California governor signs bill allowing college athletes to capitalize on

[Dhc8_Type]

In the US and Canada the two countries that make up 3 of the big 4 you have 31 nhl teams 30 baseball teams and 30 basketball teams. Where I live the closest pro team to me is the Winnipeg Jets but in my state the pro team is the wild. Which’s about 300 miles away. How ever there are 2 division 1 hockey teams 90 miles apart. So instead of pro teams we’ve grown accustom to following where we went to college.

 

[IdaCatholic]

Yes. Exactly. Not only that but many schools will be left behind. Even in the conferences that are lucrative. Look at USC and CAL in this situation boosters and companies can go to any potential student athlete and say, go to USC and we will give you 500,000 to play here. What does a school like WSU in Pullman Washington have to offer? $500 dollars to do a pawn shop commercial? As if the bigger schools didn’t already have the advantage of bigger cities, and in some cases beaches and a “California lifestyle” along with exposure and tv and the legacy of a name brand etc. Tuition at USC is over 200,000 for 4 years and that is free for many of the student athletes. Then they have a college degree for life at the end. Not to mention the training, healthcare, and scholastic assistance involved. This idea that 19 year old college kids are not being compensated to play a game is ridiculous.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think it’s a good idea for a govt to get in the middle of NCAA rules.

I do not think that they can. Sure, California can allow this, but it does not obligate the NCAA to allow it, or to allow teams from California to compete with such an unfair advantage. I would say that those who wish to go semi-pro, even if it is the whole state, should be removed from NCAA competition.

 

[IdaCatholic]

I think there is something to the title IX question. This provides a better opportunity in education and sports for boys than girls. Unless there are equal benefits offered female student athletes. (Yeah right)

 

[FiveLinden]

As the athletes are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), is it right that they make money from the image?

 

[IdaCatholic]

Only Notre dame athletes. Technically that program actually does make money on an image of God. “Touchdown Jesus”

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

local bars, pizza joints, car dealerships, etc.

I am not sold. The big colleges have the advantages now and this will only increase it

phil19034:

local bars, pizza joints, car dealerships, etc.

I am not sold. The big colleges have the advantages now and this will only increase it

Oh, I totally agree with you. It’s a mistake, big time!

 

[TC3033]

Very good. In a a day when coaches are making $7, 8, 9 million/year and tv deals bring in stupid amounts of money to each school off the backs of the athletes, They deserve a piece of the pie.

Sure, I’m also of the opinion that they’re getting a piece of the pie (in this case, talking big school sports) by walking across the stage on graduation day debt free… In many cases at large schools a 4 year football scholarship can be work $80-$100K a year.

I never really understood why in America, sports are a bigger priority than learning for universities. It’s bizarre. And it’s spreading to other parts of the world too.

As an American, I’m just as puzzled as you are.

I’m not sure they are…but… In a lot of cases, especially at larger universities, “revenue sports” can fund entire athletic and academic programs for them.

As FYI - this is not about the schools paying the players. This is about the players being allowed to receive sponsorships, and make money off their name, likeness, and photographics/videos.

True…but this just made it legal for boosters to pay players. I think this is really opening a can of worms.

 

[phil19034]

True…but this just made it legal for boosters to pay players. I think this is really opening a can of worms.

Agreed! These players are obviously now going to have agents and be more concerned with making paid appearances, sponsorships, etc to make money - instead of focusing on their grades.

Very bad decision by CA politicians, and from what I’ve heard, KY politicians want to do something similar. ugh

 

[TC3033]

Not surprising…they have a basketball team that hasn’t wint a championship in a few years.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

As I grew up in California and have known some scholarship athletes back in the day, I’ve been following this with interest since Ed O’Bannon won his lawsuit for control of his image in the post-college setting.

I think this law was well written as it specifically says the colleges do not fork out one extra cent over and above what they’re spending now. The difference is that players are allowed to profit off their own image. But it’s more than that, it’s the opportunity for even the marginal players in marginal sports to get paid for small stuff like summer camps and sporting goods advertisements. Will it corrupt the big sports basketball and football? It surely will and the future of this is that the NCAA will have to navigate this one carefully.

I have seen situations where athletes from low income backgrounds don’t live well at all because their scholarships don’t give them any extra money to take care of the typical expenses that college students have, and there isn’t any money coming from home and they’re not permitted to take loans or jobs. I think among most people opposed to this, there is a definite blindness to that aspect they simply don’t want to acknowledge as most students come from middle class and higher backgrounds where they can’t imagine not being able to scrape up enough money to fund the typical student lifestyle.

The law was purposely written not to take effect until 2023, this was intentional to goad the NCAA into action. At this point, doing nothing for the athletes represents restraint of trade. Like those age limits for the NBA, the college years limits for the NFL, etc. These are restraints against the young man trying to profit off his skill if he is good enough for those upper levels.

 

[TC3033]

But it’s more than that, it’s the opportunity for even the marginal players in marginal sports to get paid for small stuff like summer camps and sporting goods advertisements.

Understood, I don’t think too many marginal players will get much for camps or endoresements but we’ll see. I’m more intrigued to see how much a kid is going to get for cutting a 30 sec spot for a boosters car dealership or making a token appearance at a camp or autograph signing (all planned far ahead in the recruiting process).

I have seen situations where athletes from low income backgrounds don’t live well at all because their scholarships don’t give them any extra money to take care of the typical expenses that college students have,

Yep been there too. I’m not sure your time frame, but I’ve seen quite a few changes in scholarship rules since 2000 to benefit the kids and get them more.

Like those age limits for the NBA, the college years limits for the NFL, etc. These are restraints against the young man trying to profit off his skill if he is good enough for those upper levels.

Actually those rules are meant to protect the player and the brand. The NFL rule has been in force for as long as I can remember. They want to make sure those “kids” are maturing and close to completing growth before putting them in the league. I’ve talked with NFL guys that 100% buy into the age requirement. NBA is a different story, they had such an influx of HS kids coming in the league as high draft picks and not panning out, they needed to put a stop to it to protect the brand.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Yep been there too. I’m not sure your time frame, but I’ve seen quite a few changes in scholarship rules since 2000 to benefit the kids and get them more.

It’s really not that much better, but they want you to think it’s improved so your attention gets deflected. Most of those scholarship recipients will not make it in the pros so the restrictions are not helping them at all.

Actually those rules are meant to protect the player and the brand. The NFL rule has been in force for as long as I can remember. They want to make sure those “kids” are maturing and close to completing growth before putting them in the league. I’ve talked with NFL guys that 100% buy into the age requirement. NBA is a different story, they had such an influx of HS kids coming in the league as high draft picks and not panning out, they needed to put a stop to it to protect the brand.

Talk about “protecting the brand” all they want. It’s still restraint of trade from the point of view of the 18 year old wunderkind who isn’t allowed to maximize his earning potential for another few years.

 

[TC3033]

It’s really not that much better, but they want you to think it’s improved so your attention gets deflected. Most of those scholarship recipients will not make it in the pros so the restrictions are not helping them at all.

No, but they were 50K ahead of me on graduation day. I’m not sure what you mean when you say it’s not much better and who “they” is. I’ve seen it improve quite a bit.

Talk about “protecting the brand” all they want. It’s still restraint of trade from the point of view of the 18 year old wunderkind who isn’t allowed to maximize his earning potential for another few years.

It’s one year for the NBA, three for the NFL. Like I said, I know NFL players who 100% agree with the age requirement for their league. An 18 year old kid doesn’t belong on their roster. NBA is figuring that out too. Zion was probably the first kid since Bron that was NBA ready.

I understand what you’re saying, it’s a slick slope, but I understand the age requirements as well.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

It is also going to steer athletes towards a handful of schools with the ability to market their athletes. In the past a borderline starter at Ohio State may go to a school like Vanderbilt because he knew he’d start. This makes the incentive financial versus athletic. If this happens nationally, it is going consolidate even more power in a few hands.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

They will lose players to the Power 5 conference schools.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t think it’s a good idea for a govt to get in the middle of NCAA rules.

The NCAA has a rule against this for a reason. If one doesn’t like it, fine. However, I don’t think there was a legitimate reason to pass a law to interfere with the NCAA.

Why should the NCAA get to treat athletes like chattel? That seems like a very legitimate reason to interfere with the NCAA, which is a racket that benefits the schools to the tune of millions of dollars without proportionate compensation or even opportunity going to the athletes.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

There are already complaints about the US Women making less than the US Men in soccer, despite the disparity in sales and revenue. Financial compensation has ALWAYS been based on drawing power, not ability. They don’t call the “Best Picture” Oscar “biggest box office hit of the year” for no reason.

 

[PetraG]

I think there is something to the title IX question. This provides a better opportunity in education and sports for boys than girls. Unless there are equal benefits offered female student athletes. (Yeah right)

The law allows the student athletes to find opportunities for themselves, to market their own images, names or likenesses. It does not give them any right to use copyrights owned by the schools or to use the school name to market themselves. It may be that the female athletes will find more opportunities than the men.

 

[IdaCatholic]

You think female athletes will pull in more money on their own name and image than male counterparts? I’ll tell you what. I’ll bet that the top male student athlete in California will make more money off his name and endorsements and likeness from businesses and boosters than ALL the female athletes in the state combined.

This law has stipulations. 1 that the athlete cannot sign with a competing sponsor or brand than the school. So, if the school is sponsored by Nike, the athlete cannot sign with Adidas or if Coke sponsors the stadium that they cannot sign with Pepsi. What this means is that they do expect athletes to sign with companies like these. And what do these companies offer in the way of compensation for athletes that sign with them? Millions of dollars.
Take this outside of California this year. Tua Tagovailoa is a potential Heisman Candidate Alabama is a NIke school. Upon Graduating, Tim Tebow signed a nike deal with a base of 300, 000. Tua, would probably double that right now. So that is 1 company and 600,000 dollars PER YEAR! So a couple million over a college “career” Now, I wonder what Nike will pay the center for Shelby Gibson?

Not to mention the inherent corruption involved if a Nike school wants a high school player to attend a Nike college/ Ahem, Oregon and Phil Knight.

This idea will be either the end of many collegiate programs that cannot financially get the sponsored athletes or do away with conferences all together.

I do believe Title IX will be in play.

I think however that this is being offered to the athletes as a way to stay in school, not for the athlete’s sake but rather for the school’s sake.