WAG YouTube/instagram fame and NCAA

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

sce

Proud Parent
So, there is a prominent YouTube family, their daughters are gymnasts. The family has designed and sold leotards with their channel name, hosted a gym meet and now they are designing a pair of Nike's to sell. Isn't all of this in violation of the NCAA if their kids want to compete in college?

I know there are other YouTube and instagram famous kids too. How will this effect their future in Ncaa?
 
I don't know who you are referring and I am certainly no expert on the NCAA rules (who is? they seem to change based on the situation), to but as long the business belongs to the parents and the children are not getting direct compensation for it, nor is the family benefiting significantly from the daughters' talents (ex if their daughters were elite status and had a signing meet/greet to bring in more customers - they would be using their daughter's talents to promote their business), they should be clear. It is no different than a parent of a gymnast owning a gym.
 
It is no different than a parent of a gymnast owning a gym.

I think it's very different. In your example the parents own a business, in the case of YouTube gymnasts, the kids ARE the business, and their gymnastics specifically. Every video is tantamount to a paid advertisement for that business.

I think the problem is the system. The ability to qualify for a scholarship and the ability to qualify to participate in sport altogether should be entirely separate. Simone Biles, for example, shouldn't be eligible for a scholarship, but she should be no less able to compete than Madison or Kyla. I think the whole system is wrong.
 
Hm. I think it's kind of a gray area but could likely be ruled a violation. I can guess who you're referring to, not sure it needs to be a secret since they are so famous now esp in the gymnastics world, but maybe the mods prefer not the advertise. NCAA generally prohibits "pay for play". Designing and selling leotards probably can be done without crossing that boundary (although you would have to avoid some things). More problematic would be paid advertising on the meet videos or pay per click stuff. I'm not sure how that works (from the YouTube end), but I imagine it could be considered "pay for play." Also at this point this family has one of the most successful YouTube "franchises" around and seem to have made a lot of money...so they, unlike most people who will never face that payday, probably decided to weigh the odds of their children receiving an NCAA scholarship against the payday now that will likely finance their educations. I would think this would be more problematic for the less successful but still semi successful YouTube gymnasts (successful enough to maybe make a little money).

Still, a little uncharted territory but I think we'll find out soon. Current NCAA athletes wouldn't have had a lot of time to establish YouTube channels prior or during the start of the monetization of private YouTube channels. The closest I can think of is Nica Hults, whose mom had some very high view videos of her when she was young (around 7 or so) that have been viewed a lot on YouTube. I don't know if they elected to make money off of it, but probably could have. Lizzie Leduc is another example. Neither are comparable, but probably the closest I can think of that had high view videos a long time back. Obviously they weren't ruled ineligible, so...? Either they didn't take money or it wasn't enough to come to anyone's attention or there's no firm precedent yet and they got lucky. It will become a much bigger question in the within the next five years so others may not get lucky.
 
Hm. I think it's kind of a gray area but could likely be ruled a violation. I can guess who you're referring to, not sure it needs to be a secret since they are so famous now esp in the gymnastics world, but maybe the mods prefer not the advertise. NCAA generally prohibits "pay for play". Designing and selling leotards probably can be done without crossing that boundary (although you would have to avoid some things). More problematic would be paid advertising on the meet videos or pay per click stuff. I'm not sure how that works (from the YouTube end), but I imagine it could be considered "pay for play." Also at this point this family has one of the most successful YouTube "franchises" around and seem to have made a lot of money...so they, unlike most people who will never face that payday, probably decided to weigh the odds of their children receiving an NCAA scholarship against the payday now that will likely finance their educations. I would think this would be more problematic for the less successful but still semi successful YouTube gymnasts (successful enough to maybe make a little money).

Still, a little uncharted territory but I think we'll find out soon. Current NCAA athletes wouldn't have had a lot of time to establish YouTube channels prior or during the start of the monetization of private YouTube channels. The closest I can think of is Nica Hults, whose mom had some very high view videos of her when she was young (around 7 or so) that have been viewed a lot on YouTube. I don't know if they elected to make money off of it, but probably could have. Lizzie Leduc is another example. Neither are comparable, but probably the closest I can think of that had high view videos a long time back. Obviously they weren't ruled ineligible, so...? Either they didn't take money or it wasn't enough to come to anyone's attention or there's no firm precedent yet and they got lucky. It will become a much bigger question in the within the next five years so others may not get lucky.
My experience is more from the basketball realm and I am quite intrigued by Lavar Ball's very blatant effort to brand his three basketball sons, one currently a freshman at UCLA, the other two in high school. He is definitely pushing the envelope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sce
I've wondered about this too. They are obviously making a ton of money and I'm guessing they aren't too concerned about NCAA eligibility. With all the travelling and self promotion they do, I don't think gymnastics is really a priority for them at this point. I know that young girls love them (my dd has watched many of their videos), but it really glamorizes gymnastics and their lifestyle in a way I don't really care for. It's just not how the other 99% of the world lives.
 
Of the family you're talking about (can we call them by their name, or is that against the rules?), I doubt the older girl would make NCAA, unless my understanding of the system is flawed. My guilty YouTube pleasure is watching meet videos, so I've seen a couple of hers, and I don't think her technique or form is what the recruiters are mostly looking for. Isn't the focus on execution in NCAA?

There is another prominent YouTube gymnast who has a much better chance of NCAA, and also hopes to compete elite. They don't sell merchandise or anything, but I know she's done some modelling. I guess she either wasn't paid for it, or has already forfeited eligibility.

Edit: my first paragraph sounds a bit nasty, I didn't mean for it to come off that way! No criticism here!
 
There is another prominent YouTube gymnast who has a much better chance of NCAA, and also hopes to compete elite. They don't sell merchandise or anything, but I know she's done some modelling. I guess she either wasn't paid for it, or has already forfeited eligibility.

If you're talking about who I think you are, and the modeling of a product I think you are, I know she didn't get paid, nor did anyone else at that shoot.
 
If you're talking about who I think you are, and the modeling of a product I think you are, I know she didn't get paid, nor did anyone else at that shoot.

I wonder about this one too though. Not because of the modeling (I'm assuming we are talking about the same kid(s)). It seems to me that maybe the bigger issue would be that the YouTube channel IS named for the older DD (the one who realistically would be trying for college gymnastics) and the main focus of the channel is the older DD's gymnastics. But... maybe like with the other family, they are hoping for endorsements or YouTube money that would bring in more than the college scholarships...
 
I don't know them personally, but you hear things through the grapevine. No idea what their plans are but I would have to assume she wants to compete in college. Maybe all the videos will stop before high school?
 
Perhaps the videos are/could be demonetised? I use adblock so I never see ads. You can set channels not to show any ads, so no money is earned from them.

Obviously for the first family, this wouldn't work, as I think YouTube is their main source of income (I have no idea if this is true, please correct me if it's not). But for the second gymnast, I think it's just for fun, so demonetising the channel would be a good solution if they want to keep making videos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sce
Idk...not dissing either fam...but I think they both do quite well financially from the site. Mind you....just my guess...but IMHO one has a lot of talent, and one has talent but not at same level. And I am not being snarky either. It's not how my family would want to be exposed, but for them, it works. To each their own. :)
 
It really bothers me bc they are all promoted on Meet Scores Online. There are so many 8 and unders that are modeling, and home-gymnastic-ing, seemingly 24/7. Lots of product promotion, too. If you notice, they all say "parent run", or something similar on their pages. Thank goodness my dd has no interest in the insta-gymmies (I just have a morbid curiosity:eek:). Some of these little ones have talent, too. They will probably burn out before they are NCAA eligible anyway!
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

New Posts

Back