Why did Cardale have to sign such a contract and Brady didn't? Because, unlike Brady, he has no right to representation or any ability to negotiate.
John Cena and the Rock signed the contract which gives their likeness to Vince McMahon.... But they had representation too. They didn't have to do it. The Rock even comes from a long line of wrestlers and fully understood what was happening. They chose to do it because they'll be far better off than they would be without the system provided. Likewise, Cardale chose to sign the contract because his life is inexplicable better than any other option he has.... like paying for school, or not going to school. I'm all for elite high school players going to Europe to play or baseball players going to the minor league. Just don't see why people scream exploitation when it comes to college sports. Players get a good deal.
Did John Cena or The Rock get paid (as professionals) by Vince McMahon when they signed their contracts? They were paid performers (not even athletes) in a for profit venture and were free to negotiate whatever deal they wanted. If The Rock or John Cena didn't like the deal they negotiated, they could have sought another contract from another competing wrestling company.
What on Earth does John Cena and The Rock have to do with a 17 year-old high school kid who wants to play some amateur football and get an education at a non-profit higher education institution? Are you suggesting this 17-year old kid is a paid professional like The Rock or John Cena? If so, let's get him an agent who can negotiate his contract and make sure he has the opportunity to bargain for pay, control over his likeness, health care benefits and other things I'm sure The Rock or John Cena bargained for. On the other hand, we could just do the common-sense thing and allow student-athletes (who are supposedly not employees or paid contractors) to opt out of letting their universities or the NCAA own their individual likenesses and use them to sell products or services.
I'm not suggesting that college sports scholarships are (en masse) a bad deal for kids that have such an opportunity. However, just because something is more good than not doesn't mean it's entirely free of faults forever and doesn't need any reforms.
Also, the whole notion of signing a written contract to be a "amateur athlete" while simultaneously signing over your likeness to another party that can generate revenue from it seems inherently contradictory. If you're an amateur athlete in an amateur sports league, neither party ought to be able to make money off a players likeness (at least without explicit permission). If the player wants to be a good guy and just grant his institution such a right (over his likeness) so that funds made can be used to fund the team's budget (e.g., recruiting, coaching, facilities, etc.) or to help finance non-revenue sports, then let him grant such an approval.
I thought the players do have a say when they sign their letter of intent. I'm guessing most players don't read the scholarship offer though when they're doing the hat dance.
Most players do read it even though there's not much point because it cannot be negotiated. What kind of contract is one that cannot be negotiated anyway? It sounds a bit like a contract that only a monopoly power could get away with using.
So the kid can either opt to sign a letter of intent and transfer total control over his likeness to another party (who is supposed to be a nonprofit organization dedicated to higher learning), or he can stick to his guns and forgo any opportunity to play an amateur sport and earn a scholarship doing so. This does not seem like a reasonable balance.
Most players would probably do so anyway. The resentment (rightfully) comes from when the player has no control or say in the matter.
And I resent the players that whine and complain about playing a sport (which I did for free) while getting a free college education (which I did not) and a lot of other perks (which I got maybe a 1/4). If you don't want to play a sport in college, don't play a sport in college. If that's your only option to go to college, be grateful.
The reason you did your sport for free (or mostly for free) is because nobody cares that much about it, so you don't have any bargaining power at all. Also, you're a dude in a non-revenue activity which means your potential scholarship dollars are a possible casualty of Title IX.
When I was a kid, I was really good at soccer. I was a better soccer player than a football player. However, I decided one day to change to football because nobody cares about soccer (myself included).
Contracts are exploitive and worthy of complaints all the time. That doesn't mean they ought not be followed nor does it mean that Cardale violated his.
I never said Cardale violated his contract. I did say that he's full of sour grapes because he's going to have a cup of coffee at most in the NFL and that he really has nothing to complain about.
If he's upset over how the system works, he should speak up about it. There is plenty fouled up about it, and there's nothing wrong with reforming an institution so it works better.
Let's talk about what Cardale said:
CJ's statement:
"I'm so happy to be done with the @NCAA and their rules & regulation. They do any & everything to exploited collegiate athletes."
MRCat's response:
The NCAA rules and regulations are highly complex, seemingly arbitrary and often highly punitive towards athletes. The rules have largely been written for the benefit of the NCAA institutions (and the segments of power within them) to the detriment of athletes whenever athletes' best interests don't align with the member institutions. Cardale's statement is not only factual, but pretty much just common sense.
CJ's statement:
"It's deeper than athletes thinking we should get paid. The@NCAA control our lives with insane and unfair rules"
MRCat's response:
Yup, the NCAA does pretty much control student-athletes lives. Many rules are seemingly insane and unfair (to athletes) and generally benefit the NCAA member institutions.
CJ's statement:
"Why shouldn't a collegiate athlete be able to use their OWN likeness/brand to benefit themselves but yet the @NCAA can sell there jerseys"
MRCat's response:
Yup, there is huge hypocrisy there and Cardale's accurately pointing it out. (The solution is for the NCAA or member institutions to stop the practice of licensing player jerseys to clothing stores / manufacturers.)
CJ's statement:
"That's my 2cent on the @NCAA .It's not like that's going to change how the athletes are exploited, even tho 98% of people feel the same way"
MRCat's response:
I don't know if the 98% figure is right, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was actually higher than that (among NCAA athletes). Yes, the NCAA controls a lot of money and is very powerful. Generally speaking, the only thing that will likely get them to reform are things like union movements or anti-trust lawsuits because why else would they? Powerful (and monopolistic) organizations generally do not make reforms unless they feel credibly threatened by legal actions.
