>> This year's NCAA men's and
women's basketball tournaments
have tipped off as the sport is
getting the highest television
ratings in years.
For nearly two years, athletes
have been able to capitalize on
the popularity of college sports
through endorsements,
sponsorship, and advertising
deals.
A policy known as name, image,
and likeness.
A chance for athletes, very few
of whom go to professional
sports careers, to make money.
It is also exposing them to the
dark side of fan culture.
She's a former sports reporter
who teaches journalism.
Molly, when name, image,
likeness began, commentators
said it would be beneficial for
female athletes in the less
glamorous sports, battles that
did not get a lot of attention.
Has it worked out that way?
>> Yes, it has.
It has worked out that way in
the sense that we see a lot of
universities putting together
collectives.
I just read in the athletic that
UCLA women's basketball is
putting together a collective
where each player will get
something along the lines of
$15,000 each.
In that sense, it is helping.
It is putting money into the
pockets of female athletes and
athletes in non--- sports.
Not doing it to the extent of
men's football and men's
basketball.
The only woman in the top 10
right now is a gymnast from lsu.
Her social media is valued at
about $2.5 million.
>> There are many people who say
what Olivia done is doing on her
social media is not as much
about athletic excellence as it
is about selling conventional
standards of beauty.
Is that a difference between the
men and women how they are using
it?
>> Without question.
This is the entertainment
businesses.
College sports is an
entertainment business.
All traditional standards of
beauty, she hits those.
What is interesting to me about
this, it has literally impacted
her safety.
When she went to a meet in Utah,
their bus was surrounded by boys
and men clamoring for her
attention.
Security was brought in.
A less than desirable situation
talking about the safety of a
young woman.
This is where the money is for
her right now.
You can't really say she brought
this on herself or something
like that.
She's just conforming to the
traditional sense of where she
is in the spectrum of things.
On one hand, it is great.
She is monetizing this.
She can do what she wants.
On the other hand, a lot of
female athletes cannot
capitalize on it, their game is
what they need to capitalize in.
We have seen especially with the
women's basketball tournament, I
just watched a commercial with
the South Carolina basketball
team.
That does put money in their
pockets.
But being the entertainment
business it is, she has found
her niche.
Universities are going to have
to figure out how to protect
athletes.
>> She's also got a lot of
criticism for being regressive,
as it were.
The people who far for equality
and college sports for women say
it should be about athletic
excellence and it is going back
to the idea of women as
decoration.
What do you say to those people?
>> This is one of those things
were on one hand, I don't
disagree.
On the other hand, as a gymnast,
she's not going to go pro and
make millions of dollars.
This is her opportunity to do
that.
If her looks and athleticism can
bring this out, she has to
capitalize if what she is
looking for is that money.
You can't knock someone for
that.
Did they forget about Anna
kournikova who never won a major
tournament, but her face was all
over everything.
She got endorsement deals.
She is a millionaire because she
has those traditional good
looks.
>> Are there any changes you
would like to see in the schools
name, image, likeness policies?
>> That conversation would take
an awful long time.
Much of the name, image,
likeness policy came out of
state legislatures, meaning
there is no federal policy, not
even an overall nca policy.
For all of the rulemaking the
nca reports to do, this is where
in one way or another, it has to
get under control.
I say it with the quotes around
it.
It can be limiting to the
athletes.
The first things that need to
happen are universities need to
provide safety, security for
female athletes, and the other
thing is with the nonrevenue
sports, I think we are going to
see a title shift in how college
sports rose.
We are going to see increments
of that here and there.
There has always been the haves
and have-nots in college sports.
But we will see a further
separation of that.
When it happens, you will see
nonrevenue sports and revenue
sports run differently.
The name, image, and likeness --
I think we are just seeing the
beginning of it.