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

[Cheeks]

But...but...but...you have said in the past that Buzz tanked the season early on and even "embezzled" from Marquette.  And you also know Marquette AD plans early on around January/February for post-season facilities/contingencies. That's when I get my ticket forms.

So, what story is it? Buzz tanked early and embezzled? Or, Buzz competed and MUAD was prepping for an NIT bid as a contingency? I am confused.

I go by my Cords story...it was clear both MU and Buzz were moving quickly on at season's end.

I never said embezzled, don't put that in quotes...you used that term and then said get a lawyer.  Your word, not mine.  Show me where I ever said embezzled.  What I did say is he mailed it in, didn't coach very well, etc...but he certainly blew the whistle, showed up for games and practices, did his media interviews, said aw shucks and character counts in large amounts.....and that he wanted a NIT bid, and that he was upset we didn't get one.  Are you denying he said that in interviews? 

[Cheeks]

Brother Cheeks, I disagree.

College Athletics is a job. The student-athlete signs a contract. The student-athlete shows up for work. The student-athlete trains in the off-season. The student-athlete performs when an entity (a university) demands.

The student-athlete is compensated with a college education. If the student-athlete ceases playing basketball, except under certain hardship or medical circumstances, the compensation ends.

In my world (MBA-land), that's called a barter transaction. You call in a valuation specialist to determine the fair market value under the Internal Revenue Code. The student athlete is then taxed by the State of Wisconsin and the United States Government for the fair market value of the reimbursement. Just for good measure, make 'em pay Social Security and Medicare on the scholarship-compensation as well.

Look, I know the NCAA, with its infinite lobbying ability, has convinced the U.S. Congress and State Legislatures to not treat this as compensation. But from an economic standpoint, there's no way this is not an employer/employee relationship. If the California legislature really wanted to do something for student athletes, forget this nickel and dime fair pay act. Start taxing athletic scholarships and ban the NCAA from monopolistic practices in the State of California. Hell, they tax everything else out there.

Courts have already ruled, not employees.  Forget lawmakers, the courts have said so. 

[WhiteTrash]

MU82, honestly there has been an equal amount of misinformation, glossing over facts and outright lies by folks on both sides of the argument.

The schools in the NCAA have wanted to have their cake and eat it too for a long time. The athletes want the exposure, top level coaching and free education the NCAA provides but they also want to get paid. Both side are trying to work a system that is not designed to deliver what they seek

NCAA schools can not be involved in big time sports because they aspire to be amateur endeavors and these sports generate too much money and greed from the schools, coaches and players.

There are good, well reasoned points being made by people on both sides of the argument because they are arguing two different systems (pro and amateur) that cannot be mixed successfully. Never have been and never will. 

[Uncle Rico]

MU82, honestly there has been an equal amount of misinformation, glossing over facts and outright lies by folks on both sides of the argument.

The schools in the NCAA have wanted to have their cake and eat it too for a long time. The athletes want the exposure, top level coaching and free education the NCAA provides but they also want to get paid. Both side are trying to work a system that is not designed to deliver what they seek

NCAA schools can not be involved in big time sports because they aspire to be amateur endeavors and these sports generate too much money and greed from the schools, coaches and players.

There are good, well reasoned points being made by people on both sides of the argument because they are arguing two different systems (pro and amateur) that cannot be mixed successfully. Never have been and never will.

There's the rub, there is nothing amateur about the NCAA.  Cheebs posted a link about college tennis, a total non-revenue sport.  Read that article.  Even tennis is "recruiting" hired guns.  Golf does this, too.  They recruit those kids to win, not graduate and educate them.  The only time anyone cares about graduation rates is when their "team" sucks and they need something to brag about

[MU82]

MU82, honestly there has been an equal amount of misinformation, glossing over facts and outright lies by folks on both sides of the argument.

The schools in the NCAA have wanted to have their cake and eat it too for a long time. The athletes want the exposure, top level coaching and free education the NCAA provides but they also want to get paid. Both side are trying to work a system that is not designed to deliver what they seek

NCAA schools can not be involved in big time sports because they aspire to be amateur endeavors and these sports generate too much money and greed from the schools, coaches and players.

There are good, well reasoned points being made by people on both sides of the argument because they are arguing two different systems (pro and amateur) that cannot be mixed successfully. Never have been and never will.

You are a good man trying to be very diplomatic, WT. A bit of false equivalency going on, but I appreciate your tone.

I still have not heard a single acceptable reason why a hard-working American should be denied the right to profit from his or her own likeness.

[muwarrior69]

To all those who think the CA law is a good idea please explain to me how this is good for MU basketball?

[cheebs09]

To all those who think the CA law is a good idea please explain to me how this is good for MU basketball?

We would be able to pay players too, rather than just the teams that do it illegally.

[lawdog77]

would a company like Nike, be able to sign an individual for an exclusive licensing deal? That would keep the current model somewhat intact.

[StillAWarrior]

Here's where I stand (as if anyone really cares):  1) I think that athletes should be permitted to market their likeness and earn some money; 2) I don't necessarily think that will lead to outright payment of athletes by universities (which I don't support); 3) I think the NCAA can and should have some rules relating to what would be allowed under the new rule (and I realize that this could be viewed in conflict with the California law); 4) I think that it's a relatively small number of athletes who will earn very much money if this is allowed; and 5) I have no doubt that this will quite possibly have significant impact on college sports as we currently know it -- but I honestly don't know what that impact will be...maybe great, maybe terrible.  I honestly don't know.  Anything like this is bound to have unintended consequences, and this almost certainly will.  I just don't know what they will be and I'm not going to pretend that I do.  And I also won't argue against this due to that uncertainty because, frankly, I don't think it's right to forbid these athletes to market themselves.


As a parent of a non-revenue athlete, I do have some concerns that this could eventually hurt non-rev sports.  I can see a scenario where that could happen.  I can also see scenarios where it would not happen.  But that still doesn't change my feeling that athletes should be able to do this.

[dgies9156]

Courts have already ruled, not employees.  Forget lawmakers, the courts have said so.

OK, I'll concede they may not be employees. Though I do find it interesting that their "employer" is providing compensation and health care

If college athletes are not employees, then they are independent contractors. The income still should be taxable.

I find it interesting, Brother Cheeks, that you support a legislative role for the court system! 

[WarriorFan]

It is a great irony that the only part of our society more messed up than the NCAA - the government of the People's Republic of California - has messed up the NCAA.

[The Sultan]

What should surprise no one about this is the most far left off the rails state in the country was the first to pass this...color me shocked...not!

As I said earlier...

Interesting that freeing someone from regulations and allowing them to test the marketplace is being cast as a "liberal" issue.

[Pakuni]

To all those who think the CA law is a good idea please explain to me how this is good for MU basketball?

I'm not sure whether it's good, bad or indifferent for MU basketball.
Should our opinion on the matter be informed solely by its impact on one particular basketball program?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

What should surprise no one about this is the most far left off the rails state in the country was the first to pass this...color me shocked...not!

Did you miss the part where Republicans are unanimously voting for this too?  Or are you too wound up in your George-Soros-controls-everything fantasies to notice?

[Pakuni]

You suggested it was a GOP lawmaker in North Carolina that wants to federalize this.  Why did party matter?  I responded in kind with the same approach.

The post to which I responded claimed that this was all the result of some liberal Democratic scheme out of California. The reality is that people of all political persuasions - and people who are totally apolitical - support the notion that college athletes out to be able to earn compensation off the use of their image and likeness.
And none of it has anything to do with boy bands or voter ID laws.

[Benny B]

Should our opinion on the matter be informed solely by its impact on one particular basketball program?

The answer you're looking for here is "Yes"


I'm a stakeholder in Marquette.  The University, the basketball program, the alumni association, the students, the student-athletes, all of it. 

Unfortunately, we now live in a world where education is beginning to grow and consolidate power - just like big corporations have been doing for the last several decades - and like the corporations did, it won't be long before big education starts to stifle competition and push out the little guy.  Hell, it's already started.

Marquette is not a research institution, it doesn't hold a goldmine of patents, there are no labs or incubators, innovation and technology isn't its wheelhouse.  There is only one thing Marquette has that keeps its brand relevant, and as much as some hate to admit it, it is the Men's Basketball program

In a world where everyone is becoming more focused on their selfies being in focus, the only way cura personalis remains viable is for the basketball program to remain relevant.  I don't care if players at UNC, Duke, UW-Madison or Bethune-Cookman should be compensated more than they are now, I am concerned for the viability of my private, mid-sized, urban, Catholic alma mater in a future where nobody cares about cura personalis until they've experienced it.

[muwarrior69]

We would be able to pay players too, rather than just the teams that do it illegally.

Who is the we? And "we" would be able to pay players just as much as Kentucky, UNC, Indiana? "We" would be able to out bid UW for top Wisconsin kids? This is no longer college basketball if we are just going to have a minor league pro team.

[Galway Eagle]

Who is the we? And "we" would be able to pay players just as much as Kentucky, UNC, Indiana? "We" would be able to out bid UW for top Wisconsin kids? This is no longer college basketball if we are just going to have a minor league pro team.

I think our school would present better opportunities than UW for basketball players to earn off their likeness. UW's market would be saturated from football players in a smaller media market.

[brewcity77]

I think our school would present better opportunities than UW for basketball players to earn off their likeness. UW's market would be saturated from football players in a smaller media market.

This is a good point. With a few exceptions, the majority of the football schools have alumni that care more about football and will want to invest more in football than basketball. That won't be the case in the Big East.

[cheebs09]

Who is the we? And "we" would be able to pay players just as much as Kentucky, UNC, Indiana? "We" would be able to out bid UW for top Wisconsin kids? This is no longer college basketball if we are just going to have a minor league pro team.

Marquette's players are presumably not getting paid. With this new rule, Marquette's players could get paid for their own likeness.

Other college players are getting paid under the table. If MU players are now able to be paid, we may be able to compete more for those players. Granted, it would open up for more competition as more schools like MU are also able to have players who are paid.

Will our recruiting go up, down, or stay the same? I have no idea. I just don't believe this is the death blow you and some others are thinking it is.

[Galway Eagle]

To me this isn't really about doing ads and putting their name to product (those are proving to be waste of money anyways) it's about letting someone like Cain have a YouTube channel of himself dunking and monetize it, which in my opinion he should be able to do.

Same with video game likenesses, same with jerseys that have their  name on them.

[Nukem2]

To me this isn't really about doing ads and putting their name to product (those are proving to be waste of money anyways) it's about letting someone like Cain have a YouTube channel of himself dunking and monetize it, which in my opinion he should be able to do.

Same with video game likenesses, same with jerseys that have their  name on them.

I think it should be that as well along with ads/appearance/whatever at a commensurate market rate.  The problem is those big boosters with businesses that can do $$$ that are ridiculously out of synch with such a commensurate market rate under the guise of being "fair market value". 

[MU82]

Did you miss the part where Republicans are unanimously voting for this too?  Or are you too wound up in your George-Soros-controls-everything fantasies to notice?

These people crack me up, TS34. No doubt the same folks who call every lifelong conservative Republican who doesn't like President Bone Spur "liberal," too.

The post to which I responded claimed that this was all the result of some liberal Democratic scheme out of California. The reality is that people of all political persuasions - and people who are totally apolitical - support the notion that college athletes out to be able to earn compensation off the use of their image and likeness.

This. It's been real interesting watching so many trying to paint this as a "liberal" thing. It is almost a classic conservative argument: Let Americans earn money; let them -- not some bureaucracy -- control their own selves. I am an Independent, and actually think it is a perfectly moderate issue. But it came from California, and therefore it MUST be commie. Hilarious. Hypocritical.

Here's where I stand (as if anyone really cares):  1) I think that athletes should be permitted to market their likeness and earn some money; 2) I don't necessarily think that will lead to outright payment of athletes by universities (which I don't support); 3) I think the NCAA can and should have some rules relating to what would be allowed under the new rule (and I realize that this could be viewed in conflict with the California law); 4) I think that it's a relatively small number of athletes who will earn very much money if this is allowed; and 5) I have no doubt that this will quite possibly have significant impact on college sports as we currently know it -- but I honestly don't know what that impact will be...maybe great, maybe terrible.  I honestly don't know.  Anything like this is bound to have unintended consequences, and this almost certainly will.  I just don't know what they will be and I'm not going to pretend that I do.  And I also won't argue against this due to that uncertainty because, frankly, I don't think it's right to forbid these athletes to market themselves.


As a parent of a non-revenue athlete, I do have some concerns that this could eventually hurt non-rev sports.  I can see a scenario where that could happen.  I can also see scenarios where it would not happen.  But that still doesn't change my feeling that athletes should be able to do this.

SAW ...

Not that you were asking for validation from me or anybody else, but this is a very logical, objective, mature way to look at this issue.

Those claiming that they know exactly what this will do to college sports or Marquette basketball or anything else ... how could they? How could any of us?

Well done.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

Still reading through the rest of this mess but this is exactly how I feel.

[Nukem2]

Still reading through the rest of this mess but this is exactly how I feel.

Agree as well.  The state of Washington has a similar likeness bill in progress but has a proviso that compensation should be commensurate with the services provided.  I think that is a fair compromise for all.  Letting a booster's business pay Johnny Doe $50,000 or whatever for an innocuous ad is ridiculous.