California governor signs bill allowing college athletes to capitalize on

[Socrates92]

As your professional abilities are the result of perfecting certain God-given skills, is it right that you get paid to work?

 

[pnewton]

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.

While I agree with the sentiment, what California is doing is not going to be an improvement. If anything, we will see more Johnny Manziel types spin off into ruin at a younger age. Besides, the “N” stands for “national,” and the “C” is not for California, who does not get to regulate interstate commerce. The NCAA does not make laws, but the do get to make the rule for the NCAA. If California wants their own state conference separated, that may be what they get, and what they deserve for this move. We can then have the NCAA, and whatever California chooses to call their new semi-pro college league.

 

[commenter]

At this point, doing nothing for the athletes represents restraint of trade

One would think providing education for students, often with a scholarship, is a lot more than doing nothing. Many of these stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars. Now that is not free trade.

 

[PetraG]

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.

It depends on what kind of commercials they land. Parents of little girls and women who wish they could look like elite athletes have deep pockets, too.

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.

Good point. I’m pretty sure that USC doesn’t have a contract with cosmetic manufacturers. It doesn’t have a contract with yogurt companies.

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.

I think it is being offered for the sake of college athletes who aren’t going to turn pro. There are even college athletes who have a hard time making ends meet because of NCAA rules.

Colleges are using the images of their athletes without compensating them. Meanwhile,
“During debate on the bill, Skinner cited a study by the National College Players Association and Drexel University that found 80% of student athletes on full scholarship in 2011 lived below the poverty line.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-will-let-college-athletes-profit-from-14479053.php

How many millions do NCAA coaches make? How is that “fair” that the bigger programs can afford that? How is it right that universities are sinking that kind of money into their sports programs while trying to pretend this isn’t all about raking in money and not about the welfare of college athletes?
What the NCAA needs to do is to change its rules to comply with California law.

 

[PetraG]

One would think providing education for students , often with a scholarship, is a lot more than doing nothing. Many of these stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars. Now that is not free trade.

The students have to eat, too. Look at the number of hours they’re putting in, and tell me that this is doing them some kind of favor.

 

[TC3033]

We’re still talking D1 here right?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

At this point, doing nothing for the athletes represents restraint of trade

You misquoted me very badly and I strongly object. Put up where I said those words exactly the way you quoted them. You won’t find it because I didn’t say it that way. Take it back and quote me correctly if you’re trying to make a point.

Now, moving on to your statement about providing education with scholarship being more than doing nothing. Technically you are correct, but you’re coming at this from a middle class point of view, not the low income and no spare cash point of view.

This law isn’t about making colleges give more money to the athletes, it’s about allowing the athletes to make money on their own in addition to the scholarships they were already given. There’s a difference there and you’re not seeing that.

 

[PetraG]

We’re still talking D1 here right?

You don’t think D1 schools recruit economically disadvantaged students? Think again.

 

[TC3033]

Well I do, but food (3 meals per day and snacks) are included in their scholarship. I know of some guys off campus that I could have eaten for a week off their daily stipend.

 

[PetraG]

Well I do, but food (3 meals per day and snacks) are included in their scholarship. I know of some guys off campus that I could have eaten for a week off their daily stipend.

Their institutions are pulling in millions. Most of them will not have a professional career. They’re being used by what is a professional sports league in which only the actual players aren’t paid like professionals. They are treated like professionals–meaning, their sports and training schedules are put ahead of and to a great degree pre-empt their schedules as students–but they are not compensated like professionals.

It’s naive to think college athletes have time for school

Research shows student-athletes spend triple the amount of time on sports as on academics, raising questions about whether they actually benefit from a college education, a sociology professor argues.

theconversation.com

I agree that this needs a national solution, but large states like California often get tired of waiting around for the federal lawmakers to interfere with economic juggernauts. They don’t do that. How often is it state law demonstrating that a solution is possible and not impossible before the federal government will act? Maybe with the California law, Congress will put some pressure on the NCAA to quit using athletes as they do.

 

[TC3033]

the actual players aren’t paid like professionals. They are treated like professionals–meaning, their sports and training schedules are put ahead of and to a great degree pre-empt their schedules as students–but they are not compensated like professionals.

IDK…5 years for the next 50 years of my life, I’d be OK with it. $300,00 - $500,000 worth of education, food, board, etc… and walking across the podium debt free with a degree. I envy’d my scholarship friends… and still do when I pay my $400 a month student loan payment (and I had GI Bill help)… ¯_(ツ)_/¯

 

[IdaCatholic]

I don’t agree with your logic. I think a free education is of an incredible value. None of my kids will work enough to pay a tuition off in 4 years. But that aside, your argument should be that the Schools that are making the money should pay the athletes. A student athlete that can’t get a scholarship or has no prospects in professional sports will not be signing endorsements at all. My kids play tennis. They aren’t very good. law or no law Eddies used car lot is not knocking down their door to help them pay for pizza and beer in college.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Again, folks, the law is not requiring colleges to pay any more money than they are paying now.

Rather, the law is about allowing athletes more avenues toward their own income.

Just because a student gets a full ride academic scholarship, they are not allowed to pursue their own income on the side? That an academic scholarship recipient is allowed to profit off their subject matter via tutoring, summer jobs, etc., but an athletic scholarship recipient isn’t?

Athletic scholarships should be treated the same as academic scholarships.

 

[phil19034]

Just because a student gets a full ride academic scholarship, they are not allowed to pursue their own income on the side? That an academic scholarship recipient is allowed to profit off their subject matter via tutoring, summer jobs, etc., but an athletic scholarship recipient isn’t?

Athletic scholarships should be treated the same as academic scholarships.

I can agree with letting athletic scholarships recipients to get paid during the summer to work at a sports camp, etc.

But I can’t agree with them being allowed to seek sponsorships, commercial deals, etc.

Reason: an academic scholarship winner isn’t going to be hiring an agent to get them jobs. Athletes are going to get approached by agents seeking to book them tons of deals.

Athletes already have a tough time juggling school and sports. This law would add a third dimension, where they are also juggling sponsorships.

I think a lot of people forget that it’s not uncommon for former NFL and NBA players to have money issues after their playing career is over - esp if they don’t have a degree.

I think it would have been better to see a law that sees more of the revenue from sports going back to students and a lowering salaries for coaches.

 

[TC3033]

That an academic scholarship recipient is allowed to profit off their subject matter via tutoring, summer jobs, etc., but an athletic scholarship recipient isn’t?

My only “sticky wicket” on it is: I don’t think there’s too many boosters lining up to pay millions of dollars to Jack and Jill and their families for their tutoring prowess.

Whereas, boosters are going to be part of the recruiting and kids are going to go where they have the best endorsement deal in place. I can see this hurting some smaller market schools, thus making the rich richer IMHO.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t agree with your logic. I think a free education is of an incredible value. None of my kids will work enough to pay a tuition off in 4 years. But that aside, your argument should be that the Schools that are making the money should pay the athletes. A student athlete that can’t get a scholarship or has no prospects in professional sports will not be signing endorsements at all. My kids play tennis. They aren’t very good. law or no law Eddies used car lot is not knocking down their door to help them pay for pizza and beer in college.

No, I’m saying that the NCAAA and the schools that are making money from their student athletes should not bar those same athletes from making money. The athletes are working as if they were professional athletes.

As for the education, ask the professors at these universities with the big sports programs which is more important to the schools: athletic performance or academics.

Again, folks, the law is not requiring colleges to pay any more money than they are paying now.

Rather, the law is about allowing athletes more avenues toward their own income.

Just because a student gets a full ride academic scholarship, they are not allowed to pursue their own income on the side? That an academic scholarship recipient is allowed to profit off their subject matter via tutoring, summer jobs, etc., but an athletic scholarship recipient isn’t?

Athletic scholarships should be treated the same as academic scholarships.

Exactly. This is about treating student athletes on scholarship more like other students on scholarship, particularly since the student athletes are–let us be blunt–expected to be athletes first and students second when it comes to sports that bring in so much money for the schools that they’re willing to pay the coaches and even sometimes assistant coaches millions of dollars. These are places that pay full professors maybe $250 K if they’re Stanford (where the head football coach makes $5.68 million) and probably under $140 K if they’re at Auburn (where the head football coach makes about $7 million).

Unlike the students on academic scholarship, most college athletes have no professional future in their sports. Only 2% of NCAA athletes and less than 1.5% of NCAA football players play professionally. The students on academic scholarship are spending all their time on academic development that directly translates into post-graduate career opportunity. The student-athletes are getting lottery tickets, not real scholarships.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I can agree with letting athletic scholarships recipients to get paid during the summer to work at a sports camp, etc.

But I can’t agree with them being allowed to seek sponsorships, commercial deals, etc.

Academic scholarship recipients can get anything on their own for income, but athletic scholarship recipients can’t?

Let’s try this on for size: an academic scholarship recipient can get a sponsorship for an SAT testing tutor service at anytime during the year, but the athletic scholarship recipient can’t get even a small endorsement at the local Dick’s Sporting Goods?

An academic scholarship recipient is allowed to profit from tutoring others in his expertise at any time during the year, but the athletic scholarship recipient isn’t allowed to profit from tutoring or coaching others in his sport at any time during the year?

Here’s another one: athletic scholarship recipients can and do come from low income circumstances just as academic scholarship recipients do. How is it not discriminatory against the athletic scholarship recipient from a poor area that they can’t expand on their earning potential the way the academic scholarship recipient can?

Will this corrupt the top end men’s college football and basketball environments? Yes it likely will. But that should not be an excuse to disallow other athletic scholarship recipients from attempting to get their own income, especially the vast majority of them who have no hope of making it in professional sports.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

My only “sticky wicket” on it is: I don’t think there’s too many boosters lining up to pay millions of dollars to Jack and Jill and their families for their tutoring prowess.

Whereas, boosters are going to be part of the recruiting and kids are going to go where they have the best endorsement deal in place. I can see this hurting some smaller market schools, thus making the rich richer IMHO.

The vast majority of college athletes will never get those mega deals. As stated above, only 2% of them will ever play professionally. Why not allow the college athletes to get whatever they can?

 

[PetraG]

Will this corrupt the top end men’s college football and basketball environments? Yes it likely will. But that should not be an excuse to disallow other athletic scholarship recipients from attempting to get their own income, especially the vast majority of them who have no hope of making it in professional sports.

The top men’s college football and basketball environments are already corrupt. There are limits on how many full scholarships can be offered–85 persons on scholarship in football, which can have up to 105 roster spots in the off season and I think no limit during the season–which is all the students can get for participating, but without a limit on how much members of the coaching staffs can be paid, not even compared to what the institutions pay their faculty.

How is that right? How does that keep the “playing field” level? It doesn’t.

Amateur sports?? HA!! The NCAA pulled in 1 BILLION dollars in the 2016-2017 school year. That is BILLION with a capital B. This is no academic enterprise. It is an entertainment business, a sports industry.

 

[IdaCatholic]

Outside of sports, particularly in the field of science students do not make money from their work in college. The college benefits and profits, the students get a degree. I have no problem with colleges making money for the sports I watch. I played in college athletics, no part of me feels cheated.