What is the Appropriate Punishment for A.J. Green?
by T Kyle King on Sep 8, 2010 11:05 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintI've told you what I think about A.J. Green's suspension, while WindyCityDawg has taken the opposing viewpoint. Now it's your turn. What punishment do you think is warranted for the sale of a game jersey to an agent?
As always, continue the conversation in the comments below after voting in the poll.
Go 'Dawgs!
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Refrigerator Perry walkin' a tightrope over Tallulah Gorge in a tornado, can we just tee it up in Columbia?
nm
"We are inclined to believe that if we have watched a football game or a baseball game, we have taken part in it." --John F. Kennedy
by Thinking Bulldog on Sep 8, 2010 11:15 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It's his jersey. He should be able to sell it with impunity.
The wording of the poll choice says it all for me.
I realize that’s not what the NCAA rules are now, but I think the rules should be re-written. Universities make hundreds of thousands of dollars on merchandise sales, and millions of dollars in overall revenue based on the performance of these young men. And though the young men do get an all-expenses-paid education at one of the finest public institutions of higher learning in the world, that’s simply not a fair compensation considering what a big-dollar sport I-A football is nowadays.
I think, at a minimum, players should be allowed to sell personal items that they are given… like their game jerseys from the bowl game. (As I recall, they don’t get to keep their jerseys from the regular season, but they do frequently get the game jersey from the bowl game as one of the gifts they’re allowed to receive as part of the bowl package.)
If it’s their property, why can’t the sell it? It’s like me telling an average poor university student, “Here, let me give you this container full of gold bullion. Enjoy it, but if you have the audacity to sell it while you’re still in school, you won’t be able to keep the proceeds, and you’ll be kicked out of school.”
It sounds nice
But how do you then keep players from becoming reggie bush by “selling” their rings and such for hundreds of thousands of dollars?
I'm wrong all the time.
I’d like to add a caveat to the first answer – allow players to sell memorabilia at fair market value with impunity. I don’t want enterprising players to be allowed to ‘sell’ a signed photo to an agent for a nice new Escalade.
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh goooooood point
if two businesses are owned by the same person (and there’s some definition about common ownership that gets around hubby owns company #1 and wife owns #2) and company 1 loans company 2 $100,000 at 0% interest, the IRS thinks that’s an improper benefit. So the remedy then is to impute interest and make company #1 claim that imputed interest (that they never receive) as income. The same basic thing happens in inter-company transactions of other sorts like property sales etc.
So, what you end up with under IRS rules, is a fair-market transaction between related companies for tax purposes, whether it happened that way or not.
Seems to me if that’s good enough for the IRS, it ought to be good enough for the NCAA.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
podunkdawg
As a fellow CPA, don’t even get me started on the IRS and their inane rules. However, that ‘s an excellent example to display the potential conflicts with transactions that clearly don’t fall under the “arms-length” definition.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
Not to complicate this, but...
I’m not entirely clear on your intended conclusion – you seem to be saying both that the income of the interest should be imputed (I get that), and that the end result is a fair-market transaction, whether intended or not (where I’m confused).
I studied the kinds of intra-family, below market loans you discussed in the area of Gift Tax, which I think is applicable here, but includes an additional element that may be clarifying (yes, I’m suggesting that looking way back in the tax code to sec. 7872 may clarify something) – before imputing the fair-market interest as income to the lender, the IRS imputes a gift of that amount from the lender to the borrower (Dickman).
However, if we want to bring the ways of the IRS into this, I suggest we go more simple (since loans are complicated, though seemingly everyone on this site is a lawyer or accountant) and use their basic definition of a gift – a transfer of property for less than full and adequate consideration. So, if it’s fair market value, no problem; if it’s not, anything above the fair value is a gift.
Bringing it even more down to earth, if $1000 is a fair price for AJ’s jersey, the status of the buyer as an agent should be irrelevant, though punishment may still be warranted under the rules for selling memorabilia at all as per changes following the 2002 SEC championship ring (changes I feel are misguided). If, on the other hand, the fair market value was only $500, the identity of the buyer becomes relevant, and (if an agent) the buyer would have made an inappropriate gift of $500 to AJ, for which he should be punished for improper dealings with an agent/benefits received (the caveat I suggested, which I believe you supported).
clarifying that last part...
what I’m getting at with the previous post is to ask – are you agreeing with me? I feel like you are, but I haven’t studied taxes enough to talk IRS with the accountants. And, for the record, all statements I’ve made about taxes and whatnot are just my limited understandings, and should be read with an implied raising-of-pitch, question mark “Right?” after them, as I am in NO way trying to tell y’all what’s what ;)
I paid a university other than Georgia
to torture me for 5 full semesters with tax classes. (UGA did not offer the major I needed, nor anything comparable I could possibly complete from half-way across the country, but I tried.)
Fundamentally, I am agreeing with you. The IRS has ways of dealing with transactions between related parties so as to create the same economic effect as an arms-length-transaction, why can’t the NCAA? For that matter, why can’t a football player sell his property without running afoul of the NCAA? Shouldn’t there be a dollar value limit??
If the NCAA’s purpose and point is to force college athletes to maintain their amateur status, then why isn’t it reasonable to have a threshold? After all, even the IRS gets the concept of “de minimis.”
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Unless someone here works for the NCAA or the UGAA
No one has enough information to determine what is or isn’t appropriate.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
I kind of agree.
It pIns me to think it, but we don’t know that there isn’t more to the story than the jersey sale. Perhaps the NCAA said “We’ll take the hit as being too strict but won’t release the whole story since you cooperated.”
Hell who ami kidding, when’s the last time the NCAA helped someone other than Reggie Bush, and didn’t release the whole story? Part of me assumes they MUST be justified to blatantly extend such a harsh penalty.
The bylaws are pretty clear about the default punishment for what Green did.
If the argument is that the rules should be different, that’s one thing, but I’m not sure I follow the folks who are confused by the NCAA’s actions. They’re operating within the rules that are set.
I'm wrong all the time.
I think the confusion arises from the fact that not everyone is being handed down the default punishment.
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
I voted 2 games...
I am inclined to vote 1 game, but since Dareus received a 2 game suspension; A.J. should get the same. We can debate whether what Green did was worse than what Dareus did, but the easy solution for the NCAA is simply to say contact with an agent in instances such as Dareus’ and Green’s equals 2 games.
But no…He get’s twice as much as Dareus. Let’s see if the NCAA swiftly reduces the penalty.
By the way, who is UGA appealing to? I am unaware of the process, but who can overrule the NCAA committee that levied the 4 game suspension initially?
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
NCAA should chill
one game max and the NCAA should get a life. One inane rule after another
J. Keith Contarino
If my understanding of the two situations is correct, Dareus and Jones were thumped for violating different rules. Green was mainly tagged for the improper benefits rule while Dareus was primarily hit for agent contact.
Dareus’s suspension was reduced, I believe, based on his cooperation with the investigation but, more importantly, because he didn’t know there was an agent involved whatsoever, he was just going to hang out with a long-time friend.
I'm wrong all the time.
What frustrates me
is that based on the NCAA’s definition of an agent, everyone is one, so the kid can’t sell that jersey at a freaking yard sale. In fact, he can’t sell his high school practice shorts at a yard sale.
The NCAA’s rules while intended to serve a reasonable purpose, ie: keeping student athlete’s amateurs rather than professionals, they go too far.
If you give a ride to a friend of a recruit, you violate NCAA rules.
If a recruit is on your campus and splits his pants and you buy him a $20 pair of pants at wal-mart, you violate NCAA rules
If a player sells his grilled cheese sandwich he made himself on ebay, he violates the rules.
Do these rules mean that a player can’t sell his used car when he buys another one?
I’m not suggesting we throw out all the rules, but perhaps put a little bit of common sense into them would be a good idea?
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Maybe, but we’re talking about a pretty common-sense violation here: he sold a jersey he got for free for $1,000.
The only way that jersey is worth $1,000 is if it some way associated with Green. As a result, he was profiting from his athletic reputation, which is explicitly disallowed in about a thousand places in the NCAA Bylaws.
Had he sold the jersey for $50, I’d agree with you, but this seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.
I'm wrong all the time.
I actually saw an answer
From the NCAA’s official statement:
The university can appeal the decision to the Division I NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, an independent committee comprised of representatives from NCAA member colleges, universities and athletic conferences. This committee can reduce or remove the condition, but it cannot increase the staff-imposed conditions. If appealed, the student-athlete remains ineligible until the conclusion of the appeals process.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
I actually think that there should be
a post-season ban for players who do “this sort of thing” period. however, under the current rules and punishments I think 2 games was more than enough. 4 is just kinda stupid.
______________________________________________
I will give my North Carolina for Tennessee Today. Apparently.
Allow AJ to play
but without his uniform – that will preclude him selling anything.
This is really irrational and irritating but we all know the NCAA.
Some of you are being a little ridiculous here.
Maybe players should be able to benefit financially from their likeness, but that’s another discussion. It’s like saying players should be able to have an agent… Under the current rules, selling a jersey for a huge markup based on your status as an athlete is clearly a violation.
If you allow players to sell their jerseys for 1k+ dollars then you’ll have to allow them to sign endorsement deals, share profits from retail jersey sales, and have the rights to their images in video games.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
And around $16,000, a party in Miami, etc...
is half as bad as selling a jersey for less than $1,000? 4 games to 2.
And there’s been millions in revenue selling AJ Green jerseys over the last two years. It was given to him, and he sold his property. Perfectly allowed under the laws, and if they didn’t want the risk, why not wait until they graduate or have moved on for such gifts.
Irony
NCAA:
AJ was given the jersey for playing football – this is permissible, not an improper benefit.
AJ sells the same jersey , and the cash he receives from the sale is an improper benefit.
IRS:
Receipt of jersey is payment for services rendered – taxable income.
Sale of jersey is sale of property, cash received is – taxable income.
Fact is – under NCAA rules, whoever gave the jersey paid the player for playing, but that’s okay. It’s just not ok for the player to then sell the jersey. The IRS on the other hand, treats both transactions the same.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Which is still a larger amount than Green
so the point remains the same, especially considering both involved agents.
ahhh but
apparently the NCAA sees both as the same since the value of both is greater than $500.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
