03-06-2017, 05:36 AM
Agreed, and I wanted to address some of the complexities of the NCAA ruling here. Some commenters are upset about the seemingly mercenary aspect (maybe, if they hadn't been paying attention to the ongoing story) and the brand ambassadorship. NCAA's rules are really designed to protect the member universities (read all the regulations linked in the PDF in the above post). The rules are laid out so that an athlete cannot use their athletic affiliation with a member university to personally benefit (this is why the football team's c/o 2017 commit, Poutasi Poutasi, and his extended family's GoFundMe was potentially dangerous). High schools get lumped into this too because the NCAA views them as feeder institutions. However, it seems that in limited situations, if some sort of commercial action was initiated regardless of an individual's intent to eventually profit from their university affiliation, that it can be accepted with some stipulations.
Originally Posted by socaliganbear
For actual modeling (not brand ambassadorship), look no further than our football team's c/o 2017 commit, Biaggio Ali-Walsh, who got a modeling contract with Wilhelmina based on his family legacy. Maybe you could argue that it had something to do with his athletic ability, but for the rest of his life, he will probably be known as Ali's grandson first, football player second (although we all wish student were second and not third). Looking further out a bit, USC swimming's Santo Condorelli, also a Canadian Olympian, has been posting professional modeling photos on his Instagram --- this gig was clearly initiated just recently and not before he enrolled in college. Is his gig due to his university affiliation? Don't think so, but that's where USC's compliance people are on the ball.
Finally, our favorite Singaporean talking point, Texas' Joseph Schooling, was offered many free gifts, including unlimited flights on AirAsia and rides on some car share service in Singapore for life; supposedly, he was able to get those gifts transferred to his parents and some other designees of his choosing (but that implies that the gifts were his to designate in the first place). Did he and his family benefit from his university affiliation? How is this any different from Auburn's Cam Newton situation? NCAA probably doesn't have jurisdiction over anything happening outside U.S. borders, and doesn't want to anger a P5 member institution (Texas) that otherwise had nothing to do with the Singaporean boosters. It's really complicated (just like all regulation) ....