One of the stumbling blocks in negotiations between Indianapolis and the top overall choice in the draft, Len Pasquarelli of the Sports Xchange reports, is the proposed inclusion of marketing language that Luck and his representatives, at least so far, regard as strident. One source with knowledge of the talks even suggested that Luck would "have to clear" marketing proposals with the club. Another hurdle is the schedule for the payout of Luck's signing bonus, which will be $14,518,544, exactly the same as Cam Newton's in 2011. Newton was paid in two equal installments, but Luck and agent Will Wilson are said to be seeking something far more favorable. It's believed the Colts have improved the proposed bonus payout, but only by a little, with 55 percent due on execution of the contract and 45 percent payable next spring, Indianapolis has made similar signing bonus payout proposals to other draft choices. Source: The Redzone
Hum, I disagree, This is a big investment for the Colts. If Luck say is allowed to promote some less than savory company... "Get Lucky" Strip club or "massage" company. It could have a negative affect on the Colts as a whole. I imagine Peyton had something similar in his contract, and from the number of peyton commercials it doesn't seem like the Colts were worried about over exposure.
He's not going to endorse a strip club...lol. Let's be honest here...he's a pretty smart kid and he has people around him that wouldn't let something like that occur. For the Colts to have final say on what he can and cannot endorse is silly. I understand he is an investment for them, but if they want to limit his endorsements (which they could if they had control over who he can and cannot endorse), they'd better buck up a HUGE bonus to compensate for "lost" endorsement dollars. A player of Luck's standards has, at times, the potential to make more in endorsements than his actual NFL salary...ultimately, he'll probably make more than half his "NFL salary" (or 1/3 of his income) in endorsement dollars.
this i something i have never heard of before so i question the idea that its simply a debate on savory vs. unsavory endorsments. im wondering if they are trying to assure themselves he wont endorse any direct competitors of the stadium sponser. not sure the peeps at lucus oil would appreciate luck doing sunoco commercials.
That's what I was thinking as well [MENTION=1137]smeagle[/MENTION]. I feel like if Pepsi is the stadiums exclusive soft drink of choice, they don't want him out there doing Coke commercials...which is understandable from their perspective, but a bull crap thing to try to do imo.
