California governor signs image and likeness bill

#77
#77
To get endorsement deals. How does this affect the SEC? The SEC has to of known this was coming!
 
#81
#81
SaintLouisVol said:
Well, they are. Look up the salaries for the CEO of United Way. Or St. Jude’s Hospital.
Click to expand...

Even still, we're talking about an organization that makes its money because of college kids playing sports, and we can't pay the kids, but we can pay the president of the organization 6 mil and the coaches to coach them 6 mil. We can pay other NCAA employees hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of that revenue exists without the college athlete. Literally, zero. Yet, the kids can't even sell their autograph or get money from their jersey sales. That's bs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU, vol66, Devo182 and 3 others
#82
#82
#83
#83
SaintLouisVol said:
This will absolutely destroy college football. It basically legalizing cheating.

So, I am a southern California auto dealer who happens to be a huge UCLA booster. I can't pay you to go to UCLA, but I can pay you all I want to do commercials for my car dealership? That's laughable.

At least it will be much less bothersome for me that Tennessee is no longer relevant in the game, because I will have no interest in the game.
Click to expand...
You are free to pay anyone you want. It is simply against ncaa bylaws for the kid to both accept the money and maintain ncaa eligibility. Nothing illegal about any of it.

Paying recruits happens regardless, now it would just be above water.
 
#84
#84
The problem with this has always been that both basketball and football pro leagues have a comfortable relationship with the NCAA as their farm system. When was the last time you heard of a NCAA baseball player worried about their jersey sales or “likeness?”

It’s the NFL and NBA that have their rules regarding entrance to the draft. These are not NCAA rules but certainly the NCAA schools benefit from having these athletes. But there is no “requirement” that the player HAS to go to college. It’s just that it’s the only reasonable option. The problem is the NCAA would go on just fine without these players, but it’s costly for the pro leagues to form their own developmental leagues.

Then you also have to just look at the numbers. The NCAA is being asked to re-invent the wheel for such a small percentage of the overall population of student athletes.

And then my last issue is the impression that people feel they are owed what they’re potentially worth without paying their dues. Why is that? I use the example of a medical resident. For years they are “underpaid” for the amount of work they do and the amount of money they make for the health systems they work for. But no one would argue that they should be paid an equal salary until they have the experience and have proved themselves competent.
 
#85
#85
People keep saying "Recruits are already getting paid this just legalizes it" are missing the point. We're not talking about $100 hand shakes. This is Phil Knight offering 5-star prospects $100k endorsement contracts if they sign with Oregon or Kevin plank doing the same for kids going to Maryland. The catholic church will start paying 5 stars to endorse the catholic church if the sign with Notre Dame. This will be a bidding war for top players across the country. I understand the feeling that these athletes have worked their entire lives and should be able to profit from their success. I don't disagree I just don't think it should be college, amateur football. Of course the other side is college baseball is diluted because the best players go pro out of HS. If there were a pre-NFL pro league the college football product certainly would not be as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintLouisVol
#86
#86
rocky top buzz said:
People keep saying "Recruits are already getting paid this just legalizes it" are missing the point. We're not talking about $100 hand shakes. This is Phil Knight offering 5-star prospects $100k endorsement contracts if they sign with Oregon or Kevin plank doing the same for kids going to Maryland. The catholic church will start paying 5 stars to endorse the catholic church if the sign with Notre Dame. This will be a bidding war for top players across the country. I understand the feeling that these athletes have worked their entire lives and should be able to profit from their success. I don't disagree I just don't think it should be college, amateur football. Of course the other side is college baseball is diluted because the best players go pro out of HS. If there were a pre-NFL pro league the college football product certainly would not be as good.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right. This will distort the game far more than most people want to realize. The gap between the haves and havenots will grow exponentially wider.

I understand that the scale of the economics in paying leadership is offensive to many. But, people who have the ability to cast vision and oversee very large organizations are pretty rare individuals, which creates great competition for them. They go to the highest bidders just like anything else when demand exceeds supply. The same goes for coaches. It's funny to me that the same people who complain about the salaries of coaches also complain when the universities won't spend enough to get a "real" coach.

No one seems to be complaining about all of those football and basketball dollars that are funding scholarships for the thousands of student athletes that play other sports.

I wish the NFL and NBA would create development leagues to serve as a college alternative for players. I don't mind at all that some of the best players would be absent from the college game, and many would still choose to play in college.

Laugh and call me naive, but I honestly believe there are still plenty of amateur athletes out there that are truly proud to represent their university and greatly appreciate the fact that they are given 4-5 more years of opportunity to play a game that they have played and loved all their lives. And, with this opportunity comes the chance to earn a college degree. But, it's the others' voices that are being heard far more loudly.
 
Last edited:
#87
#87
Devo182 said:
You are free to pay anyone you want. It is simply against ncaa bylaws for the kid to both accept the money and maintain ncaa eligibility. Nothing illegal about any of it.

Paying recruits happens regardless, now it would just be above water.
Click to expand...

States have specific Uniform Athlete Agent Act Laws that could be effected by paying players..
 
#88
#88
The schools need to get ahead of this. Create a new rule that allows schools to establish escrow accounts that pay the players for the use of their intellectual property upon the expiration of their eligibility. It allows the players to be fairly compensated, and keeps the system from becoming full-fledged free agency.
 
#89
#89
rocky top buzz said:
People keep saying "Recruits are already getting paid this just legalizes it" are missing the point. We're not talking about $100 hand shakes. This is Phil Knight offering 5-star prospects $100k endorsement contracts if they sign with Oregon or Kevin plank doing the same for kids going to Maryland. The catholic church will start paying 5 stars to endorse the catholic church if the sign with Notre Dame. This will be a bidding war for top players across the country. I understand the feeling that these athletes have worked their entire lives and should be able to profit from their success. I don't disagree I just don't think it should be college, amateur football. Of course the other side is college baseball is diluted because the best players go pro out of HS. If there were a pre-NFL pro league the college football product certainly would not be as good.
Click to expand...

No, what people are saying is the present system is actually contrary to current federal/state statutory laws i.e. corruption, no other business could get away with this - until now. (most people probably remember me saying this on the forum 2-5 years ago.... they're (NCAA/collegs admin/big broadcasters are lucky they haven't criminally been indicted)

Their present business model is going bye bye.
SaintLouisVol said:
Laugh and call me naive, but I honestly believe there are still plenty of amateur athletes out there that are truly proud to represent their university and greatly appreciate the fact that they are given 4-5 more years of opportunity to play a game that they have played and loved all their lives. And, with this opportunity comes the chance to earn a college degree. But, it's the others' voices that are being heard far more loudly.
Click to expand...

There really is no other voice. The issue is, imo, is very simple yet very complex. The schools (i.e. NCAA) should not be conspiring to restrict trade, of course, college sports can still exist... there just isn't any such thing as "amateur" or "student", not really. If a school wishes to only have athletes that don't have jobs or earn outside money, not sure there is a problem with that - the problem is the schools getting together to form a closed market. If one school wants to allow this, nothing wrong with that, if another school wants to pay their players, nothing wrong with that, also nothing wrong with them restricting that - as long as they don't get together to restrict trade, generally speaking... I don't have a legal issue.
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
I think if it does anything, it will impact California colleges and no one else. The NCAA isn't going to change it's rules, so any player receiving endorsement money will be declared ineligible by the NCAA. The school can't punish them, but if they play ineligible players they will be forced to vacate wins achieved with them on the field. The schools won't be willing to risk that, so they likely won't play any players who have received endorsements. Since they can't punish the student, they won't be able to take away their scholarship, so they will be forced to eat it without being able to play the player. So players who take money won't get to play. It isn't punishment, but it isn't what they think will happen either.

A school that allows it's student athletes to accept endorsements will be on the hook for scholarships without getting any benefit of the player being on the roster. I think it will end up being a terrible decision for California schools.
 
#92
#92
jpope9 said:
just wait until the women's vollyball team is screaming about not making as much as the men's football team....

goodluck with that can of worms, california.
Click to expand...
What's funny is that the "pay the players" crowd's next argument.

What is being proposed now is a reasonable demand - the next demand will not only be for the schools to pay the athletes directly but for the women's field hockey player to make the same as the Heisman-winning QB, because that's "fair."
 
#93
#93
rltw1974 said:
If this passed in all 50 states, this would be the end of college football as we know. The schools with the most revenue or richest boosters would essentially spend their way into a championship.
Click to expand...
And that's different from now...how, exactly?

Is it fair that the 5-star athletes at Alabama have world-class facilities, the best coaching, and continuous national TV exposure and the 2-star athletes at Western Kentucky don't?

I don't know about everyone else, but the excitement of college sports and why I like them more than professional sports has never had anything to do with the fact that college athletes aren't paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pappy
#94
#94
SprocketRocket said:
The NCAA isn't going to change it's rules, so any player receiving endorsement money will be declared ineligible by the NCAA. The school can't punish them, but if they play ineligible players they will be forced to vacate wins achieved with them on the field. The schools won't be willing to risk that, so they likely won't play any players who have received endorsements. Since they can't punish the student, they won't be able to take away their scholarship, so they will be forced to eat it without being able to play the player. So players who take money won't get to play. It isn't punishment, but it isn't what they think will happen either.

A school that allows it's student athletes to accept endorsements will be on the hook for scholarships without getting any benefit of the player being on the roster. I think it will end up being a terrible decision for California schools.
Click to expand...

I'd doubt any of that happens. The school wouldn't accept a player if they couldn't actually play. What I think would be most likely is either the NCAA adjusts it's rules to accommodate something that works for players/schools/NCAA or schools start breaking away from the NCAA before that happens.

Ohio St's AD has already come out against players being paid. Before something like that goes into practice there will be a lot of discussion on regulations surrounding it.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith on Tuesday said he is against the Fair Pay to Play Act, which was signed into law Monday and states that colleges in California cannot punish their athletes for collecting endorsement money.

"My concern with the California bill -- which is all the way wide open with monetizing your name and your likeness -- is it moves slightly towards pay-for-play," Smith said, "and it's very difficult for us -- the practitioners in this space -- to figure out how do you regulate it. How do you ensure that the unscrupulous bad actors do not enter that space and ultimately create an unlevel playing field?

Smith said that he would not schedule Ohio State to play schools in states where these kinds of bills are passed. He also said there would be "no compromise" between the NCAA and states that decided to pass similar bills. He said the membership will come up with a recommendation for what it should do, but he added that he doesn't anticipate that happening until late 2020.

Smith and others at the NCAA are concerned about navigating a landscape where each state has different rules about compensating college athletes.

"What we can't have is situations where we have schools and/or states with different rules for an organization that's going to compete together," Smith said. "It can't happen; it's not reality. And if that happens, what we need is federal help to try to make sure we create rules and regulations for all of our memberships that are consistent. And if that doesn't happen, then we're looking at a whole new model."
Click to expand...
Ohio State AD Smith against Fair Pay to Play Act

New model is what I'd bet on right now. People think nothing much will change with players being paid, but it will change everything.
 
Last edited:
#95
#95
So long college football! Now all of the sports that do not make any money will have to be paid the same. How many fans go to the swimming matches? 100k? Football is what drives all college revenue. Basketball second. Womens stickball. Not so much. Hey these well fed physically trained and spoilled players are so mistreated. Poor poor kids.
 
#96
#96
Patton2018 said:
So long college football! Now all of the sports that do not make any money will have to be paid the same. How many fans go to the swimming matches? 100k? Football is what drives all college revenue. Basketball second. Womens stickball. Not so much. Hey these well fed physically trained and spoilled players are so mistreated. Poor poor kids.
Click to expand...
California's bill doesn't mandate that schools pay players. It just says players can make money off their likeness. So if the a high school qb recruit gets 25k for showing up at some booster's birthday party, the swim team doesn't have anything to complain about because the school isn't giving different benefits to different sports. The swim team members can attempt the same if they want.
 
#97
#97
TheDeeble said:
I'd doubt any of that happens. The school wouldn't accept a player if they couldn't actually play. What I think would be most likely is either the NCAA adjusts it's rules to accommodate something that works for players/schools/NCAA or schools start breaking away from the NCAA before that happens.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. Schools aren't going to accept players that can't play, so if players want to play, they won't accept money. I really don't think the NCAA is going to change anything. Why kill the golden goose? And I also don't think that schools are going to break away from the NCAA for the same reason. Millions and sometimes tens of millions of dollars coming from the NCAA makes a very convincing argument for schools to stay. If the law does anything it at least opens up the discussion that should have happened a long time ago, but I don't see this as the end of college football as some have called it. In my opinion the law simply has no teeth.
 
#98
#98
"Smith said that he would not schedule Ohio State to play schools in states where these kinds of bills are passed. "

This is the best leverage the NCAA has.
 
#100
#100
LSU-SIU said:
No, what people are saying is the present system is actually contrary to current federal/state statutory laws i.e. corruption, no other business could get away with this - until now. (most people probably remember me saying this on the forum 2-5 years ago.... they're (NCAA/collegs admin/big broadcasters are lucky they haven't criminally been indicted)

Their present business model is going bye bye.


There really is no other voice. The issue is, imo, is very simple yet very complex. The schools (i.e. NCAA) should not be conspiring to restrict trade, of course, college sports can still exist... there just isn't any such thing as "amateur" or "student", not really. If a school wishes to only have athletes that don't have jobs or earn outside money, not sure there is a problem with that - the problem is the schools getting together to form a closed market. If one school wants to allow this, nothing wrong with that, if another school wants to pay their players, nothing wrong with that, also nothing wrong with them restricting that - as long as they don't get together to restrict trade, generally speaking... I don't have a legal issue.
Click to expand...


I get your argument about the current business model of universities needing to go away. I probably agree with that. What I don't understand is your logic about an individual school having a choice to allow or restrict payment of its players. Why would LSU, for instance, ever decide that they are not going to allow their players to earn money in this manner when schools like Arkansas, Texas A&M, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, etc. chooses to do so? Wouldn't that put LSU at a decidedly bad recruiting disadvantage? With all due respect to the 2nd poster you quoted in your response, I think it is extremely naive to believe that players want to only go to school because of the degree, especially the best players. It is a Pandora's box that is unavoidable. I don't care what Dabo Swinney of Clemson, OSU, or any other school says today. That's just posturing. College P5 football is too big a business with too much revenue coming in to allow those $$$ to dry up at individual schools who refuse to change with the times. I think most people if they're honest knew this day was coming whether they welcomed it or dreaded it. You simply can't continue to have these incredibly massive conference TV deals, huge coaching salaries for the HC AND now staff, apparel deals, that the school and it's staff benefit from IMMEDIATELY while the players, 90% or more of which never make it to the pros, are told their benefit comes later, much later for most if at all. That said, I don't like the direction this has taken to get us to paying players, but let's be honest. The NFL was never going to do what was right and form a minor league system model similar to the major league baseball model. Now, they won't have to. I think this methodology has the potential to create upheaval, dissension, and disruption in the sport, conferences, between universities, and within the team's chemistry. The NFL and the colleges and universities should be paying players deemed worthy by their talent with a salary structure.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top