Leonard Fournette’s act of charity has forced the NCAA into a position it can’t defend

After No. 6 LSU trampled over South Carolina in a game that was moved from Columbia to Baton Rouge due to flooding, star running back Leonard Fournette made a touching announcement: He would auction off his game-worn jersey from the win to benefit South Carolina flood victims.

Via ESPN

This was a good gesture, but almost immediately, he said he couldn’t do it: “Violation.”

This wasn’t actually the NCAA ruling; it was likely LSU interpreting NCAA rules against players profiting off their memorabilia. LSU had to ensure a violation wouldn’t happen. The NCAA has made exceptions before, but also failed to make seemingly obvious exceptions.

However, against all odds, the NCAA came through with a refreshing win for common sense.

This is unquestionably the right decision, whether it’s meant to be an exception or a loophole interpretation. But it also raises a significant legal issue for the NCAA. Is it really about to admit Fournette’s jersey has unique value?

The NCAA’s long-standing argument is that the names and likenesses of players have no individual value (it claimed in court that ESPN pays for the right to show football stadiums, not people playing football), and that it would be dangerous to find out whether they do. That’s why you don’t see names on the jerseys the NCAA and its member schools sell — people are buying LSU No. 7 jerseys, not Fournette jerseys. That’s why EA Sports stopped making college video games.

This is not just an LSU No. 7 jersey being auctioned off. It is a jersey that will undoubtedly be worth more money because it has Fournette’s name on it. And it will prove what should already be obvious: That Fournette has value to LSU because of who he is.

This isn’t the NCAA’s only argument to keep money away from players, but it’s a big one, and one that will likely be dismissed fairly easily when DeflateGate lawyer Jeffrey Kessler gets to fight it in court.

Also notable is that the NCAA decided this cause was worthy of a player profiting off his likeness (as long as the profit doesn’t go to him). But this is an extremely arbitrary interpretation of amateurism, and it looks more like the NCAA is just making things up as it goes.

Why is this the only worthy cause? What if a player is flat broke and people want to help him or her out because of who he or she is? Is that still a violation? What if a player wants to donate money to his or her mom?

There are no good answers, because the only real answer is that the NCAA, whatever the intent, wants to control the money in every way possible. And in making a noble exception, the association has shown why its rule shouldn’t exist in the first place. Fournette’s football skills have value. Let him profit off that value to do whatever it is he pleases, whether to help South Carolina or to help himself.