As someone involved in clubs on campus, the school really clamped down on this in the early 2010s while still on Adidas. The headache to go through to get something, especially something custom, with the block M on it is insane. There is an extremely limited list of vendors who can only do certain things, and the application process for getting something new took well over a year (or at least things I was working on weren’t resolved while I was still in school).
As others have said, this doesn’t mean the university shouldn’t be ahead on this one, but with the way things were set up it isn’t surprising it will take time. Similar processes are in place at all schools, but the M is a bigger deal, much more recognizable than probably every other schools logos, and as a result there is more control over how to use it.
If we’re having even remotely the same concerns/conversation about this in a year, then I’ll be miffed beyond belief. Until then, NIL (students/schools/agencies) feels like it is just finding its footing.
In order: 1) back up the Brinks truck and re-up Juwan; and 2) allow the U-M student athletes a legitimate opportunity to open their own trucks’ doors.
The regents need to call a meeting to decide the direction. UM has one of the best law school, I am sure that the law professors can weigh in on what is considered legal.
Over at Rutgers, Geo Baker is apparently not allowed to put the word “Knights” (not Scarlet Knights, not a Rutgers logo, just the word Knights) on a jersey.
The process that @dreem mentioned is in effect here, too. The med school student-run clinic wanted to use the block R logo for t-shirts and to promote a fundraising gala and were basically told by the (med school) administration “feel free to try but I’d develop a backup design.” After getting nowhere early on they decided to just stop wasting their time and do something else.
I would hope schools figure this out sooner rather than later as it will affect recruiting especially at the very top (so, a bigger issue for Michigan than for Rutgers, but ideally every school would be on equal-ish footing)
I feel like some of this logo stuff is way off base. It isn’t really that much different than the fact that a local NFL quarterback can’t wear his uniform in a car commercial.
A rev share for jerseys makes sense but I’m not really sure that selling merch is going to be what gets athletes rich.
I was gonna say the same thing. This is 100% normal. When Aaron Rodgers does a commercial he’s wearing a generic jersey with no logo. This is complete standard practice at every level of sports. Of course Geo Baker can’t put anything related to Rutgers on his own stuff and then try to sell it. I understand Hunter is frustrated, but he’ll have to get used to it. It is new for everyone involved.
A lot of hand wringing going on with NIL when it is still very new and everyone is feeling it out. I would not worry right now that Michigan is behind the 8 ball. There’s little evidence of it actively setting Michigan back. If/when we get a star skill position in football, I will be curious to see what happens. QBs at top schools are absolutely cashing out, we don’t really have anything to sell there since our QBs stats have been comparatively atrocious going back 2 decades compared to the rest of CFB outside of the one Denard/RRod year. So I’d just like to see if our superstars will have the same cache. If not, then yeah I’d abandon football even more than I am now. But Denard would have made a killing 10 years ago if this were in place IMO (and Denard is really about as good of an argument that you could have made for allowing players to have NIL rights. That guy missed out on a lot of money)
For basketball, if it means we miss out on the Duren’s and Bates’ of the world, well, news flash, we’ve never been involved with those types even with Juwan. The only 5* we’ve landed so far could not have cared less about personal branding or big promises from other schools. Memphis already did, and will continue to, land the kids that loved getting promised the world.
Having just read the OSU press release on licensing agreements, the thing it mentions first is that players will be able to sell jerseys. Which hmm… Michigan beat them to! And we shall see which side gets a bigger pie there. The MDen people seemed to imply they were giving a pretty generous cut to the players, and there is no middleman like TBG involved which surely would help there.
Have to think it is only a matter of time before every school signs on with this. Most of these things I would expect stabilize where every school is doing similar things with similar companies.
I’m outside my skis on this one, but I’m guessing if you’re partnering with an agency like Brandr this can be done much faster. Maybe if a school does their own licensing agreement outside of a middleman it can be more lucrative for the players? I don’t know, just thinking. I’m guessing another advantage of using the agency is every player in every sport and even former athletes can get in on it easily?
I’d like to see more and more licensed player stuff outside of jerseys in the MDen. Like all that stuff mentioned in the Bama and OSU releases. Since we already have jerseys with football players up without partnering with Brandr, maybe it’s a matter of time? Hopefully.
I agree. While I totally sympathize with Chris Webber’s story about not being able to afford a pizza (pre-Ed Martin) while he watched his jersey get sold all over town - jersey sales are not where athletes make a lot of money. When the MDen launched their program for football jerseys it was revealed that the cut our players make is more than NFL players.
What these big announcements are basically doing at places like Alabama and OSU is that the boosters who were funneling cash to players before are now doing it via NIL. I can understand why Michigan isn’t as good at that.
Broadly, I agree. I don’t expect Michigan to blaze a trail here, and I do figure that over time Michigan’s programs can capitalize moreso than most given the alumni base. And there are some good comments in this thread about legal issues and in some cases things are going to still be done how they were in the past. But that doesn’t mean guys like Hunter should stop pushing for more and making demands that initially might seem out of bounds. The driving force in this change is not based on precedents or legal technicalities. There’s a moral argument now vetted and found valid by the highest court, and that could have the power to change the ways things have been done. Young athletes should continue to point out elements of the system that prevent them from enjoying the benefits they are now legally entitled to enjoy.
