Well that was a waste

[Pakuni]

You agree in the first response, that it doesn't matter if it is outside income. You claim this is easily mitigated. It is not easily mitigated.

In the rest, you then revert to claiming it doesn't matter if it is outside income. You are wrong on this, and you admitted it in the first response.

In your latter case, that would definitely be a grey area. The courts could decide either way. Signing autographs is clearly dependent on their status as a college athlete, meaning the income is dependent on University resources. I ran it by counsel for two major universities. If the law went forward, and an athlete had such an opportunity, they would advise against it as it may violate 501(c)(3) status. Universities are going to err on the side of caution every time.

The reason they would be in jeopardy. Why aren't they paying G-league stars $25k to sign autographs. Heck, why aren't they paying them $2.5K. Because the NCAA institutions leverage their not-for-profit status to outcompete for-profit entities. Thereby creating an unequal playing field. The athlete is leveraging that not-for-profit status for personal profit. Professors are denied similar opportunities for financial gain, because of the same set of rules.

Serious/only semi-rhetorical question:

You claim that allowing a student who plays basketball to earn outside income from outside sources would jeopardize a university's nonprofit status.
Assuming that's true, why is the same not true for students who don't play basketball? For example, a University of Chicago law student can earn several thousand dollars a week through a paid summer internship at a prestigious law firm. The student's affiliation with U of C and access to/use of university resources is what allows him/her to obtain that internship. And, as you say with the athlete signing autographs, the ability to land an internship at a prestigious law firm is clearly dependent on the status as a U of C law student.
How is this circumstance materially different from the one you suggest is going to cause universities to lose their not-for-profit status?

Lastly, are you seriously arguing that it's a university's not-for-profit status that makes college basketball more popular than the G League? I think you're a little smarter than that.

[jesmu84]

Look, here's my stance on it...States have ZERO business sticking their noses into this. None whatsoever. IF the NCAA chooses at some point to go the direction if NIL, then that's okay..But it should be solely at the NCAA's and the member institutions discretion to do so. State's should have NO say in something like this, particularly California. Who are they to dictate to a private organization what they should or shouldn't do anyway??

If this were solely an NCAA decision to go this direction, I'd be more supportive of it. But when State's start getting involved trying to force their hand..I'm NOT okay with that, at all. No one should be telling the NCAA(or any private business) what they should or shouldn't do.

It's similar to what happened at a former employer of mine...before I worked there there was a group of employees that wanted to Unionize..had even gone so far as to talk to a Union about moving the process forward. Once the owner found out what they were going to do, he told them point blank "if you try to unionize, I will close the doors.. no one is going to tell me how to run MY business". And he meant it, they never unionized.

So state/federal government should never make laws that influence private entities? Things like child labor laws? Working conditions? Minimum wage? Pollution? Etc?

[muguru]

So state/federal government should never make laws that influence private entities? Things like child labor laws? Working conditions? Minimum wage? Pollution? Etc?

Those things are different..they are preventing people being irreparably harmed/discriminated against etc. Those are necessary. Student athletes aren't being irreparably harmed/need protection. Mark Few's video interview I linked above says it all, Gavin Newsome and states should stay in their lanes and worry about things that really matter and will make a difference. Then for California to get so cocky about this to add an addendum that says the NCAA can't make athletes ineligible?? Talk about overstepping your bounds. 0% chance that would get through a court of law.

[The Sultan]

I think adults are being harmed by unnecessary regulations that prevent them from reaching their earning potential.  That is "in their lane."  Glad California did it and hope many others follow.

[muguru]

I think adults are being harmed by unnecessary regulations that prevent them from reaching their earning potential.  That is "in their lane."  Glad California did it and hope many others follow.

What about 18 year old high school kids then?? Should we let them do it to?? I'm sure you will say yes...because the all knowing Sultan is never wrong about anything. Their earning potential isn't being prevented. They can give up sports and get jobs(like normal people), they can go to the G league, the NBA, Overseas...they have options. Not like they don't. Why do you think they choose to go to college then?? No one is making them. They can not go to college and make $$, can't they?? Yet...they choose not to.

[Uncle Rico]

What about 18 year old high school kids then?? Should we let them do it to?? I'm sure you will say yes...because the all knowing Sultan is never wrong about anything. Their earning potential isn't being prevented. They can give up sports and get jobs(like normal people), they can go to the G league, the NBA, Overseas...they have options. Not like they don't. Why do you think they choose to go to college then?? No one is making them. They can not go to college and make $$, can't they?? Yet...they choose not to.

This doesn't apply just to basketball

[The Sultan]

What about 18 year old high school kids then?? Should we let them do it to?? I'm sure you will say yes...because the all knowing Sultan is never wrong about anything. Their earning potential isn't being prevented. They can give up sports and get jobs(like normal people), they can go to the G league, the NBA, Overseas...they have options. Not like they don't. Why do you think they choose to go to college then?? No one is making them. They can not go to college and make $$, can't they?? Yet...they choose not to.

I have no problem with having high school adults profiting off their likeness.  I have addressed every other question you have asked multiple times.  Perhaps I come across as being never wrong about anything because I have to repeat myself over and over due to your repetative questions.

[forgetful]

Serious/only semi-rhetorical question:

You claim that allowing a student who plays basketball to earn outside income from outside sources would jeopardize a university's nonprofit status.
Assuming that's true, why is the same not true for students who don't play basketball? For example, a University of Chicago law student can earn several thousand dollars a week through a paid summer internship at a prestigious law firm. The student's affiliation with U of C and access to/use of university resources is what allows him/her to obtain that internship. And, as you say with the athlete signing autographs, the ability to land an internship at a prestigious law firm is clearly dependent on the status as a U of C law student.
How is this circumstance materially different from the one you suggest is going to cause universities to lose their not-for-profit status?

Lastly, are you seriously arguing that it's a university's not-for-profit status that makes college basketball more popular than the G League? I think you're a little smarter than that.

The "internship" scenario is a terrible analogy, and irrelevant. It is easy to prove that the internship is a part of the educational mission of the institutions, and the student. That is not the case with an athlete. Also, the internships are specifically for law students. There is no competition with a for-profit enterprise. And, the internships pay the market rate for their services. All these would allow any university General Counsel to allow said internship.

Regarding the second point, the Universities not-for-profit status allowed it to invest in the local community, engage local partners, establish a market base, and develop a fanbase, by taking advantage of its not-for-profit status to invest in an athletics enterprise.

Now, how will all this likely play out. The "likeness law" will likely go through. The scholarship guidelines will likely be altered to have language outlying how any deals will go through. It will entail having to consult with the General Counsel's office regarding any outside contracts to make sure that they 1) do not jeopardize any 501(c)(3) status. 2) Do not use any university resources, or marketing, or any other affiliation with the University. 3) That they do not represent a conflict of interest with the University and/or its mission. These are standard for anyone at the University.

The General Counsel will treat them like everyone else, and operate under extreme caution, often rejecting these external contracts (they are risk adverse, because the consequences are massive). Athletes won't be getting to take advantage of everything they want to and they will sue. People like you will scream that they are being taken advantage of, but in reality they are being treated just like everyone else.

We'll be here again, rinse, wash, repeat.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it".

Again, hilarious. 

Not because, as you seem to think, I was disagreeing that posters were laying out these as reasons, but because you don't think those are good reasons.

[muguru]

I have no problem with having high school adults profiting off their likeness.  I have addressed every other question you have asked multiple times.  Perhaps I come across as being never wrong about anything because I have to repeat myself over and over due to your repetative questions.

You dodge the questions...all you give are answers like "I have no problem with this or that". Nothing of substance. You don't say why you think NIL is a good idea, other than "they deserve it".  You're one of these people that I'm willing to bet votes based on who's views on social issues most align with yours. If society is for it, your for it, whether it's a terrible decision or not. Society has been flat out wrong on many of the things they have "come around" on lately. If a majority of society is also for this, they are wrong on this too. Period.

[Uncle Rico]

You dodge the questions...all you give are answers like "I have no problem with this or that". Nothing of substance. You don't say why you think NIL is a good idea, other than "they deserve it".  You're one of these people that I'm willing to bet votes based on who's views on social issues most align with yours. If society is for it, your for it, whether it's a terrible decision or not. Society has been flat out wrong on many of the things they have "come around" on lately. If a majority of society is also for this, they are wrong on this too. Period.

Chef's Kisses

[muguru]

Again, hilarious. 

Not because, as you seem to think, I was disagreeing that posters were laying out these as reasons, but because you don't think those are good reasons.

I knew exactly what you meant, and they are TERRIBLE reasons. Period, flat out. I, as well as probably you and a vast majority of others felt like we deserved this or that when we were kids, yet our parents would never let us have it. Are we worse off because of it?? If someone can tell me why/how student athletes are being harmed by this in any way shape or form, I'm all ears. But, even though most will not admit it, it's VERY obvious that the reason(s) they are mostly for it is because of their disdain for the NCAA. Period, that's it. They want to see someone/something "get back at them". Or because they don't like how much money the NCAA "supposedly" makes. It's jealousy.

Be careful what you wish for..We have had several laws passed recently that have been a total detriment to society, and this would be too as far as the NCAA model is concerned any way.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Society has been flat out wrong on many of the things they have "come around" on lately. If a majority of society is also for this, they are wrong on this too. Period.

Sorry guru, no matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, women, people of color, and gays are going to have equal rights.

[muguru]

Chef's Kisses

You haven't given a reason either....I would have a lot more respect for the posters that are for it, if they were just honest and admitted it's because they HATE the NCAA, and/or they are jealous that those at the top of the NCAA food chain make so much money.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

If someone can tell me why/how student athletes are being harmed by this in any way shape or form, I'm all ears.

You've been told innumerable times in this thread.  As someone else said, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.  And then you return to the same tired, "How are they being harmed?" demand after being told.

But, even though most will not admit it, it's VERY obvious that the reason(s) they are mostly for it is because of their disdain for the NCAA. Period, that's it. They want to see someone/something "get back at them". Or because they don't like how much money the NCAA "supposedly" makes. It's jealousy.

False.  But again, you refuse to acknowledge arguments outside the box you've defined.

Also, saying "that's it. Period" and then in the next breath saying, "or...." it's something else...sigh.

[Uncle Rico]

You haven't given a reason either....I would have a lot more respect for the posters that are for it, if they were just honest and admitted it's because they HATE the NCAA, and/or they are jealous that those at the top of the NCAA food chain make so much money.

I'm done arguing with you.  You exposed yourself and I don't have time for people like you.

[muguru]

You've been told innumerable times in this thread.  As someone else said, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.  And then you return to the same tired, "How are they being harmed?" demand after being told.

False.  But again, you refuse to acknowledge arguments outside the box you've defined.

Also, saying "that's it. Period" and then in the next breath saying, "or...." it's something else...sigh.

You're so full of crap..there isn't a single poster here that has laid out an entirely reasonable argument for WHY college athletes should get paid, not a single one. Everything I have read reveals disdain(even though they try to hide it) for the NCAA, hatred at how much money these schools make(which they really don't), because the "kids work hard and deserve it", or because "times have changed". Not logical, well thought out reasons at all IMO, but whatever, you do you.

[muguru]

I'm done arguing with you.  You exposed yourself and I don't have time for people like you.

Game set..match guru. You have NO argument to make that's why. I exposed you big time. You despise the NCAA and the $$ that's involved in it and it's pure jealousy in your part, that's it. Try a little harder next time to hide it...poser.

[brewcity77]

I knew exactly what you meant, and they are TERRIBLE reasons.

So you think doing the right thing is terrible?

[Pakuni]

The "internship" scenario is a terrible analogy, and irrelevant. It is easy to prove that the internship is a part of the educational mission of the institutions, and the student. That is not the case with an athlete. Also, the internships are specifically for law students. There is no competition with a for-profit enterprise. And, the internships pay the market rate for their services. All these would allow any university General Counsel to allow said internship.

Don't law schools compete with one another for students? And isn't the U of C's ability to line students up for the best internships at the best firms give it a competiitve advantage over, say, John Marshall or Northern Illinois University?
Are you suggesting that the reason the NCAA and universities are able to run multimillion dollar athletics programs as not-for-profit entities is because they are legitimately "part of the educational mission of the institutions?"
Cool. We'll solve your worries by making signing endorsement deals part of the marketing, business and contract law curricula. Now it's a part of the educational mission.

Regarding the second point, the Universities not-for-profit status allowed it to invest in the local community, engage local partners, establish a market base, and develop a fanbase, by taking advantage of its not-for-profit status to invest in an athletics enterprise. 

Which doesn't at all answer my question.
As for the rest, I read that as "After arguing that this will all wreck universities' not-for-profit status, I now believe it will all go forward without wrecking universities' not-for-profit status."

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Game set..match guru. You have NO argument to make that's why. I exposed you big time. You despise the NCAA and the $$ that's involved in it and it's pure jealousy in your part, that's it. Try a little harder next time to hide it...poser.

Ah, yes, the standard guru victory dance after scoring an own goal, coupled with the "no puppet, no puppet, you're the puppet" rejoinder.  Classic.

[brewcity77]

Ah, yes, the standard guru victory dance after scoring an own goal, coupled with the "no puppet, no puppet, you're the puppet" rejoinder.  Classic.

I'll be honest, I'm always baffled by the "you're jealous of the NCAA's money" rationale. Uhh...what? I never give a second thought to the money of any corporation or entity in terms of jealousy. That's just...weird. I don't drive by banks and curse them for being repositories of wealth I do not have. Who does that? It's just one of the strangest, most nonsensical arguments I can imagine.

[muguru]

I'll be honest, I'm always baffled by the "you're jealous of the NCAA's money" rationale. Uhh...what? I never give a second thought to the money of any corporation or entity in terms of jealousy. That's just...weird. I don't drive by banks and curse them for being repositories of wealth I do not have. Who does that? It's just one of the strangest, most nonsensical arguments I can imagine.

You have really never heard ANYONE b*itch about how much someone else makes?? You have never heard anyone complain about how much CEO's of companies make?? Or how much pro athletes make?? You almost had to have. Most people think other people are overpaid, for what they do, unless it's them. I'm not spit balling here, that's just reality. I think it's weird to, that people obsess/think about it that much, but they honestly do. Money makes people weird..greed, it drives America.

[mu03eng]

I'll be honest, I'm always baffled by the "you're jealous of the NCAA's money" rationale. Uhh...what? I never give a second thought to the money of any corporation or entity in terms of jealousy. That's just...weird. I don't drive by banks and curse them for being repositories of wealth I do not have. Who does that? It's just one of the strangest, most nonsensical arguments I can imagine.

It's just Guru bringing emotional baggage from other debates that are this......He's part of the "anit-woke" crowd and so swings away at anything that looks woke to him.

Not one single person is saying that the NCAA or its universities should give more money or receive less money it's just some emotional shield for him to hide behind because he can't have a rational discussion on the merits.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You're so full of crap..there isn't a single poster here that has laid out an entirely reasonable argument for WHY college athletes should get paid, not a single one.

They've been laid out 50 times or more.  You refuse to acknowledge it. 

Everything I have read reveals disdain(even though they try to hide it) for the NCAA, hatred at how much money these schools make(which they really don't), because the "kids work hard and deserve it"

And when the argument is "it is the right thing to do" and "the kids deserve it" your response, bizarrely, was:

I knew exactly what you meant, and they are TERRIBLE reasons. Period, flat out. I, as well as probably you and a vast majority of others felt like we deserved this or that when we were kids, yet our parents would never let us have it. Are we worse off because of it??

'I didn't get absolutely everything I wanted as a kid so we shouldn't do the right thing now', is
...well, I don't even know how to characterize that sort of inanity.

Not logical, well thought out reasons at all IMO, but whatever, you do you.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they aren't logical or well thought out.  In fact, it is probably a contra-indicator.