Johnny Be Dumb As Manziel's Mayhem Outpaces NCAA's Hypocrisy Aug 5th 2013, 12:33
If he did this, and given that it is a clear violation of NCAA Bylaw 12.5.2.1 which forbids student-athletes from accepting money for promoting or advertising the commercial sale of a product or service, then Johnny Manziel has once again demonstrated incredibly poor judgment.
That said, a separate question to consider is whether Manziel and other student-athletes should be allowed to generate a little extra income from autograph signings. This topic has been debated countless times over the last 20 years in boardrooms, classrooms, and bars all across the country, but Manziel's visibility will undoubtedly bring this matter to the forefront yet again.
As we know, the NCAA is currently facing a significant challenge to its monopsony power over student-athletes vis-a-vis the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit which is seeking to give college athletes a chance to profit from the use of their name and likeness.
Philosophically, I believe an athlete should be allowed to profit from their brand. And prior to his summer's worth of shenanigans, no brand in college sports was more palpable than Johnny Football's.
There is no question there is considerable hypocrisy in college sports. According to the 2011-12 numbers from the U.S. Department of Education, Texas A&M's football revenues were $ 44.4 million. This data does not reflect the 2012-13 season which was their first in the SEC. So to discover that they exceeded $ 50 million would not be surprising. Point being, college football for them – as it is for so many – is the school's cash cow.
And though the value that most student-athletes are compensated with in terms of scholarships, high-level training, quality facilities, academic tutoring, and marketing exposure far exceeds the marginal revenue product they generate for their school, there is no question that Manziel is an exception. Texas A&M jumped in jersey sales largely on the back of Manziel's breakthrough season, autographed helmets can be purchased through the university, and a table with Manziel and fellow Heisman winner John David Crow at a recent school banquet was recently sold for $ 20,000.
But for now, the rules are the rules…and Manziel had to know these rules. If he did accept money for signing autographs, he had to know this was wrong. Unfortunately, this alleged act – should it be true – is just another in a string of off-field moronic moves which Manziel has been associated with since routing Oklahoma in the AT&T Cotton Bowl.
The so-called "Olympic Model" (in reference to when the International Olympic Committee began to allow athletes to be paid for endorsements, memorabilia deals and other business opportunities) is likely the most reasonable way moving forward to allow student-athletes to commercialize and monetize their individual brands without creating a complex compensation plan for all student-athletes. All other student-athletes are allowed to earn money in any fashion they see fit, so why deny market making opportunities for those individuals who may have the most to gain from monetizing their brand?
But as hypocritical the NCAA's monopsony behavior is, it still isn't as moronic as Johnny Manziel's off-field behavior since early January 2013. If he indeed received money for signing autographs, this misstep will severely sabotage the Aggies 2013 season. But perhaps more importantly for Manziel, it will significantly deflate the power of his brand and his attractiveness as an NFL prospect…especially if he enters the 2014 draft with only a handful of games under his belt from the 2013 season.
FACEBOOK COMMENT
