# CA college athletes can now get paid$$



## oh canada (Sep 30, 2019)

Legislation passed and signed today allowing college athletes in CA to accept $$ for endorsement deals, etc.  Opens up so many potential issues going forward:

1 - CA schools kicked out of NCAA?
2 - Other states follow?
3 - Colleges eliminate athletic scholarships altogether?
4 - NCAA sues CA to prevent law completely

Law slated to take effect in 2023.  Thoughts?


----------



## timbuck (Sep 30, 2019)

I went to a big school (not to play sports).  I love watching my college team play.  But if they eliminated athletic scholarships (and easier academics for athletes), I'd have no problem with either of the following:
1.  The quality of football and basketball becomes really bad, with only academically eligible kids who can either get an academic scholarship or pay their way in.
2.  Big-time college sports goes away.


----------



## full90 (Sep 30, 2019)

I can’t see it ever happening. It’s impossible to regulate and manage. Can coaches pay their athletes via a side business or camp they run? Can a booster who owns a restaurant pay an athlete for coming to sign autographs for 20 min? Can those marketing jobs be offered during recruitment? If the qb at a school is pulling in $5k from jersey sales in the student store does the offensive line then say what the heck? What about the receiver catching his passes? Do companies have to show that the marketed athlete generated profit for them? So the star point guards likeness for a local business generated no increase in revenue. Can they get the money back they paid him? What if he then is seen eating in the rival restaurant? Who is managing all that? Can a business who is not a school sponsor then pay an athlete? So UCLA is an under armor (ew) school and Nike wants to use the UCLA running back and not only undercut UNderamror but get the kid on board before he goes pro. So can he wear nike? How can you say no? 

If I’m a booster I’m hoping like heck this passes. I start offering “marketing” opportunities to recruits on their visits. Unfettered cash access to a kid? Yes please. 

Ncaa should just sit tight and if any schools allow their athletes to do them strike them ineligible. Schools cannot and will not pony up to carry the cost that the ncaa does to set up the gaming for colleges. 

Such a waste of time on something that won’t  ever happen.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 30, 2019)

We all know that the male athletes will receive 95 percent of the endorsement money.  This is a step backwards for female athletes and athletes of the lesser sports that do not generate a profit for the schools.  My prediction is that the only ones to benefit financially from this law will be the lawyers filing and defending the lawsuits.


----------



## espola (Sep 30, 2019)

Before everyone goes off half-cocked, here is the text of the law --

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

First of all, it doesn't take effect until 2023.  The biggest change --

"A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility."

etc.


----------



## Dos Equis (Sep 30, 2019)

espola said:


> Before everyone goes off half-cocked, here is the text of the law --
> 
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206
> 
> ...


That text has pretty far reaching implications, and will likely have some unintended consequences.  The law will not help the vast majority of college athletes. It will favor a select few institutions, and give some short term compensation to a small group of individuals.

If one genuinely believes there is a problem of too much money in college sports, or that money going to the wrong people, getting even more money involved is a strange solution.


----------



## seuss (Sep 30, 2019)

Get rid of the whole notion of amateur athletics. If someone wants to give you money, why in the hell should anyone else be able to stick their huge noses in and say “sorry, you can’t make any money, because we say so”.  I’ll take it as far as to say that if someone decides they want to pay a 5 year old to play ayso, so be it.


----------



## espola (Sep 30, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> That text has pretty far reaching implications, and will likely have some unintended consequences.  The law will not help the vast majority of college athletes. It will favor a select few institutions, and give some short term compensation to a small group of individuals.
> 
> If one genuinely believes there is a problem of too much money in college sports, or that money going to the wrong people, getting even more money involved is a strange solution.


Competition -- the schools voted in rules that took away many of the advantages of the richer schools, so they could all presumably be able to compete more fairly and evenly.


----------



## dk_b (Sep 30, 2019)

I wrote this in response to a thread on another platform:

“The system is greatly flawed when football coaches and men’s basketball coaches and D1 ADs can make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars - well-beyond the economic value of an education for most athletes - while only a fraction of the players are good enough to make big money professionally (and even then, on average, for very brief careers). Not sure what the best policy would be to make this a bit more equitable and the exploitation is quite narrow (two sports) but something does need to change.  (I do think the trade for athletes in non-revenue sports may be equitable.)”

I stand by that - there is something wrong with the millions of dollars that institutions make on the backs of football and basketball players while the vast majority never make money from playing the sport (even Duke or UK hoops - on a given roster of 12 to 15, fewer than half will play for big money and many will never play for money). There should be some way that players see some of that money - the apparel money, the TV rights fees, the other sponsorship. But any fully open pay system is at risk for additional abuse - the haves dominating the have nots. But is that any different than how it is now?


----------



## Surfref (Sep 30, 2019)

I can see some Title 9 lawsuits coming for the public universities.


----------



## full90 (Sep 30, 2019)

dk_b said:


> I wrote this in response to a thread on another platform:
> 
> “The system is greatly flawed when football coaches and men’s basketball coaches and D1 ADs can make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars - well-beyond the economic value of an education for most athletes - while only a fraction of the players are good enough to make big money professionally (and even then, on average, for very brief careers). Not sure what the best policy would be to make this a bit more equitable and the exploitation is quite narrow (two sports) but something does need to change.  (I do think the trade for athletes in non-revenue sports may be equitable.)”
> 
> I stand by that - there is something wrong with the millions of dollars that institutions make on the backs of football and basketball players while the vast majority never make money from playing the sport (even Duke or UK hoops - on a given roster of 12 to 15, fewer than half will play for big money and many will never play for money). There should be some way that players see some of that money - the apparel money, the TV rights fees, the other sponsorship. But any fully open pay system is at risk for additional abuse - the haves dominating the have nots. But is that any different than how it is now?



This is probably where I fall. I am opposed to paying players or opening it up for them to make money based on their likeness. BUT I’m also outraged at the huge salaries for coaches. My solution is for that money to go back into the school and athletes. My first step would be all scholarships in all sports are full rides. So b-ball has 15 or whatever fulls. Ok great. Soccer has 22. (They now have 14 for women). Lacrosse has all fulls for x number of players. The facts that most of the teams have most of their players on partial is stupid when coaches are making so much. Secondly just cuz I’m pissed about it every year is all sports have a national seeding system for playoffs. Regional seeding for soccer softball baseball etc is just awful. Rather than cash money going to kids (even tho scholarship players now get cash money to spend) I’d rather see some of those bloated salaries go back into the student athlete experience.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 30, 2019)

The pro leagues (nba, nfl, etc) should have a sliding rookie scale based on how long you stay in school/your age for a players 1st contract. 

Or-  a player gets a stipend per year of college.  Say it’s $15k year+scholarship+housing+food.  Whatever they take out and use, is taxed as normal income.  Whatever they don’t spend, they can withdraw upon graduation, tax free. If they don't graduate but have a balance, they can take it out but it’s taxed.  Or they can roll it over into a 401(k).   If they make any extra money in their likeness through school (jersey sales, adverting, etc)- it should go into an escrow account that can be used whenever they leave school.  With 35% given back to the school for academic scholarship purposes (or given to that players high school for scholarship purposes).


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 30, 2019)

If the college or some video game company is making $$ off of a players likeness why shouldn't the player benefit. Maybe place the money in an account that the player gets when they leave the school. And pay the players, all of them, a real stipend.


----------



## oh canada (Sep 30, 2019)

Don't forget about the sports agents loving this law too.  If they can sign kids at 14yrs for a $10K contract with Nike and a 5-year exclusive as their agent, they will with hopes of a bigger payout down the line.

I'm all for players making some money off the colleges using their likeness, but my fear is that this will accelerate the craziness of identifying kids with "potential" at younger ages (and the craziness of parents).  Just when we got a bit of a reprieve with the NCAA recruiting rules being pushed till after sophomore year high school for most sports.  Soccer not so much bc there's no money in it, but football and basketball for sure.


----------



## TangoCity (Sep 30, 2019)

How about club soccer players?  Are they going to be allowed to have agents and endorsements?


----------



## espola (Sep 30, 2019)

TangoCity said:


> How about club soccer players?  Are they going to be allowed to have agents and endorsements?


Would you buy soccer cleats because Olivia Moultrie wears them?


----------



## espola (Oct 1, 2019)

Surfref said:


> I can see some Title 9 lawsuits coming for the public universities.


If the universities just stay neutral and let the market decide who makes money, I don't see any basis for a lawsuit.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 1, 2019)

https://twitter.com/JayBilas/status/1178995516270620672?s=20

https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html

College sports is a big business.  My guess is that many people opposed to this idea identify as capitalists.  Why oppose the free market in college sports? Coach K makes 7M a year.  A coach at a small CA school makes a couple hundred grand a year.  If Nike or a car dealer or someone else wants to pay big bucks to an athlete, what's the difference?  And the reality is that this is how it's already being done.  The notion of amateurism in big time college sports is a myth.

And for us soccer nerds, now our college athletes can start a summer camp and make money off of it, while in college, and not lose eligibility.  That's good news.


----------



## Justus (Oct 1, 2019)

TangoCity said:


> How about club soccer players?  Are they going to be allowed to have agents and endorsements?


How about pay some to the young girls who helped clubs win National Championships and the big club can now promote it to recruit more young goats to the big club?  The Girls should get paid some too   Let's ALL share some of the billions going around to only a few.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 1, 2019)

Surfref said:


> I can see some Title 9 lawsuits coming for the public universities.


It's not a Title IX issue because the schools aren't paying the players to play sports under this law.  This law allows athletes to make money off their name and likeness.  What a private business wants to pay an athlete is not a Title IX issue.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 1, 2019)

Will soccer club’s now pay alumni that they post on their social media pages?
“Becky Jones who played for us in 2016 scored the game winning goal for University of Somewhere”


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 1, 2019)

Multi Sport said:


> If the college or some video game company is making $$ off of a players likeness why shouldn't the player benefit. Maybe place the money in an account that the player gets when they leave the school. And pay the players, all of them, a real stipend.


If you go that route, then it'll be interesting to see how it's handled... because #5 for Duke basketball maybe only be there for a single year and #12 for USC football may only be for 2 years.  And what do you when a football team has a #8 on offense AND defense?  Who gets paid and how much?  How do you determine who gets paid what percentage?  I don't see it... I think it's a giant cluster fuck.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 1, 2019)

Justus said:


> How about pay some to the young girls who helped clubs win National Championships and the big club can now promote it to recruit more young goats to the big club?  The Girls should get paid some too   Let's ALL share some of the billions going around to only a few.





The Outlaw said:


> If you go that route, then it'll be interesting to see how it's handled... because #5 for Duke basketball maybe only be there for a single year and #12 for USC football may only be for 2 years.  And what do you when a football team has a #8 on offense AND defense?  Who gets paid and how much?  How do you determine who gets paid what percentage?  I don't see it... I think it's a giant cluster fuck.


Is anyone actually reading what the law is?  Nobody is getting paid by the school. It allows them to profit off their name and likeness.

And if they were getting paid (which I favor), somehow we can determine what coaches, assistants, AD's, staff members, trainers, etc. get paid, but determining it for athletes would be a giant cluster fuck?  Do you object to chemists at these schools being paid for research or a drummer in the school band being allowed to play a gig at a bar?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Is anyone actually reading what the law is?  Nobody is getting paid by the school. It allows them to profit off their name and likeness.
> 
> And if they were getting paid (which I favor), somehow we can determine what coaches, assistants, AD's, staff members, trainers, etc. get paid, but determining it for athletes would be a giant cluster fuck?  Do you object to chemists at these schools being paid for research or a drummer in the school band being allowed to play a gig at a bar?


Your comprehension isn't what you think it is.  Everyone else is paid a salary and bonus structure.  And nobody said the school is doing the paying.  You obviously think this will have a simple solution... one that equates to your simple mind.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 1, 2019)

The devil will be in the details of this...depending on how it plays out, it could be a big negative for men's sports other than football and basketball -- like, eliminating men's soccer negative.  Have read a lot of opinions from SF to LA to SD since this was passed yesterday.  Here's one of the better articles imo

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2019-09-30/fair-pay-to-play-california-ncaa-gavin-newsom-name-image-likeness-college-sports-student-athletes

and a couple excerpts:

_The impression is college sports are rolling in the dough.

The reality: They’re not.

A 2015 NCAA study found that only 24 athletic departments turned a profit and the median loss among 129 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision — the sport’s highest college level with the highest revenue streams — was $18 million. At San Diego State, more than 40 percent of its $54 million budget comes from public subsidies, either general fund payments (read: your tax dollars) for salaries and scholarships or mandatory student athletic fees.

One reason is schools don’t just play football and basketball. All those other sports lose money, lots and lots of it, and something has to pay for it.
---------------
Under Armour has a 15-year, $280 million apparel contract with UCLA. That’s not for marketing exposure from the golf or tennis teams; that’s from the starting quarterback or star point guard. What happens if Under Armour realizes, hey, we can just pay the quarterback and point guard $100,000 each? What happens if the next 15-year deal is worth only $100 million?

Or what happens when the booster overpays a running back $50,000 to endorse his car dealership in a TV ad to keep up with what guys are getting at their rival school? That’s $50,000 less he’s giving in donations to the athletic department.
_


----------



## oh canada (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> https://twitter.com/JayBilas/status/1178995516270620672?s=20
> 
> https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting.  From the Yahoo article, I find these two sentences most relevant re men's women's soccer and the other "olympic" sports:

_If those players get their money (men's football and basketball), the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? *Why is that their obligation?*_

In other words, he doesn't disagree that programs will be eliminated, just that men's football and basketball players shouldn't be on the hook to subsidize all the other non-revenue generating sports programs.  Not a surprising opinion coming from a national sports writer who likely has written 99% of his college stories about men's football and basketball.  Whether you agree with this or not, the end result is the same...elimination of mens and womens sports programs.  It is a huge win for the Zions and Lebron Jr's of the World.  But while your college kid may be able to make money starting a summer camp, she may not have a team to play for at her university.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 1, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Your comprehension isn't what you think it is.  Everyone else is paid a salary and bonus structure.  And nobody said the school is doing the paying.  You obviously think this will have a simple solution... one that equates to your simple mind.


You are adorable. You said "How do you determine who gets paid what percentage?"  It's not hard to Nike to decide what they want to pay and not your concern.  Not hard for a car dealer to determine what they want to pay and not your concern.  Are you stressed over the complexities of what players on the Chargers get paid for autographs or commercials?  Of course not. Because it's the exact same thing.  Best of luck to you sweetheart.


----------



## Justus (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Is anyone actually reading what the law is?  Nobody is getting paid by the school. It allows them to profit off their name and likeness.
> 
> And if they were getting paid (which I favor), somehow we can determine what coaches, assistants, AD's, staff members, trainers, etc. get paid, but determining it for athletes would be a giant cluster fuck?  Do you object to chemists at these schools being paid for research or a drummer in the school band being allowed to play a gig at a bar?


Share the soccer loot with all!!!  School gives full ride which is good enough for 18 kids to share.  Sharing that with 29 others is the problem.  No college will pay but these clubs are promoting all the hard our kids did over the years and they get the revenue from new sign ups for the 2010 and younger age.  Big business at the Big club level right now.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Thanks for posting.  From the Yahoo article, I find these two sentences most relevant re men's women's soccer and the other "olympic" sports:
> 
> _If those players get their money (men's football and basketball), the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? *Why is that their obligation?*_
> 
> In other words, he doesn't disagree that programs will be eliminated, just that men's football and basketball players shouldn't be on the hook to subsidize all the other non-revenue generating sports programs.  Not a surprising opinion coming from a national sports writer who likely has written 99% of his college stories about men's football and basketball.  Whether you agree with this or not, the end result is the same...elimination of mens and womens sports programs.  It is a huge win for the Zions and Lebron Jr's of the World.  But while your college kid may be able to make money starting a summer camp, she may not have a team to play for at her university.


Why would schools shut down other sports?  This is the same nonsense they said about the Olympics going away if athletes got paid. It didn't happen and wouldn't happen here. This costs the schools no money.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> You are adorable. You said "How do you determine who gets paid what percentage?"  It's not hard to Nike to decide what they want to pay and not your concern.  Not hard for a car dealer to determine what they want to pay and not your concern.  Are you stressed over the complexities of what players on the Chargers get paid for autographs or commercials?  Of course not. Because it's the exact same thing.  Best of luck to you sweetheart.


You trying to sound like my dead grandmother doesn't raise your IQ.  You favor paying them... that's fine, but clearly you've oversimplified everything and haven't considered any implications.  It's kind of like Mr. Magoo, Bernie Sanders.  Say it with me now, "free everything... we'll figure out all the details later!"


----------



## oh canada (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Why would schools shut down other sports?  This is the same nonsense they said about the Olympics going away if athletes got paid. It didn't happen and wouldn't happen here. This costs the schools no money.


Um, because the schools have to fund those sports from the revenue they make from football and basketball and boosters.  Colleges are required to have 16 sports--minimum of 6 mens and 8 womens (so, e.g., 8 &8 or 6&9), therefore all sports other than F and B will not be eliminated.  But, if the money coming in from football, basketball and boosters is reduced because it is now going directly to the players, how do you think ADs are going to make budget?  Reduce their salaries?  Fire an assistant AD?  Nah, eliminate men's soccer or women's water polo will be what happens.

UofAlabama is swimming in cash and could fund 40 sports programs and still turn a profit.  But guess how many they have?  Yep, the minimum...16.  Take away $$ from the universities and the same will happen at other schools.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Um, because the schools have to fund those sports from the revenue they make from football and basketball and boosters.  Colleges are required to have 16 sports--minimum of 6 mens and 8 womens (so, e.g., 8 &8 or 6&9), therefore all sports other than F and B will not be eliminated.  But, if the money coming in from football, basketball and boosters is reduced because it is now going directly to the players, how do you think ADs are going to make budget?  Reduce their salaries?  Fire an assistant AD?  Nah, eliminate men's soccer or women's water polo will be what happens.
> 
> UofAlabama is swimming in cash and could fund 40 sports programs and still turn a profit.  But guess how many they have?  Yep, the minimum...16.  Take away $$ from the universities and the same will happen at other schools.


These sports are funded, mostly, from ticket revenue and the massive TV rights deals.  There's more than enough money to go around. I get the fears people have about smaller sports, but the arguments against this are absurd.  There's always enough money until players might get a piece.


----------



## dad4 (Oct 1, 2019)

espola said:


> Would you buy soccer cleats because Olivia Moultrie wears them?


One of our team grandparents absolutely would buy his granddaughter a pair of Moultrie cleats.   And a second pair a half size up if she asked.

It is not quite as outrageous as I’d like to think.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> These sports are funded, mostly, from ticket revenue and the massive TV rights deals.  There's more than enough money to go around. I get the fears people have about smaller sports, but the arguments against this are absurd.  There's always enough money until players might get a piece.


Best case scenario is that this law forces NCAA to make adjustments to their current "no pay" stance, and allows players to make up to a certain small sum with a cap -- e.g., $25K per player per year.  Then the schools can still provide meaningful scholarships to many sports, players with "value" can use the extra money for food, clothes, a car, etc. to keep them comfortable for a couple years in college, your daughter can coach at a summer soccer camp and get paid, and we haven't completely professionalized college football and basketball.


----------



## Dubs (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Best case scenario is that this law forces NCAA to make adjustments to their current "no pay" stance, and allows players to make up to a certain small sum with a cap -- e.g., $25K per player per year.  Then the schools can still provide meaningful scholarships to many sports, players with "value" can use the extra money for food, clothes, a car, etc. to keep them comfortable for a couple years in college, your daughter can coach at a summer soccer camp and get paid, and we haven't completely professionalized college football and basketball.


Agree.  This is just a starting point because up until now absolutely nothing has been done.  The NCAA needs to address this and now they have to.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> These sports are funded, mostly, from ticket revenue and the massive TV rights deals.  There's more than enough money to go around. I get the fears people have about smaller sports, but the arguments against this are absurd.  There's always enough money until players might get a piece.


It's not about the amount of money and never has been.   It's about amateur vs. professional and the ability of money to corrupt college sports more than it already has.  The subject is far more complicated than "stop being greedy".


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> .  Whether you agree with this or not, the end result is the same...elimination of mens and womens sports programs.  It is a huge win for the Zions and Lebron Jr's of the World.  But while your college kid may be able to make money starting a summer camp, she may not have a team to play for at her university.


Not expressing a personal belief here, but if true, US Soccer wouldn't necessarily consider that a bad thing.  Very talented kids who are on the fence (or their parents) between either going for an MLS (or European career) v. the safety of a college degree might be encouraged to take a roll at the dice (particularly if there is a reduction in the amount of college men's soccer programs) on the pro track.  It seems pretty clear that one of the things holding back developing a world class men's team is that while the rest of the world sets out to create professionals, we are aimed at creating college athletes (and when they get there they don't get as much by way of training, length of season, or competition in comparison to other young adults the same age around the world).  If your goal is solely to create a competitive men's side, if the effects are as you think they are, it would be regarded as a positive by the US soccer leadership.

On the other hand, the Olympic committees outside of the big draws like gymnastics and ice skating, not so much.


----------



## jpeter (Oct 1, 2019)

My son says show me the money!  although might be a junior by then


----------



## MWN (Oct 1, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> These sports are funded, mostly, from ticket revenue and the massive TV rights deals.  There's more than enough money to go around. I get the fears people have about smaller sports, but the arguments against this are absurd.  There's always enough money until players might get a piece.


I tend to agree with @oh canada on this point.  There is a "finite" amount of money that advertisers are willing to spend on college athletics to gain exposure and goodwill for their products.  Everything is related to eyeballs.  Under-armor pays UCLA $18.6M dollars/year because its men's basketball team and football team are on t.v. X amount of times with an average viewership of Y, meaning its paying Z dollars for each eyeball or impression.

The school gets $18.6M/year from UnderArmor, 29.5M from the PAC 12 tv deals.  Note, almost every college (excluding Notre Dame) receives TV deal revenue from the conference (SEC, ACC, PAC12, etc.).  Ticket revenues tend to be break even after accounting for costs to operate the stadium.  That money is then allocated to the programs that generate the money (football and basketball) to prop those sports up, and then distributed to the other sports to subsidize those sports.

Some conferences like the SEC have virtually eliminated non-money "mens" sports, such as soccer due to Title IX requirements that force an equal number of scholarships for women.  Since the men's money sports are not going away (football and basketball), programs like mens soccer have too.  (see this article for an explanation, http://www.uatrav.com/sports/article_8f3a7294-b193-11e8-95a8-cf2116b75693.html)

This law will only benefit the superstars.  The blue-chip, 4 star recruits.

Its a finite pool every year with only so many marketing dollars in the hands of the potential sponsors.  The only people that are going to benefit are the superstar college quarterbacks, running backs, and basketball players, which will cause the schools to receive less sponsorship dollars and create hardships for the non-money sports.


----------



## ToonArmy (Oct 1, 2019)

I'm sure coaches and directors from the mega ECNL and DA clubs will freak out that their bubble has burst if this law creates a hardship on non money college sports and affects scholorships. They will go back to the sales pitch of "you won't be able to make your high school team if you don't play for my club."


----------



## MWN (Oct 1, 2019)

jpeter said:


> My son says show me the money!  although might be a junior by then


Tell your son that unless he is in the Heisman race or a superstar basketball player on a perennial Elite 8 team to not hold his breath.  Practically, this will not affect any other college athlete ... unless Madden 2023 - College Edition plans to give all the NCAA D1 Athletes $20 for use of their name and likeness.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 1, 2019)

I heard that several of the conferences will no longer be looking to play games against PAC 12 schools for fear that they get roped into some sort of litigation by playing teams from California.


----------



## Multi Sport (Oct 1, 2019)

MWN said:


> I tend to agree with @oh canada on this point.  There is a "finite" amount of money that advertisers are willing to spend on college athletics to gain exposure and goodwill for their products.  Everything is related to eyeballs.  Under-armor pays UCLA $18.6M dollars/year because its men's basketball team and football team are on t.v. X amount of times with an average viewership of Y, meaning its paying Z dollars for each eyeball or impression.
> 
> The school gets $18.6M/year from UnderArmor, 29.5M from the PAC 12 tv deals.  Note, almost every college (excluding Notre Dame) receives TV deal revenue from the conference (SEC, ACC, PAC12, etc.).  Ticket revenues tend to be break even after accounting for costs to operate the stadium.  That money is then allocated to the programs that generate the money (football and basketball) to prop those sports up, and then distributed to the other sports to subsidize those sports.
> 
> ...


Good post. The only part you lost me on was the last part. How will the local buffet in Eugene OR paying the O Linemen to appear in a commercial affect the Ducks bottom line?


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 1, 2019)

Surfref said:


> I can see some Title 9 lawsuits coming for the public universities.


I'd say the bigger threat to female athletics is letting males compete in them.


----------



## MWN (Oct 1, 2019)

Multi Sport said:


> Good post. The only part you lost me on was the last part. How will the local buffet in Eugene OR paying the O Linemen to appear in a commercial affect the Ducks bottom line?


If we are talking local advertisers paying the Ducks O Line to appear in a commercial, it won't and the money at stake will be insignificant, because the local restaurant is not a factor in the Ducks bottom line.  

What we likely will see given the past history of boosters is money will be funneled to athletes through this new loop hole that legitimizes play for XYZ school and our boosters will pay you ... through appearing in a stupid commercial hocking "pot stickers" or "used cars."

Its the real money from Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, where potential millions could be shed from the school to individual athletes, which will also put the fringe schools further on the fringe and cause impacted schools to look toward cutting the non-money sports further.  Athletes that are the blue chippers are the only ones who will potentially benefit.


----------



## Multi Sport (Oct 1, 2019)

MWN said:


> If we are talking local advertisers paying the Ducks O Line to appear in a commercial, it won't and the money at stake will be insignificant, because the local restaurant is not a factor in the Ducks bottom line.
> 
> What we likely will see given the past history of boosters is money will be funneled to athletes through this new loop hole that legitimizes play for XYZ school and our boosters will pay you ... through appearing in a stupid commercial hocking "pot stickers" or "used cars."
> 
> Its the real money from Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, where potential millions could be shed from the school to individual athletes, which will also put the fringe schools further on the fringe and cause impacted schools to look toward cutting the non-money sports further.  Athletes that are the blue chippers are the only ones who will potentially benefit.


I think that is a version that could happen. Since we are a few years out before implementation I'm guessing we can expect some tweaking to occur. 

If it does go down the way your outlined then the ones whe would benefit the most would be the schools with no football team. NAIA schools could be the benefactors.


----------



## MWN (Oct 1, 2019)

Multi Sport said:


> I think that is a version that could happen. Since we are a few years out before implementation I'm guessing we can expect some tweaking to occur.
> 
> If it does go down the way your outlined then the ones whe would benefit the most would be the schools with no football team. NAIA schools could be the benefactors.


How?  NAIA school don't get much in the way of sponsorship dollars and rarely operate money ball programs.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 1, 2019)

MicPaPa said:


> I'd say the bigger threat to female athletics is letting males compete in them.


Easy now... the personal pronoun-phobes will be picketing on your porch by dinner.


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 1, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Easy now... the personal pronoun-phobes will be picketing on your porch by dinner.


Will be looking for the feminist to counter them.


----------



## myself (Oct 1, 2019)

MicPaPa said:


> Will be looking for the feminist to counter them.


Maybe the feminists will form an inorganic super team to get their share.


----------



## Dos Equis (Oct 1, 2019)

MWN said:


> If we are talking local advertisers paying the Ducks O Line to appear in a commercial, it won't and the money at stake will be insignificant, because the local restaurant is not a factor in the Ducks bottom line.
> 
> What we likely will see given the past history of boosters is money will be funneled to athletes through this new loop hole that legitimizes play for XYZ school and our boosters will pay you ... through appearing in a stupid commercial hocking "pot stickers" or "used cars."
> 
> Its the real money from Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, where potential millions could be shed from the school to individual athletes, which will also put the fringe schools further on the fringe and cause impacted schools to look toward cutting the non-money sports further.  Athletes that are the blue chippers are the only ones who will potentially benefit.


Research has shown that, outside of the successful FBS schools in conferences with lucrative TV deals, most athletics programs (and their football programs on a stand-alone basis) have expenses that exceed revenues, and are subsidized by the schools.  For D2 schools, total athletic losses are typically greater with football than without.  The research is from the O'Bannon case, and available online.  A loss of revenues requiring an increase in these subsidies (expenses) will not go over well with administrations, faculty and most students. 

So while the larger, Power 5 conference, FBS schools will be inclined to drop other sports, the first "non-money" sport budget at risk at other colleges (if that is defined as sports that loses money for the school), will likely be football.  Most administrations and college professors would seize on any opportunity to get rid of football and its outsized number of scholarships. An increasing number of students feel the same way or are apathetic. Active alumni groups and Trustees may save some programs, but I would not count on that being the norm.

Just one possible outcome. This is just the beginning of what might lead to significant changes to college athletics.


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 1, 2019)

myself said:


> Maybe the feminists will form an inorganic super team to get their share.


Wouldn't standing up for female athletics be easier...not to mention the right thing to do?


----------



## espola (Oct 1, 2019)

timbuck said:


> I heard that several of the conferences will no longer be looking to play games against PAC 12 schools for fear that they get roped into some sort of litigation by playing teams from California.


Good idea.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 1, 2019)

MicPaPa said:


> Will be looking for the feminist to counter them.


... and how ironic it will be when the feminists are the less feminine of the two.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 1, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> Research has shown that, outside of the successful FBS schools in conferences with lucrative TV deals, most athletics programs (and their football programs on a stand-alone basis) have expenses that exceed revenues, and are subsidized by the schools.  For D2 schools, total athletic losses are typically greater with football than without.  The research is from the O'Bannon case, and available online.  A loss of revenues requiring an increase in these subsidies (expenses) will not go over well with administrations, faculty and most students.
> 
> So while the larger, Power 5 conference, FBS schools will be inclined to drop other sports, the first "non-money" sport budget at risk at other colleges (if that is defined as sports that loses money for the school), will likely be football.  Most administrations and college professors would seize on any opportunity to get rid of football and its outsized number of scholarships. An increasing number of students feel the same way or are apathetic. Active alumni groups and Trustees may save some programs, but I would not count on that being the norm.
> 
> Just one possible outcome. This is just the beginning of what might lead to significant changes to college athletics.


And if football is eliminated along with its 50+ scholarships, schools would also eliminate 50+ scholarships on the female side because of the Title 9 = scholarship requirement.

I can see how this could be a "win" for Ivy League athletes, however (currently no athletic scholarships awarded).


----------



## myself (Oct 1, 2019)

MicPaPa said:


> Wouldn't standing up for female athletics be easier...not to mention the right thing to do?


You're the guy that thinks 10 year old girls shouldn't form a novelty team (Goats FC) at "nationally prestigious" tournaments for 5th graders. I'm supposed to look to you for moral guidance when you can't even get that right? Go back to the U11 boards.

For the record, yes, ladies go and get your money.


----------



## Dos Equis (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> And if football is eliminated along with its 50+ scholarships, schools would also eliminate 50+ scholarships on the female side because of the Title 9 = scholarship requirement.
> 
> I can see how this could be a "win" for Ivy League athletes, however (currently no athletic scholarships awarded).


There is no fixed scholarship parity requirement.  Most D1 football schools (with 85 football scholarships) have about 25-40 more scholarships for male athletes than females.  There are usually more women's sports, and generally more scholarships for the same sports for women, but the overall resources dedicated to the "money sports" is still heavily in favor of men's sports.   That may face further scrutiny as well.

But none of this happens in a vacuum, and I think this may have an impact on not just athletic scholarships, but preferential admissions policies for athletes, and academic requirements as well. Everything will likely be on the table.


----------



## Glen (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> And if football is eliminated along with its 50+ scholarships, schools would also eliminate 50+ scholarships on the female side because of the Title 9 = scholarship requirement.
> 
> I can see how this could be a "win" for Ivy League athletes, however (currently no athletic scholarships awarded).


There are no scholarships at all in the Ivy League - only need based aid.


----------



## Multi Sport (Oct 1, 2019)

MWN said:


> How?  NAIA school don't get much in the way of sponsorship dollars and rarely operate money ball programs.


If D1 schools drop programs like soccer the players will need a place to play. I guess some of the D2,3 schools will also benefit.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 1, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> There is no fixed scholarship parity requirement.  Most D1 football schools (with 85 football scholarships) have about 25-40 more scholarships for male athletes than females.  There are usually more women's sports, and generally more scholarships for the same sports for women, but the overall resources dedicated to the "money sports" is still heavily in favor of men's sports.   That may face further scrutiny as well.
> 
> But none of this happens in a vacuum, and I think this may have an impact on not just athletic scholarships, but preferential admissions policies for athletes, and academic requirements as well. Everything will likely be on the table.


Point taken, because we're talking about football and women don't play football so there isn't an exactly equal setoff, but you would concede the college could eliminate a significant number of female sport scholarships if eliminating football?  Pretty sure if we're talking basketball, and a school is offering 15 scholarships to men they have to also offer 15 scholarships to women, no?



Glen said:


> There are no scholarships at all in the Ivy League - only need based aid.


Correct.  So if the CA law is applied throughout NCAA and including the Ivy League, that would provide Ivy student athletes with an added potential $ stream.  i.e., presently, if Joe Stud hockey player is deciding between Harvard and U. of Michgan, if he comes from an upper middle class family he is likely going to have to pay his entire way at Harvard (or most of it) whereas U.ofM can offer him a free education.  Under the 2023 law, if Joe can pick up some endorsement deals from Nike or Bauer or Boston hockey boosters, he might be able to get through Harvard debt free.  Levels the playing ice.


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 1, 2019)

myself said:


> You're the guy that thinks 10 year old girls shouldn't form a novelty team (Goats FC) at "nationally prestigious" tournaments for 5th graders. I'm supposed to look to you for moral guidance when you can't even get that right? Go back to the U11 boards.
> 
> For the record, yes, ladies go and get your money.


"If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."    ~Bill Kellogg~

Have a good evening! (if you know how.)


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 1, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Correct.  So if the CA law is applied throughout NCAA and including the Ivy League, that would provide Ivy student athletes with an added potential $ stream.  i.e., presently, if Joe Stud hockey player is deciding between Harvard and U. of Michgan, if he comes from an upper middle class family he is likely going to have to pay his entire way at Harvard (or most of it) whereas U.ofM can offer him a free education.  Under the 2023 law, if Joe can pick up some endorsement deals from Nike or Bauer or Boston hockey boosters, he might be able to get through Harvard debt free.  Levels the playing ice.


Given that Harvard and the other Ivy's are already under fire for athletic (along with legacy) preferences, I see it more likely that Harvard and some of the other Ivies cut back their athletic programs than allow that to happen.   Partially it depends upon how the racial preferences lawsuits play out on appeal, but I could see the Ivies ultimately responding "o.k. you want your meritocracy, no preferences for anyone".


----------



## myself (Oct 1, 2019)

MicPaPa said:


> "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."    ~Bill Kellogg~
> 
> Have a good evening! (if you know how.)


I'm not offended. I want you to go away. Your idiocy deserves to be pointed out at every available opportunity.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 1, 2019)

2023 my freshmen daughter will be out of college so I don’t really care.  Most likely scenario in my opinion is that Ca schools no longer allowed to participate in the NCAA or some other much reduced deal is cut. I can’t see the NCAA changing things nationally and it would likely take each and every state to pass a similar law which is highly unlikely.


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 2, 2019)

myself said:


> I'm not offended. I want you to go away. Your idiocy deserves to be pointed out at every available opportunity.


Social media stalking is a pathetic life...get a new one.


----------



## Dubs (Oct 2, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> 2023 my freshmen daughter will be out of college so I don’t really care.  Most likely scenario in my opinion is that Ca schools no longer allowed to participate in the NCAA or some other much reduced deal is cut. I can’t see the NCAA changing things nationally and it would likely take each and every state to pass a similar law which is highly unlikely.


+ it will be in litigation for a long time.  Not sure if/how this ever gets worked out.  Too many moving parts.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 2, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> It's not about the amount of money and never has been.   It's about amateur vs. professional and the ability of money to corrupt college sports more than it already has.  The subject is far more complicated than "stop being greedy".


Did you not enjoy watching Michael Phelps in the Olympics because he wasn't an amateur?  How about Simone Biles?  Years ago they would have had to be amateurs.  Is them being professionals corrupting anything or making the Olympics complex?  Of course not.  It's never complex to pay coaches, AD's, TV people or anyone else. And it's not complicated to let these athletes get paid  The free market will sort things out just like they do in every industry.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 2, 2019)

WSJ piece...congrats to all of you, we basically wrote much of the same on this thread!  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-dreaming-about-paying-student-athletes-11568577090

_The U.S. Constitution regards the 50 states as coequals, yet Sacramento seems to think California is more equal than the others. Democrats have recently sought to impose the state’s online privacy, auto emissions and corporate-diversity diktats nationwide. Businesses have no choice but to abide by the rules California makes if they want to reach the state’s 39 million residents. Applying those rules nationally makes sense for companies that want to avoid market fragmentation.

Now state lawmakers are trying to force the National Collegiate Athletic Association to do the same. Last week the Legislature in Sacramento unanimously passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, which would require large public and private universities in the state to let student athletes accept compensation for use of their names, likenesses and images.

This would violate the NCAA’s bylaws, yet the bill forbids the organization from punishing colleges and athletes that break its rules. Letting California’s college athletes pocket endorsement money would put colleges in other states at a competitive disadvantage, so the NCAA would be under pressure to drop its longstanding pay-for-play prohibition.

That’s what the bill’s supporters are hoping for. Los Angeles Lakers megastar LeBron James, who skirted prohibitions on amateurs accepting gifts as a high-school player and then skipped college, has tweeted an endorsement: “California can change the game. This is only right waaaayy overdue.”

Letting college athletes cash in appeals both to the free-market right and the social-justice left. Why shouldn’t student athletes get paid for their hard work and talents, which earn tens of millions of dollars for their coaches, colleges and the NCAA?

Liberals view the NCAA as indentured servitude. Before talented football and basketball players can ink seven- or eight-figure contracts in the professional leagues, they first have to pay their dues by playing in the NCAA without remuneration beyond a scholarship covering tuition, room and board, and other educational expenses. Student athletes may forgo millions in potential earnings, and those who flame out in the pros have exhausted their best playing years with no money to show for their efforts. To the left, student athletes are an exploited class of workers.


This is one reason unions including the AFL-CIO, Afscme, United Steelworkers and Teamsters rank among the bill’s top supporters. Unions also hope that chipping away at the NCAA’s pay-for-play ban will lay the groundwork for turning student athletes into employees. That is to say, dues-paying members. Richard Griffin, who was general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, wrote a 2017 memo to the board’s regional directors arguing that college football players should be treated as employees under federal labor law.

Many conservatives also support the idea of compensating students athletes for their hard work. In their view, the NCAA and the colleges act like socialist governments that confiscate and redistribute student-athlete earnings to support unprofitable programs—especially women’s teams—in the name of advancing equity.

One irony is that letting student athletes earn money from endorsements would increase inequality between men and women, which Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act was intended to remedy. Men’s basketball and football players would score the biggest endorsements, which would no doubt trigger a push by the left to figure out a way to level the gender paying field.

California’s colleges have joined the NCAA in opposing the Fair Pay to Play Act. Stanford University points out the legislation is “inconsistent with recent court rulings . . . that determined that all student-athlete benefits must be tied directly to education purposes only.”

The legislation may also violate the Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from burdening interstate commerce. Nevada passed a law during the early 1990s requiring the NCAA to expand due process protections for its colleges. As in California, the Nevada law specifically forbade the NCAA to retaliate against compliant schools. Yet the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the Nevada law because it would interfere with interstate commerce.

If every state can supersede the NCAA’s rules, the organization would be rendered impotent and irrelevant. Imagine if North Carolina passed a law that said its student athletes don’t have to meet the NCAA’s academic qualifications. Or if Alabama were to require Crimson Tide football coach Nick Saban to pay players. Each state would try to enact laws to obtain a competitive advantage.

The California bill will surely get tied up in court and could stymie NCAA rule revisions. The NCAA earlier this year formed a working group to consider letting athletes profit from their names, images and likenesses while maintaining “the clear demarcation between professional and college sports.” One idea is to let athletes set aside endorsement money in a trust they can tap after graduating._


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 2, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Did you not enjoy watching Michael Phelps in the Olympics because he wasn't an amateur?  How about Simone Biles?  Years ago they would have had to be amateurs.  Is them being professionals corrupting anything or making the Olympics complex?  Of course not.  It's never complex to pay coaches, AD's, TV people or anyone else. And it's not complicated to let these athletes get paid  The free market will sort things out just like they do in every industry.


Sorry... you don't get it and no amount of posts or Phelps stories is going to change that.  I'm not in favor of paying amateurs and I'm not in favor of paying college athletes.  Because when you do that, they then become professional athletes and the slide begins.  It should be enough that many of these kids are given an opportunity not given to others.  It's hard work, but it's a privilege and nobody is forced to do it.  There are other ways to use that money in benefiting athletes.  I've yet to hear about a college athlete starving to death.  College is hard for most and it's no harder for an athlete.  When they were training, traveling or playing, I was working.  It's not that big of a hardship and the "free market", like celebrities paying for admission to UCLA, USC and Yale, is already too much of a factor.


----------



## myself (Oct 2, 2019)

MicPaPa said:


> Social media stalking is a pathetic life...get a new one.


This is social media? I thought this was a message board where we discussed the culture and scene surrounding youth soccer in Southern California.

Which reminds me, I asked you what your whole stake was in SoCal youth soccer and you still refuse to answer my questions. How old is your player? What level does she play at? Where are you located? If your player is a SHE and is presumably in the U11 age group, then the topic of this thread is directly relevant to your and her interests. Same here, as I've already told you my player is U14, class of 2024.

If you're going to come here and trash talk at least do us the favor of letting us know who and what you represent.



oh canada said:


> WSJ piece...congrats to all of you, we basically wrote much of the same on this thread!
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-dreaming-about-paying-student-athletes-11568577090
> 
> ...


States rights! Great when certain states want to impose rules in their state, BAD when California does it.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 2, 2019)

Hey, banana hammock, instead of just running by my house and throwing rocks at the window, have some balls and post an argument as to why you don't agree.  Or is your hammock a testicle free zone?


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 2, 2019)

If the result of this bill is some student athletes can get paid (top football players and male basketball ball players) for the endorsements that is fine.  The unique problem this will create is boosters will start paying athletes to attend their schools and the endorsement angle  will be a facade. In the pros their are no boosters just real endorsements.  This money right now is being donated to colleges who spend it on a variety of sports.  Now it will go to enrich a few players.  

The end result might not be the canceling of other sports right away but will take money away from them.  Fields, equipment and assistant coaches will suffer.  Less travel budget.  More schools not fully funding the allowed scholarship limits.  And say goodbye to Total Cost payments to sports like soccer.  Football coaches will start encouraging they donors to donate less and instead buy them players.   

This law has huge unintended consequences.  California government leaders have already permanently screwed California by making us uncompetitive for good jobs.  Now they are screwing up College Sports.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 2, 2019)

By the way my daughter is a Division 1 athlete and she is leading a charmed life already.  The benefits she is currently getting are amazing.


----------



## Dos Equis (Oct 2, 2019)

myself said:


> States rights! Great when certain states want to impose rules in their state, BAD when California does it.


Those who advocate for Federalism and States rights generally do not believe States have the right to create laws which nullify the enumerated powers of the federal government laid out in the constitution.   The Commerce Clause has been used to justify a wide variety of Federal government overreach, however, in this case, there is legitimate concern over the language of the CA law, since it is not only binding on CA colleges, but all conferences, associations or other organizations doing business in this state.  

However, as is often the case, it may take a state doing something beyond their powers to force our courts (and preferably our Congress) to act.

Here is the language (with my underlines):

_"This bill would prohibit California postsecondary educational institutions except community colleges, and every athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, from providing a prospective intercollegiate student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness, or preventing a student participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness or obtaining professional representation relating to the student’s participation in intercollegiate athletics. The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness."_


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 2, 2019)

The purpose of college is an education...no need to complicate it.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 2, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Sorry... you don't get it and no amount of posts or Phelps stories is going to change that.  I'm not in favor of paying amateurs and I'm not in favor of paying college athletes.  Because when you do that, they then become professional athletes and the slide begins.  It should be enough that many of these kids are given an opportunity not given to others.  It's hard work, but it's a privilege and nobody is forced to do it.  There are other ways to use that money in benefiting athletes.  I've yet to hear about a college athlete starving to death.  College is hard for most and it's no harder for an athlete.  When they were training, traveling or playing, I was working.  It's not that big of a hardship and the "free market", like celebrities paying for admission to UCLA, USC and Yale, is already too much of a factor.


Here is one story on college athletes starving, albeit not to "death" https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-basketball-finals-shabazz-napier-hungry/index.html

Here's another on a homeless college athlete.  https://www.si.com/longform/homeless/

None of these are anecdotal.  Tons of athletes have reported being starving because they can't work and have no money.

And for someone who told another poster they aren't addressing arguments, you seem fine ignoring the point that this is a big business and only the athletes can't get compensation.  It's ironic as I would bet you are a Republican, yet you don't want these athletes to be able to earn money off their hard work and talent.  These kids are in professional sports whether you admit it or not.  What else would you call billion dollar TV contracts, stadiums that cost hundreds of millions, coaches making millions, etc.  If your DD or DS could run a summer soccer camp advertising that they play soccer at UCLA or ECU or wherever, that would hurt the sport how?  Their coaches can and they can be counselors, but can't run a business or sign an autograph.  I'm sure the fact that most who would benefit are minorities has nothing to do with your opposition.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 2, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Here is one story on college athletes starving, albeit not to "death" https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-basketball-finals-shabazz-napier-hungry/index.html
> 
> Here's another on a homeless college athlete.  https://www.si.com/longform/homeless/
> 
> ...



Both your links are not completely relevant.  The first is pre total cost payments from 2014.  The second is about homeless middle school and High School athletes.  In today’s world all Power 5 schools pay total cost to all athletes.  Football players who are on full scholarship are getting $4,000 to $6,000 cash.  That is plenty of money for spending money.  Heck my daughter is in a mid major D1 soccer program and she is getting total cost money.  You also have no idea unless you have kid playing in a college sport how much free food they get.  My dd’s college has a nutritionist that has set up a nutrition center where all athletes can get a free healthy breakfast every day year round plus snacks 24/7.  The team is always having team meals.  This bill is not about ending college hunger.  It is about getting a very few players money.  Look up Ed O’Bannon who brought the lawsuit.  He made $4M as an NBA player and wanted more.  

If California wanted to do some good they should have made all college scholarships tax free.  Believe the greedy bastards in Sacramento can’t wait to tax the kids making this new money.  Remember these are dependents so they will be taxed at the top rate their parents make.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 2, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Here is one story on college athletes starving, albeit not to "death" https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-basketball-finals-shabazz-napier-hungry/index.html
> 
> Here's another on a homeless college athlete.  https://www.si.com/longform/homeless/
> 
> ...


If Shabazz Napier goes to bed hungry, he can have his parents give him money for food.  I doubt he paid a nickel for college and we all know what "training table" means.  He's got a meal plan.  What would he be doing at home?  Maybe Shabazz should have just gotten a job if the family is too poor to feed him.  College isn't for everyone.

And if you're homeless, see my previous paragraph.  College isn't an entitlement.  Sport is a big business.  So what?  You're another one that resents people making money.  If you want to get paid out of high school, go play overseas.  Nobody owes you college.  But let me ask you this... who paid Shabazz's tuition?  Who pays for his dorm?  Who pays for his meal pass?  Not him.  And most of the college athletes today are having to cough up money for at least part of their ride.  

Lastly, don't give me the minority bullshit.  It's the NBA and NFL that give a whole bunch of these kids the venue to be wealthy.  What would they be doing without it?  College?  I don't think so.  Shabazz grew up in the projects and, in high school, transferred to an academy that resembles West Point.  Who do you think paid for that?  His single mother from Puerto Rico?  Shabazz?  LMAO!  Where would he be if someone else wasn't always picking up the tab?  Stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 2, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Here is one story on college athletes starving, albeit not to "death" https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-basketball-finals-shabazz-napier-hungry/index.html
> 
> Here's another on a homeless college athlete.  https://www.si.com/longform/homeless/
> 
> ...


The federal government alone provides over 40 billion dollars per year to colleges and universities for research and development...this vastly exceeds the approximately 1 billion per year the NCAA reports bringing in. Should the students involved in the research and development be compensated for their "hard work and talent"?

College is not professional sports, this is a slippery slope...Where would you draw the line?


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 2, 2019)

I think this bad news for college soccer especially the men’s game since Title IX provides some protection to women (granted not in money but opportunity). The only angle I see is in the future UCLA and USC players can endorse Beach, or LA Surf or some other club.  Show up to a few practices. Help those clubs jack up the price they charge parents pursuing the soccer dream.  In fact the price most of you here pay!  So that the players can get a few dollars and help further make these clubs even more money.  If you have younger kids this will cost you money!


----------



## Dubs (Oct 2, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> I think this bad news for college soccer especially the men’s game since Title IX provides some protection to women (granted not in money but opportunity). The only angle I see is in the future UCLA and USC players can endorse Beach, or LA Surf or some other club.  Show up to a few practices. Help those clubs jack up the price they charge parents pursuing the soccer dream.  In fact the price most of you here pay!  So that the players can get a few dollars and help further make these clubs even more money.  If you have younger kids this will cost you money!


I'm pretty sure this will play out in an long legal back and forth which won't change the current system in any way for a long time and when it does change, we all have no clue what it will look like or how it will effect things downstream.


----------



## pewpew (Oct 2, 2019)

The purpose of college is to get an education. Once you have your degree, nobody can take that from you. Your focus should be on the long-term. There’s a shelf-life for all athletes. Few extend their post-career into broadcasting or other endeavors. 
And what happens if god-forbid you suffer a career-ending injury before your first freshman game (in any sport) even begins, or you decided to bypass college and go pro? 
You fall back on that education that you thank your lucky stars you continued to pursue. You move on to the next chapter of life and make more money and have a retirement far greater than that “star player” bonus you got before you even reported to camp. 
My G03 knows that the main goal of playing soccer in college is to hopefully offset a bit of the cost of her education. But if she can get into a school of her choice and she doesn’t play soccer then that’s just fine too. Long-term goals. 
My .02


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Oct 3, 2019)

The optics are really bad when universities are raking in millions on big-time NCAA sports while players coming from poverty-level backgrounds are getting punished for taking a few dollars from boosters.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 3, 2019)

If the NFL and NBA get rid of their age restrictions, does this all go away?  
College can say "If you want to get paid to play, go for it."  But if you want to get an "education" and play in college, you need to give us at least 2 years, or you owe all of the scholarship money back.
Basketball players have lots of options to try and play overseas.  Football players really only have the NFL as a money maker.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 3, 2019)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> The optics are really bad when universities are raking in millions on big-time NCAA sports while players coming from poverty-level backgrounds are getting punished for taking a few dollars from boosters.


Poverty level backgrounds... getting free tuition, free rooms, free books, free meals, preferential scheduling and an opportunity to get an education they likely wouldn't have ever seen.  Yeah, so unfair.  By the way, the university does rake in bucks... that's how they can afford to give "poverty boy" the golden opportunity.


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 3, 2019)

timbuck said:


> If the NFL and NBA get rid of their age restrictions, does this all go away?
> College can say "If you want to get paid to play, go for it."  But if you want to get an "education" and play in college, you need to give us at least 2 years, or you owe all of the scholarship money back.
> Basketball players have lots of options to try and play overseas.  Football players really only have the NFL as a money maker.


The NBA has already been flirting with doing away with its age restriction and it's flimsy in comparison to the NFL.  The reason is very straight forward: international competition from international opportunities in basketball.   As you point out, there isn't such a market for the NFL and gridiron football outside of the US.  I'm not sure dropping the NBA age restriction would affect things too much: slots are already being taken up by international competition in the NBA (meaning there are fewer to go around for Americans), competition is robust on the college circuit, and the chance to offset costs by staying in college and earning booster money might tilt the scales in favor of college for all but the most obvious high level potential NBA talent.   Gridiron football is different: the wear and tear on the body means football players are on a clock ticking down...so maybe?


----------



## timbuck (Oct 3, 2019)

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if you gave players a salary in lieu of a scholarship.
Lets say every player on the football and basketball team gets $80k per year.  Taxed as normal W2 income.  And lets say they are responsible for paying their own tuition, housing, books etc.
Let's even say that they could also make additional money off of their likeness.  Maybe they make another $150k on the side.  Heck, maybe they even make an extra million on the side.
How many of them would mismanage their money and be out of school before the end of the 1st semester?  
I know several people (non-athletes) that blew their tuition money on gambling and partying.  I also knew quite a few players on the football team that supplemented their income by selling weed in the dorms.
I know when I was 19, if you handed me anywhere between $80k and $1 million, I would have completely screwed it up.  I'd have bought drinks for everyone everytime I stepped into a bar. I'd have bought a really cool car or truck (or a few of each).  I'd purchase a house on campus and let my buddies live in it for free.
And if I still managed to go to school and graduate-  there wouldn't be very much left.


----------



## younothat (Oct 3, 2019)

"A better day for college athletes is on the way — and not just football and men’s basketball players. The best in the Olympic sports should profit as well."
https://sports.yahoo.com/politicians-ncaa-payforplay-regan-smith-leaving-money-on-table-220319746.html

Draymond Green calls NCAA a ‘dictatorship’ and says the current system is the most "bankrupt model". 

Besides the Olympic sports like swimming, golf, tennis soccer may not get much endorsement money unless they do well but the women have so there should be some opportunities there at some point.

What will the the big sports marketing machines for Nike, Adidas, Puma and the like do now as a result? more individual emphasis or school, team, league sponsorship, or perhaps more "generation xyx" type deals ?


----------



## oh canada (Oct 3, 2019)

younothat said:


> "A better day for college athletes is on the way — and not just football and men’s basketball players. The best in the Olympic sports should profit as well."
> https://sports.yahoo.com/politicians-ncaa-payforplay-regan-smith-leaving-money-on-table-220319746.html
> 
> Draymond Green calls NCAA a ‘dictatorship’ and says the current system is the most "bankrupt model".
> ...


Thanks for posting the link.  I think everyone would agree that if you are setting World Records in ____ (choose your sport), you will benefit from the proposed CA law.  The debate is for the other 99% of olympic sport athletes, and frankly many mid-tier football, basketball and other college sports programs across the country.  Here's a great article from a Fresno reporter who is in favor of paying athletes, but recognizes that the new law would likely eliminate olympic sport programs at Fresno State:  https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/marek-warszawski/article235025712.html 

As an aside, I will commend how the parents of this PROVEN world class athlete are eschewing a short term 6-figure $$ deal for a Stanford scholarship and the potential for more money in the future.  Others should take note.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 3, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> If Shabazz Napier goes to bed hungry, he can have his parents give him money for food.  I doubt he paid a nickel for college and we all know what "training table" means.  He's got a meal plan.  What would he be doing at home?  Maybe Shabazz should have just gotten a job if the family is too poor to feed him.  College isn't for everyone.
> 
> And if you're homeless, see my previous paragraph.  College isn't an entitlement.  Sport is a big business.  So what?  You're another one that resents people making money.  If you want to get paid out of high school, go play overseas.  Nobody owes you college.  But let me ask you this... who paid Shabazz's tuition?  Who pays for his dorm?  Who pays for his meal pass?  Not him.  And most of the college athletes today are having to cough up money for at least part of their ride.
> 
> Lastly, don't give me the minority bullshit.  It's the NBA and NFL that give a whole bunch of these kids the venue to be wealthy.  What would they be doing without it?  College?  I don't think so.  Shabazz grew up in the projects and, in high school, transferred to an academy that resembles West Point.  Who do you think paid for that?  His single mother from Puerto Rico?  Shabazz?  LMAO!  Where would he be if someone else wasn't always picking up the tab?  Stop embarrassing yourself.


What a tough guy.  Obviously from your views on minorities and going to school you aren't racist.  My bad.

As for anyone else who supports this anti-market principle, clearly the only people who should make off money off the players names and likeness are the schools!


----------



## Gimpyhip (Oct 3, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> What a tough guy.  Obviously from your views on minorities and going to school you aren't racist.  My bad.
> 
> As for anyone else who supports this anti-market principle, clearly the only people who should make off money off the players names and likeness are the schools!


Given that, in aggregate, colleges and universities do not make money off of sports, the value of the scholarships and ability to be admitted to otherwise competitive schools exceeds the value of the service provided by the athletes in the market. In other words, the ticket and television sales combined with the sales and marketing of the names and likenesses of the athletes does not cover the total costs of running the overall athletic programs. 

Giving the relatively few "student-athletes" who could actually market themselves for a significant profit could certainly help those kids. It would not help the vast majority who are not sufficiently famous to benefit. It does, however lead to real complications. Many of which have been discussed here. It isn't as simple as believing in capitalism. 

Who would help these few students negotiate the marketing deals? Sports agents? The schools? Vegas? The schools can't because the law, as written would prohibit them from making a profit off of the likeness or name. That is how agents make money.


----------



## espola (Oct 3, 2019)

Gimpyhip said:


> Given that, in aggregate, colleges and universities do not make money off of sports, the value of the scholarships and ability to be admitted to otherwise competitive schools exceeds the value of the service provided by the athletes in the market. In other words, the ticket and television sales combined with the sales and marketing of the names and likenesses of the athletes does not cover the total costs of running the overall athletic programs.
> 
> Giving the relatively few "student-athletes" who could actually market themselves for a significant profit could certainly help those kids. It would not help the vast majority who are not sufficiently famous to benefit. It does, however lead to real complications. Many of which have been discussed here. It isn't as simple as believing in capitalism.
> 
> Who would help these few students negotiate the marketing deals? Sports agents? The schools? Vegas? The schools can't because the law, as written would prohibit them from making a profit off of the likeness or name. That is how agents make money.


Colleges make income from their sports, but very few sports and even fewer overall athletic programs turn a "profit", even before we add in the supposed effect of scholarships.


----------



## messy (Oct 3, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> What a tough guy.  Obviously from your views on minorities and going to school you aren't racist.  My bad.
> 
> As for anyone else who supports this anti-market principle, clearly the only people who should make off money off the players names and likeness are the schools!


It's a market approach for NCAA basketball and football. It might cause a school like Alabama to pay Saban $5m instead of $8m so they have a couple mil to spread around for their superstar athletes. Except Alabama will fight to the death--they like their slave boys down there, don't they, Outlaw?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 3, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> What a tough guy.  Obviously from your views on minorities and going to school you aren't racist.  My bad.
> 
> As for anyone else who supports this anti-market principle, clearly the only people who should make off money off the players names and likeness are the schools!


Yeah, it's always about race, isn't it?  When facts fail you, pull the race card.  Sorry... yours has been declined.  You can go back to feeling sorry for yourself but the bullshit doesn't fly here.  I don't give a fuck what Shabazz Napier's skin color is.  That has nothing to do with the point.  But you knew that, didn't you?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 3, 2019)

messy said:


> It's a market approach for NCAA basketball and football. It might cause a school like Alabama to pay Saban $5m instead of $8m so they have a couple mil to spread around for their superstar athletes. Except Alabama will fight to the death--they like their slave boys down there, don't they, Outlaw?


Yes, black players making millions of dollars to play football are slaves.  Dey am da poh slabes, massah.  Shut the fuck up.  Your bullshit race card doesn't fly here, either.  You're probably another dipshit that bitches about not having enough black coaches in the NFL despite black people being 13% of the country's population and 68% of the players.  Fucking moron.  Jesus Christ the whining is old and tired.


----------



## messy (Oct 4, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Yes, black players making millions of dollars to play football are slaves.  Dey am da poh slabes, massah.  Shut the fuck up.  Your bullshit race card doesn't fly here, either.  You're probably another dipshit that bitches about not having enough black coaches in the NFL despite black people being 13% of the country's population and 68% of the players.  Fucking moron.  Jesus Christ the whining is old and tired.


Sounds like a certain po angry white boy got eaten out for a spot on a team...by a black kid.
Pay the kids...they're working for major corporations.


----------



## mlx (Oct 4, 2019)

pewpew said:


> The purpose of college is to get an education. Once you have your degree, nobody can take that from you. Your focus should be on the long-term. There’s a shelf-life for all athletes. Few extend their post-career into broadcasting or other endeavors.
> And what happens if god-forbid you suffer a career-ending injury before your first freshman game (in any sport) even begins, or you decided to bypass college and go pro?
> You fall back on that education that you thank your lucky stars you continued to pursue. You move on to the next chapter of life and make more money and have a retirement far greater than that “star player” bonus you got before you even reported to camp.
> My G03 knows that the main goal of playing soccer in college is to hopefully offset a bit of the cost of her education. But if she can get into a school of her choice and she doesn’t play soccer then that’s just fine too. Long-term goals.
> My .02


Yes. I agree with you 100%. But that's not the point. Now imagine your G03 is the greatest player and the league is so good that people start paying tickets to watch the games. And PlayStation comes up with a video game that features her, and Nike has a commercial about "playing like a girl" and your DD is in it, etc, etc. All of these corporations would be making money. The just thing to do, is to share some of that money with the people who actually makes that possible. Getting a slice of that cake doesn't mean that she needs to change the goal or the focus at all.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 4, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Yes, black players making millions of dollars to play football are slaves.


Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 4, 2019)

mlx said:


> Yes. I agree with you 100%. But that's not the point. Now imagine your G03 is the greatest player and the league is so good that people start paying tickets to watch the games. And PlayStation comes up with a video game that features her, and Nike has a commercial about "playing like a girl" and your DD is in it, etc, etc. All of these corporations would be making money. The just thing to do, is to share some of that money with the people who actually makes that possible. Getting a slice of that cake doesn't mean that she needs to change the goal or the focus at all.


You are missing the point.  This not just about college players getting slice of the pie which I would favor.  Big time football and basketball players will now be bought for colleges by donors.   There will be nothing keeping a top recruit from going to the college where the donors pays the most for the recruit.  The endorsement or job will just be the cover for the payment since nothing limits the amount that can be paid or the minimum the athlete needs to do.  These donors will no longer donate as much money to college sports.   So money will shift from going to all college sports into the hands of a very few football and basketball players.  I can't see how any college soccer fan could favor this.  It will hurt all sports but football and basketball.  And you are smoking something if you think your future college soccer player will ever make money from this.


----------



## mlx (Oct 4, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> ...  And you are smoking something if you think your future college soccer player will ever make money from this.


This is stupid. Of course there's not money in college soccer to make. I was making a point. Now, your point is a different issue. Bottom line is "you make money off of my image, you need to pay me". That's it. Are there broader implications? yes; but they can be solved as different issues.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 4, 2019)

mlx said:


> This is stupid. Of course there's not money in college soccer to make. I was making a point. Now, your point is a different issue. Bottom line is "you make money off of my image, you need to pay me". That's it. Are there broader implications? yes; but they can be solved as different issues.


Making a point by including comments that you know are not based on reality is what is really stupid.  And what is really dumb (which you checked my comment as) is your thinking on this subject to not consider the broader implications.


----------



## mlx (Oct 4, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> Making a point by including comments that you know are not based on reality is what is really stupid.


No, dude. You are stupid for not comprehending. My example applies to football or any other sport where someone is making money that is not being shared to the people playing those sports. Now, I don't have time for you, so this is my last reply.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 4, 2019)

mlx said:


> No, dude. You are stupid for not comprehending. My example applies to football or any other sport where someone is making money that is not being shared to the people playing those sports. Now, I don't have time for you, so this is my last reply.


lol.   Your the idiot for not understanding how this will be further corrupted.  Donors will buy players for top programs.   The endorsement will be a sham.  I am for sharing money that is truly made off anyone.   But I see a future were the top prospects shop themselves to the donors of USC, Alabama, etc.   The same donors that will now no longer donate directly to the colleges.  This will hurt all of the non-money generating sports.   I guess you are okay with that.


----------



## Justus (Oct 4, 2019)

I don't know much but the little that I do know I will share.  Keep earning money out of NCAA!!!!!  However, it's a fact that top Black, White, Asian and Latino football players and hoop stars help make up most of $$$$$ earned.  Let's figure out a way to compensate the Lebron James, Winston's or Larry Birds of the world after they graduate college.  NCAA can't become a minor league system like it is for hoops.  Do what NCAA baseball does.  If you take the scholarship, you can't go pro until after Jr year. It doesn't matter what color skin you have or where you come from, some of these athletes get taken advantage of.  ED O saw kids playing video games with his likeness and he wants a piece of that.  Maybe a little MRC for him of the sale of the proceeds?  The rest of the 99% are student athletes and they need to appreciate having some or all of their college paid for because they can run or kick good.  Lets figure out a fair way...……….but we all know that won't happen


----------



## Supermodel56 (Oct 5, 2019)

I don’t think it’s going to have as negative effect on NCAA schools and athletic programs as people think it will. Schools will still offer sponsorships and getting that exposure is much different from just sponsoring one player. Additionally, schools may say, if you want the player to represent in school uniforms, school needs to get paid as well. Plenty of sponsorship opportunities to go around.

Yes, boosters will likely find ways now to pay students to join their programs and it will likely put smaller/less popular schools at a more significant disadvantage. That said, even scrub players should have an opportunity to get in on the action - at least just a little perhaps for local events/needs. Most of the money will be going to a few select athletes. Other Athletes will still benefit and just like you can get a paid internship in engineering and marketing while you’re a student, your also learning firsthand, the business of sports, marketing, and public speaking.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Sounds like a certain po angry white boy got eaten out for a spot on a team...by a black kid.
> Pay the kids...they're working for major corporations.


I played soccer.  So no... no black kid took my spot.  Keep swinging the race card, though.  You're bound to hit something eventually.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 5, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...


Except that if it wasn't for football or hoop, most of them wouldn't be attending college or getting it for free.  They did receive compensation... it's called tuition, books, rent, meal cards, preferential class placement, free tutoring.  There's a dollar value on that.  And don't tell me most of them would have been accepted any other way.  And if they get hurt?  OH FUCKING WELL.  At least they're enrolled in college and many will receive their full scholarship.  Yeah... they won't make millions running or bouncing a ball, but welcome to the real world.  Get a job.


----------



## Glen (Oct 5, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Point taken, because we're talking about football and women don't play football so there isn't an exactly equal setoff, but you would concede the college could eliminate a significant number of female sport scholarships if eliminating football?  Pretty sure if we're talking basketball, and a school is offering 15 scholarships to men they have to also offer 15 scholarships to women, no?
> 
> 
> Correct.  So if the CA law is applied throughout NCAA and including the Ivy League, that would provide Ivy student athletes with an added potential $ stream.  i.e., presently, if Joe Stud hockey player is deciding between Harvard and U. of Michgan, if he comes from an upper middle class family he is likely going to have to pay his entire way at Harvard (or most of it) whereas U.ofM can offer him a free education.  Under the 2023 law, if Joe can pick up some endorsement deals from Nike or Bauer or Boston hockey boosters, he might be able to get through Harvard debt free.  Levels the playing ice.


yes, let’s undermine the integrity


----------



## Glen (Oct 5, 2019)

If Harvard wanted a level playing field, it would give scholarships. But yes, let’s further undermine the integrity of the institution by allowing boosters from Boston to buy a kid.  Great idea.  The whole reason that ivies don’t have scholarships is to have need based financial assistance.  Why would you do anything to undermine that through a law?    

If the kid can’t afford Harvard, he’ll get plenty of aid like all the other students.  If he can, why the hec would you create a law so he can be paid by boosters?  So, so ridiculous.


----------



## Glen (Oct 5, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...


they should have gone pro. If there is no league, then create one.  If the league is unsuccessful, like lavar ball’s, then they don’t generate enough money.  Pretty simple.

btw - which kids do we specifically think are getting screwed?  The second string linebacker, or the first string linebacker that signs a 5 million guaranteed contract?  As much as I hate the NCAA, I’m a little lost on who we are really trying to help through this law.


----------



## Poconos (Oct 5, 2019)

oh canada said:


> _Or what happens when the booster overpays a running back $50,000 to endorse his car dealership in a TV ad to keep up with what guys are getting at their rival school? That’s $50,000 less he’s giving in donations to the athletic department._


excellent points here.  but can't expect perfection in any scenario.  every system gets gamed in the end.


----------



## messy (Oct 5, 2019)

Poconos said:


> excellent points here.  but can't expect perfection in any scenario.  every system gets gamed in the end.


Correct. Bottom line is these kids are given scholarships to perform for big money interests and they should play for more than tuition, room and board.


----------



## dad4 (Oct 5, 2019)

Glen said:


> which kids do we specifically think are getting screwed?  The second string linebacker, or the first string linebacker that signs a 5 million guaranteed contract?


Who is getting screwed?  The kids who get injured.  No degree, no pro contract, just bad knees, back trouble, and a resume with 3 years of phony classes.  

You can argue that the proposed law is worse than some other remedy.  But I don’t see how you can argue that no one got harmed.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 5, 2019)

dad4 said:


> Who is getting screwed?  The kids who get injured.  No degree, no pro contract, just bad knees, back trouble, and a resume with 3 years of phony classes.
> 
> You can argue that the proposed law is worse than some other remedy.  But I don’t see how you can argue that no one got harmed.


The kids who get injured will still be enrolled in college.  They'll still have an opportunity the rest of us have when, let's be honest, a good portion of them would never have had.  Most aren't going to play professionally anyway.  Are they harmed because they didn't turn pro?  Sorry... I don't have a lot of pity for college athletes.  They work hard.  So does the kid that has to assume debt after graduation, fight for classes like everyone else and go work for 4-5 hours a day after classes.  Don't tell me that's easier.  Is the argument that a kid who plays for 1 year at Duke or North Carolina gives more to the school than he gets?  I'd have a hard time believing that.  And how much money is offensive linemen #66 actually making for Michigan football?  Sorry... I'm not buying.


----------



## espola (Oct 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Correct. Bottom line is these kids are given scholarships to perform for big money interests and they should play for more than tuition, room and board.


Only a few are likely to make any money.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Oct 5, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...


How much is a college education worth?


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Oct 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Correct. Bottom line is these kids are given scholarships to perform for big money interests and they should play for more than tuition, room and board.


Why?


----------



## messy (Oct 5, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Why?


Because they’re performing for others’ massive financial gain, including the coach. They should get some cash money to spend.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Because they’re performing for others’ massive financial gain, including the coach. They should get some cash money to spend.


They all currently get some cash money to spend!


----------



## oh canada (Oct 6, 2019)

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnists/mitch-albom/2019/10/06/mitch-albom-california-fair-pay/3880569002/

_"As for other sports like lacrosse, softball, rowing, diving, well, unless there’s some superstar or Dennis Rodman-type attention-getter, chances are there’s not much money, if any, going to those athletes — despite the time and effort they put in."  -- Mitch Albom_


----------



## Supermodel56 (Oct 6, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> How much is a college education worth?


This is actually a deeper question than you think - it really depends on major and what career choice the student decides on. But if you’re referring to the value of the scholarship an athlete receives - a quick google search says on avg a student athlete gets $10k in tuition/room/board. I don’t know if that’s total or per year. But let’s say it’s per year. Given student athletes put in 20hrs/week on avg over the entire year that’s less than $10/hr they’re “earning” for the time put in.


----------



## messy (Oct 6, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> This is actually a deeper question than you think - it really depends on major and what career choice the student decides on. But if you’re referring to the value of the scholarship an athlete receives - a quick google search says on avg a student athlete gets $10k in tuition/room/board. I don’t know if that’s total or per year. But let’s say it’s per year. Given student athletes put in 20hrs/week on avg over the entire year that’s less than $10/hr they’re “earning” for the time put in.


I would assume that the major D1 schools’ scholarships are worth $50K per year easy. Not nearly enough when the shirts and video games etc are sold, if you’re Zion or someone like that.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Oct 6, 2019)

messy said:


> I would assume that the major D1 schools’ scholarships are worth $50K per year easy. Not nearly enough when the shirts and video games etc are sold, if you’re Zion or someone like that.


That's if you're getting a full ride. For most athletes it doesn't sound like it's even close to that much. I have no problem with schools making money off it's players - it doesn't matter how much - that's how the world works. Companies hire employees because employees enable the company to generate significant revenue - they deliver a positive ROI. The problem is when the schools/NCAA won't allow kids to make their own deals, create their own brands, launch their own businesses, etc...  This is anti-competitive and in many ways unfair to the athletes.

That SAID.... I can also see why this is very troubling for the NCAA and could put college sports at risk altogether - it has less to do with not wanting to help the athletes or thinking they deserve it. 

The biggest "issue" I see is when it comes to recruiting and I think this is why the NCAA is so concerned - the bigger schools will likely have boosters willing to pay top dollar offering high paying "jobs" to lure players. As a result, this will give those schools a huge advantage in terms of talent and now you've got teams where the players are essentially professionally paid athletes playing against teams with players who aren't. It could potentially destroy the league altogether if the games become non-competitive and there's a perceived non-level recruiting playing field. This is why the NFL/NBA/MLB drafts are largely based on previous season performance - prioritizing losing teams, salary caps, etc... and also why the NCAA regulates recruiting so heavily - it benefits the league and players to have competitive games and at least some semblance of recruiting fairness, because without it, the interest quickly declines and the audience (which is where the real money - eyeballs watching/fans) would shrink dramatically.  Watching pro athletes play against gifted high school athletes is only fun for so long... Unless there's some equal structure as to how much college athletes get paid and recruited - just the idea of unfairness is enough for a significant portion of the audience to lose interest in the games altogether - without the audience and interest, all the revenue goes away, not just for the NCAA, but for the school and the player. 

I think the biggest challenge in all this will be figuring out how the NCAA is going maintain a level playing field when it comes to recruiting. If they don't, Gavin Newsom may have just single-handedly destroyed college sports.


----------



## espola (Oct 6, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> That's if you're getting a full ride. For most athletes it doesn't sound like it's even close to that much. I have no problem with schools making money off it's players - it doesn't matter how much - that's how the world works. Companies hire employees because employees enable the company to generate significant revenue - they deliver a positive ROI. The problem is when the schools/NCAA won't allow kids to make their own deals, create their own brands, launch their own businesses, etc...  This is anti-competitive and in many ways unfair to the athletes.
> 
> That SAID.... I can also see why this is very troubling for the NCAA and could put college sports at risk altogether - it has less to do with not wanting to help the athletes or thinking they deserve it.
> 
> ...


The schools that will have a big advantage with this are those that are already doing it illegally.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 6, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Except that if it wasn't for football or hoop, most of them wouldn't be attending college or getting it for free.  They did receive compensation... it's called tuition, books, rent, meal cards, preferential class placement, free tutoring.  There's a dollar value on that.  And don't tell me most of them would have been accepted any other way.  And if they get hurt?  OH FUCKING WELL.  At least they're enrolled in college and many will receive their full scholarship.  Yeah... they won't make millions running or bouncing a ball, but welcome to the real world.  Get a job.


Except that for basketball and football, they can't go pro unless they play in college and the dollar value of their scholarship does not come close to the revenue they bring in.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 6, 2019)

Glen said:


> they should have gone pro. If there is no league, then create one.  If the league is unsuccessful, like lavar ball’s, then they don’t generate enough money.  Pretty simple.


Is this a serious suggestion? Work for no money or start your own league?

My point here is that if you do work that generates revenue, you should be compensated for it.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 6, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> How much is a college education worth?


Not as much as it used to be. 

I have no problem deducting a kid's scholarship from their compensation, sure, but when a kid brings in more money than the $50k they get, they should make a portion of that money.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Oct 7, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Not as much as it used to be.
> 
> I have no problem deducting a kid's scholarship from their compensation, sure, but when a kid brings in more money than the $50k they get, they should make a portion of that money.


Not always true - do you bring in more revenue/value for your employer than they pay you? Most likely you do. If not, your employer is probably looking to get rid of you - unless it's gov.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 7, 2019)

messy said:


> I would assume that the major D1 schools’ scholarships are worth $50K per year easy. Not nearly enough when the shirts and video games etc are sold, if you’re Zion or someone like that.


Zion can barely spell his own fucking name.  Give it a rest.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 7, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Except that for basketball and football, they can't go pro unless they play in college and the dollar value of their scholarship does not come close to the revenue they bring in.


Baseball players can turn pro out of high school.  What other sports pay enough to make a living?


----------



## messy (Oct 7, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Zion can barely spell his own fucking name.  Give it a rest.


Have you heard him speak? He’s clearly way more intelligent than you. Leave your own jealousy and insecurity out of it and you may see things more clearly.


----------



## Justus (Oct 7, 2019)

messy said:


> Have you heard him speak? He’s clearly way more intelligent than you. Leave your own jealousy and insecurity out of it and you may see things more clearly.


I have to agree with Messy here Outlaw.  Zion's story is super inspiring.  I got pissed when I played local HS Hoops in OC when guys like Tom Lewis bolted their local HS Team for Mater Dei to make a super team.  Zion stayed at his smaller prep charter school to play with his friends he grew up with.  Had many "offers" to switch HS to play big time HS Hoops.  Fantastic human too.  Go Zion!!!


----------



## focomoso (Oct 7, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Not always true


Correct. Not always true. But when it is true - and it is for most of the Basketball and Football players at the big programs and even some unlikely others: many of my daughter's gymnastics friends have been going to UCLA meets to watch Katelyn Ohashi. That's entirely due to her, not the program - they should get paid.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 7, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Baseball players can turn pro out of high school.  What other sports pay enough to make a living?


I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Hockey players can go pro out of HS too. Tennis, golf, soccer and baseball all have to make this choice. It's only basketball and football that aren't allowed to.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 7, 2019)

messy said:


> Have you heard him speak? He’s clearly way more intelligent than you. Leave your own jealousy and insecurity out of it and you may see things more clearly.


Yes, I've heard him speak.  And you judging anyone's intelligence is laughable.  Any dolt that uses "way more" should be taken out behind the barn and dealt with.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 7, 2019)

Justus said:


> I have to agree with Messy here Outlaw.  Zion's story is super inspiring.  I got pissed when I played local HS Hoops in OC when guys like Tom Lewis bolted their local HS Team for Mater Dei to make a super team.  Zion stayed at his smaller prep charter school to play with his friends he grew up with.  Had many "offers" to switch HS to play big time HS Hoops.  Fantastic human too.  Go Zion!!!


'Fantastic human' on the take.  Have you already forgotten the freebies he asked recruiters for?  Or do you think recruiters make that shit up?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 7, 2019)

focomoso said:


> I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Hockey players can go pro out of HS too. Tennis, golf, soccer and baseball all have to make this choice. It's only basketball and football that aren't allowed to.


Why are you saying basketball players can't turn pro out of high school?  And let's not pretend a 1-and-done at Duke or North Carolina qualifies as 'going to college'.


----------



## messy (Oct 7, 2019)

Now now, Outlaw...you're way more angry than I've seen you in awhile. Didn't you get any cock this weekend?


----------



## MarkM (Oct 7, 2019)

messy said:


> Now now, Outlaw...you're way more angry than I've seen you in awhile. Didn't you get any cock this weekend?


Do you think it's appropriate to make jokes like this?  Real funny, dude.  What is wrong with you?


----------



## messy (Oct 7, 2019)

MarkM said:


> Do you think it's appropriate to make jokes like this?  Real funny, dude.  What is wrong with you?


My bad. I carried some “off-topic” hostilities (his homophobic attack on my preferred presidential candidate) into an inappropriate arena. Sorry.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Correct. Not always true. But when it is true - and it is for most of the Basketball and Football players at the big programs and even some unlikely others: many of my daughter's gymnastics friends have been going to UCLA meets to watch Katelyn Ohashi. That's entirely due to her, not the program - they should get paid.


Do you think the UCLA gymnastics program, or ANY gymnastics program, would bring in enough revenue to support itself?  You would need your daughter, her friends and a small army to do it.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> My bad. I carried some “off-topic” hostilities (his homophobic attack on my preferred presidential candidate) into an inappropriate arena. Sorry.


Homophobic attack?  What are you babbling about now?  ButtGig?  Isn't that his name?  And please... when you DO respond... don't use gendered language.


----------



## messy (Oct 8, 2019)

MarkM, am I at least a little forgiven now?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> MarkM, am I at least a little forgiven now?


I can only imagine the memes if your boy, ButtGig, gets the job.  The Oval Office will have to bring in a special, pillow biting couch.


----------



## MarkM (Oct 8, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> I can only imagine the memes if your boy, ButtGig, gets the job.  The Oval Office will have to bring in a special, pillow biting couch.


Pretty pathetic dude.


----------



## messy (Oct 8, 2019)

MarkM said:


> Pretty pathetic dude.


Now you know why I assumed Outlaw is gay, even if I was a bit gross about it. 
He should stop being so angry about it.


----------



## outside! (Oct 8, 2019)

The "Ignore" feature works really well.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

Why would you assume I'm gay?  Wishful thinking, Mess?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

MarkM said:


> Pretty pathetic dude.


I appreciate your opinion, "dude". I don't value it, but I appreciate it.


----------



## messy (Oct 8, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Why would you assume I'm gay?  Wishful thinking, Mess?


Why wouldn't I? Classic. The macho avatar, the obsession with Mayor Pete's sexuality (you constantly mention it). Your constant references to gender. It is very clear that you're hiding something in your fear. 
I don't know where you live, but in most circles in Southern Cal. it's ok to be out.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> Why wouldn't I? Classic. The macho avatar, the obsession with Mayor Pete's sexuality (you constantly mention it). Your constant references to gender. It is very clear that you're hiding something in your fear.
> I don't know where you live, but in most circles in Southern Cal. it's ok to be out.


Let's be honest... you're a beta male; at best.  Mayor Pete isn't even liked by his own community.  He's only hanging on because he's the rainbow candidate and that's why you support him.  But that aside, imagine how respected we'd be with The gay President and his First Husband.  It was bad enough Obama bowed to every world leader.  What's Pete going to do... drop to his knees?

Stop worrying about my sexual preferences.  It's bad enough that you mistake being made fun of.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

Yeah... THIS is what America needs.  LMAO!


----------



## messy (Oct 8, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Let's be honest... you're a beta male; at best.  Mayor Pete isn't even liked by his own community.  He's only hanging on because he's the rainbow candidate and that's why you support him.  But that aside, imagine how respected we'd be with The gay President and his First Husband.  It was bad enough Obama bowed to every world leader.  What's Pete going to do... drop to his knees?
> 
> Stop worrying about my sexual preferences.  It's bad enough that you mistake being made fun of.


Pete scares you for a million reasons. He’s the Alpha...just look at what he’s done and where he’s been and admire instead of being so envious. Welcome to California!


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> Pete scares you for a million reasons. He’s the Alpha...just look at what he’s done and where he’s been and admire instead of being so envious. Welcome to California!


Absolutely.  Saw this photo and the first thing I said to myself was, "now THAT'S masculinity."


----------



## messy (Oct 8, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Absolutely.  Saw this photo and the first thing I said to myself was, "now THAT'S masculinity."


Every time you write about this combat vet, Naval officer, Rhodes scholar...you betray your fear and insecurity. It's OK, "Outlaw," you're a man too. Just not quite the man he is. You run scared.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> Every time you write about this combat vet, Naval officer, Rhodes scholar...you betray your fear and insecurity. It's OK, "Outlaw," you're a man too. Just not quite the man he is. You run scared.


Yeah, you're right... only "real" men teabag each other and take it in the colon.


----------



## messy (Oct 8, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Yeah, you're right... only "real" men teabag each other and take it in the colon.


There you go again. You revel in contemplating the specifics. Glad you’ve shown your true colors...this must be therapeutic for you.


----------



## pooka (Oct 8, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> lol.   Your the idiot for not understanding how this will be further corrupted.  Donors will buy players for top programs.   The endorsement will be a sham.  I am for sharing money that is truly made off anyone.   But I see a future were the top prospects shop themselves to the donors of USC, Alabama, etc.   The same donors that will now no longer donate directly to the colleges.  This will hurt all of the non-money generating sports.   I guess you are okay with that.


Question: the money that boosters give to say the football or basketball team, is it earmarked just for the team they chose, or is it spread around? 
I was under the assumption that it was just for the programs they specifically donated to.
If so, it still has no direct effect on the other sports right? its just going to the players. The money that is shared is the marketing/tv money and general athletic fund right? Also, I am seeing that a lot of schools are saying "you need to be getting 75% or high scholarship to get a cost of attendance stipend" well most girl soccer players get around 50%. So that money is not really helpful at all schools.


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> Now now, Outlaw...you're way more angry than I've seen you in awhile. Didn't you get any cock this weekend?


Seriously? What are you 12 or just act like it?


----------



## MicPaPa (Oct 8, 2019)

After reading on, hate to admit to LOL.


----------



## Dos Equis (Oct 8, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> lol.   Your the idiot for not understanding how this will be further corrupted.  Donors will buy players for top programs.   The endorsement will be a sham.  I am for sharing money that is truly made off anyone.   But I see a future were the top prospects shop themselves to the donors of USC, Alabama, etc.   The same donors that will now no longer donate directly to the colleges.  This will hurt all of the non-money generating sports.   I guess you are okay with that.


I was right there with you Simi.  Same thoughts.  Donors buying players. Money influencing programs. 

Then, while writing that comment, and using U Denver as my example, I realized I was actually making the opposite point. UD does not ring a bell? They had rich alums/donors fund facilities, coach salaries, and their teams, and went from zero to NCAA champions in LAX and Hockey.  Money bought them titles. Why not have that money go to players? It is already there, changing the competitive balance. In football and basketball there is tons of earmarked money, donations in kind, funded coach endowments, season ticket licensing agreements (yes, talking about you USC).  

I prefer college to be amateur. But as long as the NFL and the NBA are using the NCAA as their minor leagues, it is not. Let the players go pro as soon as they are ready and skip college, then the NCAA becomes a choice and not a scam.  Notice no one ever mentions baseball?  The kids who go to college and skip the draft do so voluntarily for the education.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 8, 2019)

messy said:


> There you go again. You revel in contemplating the specifics. Glad you’ve shown your true colors...this must be therapeutic for you.


I don't know, Mess.  Do you think, if Peter becomes the nominee, fans will fly rainbow flags and chant, "BOOTY... BOOTY..." ???


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 9, 2019)

Great opinion piece by a UCLA gymnast that went viral and wasn't allowed to capitalize on her fame even though the school could.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/katelyn-ohashi-fair-play-act.html


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Great opinion piece by a UCLA gymnast that went viral and wasn't allowed to capitalize on her fame even though the school could.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/katelyn-ohashi-fair-play-act.html


You call that a great opinion piece?  She wrote it on herself.  She's expecting to make money after 1 great routine?  If we give her the cover of a Wheaties box, will that make her AND you go away?


----------



## End of the Line (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Great opinion piece by a UCLA gymnast that went viral and wasn't allowed to capitalize on her fame even though the school could.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/katelyn-ohashi-fair-play-act.html


Why doesn't the NY Times interview any of the 99.9% of student athletes who participate in non-revenue generating sports who will be harmed by this law?  Why doesn't the Times ask how they're going to feel when their program is defunded and the money goes to "endorse" a couple basketball and football players who are going to make millions in less than a year anyway? 

Ohashi's assertion that she is entitled to some of the billions in revenue the NCAA receives "on the backs of athletes" is such b.s.  Even ignoring that "revenue" is not profit, UCLA and the NCAA lose a fortune on gymnastics and her personally, and it's ludicrous to think otherwise.  If anyone has been exploited with respect to her participation in college gymnastics, it is taxpayers. The actual cost of a UCLA education is roughly $70k a year.  About half of that is subsidized by taxpayers.  The other half - for her anyway - was also probably subsidized by taxpayers to the extent she received a full ride, or at least by athletic department boosters who probably would have preferred if the money went to the woeful football and basketball programs. Taxpayers funded her acceptance and education at UCLA and allowed her to prance around on the mat like she's important for four years doing something that has absolutely no future. If she thinks she's so valuable, why doesn't she just pay for all of the infrastructure she takes for granted and rent out Pauley, pay for her own coaching and equipment and marketing, pay for event staff, and sell 10,000 tickets to cover the costs, and then pay her own tuition? Seriously, can someone please tell me exactly how much someone like Ohashi would made in endorsements if she could? She had approximately 2 gymnastics meets left in her entire life when she has her two minutes of fame by scoring her "perfect 10".   In the end, Ohashi's "viral" video has virtually no value.  It is the type of performance that might be shown for a minute as filler on Sports Center, but that's all it's worth. Ohashi has never been good enough to make an Olympic team and her "perfect 10", although kinda fun to watch for the few people who are into that sort of thing, was purely the result of NCAA created hype from the watered down scoring used in college compared to what you see from the real elite national team gymnasts.  Ohashi is a very good college gymnast, but she's mostly just ungrateful about UCLA's and the NCAA's role in providing her with the tools and exposure to generate 10 million hits on YouTube.  She has unrealistic expectations about what this law might do for someone like her.

The Times also ignores that apparel companies will start offering HS seniors cheap, long-term endorsement deals because they know signing 100 HS seniors to long term deals on the cheap is far more likely to pay dividends than paying someone like Zion alone $75 million after he proves he's legit in college and then goes pro.  Think about that.  After his freshman year, Nike reportedly signed Zion to a 7-year $75 million deal. There are maybe 10 HS senior basketball players every year with legit future endorsement potential.  Nike probably could have signed all of them, including Zion, to deals right out of HS for less than half what it paid Zion alone a year later. The new law will allow them to exploit 18 year old kids on the cheap, whereas currently things are harder and more expensive after they've already drafted no. 1 and have millions from their first pro contract.  In other words, the great irony of this law is that it harms many of those who can "benefit" from endorsements in college, as well as real student athletes whose non-revenue generating programs will collapse or turn into glorified inter-mural sports with no scholarships as money gets shifted from college programs to a few individual players in revenue generating sports. The law also "benefits" an even higher percentage of affluent families who can afford to pay tuition after scholarship opportunities vaporize, to the detriment of the poor.  The law also harms the universities, given that few of them make money from sports, and some of the money they desperately need to fund non-revenue generators will go instead to go to a handful of players, instead of the schools that incur the massive infrastructure costs that these selfish kiddos take for granted. At the same time, the ones who win are apparel companies and boosters, plus a very small handful of basketball and football players who got deals out of HS but didn't pan out professionally. We should call this the official Law of Unintended Consequences.  Overall, the law hurts the student athletes it is intended to help, but it helps rich apparel companies, boosters and affluent families that can pay tuition once scholarships go away in non-revenue sports.  Nice.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 9, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> Why doesn't the NY Times interview any of the 99.9% of student athletes who participate in non-revenue generating sports who will be harmed by this law?  Why doesn't the Times ask how they're going to feel when their program is defunded and the money goes to "endorse" a couple basketball and football players who are going to make millions in less than a year anyway?
> 
> Ohashi's assertion that she is entitled to some of the billions in revenue the NCAA receives "on the backs of athletes" is such b.s.  Even ignoring that "revenue" is not profit, UCLA and the NCAA lose a fortune on gymnastics and her personally, and it's ludicrous to think otherwise.  If anyone has been exploited with respect to her participation in college gymnastics, it is taxpayers. The actual cost of a UCLA education is roughly $70k a year.  About half of that is subsidized by taxpayers.  The other half - for her anyway - was also probably subsidized by taxpayers to the extent she received a full ride, or at least by athletic department boosters who probably would have preferred if the money went to the woeful football and basketball programs. Taxpayers funded her acceptance and education at UCLA and allowed her to prance around on the mat like she's important for four years doing something that has absolutely no future. If she thinks she's so valuable, why doesn't she just pay for all of the infrastructure she takes for granted and rent out Pauley, pay for her own coaching and equipment and marketing, pay for event staff, and sell 10,000 tickets to cover the costs, and then pay her own tuition? Seriously, can someone please tell me exactly how much someone like Ohashi would made in endorsements if she could? She had approximately 2 gymnastics meets left in her entire life when she has her two minutes of fame by scoring her "perfect 10".   In the end, Ohashi's "viral" video has virtually no value.  It is the type of performance that might be shown for a minute as filler on Sports Center, but that's all it's worth. Ohashi has never been good enough to make an Olympic team and her "perfect 10", although kinda fun to watch for the few people who are into that sort of thing, was purely the result of NCAA created hype from the watered down scoring used in college compared to what you see from the real elite national team gymnasts.  Ohashi is a very good college gymnast, but she's mostly just ungrateful about UCLA's and the NCAA's role in providing her with the tools and exposure to generate 10 million hits on YouTube.  She has unrealistic expectations about what this law might do for someone like her.
> 
> The Times also ignores that apparel companies will start offering HS seniors cheap, long-term endorsement deals because they know signing 100 HS seniors to long term deals on the cheap is far more likely to pay dividends than paying someone like Zion alone $75 million after he proves he's legit in college and then goes pro.  Think about that.  After his freshman year, Nike reportedly signed Zion to a 7-year $75 million deal. There are maybe 10 HS senior basketball players every year with legit future endorsement potential.  Nike probably could have signed all of them, including Zion, to deals right out of HS for less than half what it paid Zion alone a year later. The new law will allow them to exploit 18 year old kids on the cheap, whereas currently things are harder and more expensive after they've already drafted no. 1 and have millions from their first pro contract.  In other words, the great irony of this law is that it harms many of those who can "benefit" from endorsements in college, as well as real student athletes whose non-revenue generating programs will collapse or turn into glorified inter-mural sports with no scholarships as money gets shifted from college programs to a few individual players in revenue generating sports. The law also "benefits" an even higher percentage of affluent families who can afford to pay tuition after scholarship opportunities vaporize, to the detriment of the poor.  The law also harms the universities, given that few of them make money from sports, and some of the money they desperately need to fund non-revenue generators will go instead to go to a handful of players, instead of the schools that incur the massive infrastructure costs that these selfish kiddos take for granted. At the same time, the ones who win are apparel companies and boosters, plus a very small handful of basketball and football players who got deals out of HS but didn't pan out professionally. We should call this the official Law of Unintended Consequences.  Overall, the law hurts the student athletes it is intended to help, but it helps rich apparel companies, boosters and affluent families that can pay tuition once scholarships go away in non-revenue sports.  Nice.


Yup.


----------



## Janie270 (Oct 9, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> Why doesn't the NY Times interview any of the 99.9% of student athletes who participate in non-revenue generating sports who will be harmed by this law?  Why doesn't the Times ask how they're going to feel when their program is defunded and the money goes to "endorse" a couple basketball and football players who are going to make millions in less than a year anyway?
> 
> Ohashi's assertion that she is entitled to some of the billions in revenue the NCAA receives "on the backs of athletes" is such b.s.  Even ignoring that "revenue" is not profit, UCLA and the NCAA lose a fortune on gymnastics and her personally, and it's ludicrous to think otherwise.  If anyone has been exploited with respect to her participation in college gymnastics, it is taxpayers. The actual cost of a UCLA education is roughly $70k a year.  About half of that is subsidized by taxpayers.  The other half - for her anyway - was also probably subsidized by taxpayers to the extent she received a full ride, or at least by athletic department boosters who probably would have preferred if the money went to the woeful football and basketball programs. Taxpayers funded her acceptance and education at UCLA and allowed her to prance around on the mat like she's important for four years doing something that has absolutely no future. If she thinks she's so valuable, why doesn't she just pay for all of the infrastructure she takes for granted and rent out Pauley, pay for her own coaching and equipment and marketing, pay for event staff, and sell 10,000 tickets to cover the costs, and then pay her own tuition? Seriously, can someone please tell me exactly how much someone like Ohashi would made in endorsements if she could? She had approximately 2 gymnastics meets left in her entire life when she has her two minutes of fame by scoring her "perfect 10".   In the end, Ohashi's "viral" video has virtually no value.  It is the type of performance that might be shown for a minute as filler on Sports Center, but that's all it's worth. Ohashi has never been good enough to make an Olympic team and her "perfect 10", although kinda fun to watch for the few people who are into that sort of thing, was purely the result of NCAA created hype from the watered down scoring used in college compared to what you see from the real elite national team gymnasts.  Ohashi is a very good college gymnast, but she's mostly just ungrateful about UCLA's and the NCAA's role in providing her with the tools and exposure to generate 10 million hits on YouTube.  She has unrealistic expectations about what this law might do for someone like her.
> 
> The Times also ignores that apparel companies will start offering HS seniors cheap, long-term endorsement deals because they know signing 100 HS seniors to long term deals on the cheap is far more likely to pay dividends than paying someone like Zion alone $75 million after he proves he's legit in college and then goes pro.  Think about that.  After his freshman year, Nike reportedly signed Zion to a 7-year $75 million deal. There are maybe 10 HS senior basketball players every year with legit future endorsement potential.  Nike probably could have signed all of them, including Zion, to deals right out of HS for less than half what it paid Zion alone a year later. The new law will allow them to exploit 18 year old kids on the cheap, whereas currently things are harder and more expensive after they've already drafted no. 1 and have millions from their first pro contract.  In other words, the great irony of this law is that it harms many of those who can "benefit" from endorsements in college, as well as real student athletes whose non-revenue generating programs will collapse or turn into glorified inter-mural sports with no scholarships as money gets shifted from college programs to a few individual players in revenue generating sports. The law also "benefits" an even higher percentage of affluent families who can afford to pay tuition after scholarship opportunities vaporize, to the detriment of the poor.  The law also harms the universities, given that few of them make money from sports, and some of the money they desperately need to fund non-revenue generators will go instead to go to a handful of players, instead of the schools that incur the massive infrastructure costs that these selfish kiddos take for granted. At the same time, the ones who win are apparel companies and boosters, plus a very small handful of basketball and football players who got deals out of HS but didn't pan out professionally. We should call this the official Law of Unintended Consequences.  Overall, the law hurts the student athletes it is intended to help, but it helps rich apparel companies, boosters and affluent families that can pay tuition once scholarships go away in non-revenue sports.  Nice.


So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?

You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?

Other students can profit off of NIL, but not athletes?

Paying the coach doesn't harm other students or athletes, but football players getting a shoe deal will?  By the way, the law is written to protect the school's shoe deals by making it legal for them to require athletes to wear the school sponsor apparel.

It's all such nonsense and quite honestly a slave owner mentality.


----------



## messy (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?
> 
> You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?
> 
> ...


See my post above noting Saban’s salary.
It’s a lowly technique to fight this fairness by pitting the athletes against each other, when the coaches are always the highest paid public employees in the state, making millions.


----------



## Dubs (Oct 9, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> Why doesn't the NY Times interview any of the 99.9% of student athletes who participate in non-revenue generating sports who will be harmed by this law?  Why doesn't the Times ask how they're going to feel when their program is defunded and the money goes to "endorse" a couple basketball and football players who are going to make millions in less than a year anyway?
> 
> Ohashi's assertion that she is entitled to some of the billions in revenue the NCAA receives "on the backs of athletes" is such b.s.  Even ignoring that "revenue" is not profit, UCLA and the NCAA lose a fortune on gymnastics and her personally, and it's ludicrous to think otherwise.  If anyone has been exploited with respect to her participation in college gymnastics, it is taxpayers. The actual cost of a UCLA education is roughly $70k a year.  About half of that is subsidized by taxpayers.  The other half - for her anyway - was also probably subsidized by taxpayers to the extent she received a full ride, or at least by athletic department boosters who probably would have preferred if the money went to the woeful football and basketball programs. Taxpayers funded her acceptance and education at UCLA and allowed her to prance around on the mat like she's important for four years doing something that has absolutely no future. If she thinks she's so valuable, why doesn't she just pay for all of the infrastructure she takes for granted and rent out Pauley, pay for her own coaching and equipment and marketing, pay for event staff, and sell 10,000 tickets to cover the costs, and then pay her own tuition? Seriously, can someone please tell me exactly how much someone like Ohashi would made in endorsements if she could? She had approximately 2 gymnastics meets left in her entire life when she has her two minutes of fame by scoring her "perfect 10".   In the end, Ohashi's "viral" video has virtually no value.  It is the type of performance that might be shown for a minute as filler on Sports Center, but that's all it's worth. Ohashi has never been good enough to make an Olympic team and her "perfect 10", although kinda fun to watch for the few people who are into that sort of thing, was purely the result of NCAA created hype from the watered down scoring used in college compared to what you see from the real elite national team gymnasts.  Ohashi is a very good college gymnast, but she's mostly just ungrateful about UCLA's and the NCAA's role in providing her with the tools and exposure to generate 10 million hits on YouTube.  She has unrealistic expectations about what this law might do for someone like her.
> 
> The Times also ignores that apparel companies will start offering HS seniors cheap, long-term endorsement deals because they know signing 100 HS seniors to long term deals on the cheap is far more likely to pay dividends than paying someone like Zion alone $75 million after he proves he's legit in college and then goes pro.  Think about that.  After his freshman year, Nike reportedly signed Zion to a 7-year $75 million deal. There are maybe 10 HS senior basketball players every year with legit future endorsement potential.  Nike probably could have signed all of them, including Zion, to deals right out of HS for less than half what it paid Zion alone a year later. The new law will allow them to exploit 18 year old kids on the cheap, whereas currently things are harder and more expensive after they've already drafted no. 1 and have millions from their first pro contract.  In other words, the great irony of this law is that it harms many of those who can "benefit" from endorsements in college, as well as real student athletes whose non-revenue generating programs will collapse or turn into glorified inter-mural sports with no scholarships as money gets shifted from college programs to a few individual players in revenue generating sports. The law also "benefits" an even higher percentage of affluent families who can afford to pay tuition after scholarship opportunities vaporize, to the detriment of the poor.  The law also harms the universities, given that few of them make money from sports, and some of the money they desperately need to fund non-revenue generators will go instead to go to a handful of players, instead of the schools that incur the massive infrastructure costs that these selfish kiddos take for granted. At the same time, the ones who win are apparel companies and boosters, plus a very small handful of basketball and football players who got deals out of HS but didn't pan out professionally. We should call this the official Law of Unintended Consequences.  Overall, the law hurts the student athletes it is intended to help, but it helps rich apparel companies, boosters and affluent families that can pay tuition once scholarships go away in non-revenue sports.  Nice.


Ultimately this is a very complex issue that requires very careful thought and deliberation about how it would/should be rolled out.  As you mention here "unintended consquences".  Those all need to be analyzed and vetted before anything could possbily be done.  Things are not right as they stand and many folks on here bring up excellent points on both sides.  The rhetoric has obviously ratcheted up, but that's what the introduction of this law was supposed to do.  How it all plays out is totally unknown and I think it's safe to say it will be years down the road before anything of substance will actually be done.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?
> 
> You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do with intentionally exploiting the athletes. The NCAA has to have rules against paying athletes - which means the schools and boosters already want to pay them and give them more. The reason they can't is because it gives certain schools a significant advantage over others in terms of recruiting. If they create an uneven playing field - then it undermines the credibility of the competition - people lose interest in watching and the entire ship sinks.


----------



## oh canada (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?
> 
> You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?
> 
> ...


Appreciate your enthusiasm on this topic, but there is a consistent disconnect in all of your posts..."colleges making money".  

Yes, colleges have big endowments (UCLA $2 Billion - 47th in country) and have benefited tremendously from the student loan windfall.  If they tapped into those endowments they could reduce college costs for all students, not just athletes.  The big problem with university budgets is the bloated growth of administration officials and their budgets.  One study found that the California State University system had 11,614 full-time faculty in 1973, and 12,019 in 2008. During that same time period, administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183, ending up with more administrators than faculty!  

Now, endowment money would be athletes getting paid directly from the school.  Maybe you're in favor of that, but that's not the issue here.  Not the CA law.  We are talking about college athletic program budgets, which are supported by outside interests.  And but for less than 10 programs across the country, the ADs DO NOT make a profit.    

And the NCAA isn't rolling in the dough either.  NCAA gets $475 million from ESPN each year.  That's a big number for sure.  But there are more than 1,200 colleges that the NCAA represents.  $1 Billion divided by 1000 = $1 million.  How many athletic programs you think $1MM covers?  

Also, another interesting and relevant fact...in its 2016–17 fiscal year the NCAA took in $1.06 billion in revenue (not profit), over 82% of which was generated by the Division I Men's Basketball Tournament.   My guess is that the revenue taken in by the Div I women's gymnastics tournament was less than the cost of a Toyota Prius (without options).


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?
> 
> You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?
> 
> ...


Yeah... $50k worth of free education, every year, SCREAMS OF SLAVERY!  OH THE FUCKING HUMANITYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 9, 2019)

messy said:


> See my post above noting Saban’s salary.
> It’s a lowly technique to fight this fairness by pitting the athletes against each other, when the coaches are always the highest paid public employees in the state, making millions.


Yes, we wouldn't want college athletes pitted against one another.  I'd rather they pretend to give a shit on the court and then drive their twin Bentleys to Morton's and laugh together at how fucking stupid Americans are for paying their $30M annual salaries.  Because that's what they do... in case you didn't know.  They don't give a shit about the fans.  They don't give a shit about what the jersey says on their chests.  They give a shit about how long they can play in the show because that equates to dollars.  It's akin to a celebrity pretending to be a liberal.  You think rich, famous people believe in liberalism?  Really?  Or do you grasp that they need us minions to keep paying $15 to see their shitty movies and they can't afford to piss us off?


----------



## End of the Line (Oct 9, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?
> 
> You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?
> 
> ...


@Janie270, you are in over your head.  I'm sure you mean well and want to be an advocate for the "oppressed", but you lack the thoughtfulness to fully comprehend the implications of this law and probable impact on the underprivileged.  The vast majority of schools do not profit from athletics. So when you claim that schools profit off athletes (especially those like Ohashi who do nothing but lose money for UCLA), you're just wrong.  Even if you just look at football, most programs still lose money.  Just ask Wazzu, which is staring at $85 million in debt caused mostly by football, which could bankrupt the school.

Your "slave owner mentality" argument also does a huge disservice to those I suspect you hope will benefit from this law, because the fact is the law is harmful overall to the underserved and underprivileged for reasons already stated.  You can't seem to put a cogent analysis together in your head, let alone in writing, so you're resorting to a desperate false trope that people make when they lack the brainpower to understand and explain their position.  No one is forcing anyone to accept $75k a year in benefits and a free education from UCLA or anywhere, and there is nothing about UCLA's handling of athletics that justifies comparing it to a slaveowner, let alone suggests it is exploiting student athletes.  Seriously, that is just stupid.  

I'm pretty sure every single person who claims that universities and the NCAA "exploit" student athletes is someone who just doesn't value education.  They think the $300K that UCLA and the State of California give to the likes of Ohashi lack value.  They don't look at the opportunity to attend an elite academic institution like the Ivies or Stanford, which would otherwise be inaccessible in the absence of athletic prowess, to be a meaningful opportunity.  But there's no sense debating someone who thinks a degree from Stanford (especially a free one) is the same as a degree from SDSU.  There's no sense debating anyone who sees a few football players at USC getting drafted and, from that, assumes that every football player at USC is only there for football and doesn't care or receive any academic benefit from the school.  There's no debating someone who thinks a free academic and athletic education isn't worth anything, but only demands more, more, more.

The long and the short of it is, UCLA gave Ohashi $300k and she also got to continue doing something she loves for four more years at considerable financial loss to UCLA and CA, but which has no meaningful purpose or societal value whatsoever.  If you ever stop looking at the $300k in public assistance she received as an entitlement, you'll realize she easily received the benefit of the deal and we taxpayers got "exploited".  Maybe this law is good actually; maybe it means taxpayers can stop wasting money paying for uneven bars and mats, and can kill off this expensive sport off at the 6 remaining DI schools in CA that haven't already gotten the hint.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Oct 9, 2019)

This pains me to no end that I agree completely with End of the Line.


----------



## mirage (Oct 10, 2019)

Personally, I see the whole thing a bit of no issue.

It is a change against the status quo and threatens NCAA stronghold but by the time CA law goes into effect, there are over 20 other states wanting something similar for their own athletes.   The tide is definitely against the status quo.

I see the monetary thing rather simplistically.  Let athletes that get paid receive no scholarships or fraction thereof.  In other words, the athlete lose 1:1 ratio of every dollar they make, they lose a dollar of scholarship until full scholarship goes away.  Beyond that, well, good for the athlete.

Since we're talking about endorsed merchandizes and commercials/ads, I don't see how schools lose out a significant amount of money.  It is a personal endorsement only.  If the argument is that because of personal endorsement ability, sponsors have no need to goto the institution, then its a classic case of splitting the existing size of the pie, rather than finding a bigger pie.

Players come and go but school spirit and affiliations tend to stay lifetime with most adults.  Just look at the professional sports and athletes.  When an star athlete signs a free agent contract with another team or gets traded, do fans follow the athlete or stay with the club?  Some may follow the athlete IN ADDITION TO the club they are fan of.

The way I see it is that by letting those athletes that can make money, let them and reallocate the scholarships to others.  Its not a question of revenue making or non revenue making sports issue at all.  That said, I do agree from the earlier post that said vast majority of money makers will be male athletes.  Not a bias, just how our society looks at athletes.  Sure, there will be exceptions but as an aggrigate, it will be male dominated....

Cheers!


----------



## End of the Line (Oct 10, 2019)

Simisoccerfan said:


> This pains me to no end that I agree completely with End of the Line.


I guess I must be wrong then.  Shoot.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 10, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Yeah, you're right... only "real" men teabag each other and take it in the colon.


Are there no conduct standards here? Most places this should get you banned.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 10, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Are there no conduct standards here? Most places this should get you banned.


Well, if it hurts that much, take out your tampon and walk home.


----------



## outside! (Oct 11, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Are there no conduct standards here? Most places this should get you banned.


The ignore feature works really well for filtering out trolls.


----------



## espola (Oct 11, 2019)

outside! said:


> The ignore feature works really well for filtering out trolls.


True, but he makes a good point - why is it tolerated at all?

A cynic might suspect that the website owner's income goes up when the trolls are at their most obnoxious behavior.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 11, 2019)

espola said:


> True, but he makes a good point - why is it tolerated at all?
> 
> A cynic might suspect that the website owner's income goes up when the trolls are at their most obnoxious behavior.


Same reason your political agenda is tolerated.  It's called "free speech".  You liberals need to understand that you don't get to pick and choose who has to follow the rules.  And if you're unsure about what constitutes "a troll", maybe review how many times you've posted, Mr. 10,000+ club member.  I was never good at math, but in looking at your start date and posts since then, my guess is you average 10 per day... everyday.  But I'm the troll?


----------



## espola (Oct 11, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> Same reason your political agenda is tolerated.  It's called "free speech".  You liberals need to understand that you don't get to pick and choose who has to follow the rules.  And if you're unsure about what constitutes "a troll", maybe review how many times you've posted, Mr. 10,000+ club member.  I was never good at math, but in looking at your start date and posts since then, my guess is you average 10 per day... everyday.  But I'm the troll?


Have I ever posted "take out your tampon and walk home"?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 11, 2019)

espola said:


> Have I ever posted "take out your tampon and walk home"?


I have no idea.  You've posted 10,469 times.  It'll take THIS little troll awhile to answer that.


----------



## espola (Oct 11, 2019)

espola said:


> True, but he makes a good point - why is it tolerated at all?
> 
> A cynic might suspect that the website owner's income goes up when the trolls are at their most obnoxious behavior.


I'll risk getting this post yanked by reporting that yesterday I started using the Brave browser instead of my old standby google chrome, and I now see many fewer ads on many websites, including this one.


----------



## focomoso (Oct 11, 2019)

The Outlaw said:


> It's called "free speech".


Free speech does not apply here because SoCalSoccer is not a government entity. They are perfectly within their rights to ban you for whatever speech they want. Whether they will is another issue. I enjoy this site, but if this kind of behavior is tolerated, I'll happily stop coming.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Oct 11, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Free speech does not apply here because SoCalSoccer is not a government entity. They are perfectly within their rights to ban you for whatever speech they want. Whether they will is another issue. I enjoy this site, but if this kind of behavior is tolerated, I'll happily stop coming.


I'm sure we'd all be destroyed if that happened.


----------



## jpeter (Oct 29, 2019)

The NCAA will allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness in a major shift for the organization









						The NCAA will allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness in a major shift for the organization
					

The organization's board voted unanimously to allow the change, though the NCAA's three divisions must still craft their own rules.




					www.cnbc.com


----------

