How would the bill not give CA schools a recruiting advantage? If I was an athlete being recruited by different schools, and playing in a CA school meant I could get legally-protected endorsement deals, I’d probably favor them. It’s like the underhanded ways recruiters get kids and/or their families paid to get them to go to their schools, but now the law says it’s allowed. You can call it a threat, but it’s also not an unreasonable response from their perspective.
If the law passes, the NCAA will then have 3 choices. Do nothing, and allow schools in one state to have a clear advantage. Tell the schools there that they are now ineligible to be in the NCAA because their state law violates NCAA rules. Or, change the rules so that they allow all athletes to get endorsements, because one state forced your hand.
I think they really hate that last option. And I think they might follow through on their threat. They’re dead-set against players making money, and I think they really don’t want California pushing them around. I’m interested to see what happens.
The bill doesn’t take effect until 2023 and the NCAA will use every method in its arsenal to blunt its effects. But Michael McCann of SI pointed out that invoking the commerce clause opens them up to stricter scrutiny of their antitrust activities. I really think the Association is in a tough spot here – it cannot defeat the nation’s largest state on an issue like this, imo.
Kicking out schools representing 11% of the country’s population seems like a losing proposition itself, too. California can construct a tidy D1-equivalent conference all of its own and stock it with the bluest of the blue chip talent in the two revenue sports. The annual Alabama-Clemson championship game will become a second rate championship and it won’t matter how many watch – all of them will still know where the best football is being played.
Time for the last holdouts to surrender and give in to reality and, above all, fairness and civil liberties.
I wasn’t aware that anyone was making the argument that it wouldn’t.
You don’t have to just think that; it’s true. The NCAA is constructed on a model of not paying athletes for their labor nor allowing anyone else to pay them either.
#1 won’t happen - the other schools wouldn’t allow it. Remember, the bylaws are whatever a majority of the Division I schools (or, in some cases, a majority of the Power 5 Conference schools) want them to be.
#2 will result in going back to the days of two national champions, but this time, one in California, and another in the other 49 states.
#3 is a tough one. Do you let, say, Nike sign anybody it wants to endorsement deals (which could extend into their NBA/NFL careers) for whatever amounts the players demand?
Meanwhile, the NCAA has responded. It claims to be working out the details on allowing endorsements. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NCAA ends up allowing them, provided whoever is paying the endorsement has no direct link with anybody at the schools involved.
Also, here is the version of the bill that passed the state Assembly; it added some things to the Senate-passed version (mainly, an athlete’s endorsement deal cannot be in conflict with a deal made by the team - presumably, you can’t sign a deal with Nike if the team has one with Adidas, for example - and any endorsement deals have to be revealed to the school), so it has to go back to the Senate, but I have a feeling this is pretty much what is going to end up on Governor Newsom’s desk.
I agree, it doesn’t look like the NCAA can win this one - finally - but I’ve thought this before and been wrong, well, kinda wrong, before. Nobody can delay like the NCAA, especially with the assistance it routinely gets from sympathetic courts.
The link to the bill I have above is the final version; the state Senate voted 39-0 (with one not voting) to accept the Assembly’s amended version as is.
Note that the bill tries to prohibit the NCAA from banning California schools from “participating in intercollegiate athletics” if the school allows any of its athletes to accept money for use of their name/image/likeness. Violating the Commerce Clause notwithstanding, all the NCAA would have to do is say, “We’re not preventing your schools from playing sports - we are telling the other NCAA schools that if they play any games against your schools, they run the risk of being declared ineligible for our championships.”
The NCAA banning California schools from competing for championships would be an interesting conflict to observe. What if Washington/Oregon/Colorado/Arizona legislatures follow suit? How long will the rest of the nation’s coaches put up with schools from those states procuring the best athletes and making their programs look like Division II?
Realistically, how many college athletes are going to make any money on their name/likeness? A handful of star players in popular sports like football, basketball, baseball/softball, maybe even soccer might have a chance at selling some merchandise, but the majority of college athletes just aren’t that famous…
And how many have a real chance at getting a shoe contract? Pretty sure the 3rd string kid on the Quidditch Club or whatever ain’t interesting to Nike. Meanwhile, somebody with the talent of Tua will likely have to fend off competing offers from everybody in the business of selling athletic wear…
I’m not sure creating a superstar system where a handful of kids becoming wealthy while everyone else just continues mostly as they always have really solves any perceived problem with the current system. I’d rather see a system where all college athletes benefit…maybe pay them a set amount each semester, or an hourly rate for time spent on team activities, or something similar.
I’m not sure what problem you’re really seeing (or not seeing). Yes, some players have more value to schools’ athletic programs than others do. That value being restricted arbitrarily is the problem that I see.
I’m looking at it from the perspective of the non-superstar athlete. That student will see Tua or another superstar driving around in a fancy car, with money to spend…while the non-superstar, who attends the exact same practices/games/events and works just as hard, gets nothing. From that perspective, letting some athletes have access to things the non-superstar can’t seems unfair.
The real problem, as I see it, is that college athletes are usually not allowed to work–and really don’t have time to work during their season anyway, yet their athletic scholarship doesn’t usually provide spending money, or money to support families, or money for any other thing non-athletes could earn or do. Making a select few of them millionaires doesn’t really help the majority of college athletes.
Some athletes not having the skills to be compensated with more than a scholarship is not really a problem. Talented individuals being denied the right, enjoyed by everyone else, of earning as much money as they can, is a huge problem to me. This is a simple question of civil rights.
Time is indeed a problem for student athletes. We should all encourage our nation’s institutions of higher education to reduce practice time by 40% and eliminate two games from the football schedule (maybe eight from basketball).
How does this differ from what they will experience in real life, tho? I mean, once they leave college, isn’t that how they are going to find themselves compensated? Not everyone makes the same salary as the star player, even tho they all go to the same meetings, practices, games, etc.
I agree that not being able to work and earn money is a problem for all NCAA athletes.
I admit that I’m unsure if the language of this bill enables that or not. Looking around the internet, I haven’t yet found anyone who’s addressed that issue.
After college, the vast majority of college athletes are not going to be playing professionally. Those that do make it to the pros have the ability to hire agents and negotiate their contracts at arms length, which a college athlete can’t really do. I see that as making the situations different.
Top tier pro athletes are the ones who can become wealthy on their talent. This just means that they get to start earning it earlier. And why not, the school is making money off them.
If an athlete has no chance to get paid after college, he should be exploring other sources of income anyway. Like earning a degree that leads to a good job, or networking, etc.
It would be like me complaining that I’m not getting paid like Aaron Rodgers. Of course I’m not.
There are disparities in income in real life, in all industries, tho. I don’t see how a star athlete being paid more is any different than, say, a star salesperson being paid more than another salesman. Both sell the same product, attend the same meetings, etc.
Besides, in the case of these athletes, they will be paid for services outside of sports. That is, they aren’t being paid to play, they are being paid because of how they have played and how that translates into goodwill and/or sales for the people paying them.
I still don’t understand the basic point you’re trying to make. Is it that income inequality is bad? Or just bad in college athletics? If a wealthy booster promises $100,000 per year to Stud Athlete to come play at State U but doesn’t make the same offer to a kid whose potential is second string guard, is that something that has to be regulated from happening?
I think maybe I’ve done a poor job of explaining myself. Let me try again.
I think this legislation is intended to address the problem of college athletes not being able to work or otherwise earn money while they’re on the team. As such, I see it as helping a small number of athletes while doing nothing for the majority, and I’d prefer an alternative that would help the majority.
If that isn’t the intent of this legislation, then I’ve wasted your time and countless pixels of internet usage blathering on and making no sense.