We knew this was coming: College football jerseys

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/sports/ncaafootball/days-of-selling-popular-college-players-jerseys-seem-numbered.html?emc=edit_th_20150806&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=31957207&_r=0

Last year any ohio state fan could buy an officially licensed Buckeyes football jersey bearing No. 97. Though N.C.A.A. rules prohibit colleges from selling jerseys with players’ names on them, Ohio State fans understood what a scarlet jersey with a white 97 meant: a tribute to the star defensive end Joey Bosa, who wears the number when the Buckeyes play.

But as a federal court deliberates on whether it is fair for universities to make money off the commercial use of athletes’ names, images and likenesses, a growing number of colleges have quietly decided to stop selling team jerseys with popular players’ numbers.

Instead, they are using ostensibly anodyne digits. This season, for instance, official Ohio State jerseys available for sale will bear only No. 1 or No. 15 — a reference to 2015. (Jerseys with other numbers are currently available, but they are pre-existing inventory; Cardale Jones fans must scoop up his No. 12 before it sells out for good.)

The court's decision delays colleges from offering athletes compensation for the commercial use of their names and likenesses for now.Court Grants Stay in O’Bannon CaseJULY 31, 2015
The former U.C.L.A. basketball player Ed O'Bannon and his legal team have argued that athletes are entitled to a piece of the billion-dollar business of college sports.Catching Up With the O’Bannon Ruling, Soon to Go Into EffectJULY 29, 2015
In the future, university officials said, Ohio State’s retail jerseys will follow that new pattern of featuring either No. 1 or the last two digits of the year. Other numbers will be available, but only on personalized jerseys that feature a buyer-selected name, which cannot be that of a current or former player.

This season official Ohio State jerseys available for sale will bear only No. 1 or No. 15 — as in, 2015. Ezekiel Elliott, the Buckeyes’ Heisman-hopeful running back, happens to wear that number. Credit Cooper Neill for The New York Times
The change is partly a result of the Ed O’Bannon case, which explicitly challenged colleges’ right to make money off players’ images without compensation. On Friday, a federal appeals court temporarily stayed a ruling that declared that N.C.A.A. rules banning such compensation were a violation of antitrust laws.

While the college sports establishment has appealed that ruling, and could still prevail in court, the lawsuit and the discussion surrounding it appear to have prompted introspection about whether some forms of commercialization in college sports are too personal. Last year, before the O’Bannon decision, the N.C.A.A. told members that athletes need not be required to sign releases for the use of their names and likenesses for promotional purposes.

“It’s philosophical — where we should be,” Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith said of his department’s decision to limit the jerseys it sells. He cited the O’Bannon case and “other issues,” adding, “We felt it was the right time.”

Ohio State is not alone. Miami and Nebraska told news outlets in recent weeks that they were adopting similar policies. Mississippi State confirmed that it would offer jerseys with Nos. 1, 15 and 78. (The university was founded in 1878.) A spokesman said Michigan would sell Nos. 1 and 16 (this year’s seniors are the class of 2016) and also No. 4 — the number Coach Jim Harbaugh wore when he was the Wolverines’ quarterback in the 1980s — while a spokesman for Connecticut said it would sell only No. 15.

The policy is a “bit of a departure,” said Rick Van Brimmer, Ohio State’s director of trademarks and licensing. But he said many Big Ten members were of the same mind, and programs in other conferences have made similar changes. An Arizona spokesman said that the university exclusively sold No. 14 last season and would sell only No. 15 this season. Duke, according to Athletic Director Kevin White, is in discussions about moving in that direction as well, although it has not made a final decision.

Scott Wetherbee, the senior associate athletic director for external affairs at Mississippi State, said his department’s decision to move away from jerseys closely linked to popular players — a policy that began with last season’s basketball jerseys — was not just a pre-emptive reaction to the potential fallout from the O’Bannon case.

“We started to talk about whether you’re taking advantage of a student-athlete, their likeness, their number,” he said. “I think most people understand the landscape has changed a little bit, and we need to be smart.”

In the future, Wetherbee said, players will not be assigned the numbers of for-sale jerseys. (Mississippi State quarterback Dak Prescott, a Heisman Trophy favorite, happens to wear No. 15.) Wetherbee also said he hoped that the absence of player-specific jerseys would “take pressure off a kid.”

Yet not all colleges have made the change. University representatives from Oregon and Southern California said their team jersey sales would continue as before. A search of U.S.C.’s online shop revealed jerseys with the No. 6 worn by quarterback Cody Kessler, another Heisman contender.

“The feedback we’ve received from current players and their families is they want jerseys with their numbers on them available to be sold,” Tim Tessalone, a U.S.C. spokesman, said. “We also have our players sign name-likeness permission forms. And for former players, we go directly to them for permission.”

The changes are not likely to have huge financial repercussions. Jersey sales constitute about 5 percent of the college apparel business, compared with 25 percent to 30 percent in professional leagues, according to the licensed sports merchandise retailer Fanatics, in part because top college athletes spend at most a few years on campus.

“It will naturally have some impact, but it’s not going to be a difference maker,” said Gary Gertzog, Fanatics’ executive vice president for business affairs.

And in the context of athletics departments that bring in tens of millions of dollars every year through broadcast rights, donations and ticket sales, jersey sales are, in the words of the Oregon spokesman Craig Pintens, “such a small fraction of the overall revenue picture.”

Still, the mere existence of replica jerseys shows they have value, perhaps buttressing the main argument in the O’Bannon case.

“I think if schools are selling jerseys with the numbers of their ‘star’ players, they’re intentionally admitting that there’s commercial value in individual players beyond just the team uniform,” said Warren Zola, executive director of the Boston College Chief Executives Club at the Carroll School of Management.

By contrast, Zola added, in the past, “the N.C.A.A. has indicated, and individual presidents and athletic directors have indicated, that the value emanates from university and conference, not from individual students.”

At least in Ohio State’s case, it will be difficult to use this season’s jersey sales to discern whether the N.C.A.A.’s argument is valid: This fall, fans might choose No. 15 for more obvious reasons.

“Ezekiel Elliott happens to be 15,” Ohio State’s Smith said of the Buckeyes’ bruising, Heisman-hopeful running back. “Next year, J. T. Barrett,” Smith said of their sophomore quarterback, who will presumably continue to wear No. 16 in 2016.

That is a coincidence, Smith said, and the problem should be cleared up by the 2020s. “The lower numbers are the ones that sell,” he said.

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/07/jim_hackett_ed_obannon_case.html#incart_most-commented_wolverines

CHICAGO -- Behind the curtain of the buildup to the college football season, a seismic change to the structure of collegiate athletics is ready to resonate on Saturday.

Following last summer's federal ruling that the NCAA broke antitrust laws by not allowing member universities to share broadcast and video-game revenue with athletes, schools will now have the ability to offer trust funds -- a share of those licensing revenues -- with football and men's basketball players.

The ruling, stemming from former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon's 2009 lawsuit against the NCAA, goes into effect Saturday. O'Bannon sued the NCAA for using his name and image in TV broadcasts and video games and won a three-week trial that played out last summer in Oakland, California.

While the NCAA has appealed that ruling -- and an appellate court could overturn it or grant a stay this week -- universities can now offer that shared revenue.

According to interim athletic director Jim Hackett, Michigan is not making any decisions at the moment. Speaking with reporters at Big Ten football media day on Friday, Hackett said the conference will serve as "a filter for action" and "we have work to do as a community to understand all the variables inside of this."

In other words, while the option is available, immediate action is unlikely.

Last summer's ruling by Judge Claudia Wilken only determined the NCAA cannot prevent universities from sharing licensing revenues with athletes. I did not, however, require it. Per The New York Times, "While (Wilken) sided with O'Bannon, finding the NCAA's arguments about amateurism lacking, she suggested universities offer athletes trust funds that could be capped at $5,000 each year to be tapped after their playing careers."

As for the million dollar question -- Will Michigan offer a revenue share? -- Hackett said the market will dictate decisions.

"That's a premature assumption," Hackett said Michigan offering money. "It's a permissive ruling, which means you don't have to, but you're free to. So it's a really fair question. ... Free markets have a way of moving things this way. But the good news is, I get to say candidly, that I just walked into this and I'm not thinking about it. Doing is the next step."

Hackett noted that a statement has been released by Big Ten athletic directors to all conference coaches that says "we understand the ruling and now we're about trying to make it happen."

As for the Big Ten's role in the decision, while Hackett said the league will be a "filter," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said since the option is based on a permissive legislation, "Those judgements will remain from school to school."

Delany added that he's "not sure" what schools will decide to do.

One major obstacle in university's decisions regarding revenue sharing is the impact on non-revenue sports. Since sports beyond football and men's basketball don't produce comparative licensing revenues, those student-athletes won't see any money stemming from the O'Bannon ruling.

"We've spent time absorbing it -- this is a landmark case and it has a lot of variable to it and it really needs a commitment to the academic standing," Hackett said. "Think of that as a trade. You can't trade the academic standing of any of these institutions and we can't trade equity because the case only distributes to one gender and two sports. We have 31 teams at Michigan. There's already a movie of how things went when you only thought of one group of your people getting value. That was before Title IX."

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is currently handling the NCAA's appeal. According to The Times, "The NCAA recently requested a stay to delay the injunction -- and the trust funds -- writing that universities and students would be 'irreparably harmed' if it took effect.

"We hope we will get a favorable ruling," Delany said. "We may or we may not. We were also hoping the Ninth Circuit would publish an opinion before August 1st -- that's tomorrow. It may happen, it may not. But once we understand what the NCAA rule changes are, I'm sure there will be lots of details that will need to be addressed and we'll do that."

I'm 100% with O'Bannon on this one. If they jersey is selling because the player's number is on it, or the stats in a video game are pretty much the same as the player in real life, the player should be compensated.

This is way over due IMHO.