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

[Uncle Rico]

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.

So, nothing is going to change on how an athletic department is run.  Thanks

[Pakuni]

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."

This is the first sentence of the NCAA's statement:

The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes.

This obviously is not true. The NCAA allows a very unlevel playing field in all its sports.
Some programs to have better practice facilities than others. Better modes of travel. Better coaching. Better academic assistance. Better training staffs. Better medical staffs. Better weight rooms. Better student/athlete housing.
I'd venture to guess that the kids playing hoops at Prairie View A&M and Chicago State don't feel they're on a level playing field with the kids over at Duke and Kentucky. And I'm not aware of anything the NCAA is doing to level that playing field.

[Cheeks]

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

It is directly from the NCAA.  But that is why I am asking for which sentence he is referencing.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206


It doesn't change the premise that counselor Pakuni can make once claim, counselors at NCAA another and they can fight back and forth what level playing field means, what rules are, etc, etc.....especially within the jurisdiction of what the NCAA actually controls.

[Pakuni]

Assuming that happens, all schools will have to cut spending. Maybe a little or maybe a lot, but cuts will be made.

If bloated athletic departments need to trim back a little so that the kids that provide the labor that funds them can earn a little money, I can live with that.

[forgetful]

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.

1. I didn't insist anything. I highlighted potential issues.

2. Harvard doesn't have to impact football. What about basketball? All they need is one deep pocket alumni that cares and they can field any team imaginable. Players would care more about money than the best of facilities. Right now they are forbidden from impacting that directly, so they do not, these law changes would lift those rules.

3. Who is going to define "reasonable compensation" for their likeness. Your suggestion that it is so easy to manage is a bit laughable. Outlawing specific school deals for endorsement is a non-starter. Nike isn't going to endorse a player at a Adidas school. A Milwaukee car wash isn't going to sign a kid going to Miami. Any rule that would exist to block school specific deals would be absurdly easy to circumvent. See the marketing agency idea above. Once created, schools would recruit saying they will sign them.

4. As I mentioned above, this is likely to prove the market value of an athlete is associated with the school, not the athlete.

[StillAWarrior]

Outlawing specific school deals for endorsement is a non-starter. Nike isn't going to endorse a player at a Adidas school.

I can't help but think that if athletes are allowed to get endorsement deals, the whole idea of an "Adidas school" or a "Nike school" may go away.  That money will start going into the kids' pockets and they'll get to wear what they want where ever they play.  If a guy like Zion was getting paid by Nike -- to just pull a random hypothetical out of the air -- schools would still want him.

[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 don't see how that could hold up legally in court. It would essentially bar certain entities from participating in a market on an arbitrary rule of "perceived benefit".

[forgetful]

I can't help but think that if athletes are allowed to get endorsement deals, the whole idea of an "Adidas school" or a "Nike school" may go away.  That money will start going into the kids' pockets and they'll get to wear what they want where ever they play.  If a guy like Zion was getting paid by Nike -- to just pull a random hypothetical out of the air -- schools would still want him.

So you will have teams wearing up to 13 different jerseys, depending on who the athletes endorser is? The Nike School/Adidas School will remain because of jersey/apparel sponsorship.

Nike isn't going to be happy if kids on one of their teams are wearing Adidas shoes.

[StillAWarrior]

I don't see how that could hold up legally in court. It would essentially bar certain entities from participating in a market on an arbitrary rule of "perceived benefit".

It's quite possible that I'm missing something, but on what grounds would it be challenged?  Are you thinking antitrust?  If the NCAA can prohibit an athlete from accepting employment at an above-market rate, why couldn't the NCAA prohibit an athlete from accepting endorsement money at an above-market rate?

[cheebs09]

I think people are overestimating how much money will be spent. Maybe football is worse, but I don't think people are going to be lining up to pay the Juan Andersons or Jamail Jones of the world 100s of thousands of dollars. There will be a "bidding war" for the top talent (like there already is).

Looking at pictures of these new state of the art locker rooms and dorms, I feel like there's enough money to go around and not negatively impact the athletic departments. They could probably reel back some of the coaches salaries too.

Would the small schools be that much worse off? Instead of losing the arms race of facilities and TV deals, that money just gets diverted to players. I don't see the landscape changing too much.

[Pakuni]

1. I didn't insist anything. I highlighted potential issues.

2. Harvard doesn't have to impact football. What about basketball? All they need is one deep pocket alumni that cares and they can field any team imaginable. Players would care more about money than the best of facilities. Right now they are forbidden from impacting that directly, so they do not, these law changes would lift those rules.

3. Who is going to define "reasonable compensation" for their likeness. Your suggestion that it is so easy to manage is a bit laughable. Outlawing specific school deals for endorsement is a non-starter. Nike isn't going to endorse a player at a Adidas school. A Milwaukee car wash isn't going to sign a kid going to Miami. Any rule that would exist to block school specific deals would be absurdly easy to circumvent. See the marketing agency idea above. Once created, schools would recruit saying they will sign them.

4. As I mentioned above, this is likely to prove the market value of an athlete is associated with the school, not the athlete.

Respectfully, you're putting words in my mouth.
I never wrote that you insisted anything, nor did I suggest that any of this is easy to manage
That said ...
- if Harvard alum aren't dumping millions into their hoops program now, why would that change?

- you're misunderstanding what I wrote about outlawing deals that are contingent on attendance at a specific school. I'm suggesting that Player A can't sign a deal with Endorser B that requires Player A to attend a specific school. As in, Dewey, Screwem and Howe law firm will give 5-star recruit John Doe a $1 million endorsement deal contingent upon him attending Harvard. You're right, of course, that Nike isn't going to sign kids that don't go to Nike schools. But so what? Nike, adidas and others already buy players for their schools. What does this change, except who gets the money?

- a Milwaukee car wash isn't going to sign a kid going to Miami? OK. Why would a Milwaukee car wash sign any high school kid to an endorsement deal?

[Benny B]

Trying to think of a solution that is "fair" to the players yet doesn't spell doom for MU basketball...

1. Players may be compensated (or allowed to sell their likeness) by athletic departments not supported by taxpayers.
2. Players at universities in states that allow first cousins to marry cannot be compensated.
3. Female athletes must be compensated 2:1 to their male counterparts.

Essentially, if this becomes an arms race across the NCAA, there's no way that MU is going to be able to compete with the resources of the land grants and the blue bloods - not to mention, any university south of the Mason-Dixon within 10 miles of the ocean - when it comes to recruiting 4*'s and 5*'s.  The only person who could sustain competitive team in that setting is Bazz, and yet, he was the first one to jump that ship.

[Pakuni]

So you will have teams wearing up to 13 different jerseys, depending on who the athletes endorser is? The Nike School/Adidas School will remain because of jersey/apparel sponsorship.

Nike isn't going to be happy if kids on one of their teams are wearing Adidas shoes.

The California law includes a provision that students can't do endorsement deals that conflict with school sponsorships, i.e. a kid at a Nike school can't strike a deal that requires him to wear adidas shoes in games.

[StillAWarrior]

So you will have teams wearing up to 13 different jerseys, depending on who the athletes endorser is? The Nike School/Adidas School will remain because of jersey/apparel sponsorship.

Nike isn't going to be happy if kids on one of their teams are wearing Adidas shoes.

I think that this would eventually morph into what we already see in the NBA.

[WhiteTrash]

If bloated athletic departments need to trim back a little so that the kids that provide the labor that funds them can earn a little money, I can live with that.

Well thank you for an honest answer. While your position may not be politically correct, you recognize the financial implications of this law. Some on this board seem to believe the money for athletes will appear out of thin air.

I think non-revenue producing sports are the very definition of the "bloat" you speak of. Absolutely nothing but a drain on a university.

[MU82]

At least half the posts here belong in the Daily Dose of Doom thread in the Superbar.

We haven't heard such ominous predictions since free agency was going to kill baseball.

That was only 44 years ago.

Actually, a better analogy probably was the prediction of the South's demise if slavery were abolished.

[WhiteTrash]

It's quite possible that I'm missing something, but on what grounds would it be challenged?  Are you thinking antitrust?  If the NCAA can prohibit an athlete from accepting employment at an above-market rate, why couldn't the NCAA prohibit an athlete from accepting endorsement money at an above-market rate?

What you're proposing is a salary cap. It works in pro sports and would do so here since DI BB and FB are going pro.

[The Sultan]

What you're proposing is a salary cap. It works in pro sports and would do so here since DI BB and FB are going pro.

Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.

[muguru]

If and when this thing goes to court, to me it's an easy win for the NCAA. I'm not familiar with ANY court that can tell an organization what rules they can or can not have. Especially when the members of that organization all agree with them to become part of the organization. You pay your players?? Fine, but they are ineligible. You knew that was our rule when you joined our organization. Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me.

[WhiteTrash]

At least half the posts here belong in the Daily Dose of Doom thread in the Superbar.

We haven't heard such ominous predictions since free agency was going to kill baseball.

That was only 44 years ago.

Actually, a better analogy probably was the prediction of the South's demise if slavery were abolished.

Free agency was never going to kill baseball. But it was correctly predicted to significantly change the sport. FA was followed up with a salary cap to preserve the competitive balance. The very same changes came to every other pro sport.

Regardless of your position on the possible changes coming from California, you must realize there will be a significant impact on college sports just as there was to baseball.

College basketball and football are not going away, but they will operate differently, for better or worse.

[MU82]

Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.

College athletes have tried to unionize in the past. Maybe they'll eventually be successful.

Don't need a salary cap, though. This is 'Merica! We're all about "what the market will bear"!!

[muguru]

Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.

Well it may not be long before college athletes unionize anyway. I mentioned this before, but if this is the route they want to go down, then let's treat it like the NBA, NFL etc...have free agency, trades, hold outs, etc. I mean why not at this point??

[Shooter McGavin]

Pony up

That's great in theory but it will not happen to the degree it will at state universities.  I'm assuming we are all on scoop because we love Marquette basketball.   To have recruiting in the hands of boosters rather than employees of the schools we care about absolutely destroys a level playing field (and much more than it is now, you are kidding yourself if you don't believe this).  You may be rooting for the downfall of MU basketball and not even know it. 

There needs to be rules in place for this to work and that would only create red tape to replace the red tape the NCAA is already dealing with.

[Pakuni]

Well thank you for an honest answer. While your position may not be politically correct, you recognize the financial implications of this law. Some on this board seem to believe the money for athletes will appear out of thin air.

I think non-revenue producing sports are the very definition of the "bloat" you speak of. Absolutely nothing but a drain on a university.

As cheebs says, I think some are vastly overestimating the amount of money being talked about here. Cyganiak Planning isn't going to shift all the sponsorship money it gives Marquette to pay Dexter Akanno and Theo John to appear in a radio spot. They likely get more bang for their buck by sponsoring the program as a whole.

And the bloat I speak of is more like the administrative excess within athletic departments, huge increases in salaries (AD salaries up almost 32 percent over five years, according to one survey I found), excessive spending on facilities (does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?), etc.

[WhiteTrash]

Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.

And you don't think that is coming? I certainly do.

A salary cap is much more equitable than the NCAA arbitrarily caping individual's income.