A.J. Green Suspended Four Games, NCAA Comes Down Hard On Jersey Sale

by Brian Floyd on Sep 8, 2010 2:02 PM PDT in College Football

Georgia wide receiver A.J. Green sold his game-worn jersey from last year's Independence Bowl for $1,000, catching the eye of the NCAA and resulting in a four game suspension.

Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Tim Tucker broke the news on Twitter.

NEWS: A.J. Green has been suspended by the NCAA for four games.less than a minute ago via webTim Tucker
ajcuga

I was all ready to slam the NCAA for coming down hard on a player that simply sold a jersey. The key here is that he sold the jersey to a person that fit the NCAA definition of an agent. That, in my opinion, is looking for a roundabout way to take improper benefits.

The A.J. Green investigation does raise an important issue, though. I'll be clear, I don't condone selling the jersey. It was a stupid move that definitely violates NCAA rules. At the same time, how much money do universities make off selling both game-worn and replica jerseys every year? How many practice- and game-worn jerseys does WSU sell at surplus?

Universities are already making a ton of money off its athletes by capitalizing on their on-field performances. I understand why an athlete would want to make their own cut of it, selling off something of value to make an extra dollar. In Green's case, selling it to an "agent" was stupid, but what if it wasn't an agent? It still violates the NCAA rules and still would be punished, but is it really wrong?

If the NCAA, and the institutions under its supervision, uses players' likenesses to market the product, why don't players get a cut? Is it wrong for a player to want a piece and take it into their own hands? Personally, I don't think it is. I understand that what Green did wasn't smart, but I also understand why a player would do it.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Like it or not, it's an extra benefit

You and I can’t sell our game-worn jerseys, because we don’t have any. He’s profiting from his status as a student athlete. We can disagree if we want, but it’s a pretty cut-and-dry violation of NCAA rules.

CougCenter | SB Nation Seattle | @NussCoug

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 8, 2010 2:44 PM PDT reply actions

I don't disagree at all that it's a violation and I understand the punishment

It’s just confusing that institutions can profit greatly on the backs of their athletes without the athletes seeing the benefits. It’s an odd dilemma I struggle with.

CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug

by Brian Floyd on Sep 8, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Me too

But does it surprise you that those with the power continue to enforce policies that disenfranchise the workforce that pays their enormous salaries?

CougCenter | SB Nation Seattle | @NussCoug

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 8, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Touche

Not really surprising.

CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug

by Brian Floyd on Sep 8, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Institutional Profiting ...

… technically, these institutions don’t “profit” given the fact that almost all of them are required to reinvest these proceeds into the university in some manner.

I agree that college players ought to be compensated, but not because they are “making money” for the university. That line of reasoning leads us down the path of debating professionalism vs amateurism which is an argument I don’t think we really want to have.

However, participating in these sports is a full-time commitment and they players really don’t have good options for part-time employment. There ought to be a pretty easy “fair market value” calculation that compensates these athletes for time spent participating in the sport that would have otherwise gone to a part-time job. That, plus per diems, plus a scholarship is a pretty fair situation.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Sep 8, 2010 5:30 PM PDT reply actions

Totally agree.

by Kyle Rancourt on Sep 8, 2010 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Bingo

There ought to be a pretty easy "fair market value" calculation that compensates these athletes for time spent participating in the sport that would have otherwise gone to a part-time job.

And yeah, that’s what I meant by profit. The institutions are making money that goes back into the athletic department by using the athletes are marketing tools.

CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug

by Brian Floyd on Sep 8, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Uh, try telling the coach that's making seven figures or the A.D. making $200K

Or the academic department that sees increased donations or the president that sees overall enrollment jump — all because of successful athletics programs — that sports are not profitable.

No, it doesn’t profit in the way a corporate entity does, but the people at the top are getting rich all the same.

CougCenter | SB Nation Seattle | @NussCoug

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 8, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions