![Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fres.cloudinary.com%2Fscarinci-hollenbeck%2Fimages%2Ff_auto%2Cq_auto%2Fv1676448213%2Fwp.scarincihollenbeck%2Fsh-mini-diamond-500x500-1%2Fsh-mini-diamond-500x500-1.png%3F_i%3DAA&w=256&q=75)
Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAuthor: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC|November 11, 2013
Amateur athletes are not able to profit from their likenesses until they leave school upon graduation for a professional league’s draft. Two University of Oregon basketball players recently violated this sports law when they sold shoes provided to them by the school.
Sophomores Dominic Artis and Ben Carter were both suspended, and could miss from nine to 12 games for the violation. The money the players made from the shoe sale will need to be donated to charity.
“Ben and Dominic are two good young men who made a poor decision that was against NCAA rules,” said Oregon coach Dana Altman. “I feel that both regret their decisions and the impact that it has on their teammates and our university.”
This situation once again brings to the forefront one of the biggest issues in amateur athletics – should players be paid? With major sports such as football and basketball bringing in so much money for colleges and universities, the argument could be made that players deserve a cut.
For example, the University of Texas football team generated $104.5 million in the 2011 to 2012 academic year, according to Business Insider. As a whole, the athletic department brought in $163.3 million.
Critics of pay-to-play models argue that college athletes are already receiving a free education – valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars in most situations . Additionally, it would be difficult to come up with a system of how to pay players of different skill levels. For instance, would Johnny Manziel make more than the offensive linemen who block for him during every game?
There is one certainty – fewer college athletes would be suspended each year if they were allowed to be paid. But, then there would be an added worry of sports agents attempting to take advantage of these young men and women by providing them with funds to sign a contract with their agency.
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAmateur athletes are not able to profit from their likenesses until they leave school upon graduation for a professional league’s draft. Two University of Oregon basketball players recently violated this sports law when they sold shoes provided to them by the school.
Sophomores Dominic Artis and Ben Carter were both suspended, and could miss from nine to 12 games for the violation. The money the players made from the shoe sale will need to be donated to charity.
“Ben and Dominic are two good young men who made a poor decision that was against NCAA rules,” said Oregon coach Dana Altman. “I feel that both regret their decisions and the impact that it has on their teammates and our university.”
This situation once again brings to the forefront one of the biggest issues in amateur athletics – should players be paid? With major sports such as football and basketball bringing in so much money for colleges and universities, the argument could be made that players deserve a cut.
For example, the University of Texas football team generated $104.5 million in the 2011 to 2012 academic year, according to Business Insider. As a whole, the athletic department brought in $163.3 million.
Critics of pay-to-play models argue that college athletes are already receiving a free education – valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars in most situations . Additionally, it would be difficult to come up with a system of how to pay players of different skill levels. For instance, would Johnny Manziel make more than the offensive linemen who block for him during every game?
There is one certainty – fewer college athletes would be suspended each year if they were allowed to be paid. But, then there would be an added worry of sports agents attempting to take advantage of these young men and women by providing them with funds to sign a contract with their agency.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.