The Manziel Loophole and the NCAA

[danwismar]

Interesting article by Clay Travis on the "Manziel loophole" and the trap that the NCAA appears to have laid for itself...he says it may be all about the pending EA Sports lawsuit against the NCAA

http://outkickthecoverage.com/johnny-ma ... s-rule.php

Excerpting...

Last week Manziel's corporation, JMan2 Enterprises -- can you imagine the Christmas parties? -- filed a lawsuit against a man who was selling "Johnny Football" t-shirts. While Manziel can't profit off the direct sale of t-shirts featuring his name or likeness, the NCAA has ruled that he can trademark the phrase and protect his property interest from being infringed upon.

Only, that's not all he can do. The NCAA recently notified Texas A&M that, "a student-athlete can keep financial earnings as a result of a legal action."

You see the loophole you can drive a Rolls-Royce through yet?

Manziel can't directly profit off the sale of licensed products featuring his likeness, but he can pocket any proceeds that arise from a trademark lawsuit. Which is basically the same thing.

Raising this interesting question, what's to keep a bunch of Texas A&M boosters from intentionally infringing on Manziel's trademark, being sued for doing so, and then settling out of court for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal payments to Manziel?

Nothing.

In other words, isn't this ruling a license for boosters to legally pay Manziel to play college football?

Yep.

What's more, it's not just Manziel who has this opportunity. Every star player should work to trademark his likeness so that he can protect his future earnings potential. Trying to decide whether to go pro or stay in college, but really need to make some money off your talents while you're in college? Just find a booster who is willing to infringe upon your trademark, sue him, have him agree to settle, and voila, the payment becomes permissible under NCAA rules.

This is genius.

[pod2dawg]

God Bless America.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Someone owes Johnny Unitas some money.

I used to like this little puke too.

And eff the NCAA in all holes.

[furls]

I think Travis is overstating the reach of this. Granted on its surface it appears as though this sort of thing could become a new issue for the NCAA, but I think it will have limited utility as a way for boosters to sidestep the NCAA rules about paying players. The courts will not appreciate becoming an instrument in a pay for play scandal and will move to prevent litigation like this, particularly if they find that there is a pre-existing relationship between the booster and the athlete. This pre-existing relationship with the express purpose of designing out of court settlements would actually create a "Principal/Agent" legal relationship between the two, potentially nullifying (on questions of implied authority) the lawsuit and drawing the amateurism of the athlete into question.

When I say "Prinicipal/Agent" relationship, I don't mean agent in the sports agent sense, but in the Agency Law sense.

It makes for good reading, but it is a fantasy. I don't think we are going to see a rash of southern athletes suing for trademark infringement in the near future. They will keep picking up their envelopes full of cash just like they have for the last few decades because it is traditional, easy, impossible to track and you don't have to pay taxes! The NCAA is so inept that such a scheme is not even necessary, they can't even bust Cam Newton even when they have audio tape of his dad demanding a couple of hundred K for his kid to play.

It is not like the players in really have to launder the money or answer difficult questions about where they got their dozen $2K suits or $40K cars sitting on $5K of rims and wheels. Why bother?

[peeker643]

Agree with Furls. Envelopes under pillows and new rides for mom and dad still will be the currency of choice. No need to pad the lawyers pockets any more than they already are.

[neoleo]

I think Travis is overstating the reach of this. Granted on its surface it appears as though this sort of thing could become a new issue for the NCAA, but I think it will have limited utility as a way for boosters to sidestep the NCAA rules about paying players. The courts will not appreciate becoming an instrument in a pay for play scandal and will move to prevent litigation like this, particularly if they find that there is a pre-existing relationship between the booster and the athlete. This pre-existing relationship with the express purpose of designing out of court settlements would actually create a "Principal/Agent" legal relationship between the two, potentially nullifying (on questions of implied authority) the lawsuit and drawing the amateurism of the athlete into question.

When I say "Prinicipal/Agent" relationship, I don't mean agent in the sports agent sense, but in the Agency Law sense.

It makes for good reading, but it is a fantasy. I don't think we are going to see a rash of southern athletes suing for trademark infringement in the near future. They will keep picking up their envelopes full of cash just like they have for the last few decades because it is traditional, easy, impossible to track and you don't have to pay taxes! The NCAA is so inept that such a scheme is not even necessary, they can't even bust Cam Newton even when they have audio tape of his dad demanding a couple of hundred K for his kid to play.

It is not like the players in really have to launder the money or answer difficult questions about where they got their dozen $2K suits or $40K cars sitting on $5K of rims and wheels. Why bother?

Exactly. Nothing to see here.