The NCAA on Wednesday approved a plan that will allow student-athletes to earn money from endorsements and a number of other ventures, including social media.
It's a big step toward college athletes being paid for use of their likeness, names and images, for which they previous were not permitted to earn money -- even though universities could.
It also came a day before a number of states across the country enacted legislation that would have made the NCAA rules about college athletes not being able to earn money moot. So the NCAA did this kicking and screaming.
As such, it probably doesn't go far enough. While the shift is a major change in the NCAA's amateurism rules, it also will create an uneven playing field.
The new rules will allow athletes to profit from signing autographs, teaching camps or lessons, starting their own businesses, accepting money from advertisers for use of their likeness and monetizing social media accounts. Athletes also will be permitted to sign with agents or other representatives to help them acquire endorsement deals.
But it keeps intact rules in place that prohibit universities from paying athletes directly.
What does this mean?
Think about it. Athletes at some of the more prestigious college programs are going to reap the benefits from this rule. Others? Not so much.
And for players such as Steelers wide receiver JuJu Smith-Schuster, who makes a lot of money off the field, that could be a reason to stay in school another year. Maybe Smith-Schuster, a master marketer, would have stayed at USC for another year instead of turning pro at 20 years old. That's not a bad thing.
But don't think for a second that, for example, if a school such as Alabama wants a highly touted recruit such as Najee Harris, it won't be able to find a booster who can funnel some money his way for "use of his likeness" in a marketing campaign.
That could create a whole new set of issues for the NCAA.
There's also differing rules across the country when it comes to gambling, tobacco and alcohol. Some states have no issue allowing athletes to endorse such things. Others do. And the NCAA won't prohibit those things in states that permit them.
So, it's not even close to a level playing field.
The NCAA is saying these rules are temporary. That had better be the case. This is just too bland of a deal to solve any of the issues. It's simply a Band-Aid.
Until the colleges themselves, which have reaped the benefits of practically free labor -- a scholarship, room and board is nothing when programs are bringing in millions -- start paying the athletes directly, this only increases the differences between the haves and have nots.
The NCAA is allowing players to earn money from outside sources. But none of this will affect the bottom line itself for its member universities, which keep their hold on free labor intact.
YOUR TURN: Is the NCAA on the right track with allowing college players to earn money from outside sources?
