Staying on the NCAA soapbox

Yesterday we briefed you on the NCAA's breathtakingly naive attempt to keep its coaches from perusing evil team-themed web sites such as this one.

But wait, there's more!

The NCAA makes itself an easy target for ridicule in more ways than one, and if you saw the recent Frontline documentary on March Madness you're well aware of that.

Reporter Lowell Bergman grilled NCAA president Mark Emmert (you can view the entire transcript here), and Emmert came off as condescending and pompous.

Really, you'd never know this guy worked for a non-profit with tax-exempt status.

Check out this passage:

Q: By the way, how much do you make as head of the NCAA?

A: Well, we don't discuss my salaries, but I'm well compensated, like many people.

Q: More than you made at the University of Washington?

A: We don't discuss our salaries.

Q: Well, I assume you didn't take a step down.

A: I'm welcome to [an] argument about the relevance of that.

Q: Oh, well, the relevance is it's a nonprofit institution, which is funded in part by federal taxpayers. We don't get any tax money from any money you make. And normally that's public information, when we know your predecessor made between $1.1 and $1.4 million, depending on what year it was. Made less?

A: I don't see that as relevant to the point here.

Um, wow.

The interview later ventures into a topic that's about to become quite controversial. As this Birmingham News article documents, the NCAA is considering allowing companies to use athletes' names, images or likenesses in advertisements, promotions or other ventures.

It's not hard to figure out that the NCAA and its schools are more desperate than usual for new revenue streams in these shaky economic times.

The initial proposal, for instance, would allow game footage of current athletes to appear in TV ads, as long as the ads mention the name of the athlete's institution. Companies could publicize sales events by saying athletes would be present to sign autographs.

In both cases, the sponsor would benefit from the athlete's image or presence. The school would benefit with money from the sponsor. The athlete would remain unpaid.

"This issue isn't about about amateurism. It's about the NCAA squeezing every last dollar out of the players," said Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association.

"We're not saying the schools shouldn't be able to make money by advertising the players. We're saying the players should get a cut, and it doesn't make them professionals if they do. It doesn't strain the system. It doesn't cost the NCAA one dime."

This development comes as former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, with other former athletes, is suing the NCAA over the use of their names and likenesses.

Back to the interview with Emmert:

Q: OK, well, I'll come back to that. This is the form that all athletes have to sign, NCAA's form, right?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: They can't play without it, right?

A: Right.

Q: They have to sign this, and it has a clause in it that says that they agree that their image ... basically is the property of the NCAA and the institution that they're playing for, that they're part of. Is that the basis for the NCAA selling their images on your website or selling videos of old games to ESPN Classic and so on?

A: Well, first of all, there's some pending litigation around the whole likeness issue, so I'm really not at liberty to comment on the status of all that.

Q: You have a contract with a company called CLC [Collegiate Licensing Company] -- the NCAA -- to market images and what else?

A: They market trademarks. They do for almost every university -- not every, but the vast majority of colleges and universities in the country, trademarks and logos.

Q: And that includes your games, your T-shirts, anything else that's produced?

A: Most universities. Of course the NCAA logo is not a particularly hot seller, but, you know, university trademarks are.

Q: So you say you can't comment on it because of a litigation, but can you comment on the issue of imagery? Because at your last convention you talked about expanding possible legislation and other actions to expand the use of the imagery of players and the games for the NCAA to get additional revenue.

A: It's a hotly debated issue among the membership for a variety of complicated reasons, one that student-athletes themselves have strong opinions on. We have been working with our Student-Athlete Advisory Committees [SAACs] on trying to find a model that would support institutions being able to use images effectively and do so in a way that student-athletes feel good about.

If this legislation goes through and the NCAA rakes in even more dough off these kids, while telling these kids that they can't make a dime, the NCAA's position will be indefensible.

As if it isn't already.

LW