California Gov signs Pay the Players legislation

[Lobot]

This is going to very be interesting to watch. Gavin Newsome signed the SB206 in California that gives players the right to profit from their likeness among over things srating in 2023 . Several other states have bills pending.

I probably can't explain this so here you go:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...r-pay-play-act

[longtimefan]

This will be terrible for college athletics. This will turn over total control of the game to ESPN and the shoe companies.

[Corporateballa]

Great news and long overdue. I’m a huge supporter of capitalism.

[longtimefan]

You're talking about MLB or NFL, or NBA. Without a draft.

[Lobot]

Another article ($) and podcast:

https://theathletic.com/1255043/

[blackattack]

Personally I think this is great even though I admit this puts an end to what little is left of amateurism in college sports. Hopefully this blows up the hypocritical NCAA once and for all.
I have no idea how this ultimately affects UC athletics......probably not good but we're stuck on the outside looking in so what's it matter ??

[red_n_black_attack]

This means the NCAA cannot profit off the likeness/image of individuals. This goes back to Ed (forget last name) from the '95 UCLA team. It creates quite a mess if one state has this and others don't. One way to look at it that could work everywhere should the NCAA decide to adopt this to create fair play everywhere: Make it approved by NCAA but make it like all other jobs where you can't get paid for likeness by a booster or sponsor. I.e., a shoe company that sponsors specific athletic program. It is going to get ugly, but this is a good thing for the kids and the NCAA needs to make it a level playing field everywhere. Two things that cannot happen is the NCAA ban member organizations from scheduling California schools, nor can you have only California schools enabling endorsement deals. Hopefully the NCAA can manage it in such a way that the players get the money, the NCAA doesn't profit off the players, and this ends up being a non issue because few players do it. Only a few players will have an appeal broader than the region in which the school is located. Lastly, the players will need to sign with entertainment agents, much like an actor and join the commercial actor guild. With all of that, the agents cannot be tied to or associated with agents who represent professional athletes.

This can work only if the NCAA gets off it's butt and makes this feasible within their bylaws for students at all member institutions,

[MI Bearcat]

Am I missing something? Whether or not the governor of CA says the state is not allowed to ban players from making money off their likeness, the NCAA can still ban it like they always have can't they? It's not up to the state of California if the colleges are members of the NCAA. I can see this as being a step towards paying college players if a good percentage of the states enact the same law and pressure or somehow legally force the NCAA into agreeing.

[red_n_black_attack]

Am I missing something? Whether or not the governor of CA says the state is not allowed to ban players from making money off their likeness, the NCAA can still ban it like they always have can't they? It's not up to the state of California if the colleges are members of the NCAA. I can see this as being a step towards paying college players if a good percentage of the states enact the same law and pressure or somehow legally force the NCAA into agreeing.

Yes, and this is the root of the problem/headache. The California legislature already bans using state funds for NCAA member schools in California traveling to certain states. If the NCAA does nothing, then one of two things happens. 1.) California schools that allow players to take advantage of state law break from the NCAA and can play games among themselves and any schools where similar laws are passed (and allowed) from other states.2.) California NCAA member schools follow NCAA rules and do not allow players to play who have endorsement deals.

Side note: When Greg Anthony played at UNLV he owned a silk screening and tee shirt company. It was found that his business was not technically a violation of NCAA rules as students were encouraged to test their entrepreneurial skils (thank God for spell correct). Greg ended up paying his own tuition and was essentially a walk-on as a result. I could see the NCAA allowing players to have endorsement deals with stipulations such as giving up scholarship, their representative can't be sports agents, and no endorsement deals with school boosters or sponsors (including the school, i.e. tO$U couldn't pay Justin Fields to use his image on the game day scorecards)

[Corporateballa]

The NCAA is corrupt. These ‘academic institutions’ are corrupt. PAY THE PLAYERS!

[Lobot]

I think somewhere in the middle where we're headed here. Should the players be able to make money off their likeness? Yes. However, that creates a whole new branch of the enforcement tree for the NCAA and they can't even handle what they have now correctly so I have no faith that this path won't get abused by schools and particularly boosters.

I think you give all players in all sports an equitable spending stipend based on the sport they play. Football players at every school gets $X, Lacrosse gets $X etc. From that amount you then you penalize them for the next semester based on previous semester GPA. Get an A get the full amount. Get a B, lose 10%. etc. Pegging the stipend to academics is they only way the NCAA member schools can pretend college revenue sports are still tied to the actual function of the university. If they don't do something like this, the NCAA should just give up the amateurism model entirely.

I know there are multiple holes here but the real challenge would be making this type of system stand up to title IX.

[longtimefan]

I think the amateurism model will be gone by 2023. There will be lofty pronouncements on the integrity of NCAA sports, but there will be no real way to stop boosters from bidding for recruits. Then the transfer rule will be jettisoned for good the first time a player sues because he can make more money from his name and likeness at another school. So, it will end up with every player being a free agent every year, with financial incentives to move for at least some players. So imagine the NFL or NBA, where there is no player draft, and everybody is an unrestricted free agent every year. I hope I'm wrong, but that's where it's going.

[swilsonsp4]

If the NCAA doesn't come up with a plan that removes the recruiting advantages that CA and other states considering such legislation would have, then the Federal government would have to get involved. I'm not one who prefers Federal involvement in such issues, but, unless there's unanimity, the situation would be inherently unfair to schools in states that don't go that way.

That said, it would be best if the NCAA would get off their collective butts and solve the problem internally. That effort should start immediately. Pandora's Box already has been opened.

[Lobot]

If the NCAA doesn't come up with a plan that removes the recruiting advantages that CA and other states considering such legislation would have, then the Federal government would have to get involved. I'm not one who prefers Federal involvement in such issues, but, unless there's unanimity, the situation would be inherently unfair to schools in states that don't go that way.

That said, it would be best if the NCAA would get off their collective butts and solve the problem internally. That effort should start immediately. Pandora's Box already has been opened.

That effort should start with firing Mark Emmert IMO. He's been ineffective at best on multiplle issues and the NCAA needs new leadership if it's going to survive

[red_n_black_attack]

That effort should start with firing Mark Emmert IMO. He's been ineffective at best on multiple issues and the NCAA needs new leadership if it's going to survive

Two things:

1. Former tO$U TE and Cleveland Representative Gonzalez is proposing Federal legislation similar to the California Bill to give athletes the rights to likeness, etc...This is to counter another proposed Bill that would end tax exempt status for the NCAA unless they pay players

2. I'd propose an alternative solution: pay the players for their image/likeness and allow former players free reign to cash in on likeness while wearing uniform and licensed apparel. This is more than cost of attendance and needs to be a fair amount. Additionally, each player gets paid, scholarship and walk-on players the same amount. The pay doesn't increase for highly rated players or skill positions, but does increase annually with 4th year max. Redshirt players get paid for their redshirt year, and thusly have opportunity to get two max pay years and five total paid years.Keeping in mind that we need an even playing field, plus assistant coach salaries aren't great everywhere, I'd start with the following pay by class:

1st year - $18,720 ($9/hour annualized)
2nd year - $20,800 ($10/hour annualized)
3rd year - $24,960 ($12/hour annualized)
4th-5th - $31,200 ($15/hour annualized)

This is a lot of money considering it is on top of room/board/tuition. Players who get injured or granted medical redshirts get paid, though some of that might come out of worker's compensation insurance. Interestingly, if a player gets severely injured with lasting health effects, the player gets worker's compensation benefits or can sue their employer for damages (which can get big if highly rated player). Lastly, this applies to all players in all sports to satisfy any Title IX naysayers.

Please don't use the argument about cost. 'Bama may be a big draw for tv money, but they need every small school on their schedule. The NCAA can work out a way that ties conference tv contracts and NCAA tv contracts such that tv revenue is evenly shared for student athlete salaries. One side benefit of this would be a bit of parity as I can see maximum number of scholarships dropping in football to cover costs in other sports.