MicPaPa
GOLD
"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.)
CA college athletes can now get paid$$
- Thread starter oh canada
- Start date
Have a good evening! (if you know how.)
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".
I'm not offended. I want you to go away. Your idiocy deserves to be pointed out at every available opportunity.
Simisoccerfan
PREMIER
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
GOLD
Social media stalking is a pathetic life...get a new one.
+ it will be in litigation for a long time. Not sure if/how this ever gets worked out. Too many moving parts.
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
GOLD
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.
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*
PREMIER
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.
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.
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.
States rights! Great when certain states want to impose rules in their state, BAD when California does it.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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
PREMIER
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.
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
PREMIER
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
GOLD
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."
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
PREMIER
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.
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*
PREMIER
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.
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
GOLD
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.
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
PREMIER
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!