California to pass bill called "fair pay to play act"...to compensate players

[Pakuni]

The California law gives the NCAA all the more reason to enact a policy that would allow players to profit off their likenesses while addressing legitimate concerns, such as bidding wars for players' services.
Instead - as is their wont - they'll fight for phony amateurism and sign their eventual death warrant.
All because they hate the notion of players getting a piece of their billion dollar pie.

[Uncle Rico]

It doesn't look like this is the slam dunk you think/hope it is. It appears that the other member institutions of the NCAA have some smart legal minds working on this.

I don't know how this will play out but I wouldn't bet against the legal team institutions like Harvard, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc. can muster.

Of course, they do.  The last thing they want is the labor to be paid. 

[WhiteTrash]

All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is.

Exactly. 'Nova has more money than any other school and the best facilities in the NCAA, hence 2 of the last four championships. The money Nova throws at basketball dwarfs Kentucky.

[Pakuni]

Speaking of those names. If this goes nationwide, expect the Harvard's, Duke's, Vanderbilt's etc., that have deep deep alumni pockets to potentially become major players in big time sports.

Harvard wouldn't have to worry about scholarship issues, if they have donors willing to pay athletes $500k a year to don the Crimson, and be a token spokesman for a randomly created llc.

It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.

[Jockey]

All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is. We can't let this happen or the small schools won't be able to compete. Next thing you know all the big money schools will have the best facilities and coaches. We can't pay the players. No way Jose.

Thanks, Barro. You made the point better than I could (and with much less snarky-ness .

[Cheeks]

You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.

There are many naive people here that think it won’t happen, or want it to happen, depending on the person.  This is all about scale.  It will take time, won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.  Once the genie is out of the bottle it isn’t going back in.  Yay.  Progress. 

The people cheering this on don’t give two shats about the kids losing their programs.  We have a thread here about one of the women’s b-ball players needing a kidney transplant that has like 10 to 15 responses.  We have a 7 page thread only 24 hours old on the travesty of when National Marquette Day will be held.   So as those sports and opportunities go away, these same folks pining for the 1% to get their piece, they won’t even notice the carnage of the others impacted long term.  Progress baby.  Progress.

[Boozemon Barro]

Exactly. 'Nova has more money than any other school and the best facilities in the NCAA, hence 2 of the last four championships. The money Nova throws at basketball dwarfs Kentucky.

It's almost like there's more to being competitive than throwing money around, and these fatalistic NCAA fellaters aren't making very good arguments.

[Cheeks]

All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is. We can't let this happen or the small schools won't be able to compete. Next thing you know all the big money schools will have the best facilities and coaches. We can't pay the players. No way Jose.

It gets even worse, that’s the problem.  There are haves and have nots.  It will become even more extreme, and scale starts to matter more than ever.  Small school, not many alumni or those controlling purse strings = disadvantaged.

[forgetful]

It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.

I fully recognize they already try to do that. But it is different when the money flows directly into the pockets of the athlete. Yes, facilities are great. But now boosters would be able to pay them directly. So schools like:

Harvard (over $3 T in high-net worth alumni)
Stanford (~$2.8 T)
Michigan (~$700 B)
Texas (~$500 B)
USC (~$500 B)
Cal (~$500 B)
Northwestern (~$400 B)
Miami ($300 B)
Notre Dame (~$250 B)

Can essentially buy any team they want.

Those numbers absolutely dwarf those of schools like Nova, MU, even the UW's and UNC's of the world.

[Uncle Rico]

There are many naive people here that think it won’t happen, or want it to happen, depending on the person.  This is all about scale.  It will take time, won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.  Once the genie is out of the bottle it isn’t going back in.  Yay.  Progress. 

The people cheering this on don’t give two shats about the kids losing their programs.  We have a thread here about one of the women’s b-ball players needing a kidney transplant that has like 10 to 15 responses.  We have a 7 page thread only 24 hours old on the travesty of when National Marquette Day will be held.   So as those sports and opportunities go away, these same folks pining for the 1% to get their piece, they won’t even notice the carnage of the others impacted long term.  Progress baby.  Progress.

Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?

[StillAWarrior]

Speaking of those names. If this goes nationwide, expect the Harvard's, Duke's, Vanderbilt's etc., that have deep deep alumni pockets to potentially become major players in big time sports.

Harvard wouldn't have to worry about scholarship issues, if they have donors willing to pay athletes $500k a year to don the Crimson, and be a token spokesman for a randomly created llc.

I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships.  Look, like a lot of other people, I don't necessarily have the greatest respect for how the NCAA enforces its rules.  But right now, student athletes can have jobs but have to be paid essentially market rate.  Does that get abused? I have no doubt that it does. But if some deep-pocket alum gives a football player a six figure job, the NCAA can and will address it.  Even if NCAA eventually allows endorsements (and I personally think they should), there's no reason to think that it would allow a donor to just pay an athlete $500k to be a spokesperson for some randomly created llc.

[Pakuni]

Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?

They wouldn't.

[forgetful]

I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships.  Look, like a lot of other people, I don't necessarily have the greatest respect for how the NCAA enforces its rules.  But right now, student athletes can have jobs but have to be paid essentially market rate.  Does that get abused? I have no doubt that it does. But if some deep-pocket alum gives a football player a six figure job, the NCAA can and will address it.  Even if NCAA eventually allows endorsements (and I personally think they should), there's no reason to think that it would allow a donor to just pay an athlete $500k to be a spokesperson for some randomly created llc.

I understand that, but it would be different than a "job market", which has outside comparable rates of compensation. The only "job market" here, would be other NCAA athletes in that specific sport. Whatever these people were willing to pay is the market, and it would be an arms race.

Legally speaking, saying a newly formed LLC can't try to recruit a local spokesman to help launch their company, because they are "new," would not hold up in any court. Policing it from a legally valid method would be nearly impossible.

Heck, a consortium of alumni could simply create a new sports marketing firm, where they buy the likeness of a prospective athlete for the duration of their eligibility, and have sole rights towards profits from their likeness. They can then pay them a salary as compensation. It really doesn't matter if the firm loses money constantly...that is right to have a crappy company. The NCAA can't enforce anything against such a firm, especially since they allowed Universities to do the equivalent with compensation=scholarship, for its entire existence.

[WhiteTrash]

Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?

The money has to come from somewhere. A business can advertise with a school or with an athlete. Unless business are willing and able to increase the amount they spend, money for individual athletes will reduce money paid the schools.

There is no doubt revenues to schools will be impacted and budget cuts will be made. Maybe men's basketball flies commercial airlines or the coaches salaries gut cut or women's diving is eliminated.

Regardless of anyone's position on this issue, the California bill does not increase the amount of money sponsors have to spend on college athletics.

[Jockey]

The money has to come from somewhere. A business can advertise with a school or with an athlete. Unless business are willing and able to increase the amount they spend, money for individual athletes will reduce money paid the schools.

A correlation with that you anyone would be unable to prove.

[WhiteTrash]

They wouldn't.

Please explain how there will magically be more money for college sports if the California bill passes? Where does the money to pay individual athletes come from?

[Pakuni]

I fully recognize they already try to do that. But it is different when the money flows directly into the pockets of the athlete. Yes, facilities are great. But now boosters would be able to pay them directly. So schools like:

Harvard (over $3 T in high-net worth alumni)
Stanford (~$2.8 T)
Michigan (~$700 B)
Texas (~$500 B)
USC (~$500 B)
Cal (~$500 B)
Northwestern (~$400 B)
Miami ($300 B)
Notre Dame (~$250 B)

Can essentially buy any team they want.

Those numbers absolutely dwarf those of schools like Nova, MU, even the UW's and UNC's of the world.

Are Harvard alumni suddenly going to decide that what the school really needs is a football powerhouse and toss millions of dollars into buying 5-star players (the vast majority of whom wouldn't meet academic standards for admission)?
Would the university go along with that? Would they build a multimillion dollar stadium in Boston to house such a program? Abandon the Ivy League and become a Division I independent?
Does any of this sound remotely likely to you?

And if you really and truly fear this, and aren't playing the chicken little game like some others, shouldn't you want the NCAA to create some kind of policy that will allow players reasonable compensation from their likeness while also addressing these fears? Maybe a financial cap on endorsements? An openness to revenue sharing with athletes? Outlaw endorsement deals that are contingent on enrollment to specific schools (and yes, people will try to cheat this, but as Cheeks says, that's no reason not to have the rule and try to enforce it).

There are many ways for the NCAA to get out in front of this and prevent the catastrophe some of you insist is coming. The fact they're choosing not to should be far more concerning to you than whether or not Harvard and Vandy are going to field the best team money can buy.

[Pakuni]

Please explain how there will magically be more money for college sports if the California bill passes? Where does the money to pay individual athletes come from?

Well, as far as I'm reading here, it will come from wealthy alumni trying to field the best teams money can buy.
Where do you think it'll come from?

[WhiteTrash]

I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships.

This sort of policing is what California lawmakers, the media, Lebron and many on this board are upset about. To be sure, nobody, especially the NCAA, is capable of determining what someone's compensation should be.

The outrage and claims of student athletes being slave labor and other nonsense would go up 100X under your proposition.

[Cheeks]

The very first sentence of the NCAA's statement is a blatant lie.
I'm curious to hear their constitutional argument.

Uhm, this sentence? 

"The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports."


I'm old enough to remember when lawyers would say one thing and other lawyers would say the exact opposite and both claim truth.  I'm old enough to even remember 5-4 decisions by the highest court in the land where one side of lawyers is absolutely certain their side is right and within the law, and the other side says the same thing.   So, counselor, what is a "BLATANT LIE" in this opening statement.  Or is it a different first sentence that you are referencing?

[Cheeks]

It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.

They will continue to do so, and other schools that are trying to be there will be left in the dust as more power is consolidated further.  Progress.  Progress.   

[ATL MU Warrior]

Uhm, this sentence? 

"The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports."


I'm old enough to remember when lawyers would say one thing and other lawyers would say the exact opposite and both claim truth.  I'm old enough to even remember 5-4 decisions by the highest court in the land where one side of lawyers is absolutely certain their side is right and within the law, and the other side says the same thing.   So, counselor, what is a "BLATANT LIE" in this opening statement.  Or is it a different first sentence that you are referencing?

That doesn't sound like the first sentence of the NCAA's statement.  That sounds like the first sentence of an article.

[WhiteTrash]

Well, as far as I'm reading here, it will come from wealthy alumni trying to field the best teams money can buy.
Where do you think it'll come from?

Fair enough, but I believe wealthy alumni are already spending money to fund their schools. I believe they will carve out money that was going to the school and pay the players directly. Assuming that happens, all schools will have to cut spending. Maybe a little or maybe a lot, but cuts will be made.

[Cheeks]

Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?

Because as usual, you guys don't think things all the way through.  You think a quick fix has no downhill repercussions and money fixes all.  Unintended consequences which should be very bright to your side making this argument, but apparently it isn't.

I'll give you a few hints....how does an athletic department generate revenue....what are the primary sources?  TV.  Sponsorships.  Attendance.  The first one is locked in, though the number of times you stay on TV is a subject of your performance to a degree.  Sponsorships and Attendance are often tied to success.  Now, think for a bit if student athletes a school used to get now flock to bigger programs, bigger pockets, more alumni, more business "endorsement" opportunities.....i.e....SCALE....what that does for your program's performance on the field or court?

Stay with me.....now your flagship program(s) start to suffer, how do you think the non-revenue sports even exist without the flagship sports paying the bills?

As I said, this will not be overnight, it will take time, but as the bigger and powerful get even bigger, scale takes over.   You will have some big schools today that don't do squat in athletics that suddenly will be able to because the funding to get student athletes will be channeled by rich alums with business expenditures.    Oh progress, this is going to be great.  It is why Val Ackerman, the BOG of the NCAA, and so many others are so against it.....because you guys wearing your robin hood tights never think through the full consequences.

That's why.

[StillAWarrior]

I understand that, but it would be different than a "job market", which has outside comparable rates of compensation. The only "job market" here, would be other NCAA athletes in that specific sport. Whatever these people were willing to pay is the market, and it would be an arms race.

Legally speaking, saying a newly formed LLC can't try to recruit a local spokesman to help launch their company, because they are "new," would not hold up in any court. Policing it from a legally valid method would be nearly impossible.

Heck, a consortium of alumni could simply create a new sports marketing firm, where they buy the likeness of a prospective athlete for the duration of their eligibility, and have sole rights towards profits from their likeness. They can then pay them a salary as compensation. It really doesn't matter if the firm loses money constantly...that is right to have a crappy company. The NCAA can't enforce anything against such a firm, especially since they allowed Universities to do the equivalent with compensation=scholarship, for its entire existence.

No, the NCAA cannot enforce anything against such a firm, but they can -- if they choose to -- set up regulations among their member institutions that an athlete receiving money from such a firm is not eligible to participate in NCAA sports.  Again, I'm not trying to support the NCAA here, but I honestly don't think it would be that difficult to set up some regulations to require that endorsements be within a certain "commercially viable" range.  In such a situation, a company like Nike could pay millions of dollars expecting a return on their marketing investment.  A random shell llc could not.