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

[forgetful]

I worked throughout college and I did have my picture taken in a work group once but did not get paid for it.  Little did I know, though I guess it was not my likeness they were after.

My likeness, and image, was used for around 10-years in advertisements, commercials (local and national), without any compensation, or approval.

They could do it, because all students agree for their likeness to be used when they enrolled and accepted any source of financial aid. A law like this will now say, that for a completely random reason (sports), some students will/can get compensated, and others will not.

[Cheeks]

NCAA calls law unconstitutional.  Let's see if they grow a pair and fight this or cave.


https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-calls-california-college-athlete-bill-unconstitutional-says-it-would-create-recruiting-advantage-150711618.html

[Uncle Rico]

NCAA calls law unconstitutional.  Let's see if they grow a pair and fight this or cave.


https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-calls-california-college-athlete-bill-unconstitutional-says-it-would-create-recruiting-advantage-150711618.html

Yes, let's take this court.  I'm all for a rout of the NCAA

[Pakuni]

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

[brewcity77]

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

Me too, I'm pretty sure that song got cut from Hamilton.

[The Sultan]

Isn't it an admirable goal to follow the ncaa rules?

Not if the rules are unjust.

[The Sultan]

Maybe it's just me, but I see a crap ton of irony in someone who attended said school, is seemingly a proud alum and supports the mission, & ethics of his alma mater and education he received, be 100% supportive of something that goes completely against the mission and ethics of his alma mater. Now THAT'S irony.

Uh. How does this go against the mission and ethics of Marquette?

[brewcity77]

Uh. How does this go against the mission and ethics of Marquette?

It doesn't, but I do believe someone who neither attended Marquette nor cares about the mission and ethics of the University trying to lecture those that did would qualify as irony.

[muguru]

It doesn't, but I do believe someone who neither attended Marquette nor cares about the mission and ethics of the University trying to lecture those that did would qualify as irony.

And I find it ironic that someone is trying to say I don't care about the mission or ethics of the University just because I didn't attend said university. Where did I EVER specifically state I don't care about the missions or ethics??

Why don't you ask Broeker or any other of the higher ups, how they would feel about this, if it became universal?? I'm pretty sure I know what they would say. So I think it's ironic that someone that attended said university would NOT fall in line with the same values and beliefs with this that the people that run the University would. Talk about hypocrisy.

[The Sultan]

And I find it ironic that someone is trying to say I don't care about the mission or ethics of the University just because I didn't attend said university. Where did I EVER specifically state I don't care about the missions or ethics??

Why don't you ask Broeker or any other of the higher ups, how they would feel about this, if it became universal?? I'm pretty sure I know what they would say. So I think it's ironic that someone that attended said university would NOT fall in line with the same values and beliefs with this that the people that run the University would. Talk about hypocrisy.

Lol. Broeker's opinion on the matter has nothing to do with the "values" of the University. It has to do with echoing the NCAA's party line.

Not to mention keeping the lion's share of the revenue directed toward athletics.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

My likeness, and image, was used for around 10-years in advertisements, commercials (local and national), without any compensation, or approval.

They could do it, because all students agree for their likeness to be used when they enrolled and accepted any source of financial aid. A law like this will now say, that for a completely random reason (sports), some students will/can get compensated, and others will not.

You're the photoshopped black guy from UW-Madison?!?!?!?

[MU82]

When we talked about this last year I made this point. It's fun to see that conservatives and socialists are actually reversed in their arguments when it comes to college athletes.

Within the political spectrum that matters, state legislators, it has been quite bipartisan.  Siding with an inept organization like the NCAA doesn't win a lot of votes.

Exactly.

It's not mostly "socialists" who believe athletes own their own likenesses and should be able to profit from them.

But it does seem to be mostly "capitalists" who want to prevent hard-working Americans from doing so.

As for the "constitutionality" of it all, based on discussions of this that I have heard from lawyers, it sounds like the NCAA is -- as usual -- full of excrement.

[Cheeks]

If California law supercedes anything NCAA can do, are you saying the NCAA cannot do marijuana testing of California student athletes because it is legal here? 

[brewcity77]

And I find it ironic that someone is trying to say I don't care about the mission or ethics of the University just because I didn't attend said university. Where did I EVER specifically state I don't care about the missions or ethics??

Why don't you ask Broeker or any other of the higher ups, how they would feel about this, if it became universal?? I'm pretty sure I know what they would say. So I think it's ironic that someone that attended said university would NOT fall in line with the same values and beliefs with this that the people that run the University would. Talk about hypocrisy.

You've made it abundantly clear what you care about. Not a whole lot of cura personalis mentions in your posting history.

To me, the guys on the team have to ask themselves, what's more important...winning or "me"?? IF it's winning(which it should be), then they should welcome any talent that will make them a better team...ESPECIALLY after losing two players as talented as Sam and Joey were.

Nope...all I care about is that they win

All i care about is seeing MU win. That's it, that's the most important thing to me when attending a game.

Here's the ONLY thing that mattered to me from the Buzz era...he won games, and lots of them. Had the program on the cusp of elite. Then Larry Williams happened, and Father Pilarsz happened, and that was the end of Buzz. It has always amazed me that so many hold grudges against Coaches for leaving, and after they are gone, seemingly the only thing that matters is how "slimy" the Coach may or may not have been. he NEVER EVER EVER cheated, and he won. Yet, this is a demonstration of what society has become. No one looks back and cares about what they should..how many games were won(and done within NCAA rules), they only care about the off the court stuff. Winning is what should and will always matter(as long as it's done within the rules of the NCAA).

And from all the way back to yesterday...

I, for one, don't much care about NMD, all I care about is them winning the game. Period.

Oh wait...there were two mentions of Cura Personalis in your history. Both were quoting other posters. Here's what you had to say when you quoted me using the phrase:

Okay first of all, I am not an alum,  I am a season ticket holder for 14 years and donate to the B & G fund. So from that perspective, to be quite honest, I don't care what kind of students they are, what kind of image they might have, or how the university might look. I get where alums might, but me personally, having no ties to MU other than the BB program, I care about 1 thing...winning basketball games, period. Now of course I don't want them to do it by breaking NCAA rules, but if they bring in kids that might have a bit of questionable character..as long as they are helping win games, it really makes no difference to me. None.

So yeah...there might be some confusion as to why anyone would give a good god damn when your hypocritical ass tries to talk about the mission or ethics of Marquette University.

[Cheeks]

Yay....destruction ahead....opportunities for many student athletes go away as programs cut....progress.  Presenting multiple sides below, but I think this is ultimately going to make the rich richer and abuse through the roof.  From today's various article highlights




NCAA: Schools Will Be Unable To Compete Under California NIL Bill

September 11, 2019


A provision was added to the bill to prevent athletes from signing deals that conflict with school contracts


The NCAA responded to a bill passed by the California State Assembly allowing college athletes to more easily make money off their own name, image and likeness by sending a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom that "says if the bill becomes law, it 'would result in (schools) being unable to compete in NCAA competitions' and would be 'unconstitutional,'" according to Bumbaca & Berkowitz of USA TODAY. Reference to the bill's legality "signals the NCAA's potential willingness to sue California under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that only Congress has the power to regulate commerce among states." The letter is "signed by every member" of the NCAA BOG (USA TODAY, 9/11). The NCAA BOG in the six-paragraph letter to Newsom said that the bill "would give California schools an unfair recruiting advantage." As a result, the NCAA "would declare those schools ineligible for its events." The NCAA said that the legislation would "impact more than 24,000 college athletes in the nation's most populous state" (AP, 9/11).

WHAT WE KNOW: In DC, Hobson & Strauss note the bill "essentially would create an Olympic-style income model" in the state, as schools "would not be forced to share the revenue they generate from sports but must permit athletes to cash in on their name or status, if they can," according to Hobson & Strauss of the WASHINGTON POST. There are "some limits on potential athlete income." Last week, a provision was "added to the legislation to prevent athletes from signing deals that would conflict with a school contract." For example, an athlete at a Nike-sponsored school "couldn't sign an endorsement deal with Adidas." In a letter to lawmakers, a Cal official "raised concerns that the bill would sap sponsorship money that currently goes to universities, leading to budget cuts and the potential elimination of sports that don't generate the millions in revenue seen by football, men's basketball and, to a lesser extent, baseball and ­women's basketball." Meanwhile, there are "reasons to be pessimistic this bill will be implemented" in '23 as written. A clause "allows the bill to be amended if the NCAA changes its policies." An NCAA committee -- created this year after this bill was proposed -- is "examining the organization's rules regarding name, image and likeness income." However, the bill's passage on Monday "represents a new challenge, and continued pressure, on college sports' economic structure" (WASHINGTON POST, 9/11).

GET YOUR POPCORN READY: In Philadelphia, David Murphy writes the "potential consequences of such a move include nothing less than the complete destruction of the student-athlete model that the NCAA has used as its foundation for the last 60+ years while riding the dual waves of population and technological explosion into its present status as a billion dollar industry." A world like the one California envisions "cannot coexist with the world like the one in which the NCAA currently operates" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 9/11). ESPN's Dan Murphy said the NCAA for the last several months "has been fighting" the bill because they "see it as an existential threat to their amateurism model." ESPN's Jay Bilas said the NCAA wants the status quo to remain "so that they have control of all of the money and they have control over the players." Bilas: "This is really about power and control as much as it is about money" ("OTL," ESPN, 9/11). CBSSPORTS.com's Matt Norlander wrote with "decades worth of anti-trust legal precedent potentially standing in the NCAA's way, we could have a fascinating standoff, one that should no longer be of much debate yet remains ongoing because of the NCAA's glacial pace to change" (CBSSPORTS.com, 9/10). USA TODAY's Dan Wolken writes amateurism has been "forced to evolve on the margins, but it's by and large still here in a form that allows college athletic programs to restrict the earnings of their laborers." Until the courts "deliver a real blow to that model, the California legislature seems at this point to be making a statement more than making actual laws." Unless the NCAA "acquiesces to California or unveils dramatic rule changes that would take the name, image and likeness issue off the table, it seems likely the NCAA would take its case into the court system" (USA TODAY, 9/11).

ONUS ON NCAA: In San Antonio, Mike Finger writes if the NCAA "doesn't make changes, other states are going to follow, and it might happen at the federal level, too." The NCAA "already has a committee working on a report studying the issue of name, image and likeness." A recommendation is "expected as soon as next month." That committee will "recommend the NCAA loosen restrictions on athletes' ability to capitalize on their own names, images and likenesses, which is only fair, because art students and engineering majors are free to do the same thing." The NCAA will "keep some limits in place, because the people in charge cannot resist perpetuating the illusion of control, but little by little, over time those limits will erode as well" (SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, 9/11).

[Pakuni]

If California law supercedes anything NCAA can do, are you saying the NCAA cannot do marijuana testing of California student athletes because it is legal here?

California law allows drug testing of college athletes.
See Hill v NCAA.

[muwarrior69]

Does the law prevent a bidding war for the top recruits. The schools with the wealthiest alumni will get all the top recruits for endorsing their business, but only if they play at that alums school.

[Uncle Rico]

Does the law prevent a bidding war for the top recruits. The schools with the wealthiest alumni will get all the top recruits for endorsing their business, but only if they play at that alums school.

Hope so for the kids that are worth it

[muwarrior69]

Hope so for the kids that are worth it

You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.

[Boozemon Barro]

Does the law prevent a bidding war for the top recruits. The schools with the wealthiest alumni will get all the top recruits for endorsing their business, but only if they play at that alums school.

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.

[Its DJOver]

You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.

Yep.

Osa to Texas.  Davis to UNC.  Garcia to I4.  Burnett probably Oregon, maybe Mich.  And you can absolutely forget about competing with a BB for anyone.

[Uncle Rico]

You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.

Pony up

[WhiteTrash]

Yes, let's take this court.  I'm all for a rout of the NCAA

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.

[forgetful]

What about the issue of discrimination in regards to eligibility, e.g. previous enrollment in college. If they allow one to market their likeness, it is a job.

The eligibility rules would discriminate against many populations on the basis of age/experience that have no bearing on the ability to perform as a basketball player, thereby excluding them from a lucrative position/career.

Previously they could claim this was related to protection of student/athletes, but with this change. It is not a student/athlete issue, it is a job/athlete issue.

What these new laws will highlight, is that the value of these players, has nothing to do with them, it is solely based on their association with a specific institution of higher learning. You will have players making significant sums of money (paid for by boosters) while in college, and then be essentially unemployable in the same exact field the day after their eligibility expires, proving the value is in the name of the institution on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back.

[forgetful]

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.

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.