benefits beyond cost of attendance to the student-athlete. so we don't worry about competitive -- [inaudible] when it comes the coaches' salaries and everything else. we even call them the power five. and we don't have a power. in other sports leagues, we don't separate them out by how much power they have. we recognize there are inherent benefits, advantages that certain schools have. would this provide another advantage? yes, but i don't think it's inconsistent with what's happening right now. and i certainly wouldn't disagree with what coach and the clemson athletic director said. they would know better than i, and they said there wouldn't with be an impact, so i'm not going to disagree with that conclusion. >> bernadette, new the years university presidents, conference commissioners have
said if athletes are allowed to be played, we're going to pick up our ball, and is we're going to create our own set of rules that don't allow athletes to be paid. do you think that, in this hypothetical world, would that happen in the olympic model? would there be some conferences or schools that said we're going to create our own set of rules? >> i don't know if it would happen in reality, but i think that if a model of the pay for play were to come about, you've got to really discern and take a hard look at the entire current model of which we work under, the amateur model. and, you know, the scholarships and all of what goes with the scholarships. and, you know, no one talks about the question, well, that's fine, if we want to go into compensation for student athletes and pay for play, then do scholarships go away. and you basically pay as you go. so you pay for your tuition, and you can earn whatever it is you can earn, but then you pay for
your tuition bill and academic tutoring, and you pay for your study hall and your equipment and your food. and, you know, again, if the whole system is undone, then i think there are realities that you have to address. >> nigel, what do you think? go ahead. >> i don't think you necessarily, as she was saying, you have to do away with all that. i think, you know, by being allowed to make money off of your, you know, your nil, i think that helps college as a whole. i think it helps as people like to talk about the competitive imbalance by being able to accept money from different entities or different companies that want to, you know, sponsor you. as dan was talking about at clemson, they had a tremendous quarterback, won a national title, so they have all this, you know, power. so, for instance, if it was a smaller school, if they took a majority or some or most of their sponsorships if we were allowed to make name -- or make money off our name, image and
likeness and they say, you know what? you are a top ten recruit in the country, we'll give you this amount if you come here, you know, in acorps dance to your scholarship because they don't need to do that. we're clemson. i don't need to give you extra. but if a smaller school does that, then that kid has something to think about. okay, i can make this much more while still getting my education, i can take care of my family if that's a need that i have. and i think that, you know, definitely shapes the balance problem that we have. because now you start to see more of these top highly-recruited kids going to other schools, and i think that definitely helps that imbalance. >> and i would just add two other quick things. one is no one's arguing that you have to pay them or you have to get endorsement deals for them, it's just that you have to stop agreeing to not allow that whether it's an individual school, conference or whatever group, they can decide, yes, we do want to allow this, no, we
don't want to allow this. at the ncaa level, not allowing any of it. and the other is a question of if this system were loosened and so student-athletes could be compensated either through a third party which is what we're talking about here or directly from the school that they would take a ball and go home and drop out of division i and drop out of college athletics, and we heard some of those arguments when cost of attendance was an issue. a lot of schools said, no, we wouldn't be able to do it, and if we were forced to do it or forced competitively because our competitor schools are doing it, then we wouldn't be able to participate in division i anymore. and that's not happened. we've seen that these schools are continuing to play, continuing to participate because people still want to get into division i, and they are, most of them, many of them are paying full cost of attendance. so it's just a question of how you find the money to do it, but that's the beauty and part of the name, image and likeness model is the money's not coming directly from the schools, it's
coming from a third party. third parties that would otherwise pay the schools are now paying the student-athletes and that may, in fact, be the case for some amount of money. but i don't think this is going to be the significant budgetary burden that a true performance system would be. >> gabe, i'm curious what kind of reaction did you get when you wrote this white paper? >> everybody loved it. [laughter] i think much like today, i think general agreement that this is a system that can work and, certainly, i was not the first and i'm not the last to suggest this type of system. and i think it's a system that fits with the collegiate model. i don't think et destroys the collegiate model. i think it enhances the model, takes into account most of the concerns the ncaa and people within the ncaa have statemented. i don't see a lot of reasons not to do it. i haven't heard any compelling reasons other than if we change the status quo, it will destroy the system. and i understand that fear. i don't downplay that people
have those fears, but i just downplay whether those fears are actually legitimate. i think if you think about any significant changes made to sports, people say that change will destroy the sport whether it's free agency in baseball, baseball's done fine with free agency. the other one we're on the cusp of right now for decades and decades people said the worst thing that could possibly happen in sports is if people gambled on sports. leagues are now embracing it. something that was taboo one day becomes a natural part of the system the next day, and i think this could be part of it. so i think more and more people are starting to recognize that. but this is not to suggest there won't be bobss -- obstacles, difficulties, problems to solve. but let's solve the problem. let's not just say we can't do it because it's hard. >> so, bernadette, what would be some of the biggest challenges, do you think, from the olympic model? what do you hear from schools about what the obstacles would be? >> well, again, i think continuing to tie the name, image and likeness and tie it to
the educational mission is really critically important. in terms of degrees. and, you know, one thing that i will say what gabe just mentioned, you know, the same thing happened when student-athletes were allowed to work. all of a sudden the rules changed. you can be on full scholarship, you can go get a job, you can earn extra money. i might have a job that pays me $100 an hour, you might have a job that pays you $250 an hour. and it didn't rock the world. it didn't. and so i think that, again, anytime any type of a new model is introduced in terms of, you know, we often say the devil's in the details of how is it implemented. with to olympic model, you've got the usoc. you know, the government -- the usoc that's actually implementing that model, and the athletes can have separate endorsements. you know, the comment was made those endorsements, they can't do that during the period of the
olympic game. they can do it before, they can do it after. and so you've got real fencing that goes around an overhaul of a big decision like in that really would change the economic model. >> nigel, we've talked a lot about the implications if college athletes could be paid, but we haven't talked much about the implications if they're not paid. and by that i'm thinking increasing hi in this activist movement in our society, will players at some point rise up? i mean, do you think there will be a day where we see college athletes say we're not taking the court, we're not taking the field, we're going to boycott over money? >> yes, i think so especially with the more information that's being readily available in the social media era. more research has been done, the bigger numbers -- as the number you read, 266% increase in revenue. i think that the players are realizing that, obviously, the ncaa's a business. that's why they have tv deals, that's why they do all the things they do, that's why, you
know, when i go into the ncaa tournament, i have to have a -- [inaudible] and it has to be in an ncaa cup, and they have to read the term student-athlete because it's all things that they needed to do. and all the money that has been made that the players aren't receiving, i think there's going to be a point where, you know, the players don't play. and that's, you know, it's going to take the right player or it's going to take the right team and, you know, the right big game setting when, you know, the timing is right, you know, when it's a national championship game, whether it's just a league game that's nationally televised in prime time, i think something's going to happen, and it will happen where players just go on strike, if you will, and boycott. if you want to get something done, boycott it. that's the best way to get anything done. >> do players talk about it? did you guys consider it at? >> yeah. i actually had the idea my senior year to sit out, boycott the syracuse game. which for us is part of our big ten/acc challenge.
and, you know, i presented to the guys as, you know, we had our goals that year, and it wouldn't impact any of the goals because it was a non-league game which doesn't affect the league. it's not in the ncaa tournament, so it doesn't hurt our record in any way because it's more like a forfeit type of thing than it is a loss. so it's something that i wanted to do. it was a nationally televised game on espn or espn2 at eight or something like that. it definitely caught a lot of attention, a lot of eyes. our whole team wasn't on board with it, so i made the decision, obviously, the whole team's not there, we wouldn't do it. i'm sure that talk has happened in other locker rooms, and i think that'll happen until there's either one player or one team that finally has had enough and is going to make that change. >> i'm just curious, how many plain players did you have onboard who were ready to do it? >> i started off in our team group chat. everyone was doing whatever they
were doing during the day, but i told them if one of the guys said no, we wouldn't coit. so one of our players said, no, they didn't feel comfortable with it. and, you know, of course, we're a team, we're family, we're brothers. if one guy's uncomfortable with it, we weren't going to go through with it. but i think if we did, we'd probably be having a very different conversation right now. >> what was your message going to be? because that's always one of the interesting things i think if players were to boycott, you better understand what you're protesting, what you're actually fighting for. have you thought that out what that message would have been? >> yeah, just allowing us to generate that income. again, the nil that we say, again, the olympic model is the one that's great, sounds wonderful, and i think any athlete would be on board with it because it allows them to get paid. so it's one step closer to, you know, the perfect utopia, if you will, of the ncaa and the playerings. but, you know, my, our stance and the stance i have really just allow us to make that money
and then get rid of the term impermissible benefit. .. they would like to give me free dinners because they say you play really well it's something that another player doesn't have to worry about saying they don't have enough money for food and they don't have enough money for this and that etc.. by doing that you don't have worry about the law types of issues that arise. >> you say there are unlimited deals that provide no additional meals for athletes. bernadette witty here nigel talk
about this boycott isn't something commissioners in schools talk about in this possibility? >> we talk about all possibilities. everything that affects our programs or conferences, our leagues are games, our offense so everything behind every athletic year seeing conference commissioners we talk about all of those things. think it's important to center, given we are talking about the collegiate model and there are choices out there. as an athlete don't have to play college. if you are a premier athlete you can go straight into the nba, you can go into the d league. we have that opportunity as far as any other professional opportunities. you see it in sports all the time weather in tennis or golf or anything like that.
there are a lot of different models out there but you know once you are within an institution and nigel i appreciate the fact that you talk about your team. it never always is about one person. you often have everybody contributing something and it might be something different that ends up in championships and winning and success. i think that's all part of this model that we are talking about when we talk about the ncaa student athletes and teams and again i hate using the word compensation because the employer/employee relationship entirely changes the dynamic of the educational model. >> gabe i want to talk about women's sports. >> one other point you say their options but i don't think it's necessarily an option.
to be honest myself i didn't go from high school into the mba. people complain now that they are tired of the one and done because they would like those players to stay. the two primary sports are football and men's basketball and entertainment. it's not just college athletics but it's entertainment that we give our money to be entertained and relaxed so these sports are entertainment and that's why they generate so much money. we shouldn't have to go to those others. the other options that are out there because again we are providing the service that we are and we are doing the education that we are doing and again you guys mentioned tying it into education but i definitely agree with that. also you will hear me say i really don't think -- you can now is go back to school so if
you don't succeed in basketball or don't succeed in football you always have a chance to go back and get your education. i still agree with getting an education but i don't think we should have to worry about those other endeavors. those kids that are really talented as you mentioned high school and you don't even bring them to the ncaa you will hear more people become upset because they enjoy college is entertainment. they are already upset with one and upset with wanted done and if you eliminate these marquee players in these teams you will hear moans and groans from the point where we love march madness if you take away this one and then i'm going to be really upset. >> there is always the next class. >> gave we talked earlier about this. you have studied this. how should we think through that whether it's individual
endorsements -- . >> i start by saying this is a hard analysis because one thing we know but title ix we are certainly not inking of the system at the time. we are trying to figure out how an old system applies to a new type of model but the interpretations that come with it. i would find it difficult to believe the department of education would say title ix applies to individual deals that have no connection so the student athletes were allowed to get an endorsement for nike that would qualify as title ix. if a person or an athlete or student has a job with the company i would defer to the department of education and they may be inconsistent with that. seems. clear that the group licensing deal that comes through the university will be covered by title ix and therefore we tie
into the financial prong of title ix and the number of students participating depending on their gender. so it could be one of the best things to happen is considering the men would have most and there are plenty of female student-athletes would have have plenty of value but at the star quarterback wordstar men's basketball player who's getting a 100,000-dollar deal as you said earlier you to find another 100,000-dollar to give roughly to the females you'd have to divide that in half. 50 would go to the man and 50 would go to the woman. i don't think there's a clear answer as to what title ix would give and that maybe if we do fundamentally change the system with the fundamentally change the law. as usual the law is about 79
steps behind reality and we are trying to put an old bought into new facts. it might date and nigel put it best. you can change these things but it doesn't have to be the first step in final cut -- step. >> that the one thing i was wondering women's athletes is that improving the profile of sports? >> she recently turned pro-and she's in olympic gold-medalist and she turned pro-and got endorsement. simone biles was the gold-medalist and gymnasts. she needed to get the endorsement right away.
could women forfeit some of these gains by having some of these high-profile -- . >> i think no doubt. any high-profile as was mentioned earlier the ncaa waiver and anything that brings more attention more branding more opportunity is beneficial. your answer on the title ix is probably. accurate but there's not a clear definition of whether or not it begins however was clearly a third party. however if the infrastructure of the athletic department college or university was negotiating i think you actually would have the application. >> you showed us that earlier on the screen that lack americans, 89% of college athletes 50%
white. they have called on the ncaa to change its model. how does race shape this issue? >> i think race makes people uncomfortable. it needs to be addressed and race impacts if not all almost all the ways we do things for the ncaa no different. you have 89% and i said is entertainment so when we turn on espn we are now watching softball and we are not watching -- and after a night at work we are turning on the men's basketball game and then turning on football. the majority of those players in those sports are black. i think i see how race comes into play by the ncaa and not
allowing them to be compensated. we don't want blacks to make money and we share the money you'd generate up a name with your family and that helps the economic equality of race in this country as well. i see how that can correlate with one another and i think we can suggest is something that needs to be addressed as we entertain ourselves in college sports. or watching the majority of why people playing sports on television and that's why we see 89% and we know america is not all kumbaya yet are there still racism that impacts us and i think you see that in the numbers and the disparity. >> to bernadette's point access to education. the opportunity to get a degree. is that a significant value? >> it is but i'll think we
should be limited to that. why limit ourselves to something that any american dream can go forth and take everything you can. that's how america was created. i don't see why we should stop with education. i graduated with a finance degree so education is something that i value and something we should all value but we shouldn't limit ourselves. that is the case i doubled and tripled the money i was getting from my college scholarship in four years so should i just make that backup? should we keep a tally and say if you don't cancel out you should be happy you made more or generate the revenue. do we then pay it back and say thank you very much we generated money because for me i went to college i met numerous kids but they said i am on the camera because of you guys so that's money coming into the university
and money coming in to that community and that state just because i was there playing basketball. multiply that by all the other kids in the money you get helps generate more money. >> there's also questions about what is the educational opportunity particularly in men's basketball. we know they are spending 40 hours per week in season and we are counting. when there's a discussion on what to the student athletes get in return they get a meaningful education and they say maybe it's not that -- so we will make sure they did get a meaningful education. how is that not what they should have been getting all along is a meaningful education to the question is what can they get on top of that? if they are not getting a meaningful education than what are we talking about? you can't say it's all about
education. we know it's not. we know it's not and we know it's competition but not vice versa. if you look at the northwestern situation -- go ahead. >> it's not about education. it was created to avoid workers compensation so we are not student athletes could i went to two final fours and i think we left monday which means i missed a whole week of school which is okay. that's perfectly fine but i had to write a letter and call the ncaa because i skipped class to duke committee service. that's illegal. did you know that? i didn't know that. so i'll leave to generate money for the ncaa in my school and miss a whole week of classes but
i missed one class in the summer class. i had to take the class for the record. to do community services and ncaa violation. i wasn't eligible and i did everything i needed to do so the ncaa isn't about education. it's something at the harp on as long as you can and you have to allow players to be compensated. >> that is a real issue. it's about time demand in the travel that these players have. some men's basketball players in the survey said they are spending 50 hours a week on their sports whether it's training, travel or competition. >> the ncaa again the ncaa we make up the ncaa and i think that's the unbelievable funding that is gone on to the academic
support, the tutors that travel, the ability to be able to take your exams and to make your classes. the college degree is your degree and again men's basketball student athletes across the country are graduating at a higher rate than the mail undergraduate students at all colleges and universities because of the advances in the ncaa rules and making satisfactory progress but that degree is paying for the rest of your life. you look at it hanging on your wall and it's something that's going to pay dividends for the rest of your life. there is no getting around it. football student-athletes probably miss the least amount of class time because of the way the football schedule plays out. basketball and sports i'd go off , they missed a lot of classes that the academic and
athletic is really trying to do yeoman's work enabled to provide all the services. that impacts students athletes who graduate. the ncaa does not take graduation nor do the coaches and all of those folks that are working in college athletics. getting a degree in earning a degree are as important as the national championship. >> that is something you're supposed to do. i want you to come to my school and play the sport and i wanted to win a championship you should make it easier for me to be able to go to school along with sports. the ncaa should be applauding. it's something that is a business issue. i can give you a tutor, can let you register for classes first and that we get them because you need x number of credits to be eligible.
you will stay on track. it's just what they do. i just think that further helps the cause for why it's a business and why we should be compensated or allowed to be compensated for the efforts that we do. >> i want to open up the floor for questions for q&a. if you have a question just raise your hand and we will send the microphone around. please identify yourself. >> this is for nigel. what about an option, if you were given an option to provide monetary supplementation or to pay for school, to pay for student services and health care etc. or you could pay the guaranteed money of a scholarship. what if you were given a choice? would that satisfy at?
>> know because we don't give choices in other aspects of life and our economy with capitalism, we don't do that. ncaa's business and i was an employee for that business so we don't give people that option but they don't tell them do you want this package or do you want that package and be happy with whichever one you get. take this and you get increases in this based on the accolades you have an increases and recommendations. you can transfer out and start working right away. you can make money doing other things outside of the job. i don't think that's something you should be offered to take this or take that. i shouldn't get a choice. i shouldn't have to choose. the scholarship should be offered and on top of that i should be able to do whatever comes after that. if i don't get much i'm still happy i'm here but i got an education. i'm graduating and i'm getting
all of this for my hard work. we say with if you work harder to get better and if i work harder than you and the sport then -- and not max. >> any other questions? >> sets with the interactivity foundation. i just wonder how much of this whole issue this rob lum relates to fundamental unwillingness to recognize this is a market and we are a market economy so all the little jumps and hurdles seem to be trying to make water not flow downhill. we live in a capitalist society and people have economic value why not let them make that value
coaches, the market for them is quite good so i don't see the argument for trying to uphold the system that is fundamentally against our society's values. >> bernadette do you have any thoughts on that? >> not really. in all honesty you to go with the market forces. go with the market forces and again in the earlier panel someone asked the question of a real scholarship. every coach that is recruiting every student athlete at the position one couple believes they are worth a school scholarship and that's part of their value that they bring. that student-athletes is valued by the institution that they chose to attend. there's a symbiotic relationship between -- everybody's getting value. the student-athletes are coming into program and program is marketed well and has a
nationally ranked schedule in the tradition of winning. he put those forces together and the legacy of winning continues. so you know i think that the market forces are going and the ncaa are because of the market forces. the additional cost of attendance and the additional meal that were mentioned and the ability for student-athletes to work. the ours are all the results of needs that have been defined and changes have been made. >> also the argument ostensibly is made more generally going back earlier that the rules that apply can't apply in force. what does that typically mean? one that means there's competitive balance to make sure all the players to go to the best schools and the best teams in there's an inherent competitive balance so we are really left with this idea of
amateurism. these rules are necessary to protect amateurism. amateurism is the definition of their product. the way the ncaa to find amateurs as they are not compensated for that letter ability. other than there had dollar tip and the other extensions we make a wee child line and that line is shifted over time as john pointed out. the 7th circuit has said recently yes dude and athletes are paid by their scholarship but we don't consider that paid because of a considered it paid they would not he paid. if they aren't paid they aren't amateurs and they are not amateurs. even pennies above anything untethered for their expenses as a quantum leap for what we have now. it would destroy the difference so that's why you can't look the market work. the marker works it will destroy the product and it will also
destroy nigel and every other athlete after him and their ability for education. >> a question there in the back. >> i have so many comments really quick. my july command you. i had organized for seven different athletes or special. >> my mother told me about you. thank you very much. >> i think student-athletes struggle with the restrictions although say it's just a form. not just a form. it has nothing to do with their performance on the field. nothing has been discussed about
that. the mbaa is the business. he mentioned it 52 times so why don't they have income tax on the money they are earning as a business and the last thing i can say about gambling is the nfl owners want to own the official stats. there's no reason the official players can own their stats and make money off of their stats. before i leave i can't say enough that as a teacher of 30 years a tutor does not place -- >> we are going to wrap it up here real quick. we want to do as he did with the first panel discussed on the line real quick. the athletes can get paid and
the names and images and likeness. who is the biggest winner in who is the biggest loser? >> the biggest winners are the athletes who will be able to make money off of their name like every other student on campus. i don't think there's a big loser. i think a better protects them. >> nigel. >> i agree. when income is coming in more people share a part of the ncaa. you take a smaller slice of that which is still a pretty good piece. >> earned at. >> i would say the due diligence is done. has to be a decision where everybody wins. we all know it's an port and to have the table where everyone wins. in the ncaa everyone has to win. >> it's been an incredible
discussion. let's give a round of applause to our panel. [applause] to wrap up a couple of things first thank you again for helping make this conversation possible. [applause] thank you tour team and tom fairey and marty cox. he did a live tweets today and help with a lot of the logistics and andre feldman telling me when to wrap up with time. we really appreciate it. one more thing look in your inbox. we will be giving a survey and please fill it out and if you have additional thoughts about this topic. you can learn more about us and you can see the replay of this at aspen backslash college
and then back over there. i'm still really good at it and if i were in your seat i'd really be having a good time. [laughter] i'm having a good time up here too. but when i actually went to work with families and build the primary school and told the cbi i don't have any of the skill sets nor is it ever prepared me for that. i asked some friends who got in and they said debate teach you that? ..
c-span is brought you by your cable or satellite provider. >> next, fda commissioner doctor scott gottlieb talks about food labeling in the agency's role in improving public health. he spoke during the consumer federation of the national food policy conference in washington, d.c. >> good morning. i'm delighted to introduce our first speaker of the day, doctor scott gottlieb who was sworn in as the 23rd commissioner food and drug. he's a physician, medical policy expert public health advocate his prior experience working at fda as a senior advisor to the fda commissioner and others assured he was well prepared for his current job.