CA college athletes can now get paid$$

oh canada

oh canada

GOLD
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...


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

https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-s...e-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.
 
TangoCity said:
How about club soccer players? Are they going to be allowed to have agents and endorsements?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Surfref said:
I can see some Title 9 lawsuits coming for the public universities.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top