Staff Photo by Dan Henry / The Chattanooga Times Free Press- 4/15/14. Staff MugsUCLA signed a 15-year, $280-million apparel deal with Under Armour. It's the largest contract of its kind in college sports, and one that surely makes the ends meet for a power program.
That kind of coin raised a very interesting question from the most notable "amateur" athlete playing for the Bruins. UCLA quarterback Josh Rosen, who barring injury will be a very lofty draft pick when he becomes eligible to declare (which is an entirely different discussion altogether), took to social media to discuss the recent deal.
"We're still amateurs though Gotta love non-profits. #NCAA."
OK, off the top, I believe the discussions to pay players greatly undervalue the price of the scholarship and the value of an education - and the ability to get a degree and be debt free entering the work force. That must be weighed in greater force.
But for all of us who believe that the obscene money that is generated by these athletes and given to the coaches makes it harder and harder to continue to dismiss the points about paying the players.
Yes, there are multiple layers to that onion, be they federal (Title IX) or simply funding. But Rosen's point is well made, especially in this matter.
Why does Under Armour want to partner with UCLA?
Because the school has won a record 113 national championships across all sports. Because it lands great players and plays on the national scale in a lot of sports. And because the Bruins have star athletes who are nationally known.
Players such as Rosen fill both categories. He's a potential No. 1 overall NFL draft choice. He could be a Heisman candidate each of the next two seasons.
And to pretend that does not add to the attractiveness of UCLA, at least in the short term, to potential business partners is simply silly. (The fact that Ed O'Bannon - the former basketball player who sued the NCAA and EA Sports for making a ton of money on college players' likenesses in video games - played for the Briuns makes the deal richer on a different level.)
So, moving forward, why can't a percentage of every apparel deal like this one be used as the stipend support for all the athletes?
Let's examine the UCLA deal as an experiment.
If you give 10 percent to the student-athletes, that's $1.867 million annually over the course of the deal. With 21 varsity scholarship sports, unofficially that's probably about 500 or so scholarship athletes, give or take. That's an extra $3,733 per athlete for wearing free clothes.
That's at least a start, especially for the power programs where the merchandise and memorabilia generate significant coin.
It would be an outside-funded way to reward the athletes for making the brand attractive. It also offers at least a somewhat ethical exchange for the fact that Rosen's complaint is fair because his No. 3 Under Armour jersey would be a top seller if it hit the market.
One of the main concerns about giving players royalties on the sales from their jerseys is the potential for corruption. Maybe a star recruit leans toward Power Program A because Rich Booster Tex will buy 100,000 of his No. 3 jerseys. It's a realistic concern, and the dirty level of college sports sadly forces us to a place that every decision has to be vetted for potential loopholes that allow corruption.
But a set percentage of every apparel deal - with a fixed ceiling (so Nike and Phil Knight do not sign Oregon to a $1 billion deal that would offer a huge pool; see what we mean about loopholes?) - to be parsed to all the athletes could work.
Contact Jay Greeson at jgreeson@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6343. Follow him on Twitter @jgreesontfp.