Modeling leos considered sponsorship for NCAA purposes?

[bar princess's mom]

One of the girls at our gym was asked to model for one of the leo companies. I was just curious if this could be considered sponsorship for NCAA purposes. Any info is appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member D3987]

if the "gymnast" is paid, yes that is a violation. if she is NOT paid there is no violation.

 

[bar princess's mom]

That's what I thought also but her mom was going on and on about how it was ok. The girl is good also and could have a shot at college. Thanks!

 

[coachmolly]

Yup, as long as they don't take any kind of compensation they should be fine. I grew up near one of the major leo manufacturers and they would periodically come into the gym to "scout" for models. Most of the girls didn't end up going on the NCAA route, but I know of at least 1 that did and didn't seem to have any problems.
They measured me on one of their "scouting" trips and it broke my poor little 10 year old heart when I wasn't picked to model in the catalogue. Remarkably enough I've recovered from that traumatic experience .

 

[MaryA]

I freely admit to knowing nothing about this subject, but it seems odd that modeling for a catalog would qualify you as a "professional athlete." Older girls are allowed to coach, aren't they? That seems like that would be closer to working as a gymnast than wearing a leotard and having your picture taken.

 

[gymgal]

I freely admit to knowing nothing about this subject, but it seems odd that modeling for a catalog would qualify you as a "professional athlete." Older girls are allowed to coach, aren't they? That seems like that would be closer to working as a gymnast than wearing a leotard and having your picture taken.

I think it has to do with the fact that it is a leotard company, which could easily be construed as a sponsorship. If it was another type of clothing (jc penney) it would be fine. But since it is related to your particular sport, you have to stay clear of any type of compensation (including leotards). Am I right?

 

[coachmolly]

I think it has to do with the fact that it is a leotard company, which could easily be construed as a sponsorship. If it was another type of clothing (jc penney) it would be fine. But since it is related to your particular sport, you have to stay clear of any type of compensation (including leotards). Am I right?

I believe this is correct. I know Shayla Worley did some unrelated modeling as a child which didn't seem to pose any problems eligibility wise.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

example: a gymnast wants to do a print or TV commercial for toothpaste. there is NO gymnastics in this add whatsoever. the gymnast can get paid and there is no violation.

example: after the gymnast brushes her teeth in the same commercial she does a standing back and proclaims that that toothpaste "made her jump for joy" at the marvelous smile she had afterward. this gymnast also gets paid and now loses her eligiblity cause she was paid for an add that had gymnastics in it. understand?

 

[MaryA]

I guess I "understand" though it still don't make a lot of sense. It makes sense for the big names who endorse a particular brand of leo or whatever, but not for your average kid in a leo. But my daughter is not likely to get a modeling gig or a gymnastics scholarship, so I guess I'm not overly concerned with it.

 

[LemonLime]

There is an express exemption for clothing in the NCAA rules. So long as the gymnast is not paid and is advertising leotards, it's fine. The toothpaste/flip example above, is not fine (just as the poster stated).

Also, EVEN IF the gymnast is not paid, they cannot advertise or be paid for their skills within the gymnastics field. That's why gymnasts who were still eligible could NOT appear in MIOBI or Stick It.