In this case then 0 athletes should receive a full ride scholarship!
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...fIpw8aZDZB66Y07AMJBn1ZElqtQoxLxSGG_0XnpMrp24w
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...fIpw8aZDZB66Y07AMJBn1ZElqtQoxLxSGG_0XnpMrp24w
Cali allows NCAA athletes to be paid
- Thread starter Str8DBLz
- Start date
2023 … a lot can and will happen in the next 3+ years. Time will tell how this plays out.
so because a relatively small number of basketball and football players might make some $ off their likeness, 0 athletes should get scholarships? based on the info you linked, I don't really see say a Stanford wrestler making money anytime soon.
The headline (and thus the resulting conversation) is a bit misleading. The CA law would prohibit the NCAA from restricting or punishing students who made money through deals in which they licensed their names or likenesses, which deals have nothing to do with the myriad ways the NCAA makes its money.
This law is basically a codification of the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case, where it found that the NCAA's prohibiting athletes to receive royalties where the NCAA used their names and likenesses amounted to an antitrust violation. There was additional appellate litigation to assess a damages number but O'Bannon lost on that front.
The NCAA is right where, in the story linked above, they mention that different state regimes make for an uneven playing field among the colleges, but that's not entirely the NCAA's concern. I suspect other states will come around fast on this to match California's law so their schools aren't literally at a disadvantage.
I think there's probably a danger in overstating the impact the actual law will have, though. At any given time, how many college athletes will have the realistic opportunity to land endorsement or licensing deals? Ten? I could be way off base here because I don't live in an SEC football city but I'm skeptical this will have a broad impact on the NCAA, other than to give a handful of its athletes (athletes who were already on the road to making money playing sports) a leg up before turning pro.
This law is basically a codification of the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case, where it found that the NCAA's prohibiting athletes to receive royalties where the NCAA used their names and likenesses amounted to an antitrust violation. There was additional appellate litigation to assess a damages number but O'Bannon lost on that front.
The NCAA is right where, in the story linked above, they mention that different state regimes make for an uneven playing field among the colleges, but that's not entirely the NCAA's concern. I suspect other states will come around fast on this to match California's law so their schools aren't literally at a disadvantage.
I think there's probably a danger in overstating the impact the actual law will have, though. At any given time, how many college athletes will have the realistic opportunity to land endorsement or licensing deals? Ten? I could be way off base here because I don't live in an SEC football city but I'm skeptical this will have a broad impact on the NCAA, other than to give a handful of its athletes (athletes who were already on the road to making money playing sports) a leg up before turning pro.
1. they are not professional athletes
2. they should learn to budget their money instead of just having more handed to them (think of how many of these athletes go from riches to nothing in a very short period of time)
3. They are already "getting paid" by having the scholarship $.
2. they should learn to budget their money instead of just having more handed to them (think of how many of these athletes go from riches to nothing in a very short period of time)
3. They are already "getting paid" by having the scholarship $.
Adding $ to anything tends to corrupt it. The more dollars involved, the more corrupt it will likely become.
in any other industry, the student is able to make money off of their skills while in school. no one loses their music scholarship for playing gigs on the side.
also, your 3rd point contradicts your first. the only reason they're "not professional" is because they're not "getting paid". if they are "getting paid" then wouldn't they be professionals? it's just that the amount they're "getting paid" is artificially limited by the NCAA at the cost of the education.
for #2 are you proposing the NCAA provide financial planning assistance to all of its athletes? or is your solution more "deal with it"?
this type of law would enable basically every single kid being recruited to play football or basketball at a big-time school to get paid in some way, legally. The bag man's job just got a whole lot easier, it doesn't have to be done under the table now. From the local car dealer, all the way up to Nike and other major brands, it's going to be a free-for-all. Not everybody is going to get a multi-million dollar deal, but nearly everybody being recruited by the power schools is going to get something substantial.
The nonprofit NCAA collects $1b/yr in revenue, some which even makes its way back to the schools, and I'm supposed to be up-in-arms if a kid can make five figures off the local car dealership. Nike and Adidas et al already have deals with the schools, so I'm not imagining big changes there.
An interesting article (below) on the subject from a few years back.
Aside: any discussion of the issue needs to include a consideration of how (allegedly) corrupt the big business of NCAA sports are and how universities profit from it hand-over-fist. The US is the only country in the world to turn universities into athletics machines and even incipient corporations often to the detriment of education. Let's not pretend that students making money is the origin or even expression of the problem. It's a symptom of a society (including large universities and political parties) obsessed with money as the sole arbiter of its values.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/
Aside: any discussion of the issue needs to include a consideration of how (allegedly) corrupt the big business of NCAA sports are and how universities profit from it hand-over-fist. The US is the only country in the world to turn universities into athletics machines and even incipient corporations often to the detriment of education. Let's not pretend that students making money is the origin or even expression of the problem. It's a symptom of a society (including large universities and political parties) obsessed with money as the sole arbiter of its values.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/
This will help wrestlers do camps and smaller jobs that they aren’t allowed to use any of their likeness to advertise or anything they would like to sell. The NCAA is incredibly difficult to deal with right now. Take someone like Zion or LeBron had he gone to college and they would have had millions while in school. Your athletic career is very short. I think the kids should be able to profit asap.
#3 isn't necessarily putting a paycheck in their hand. However it's allowing them to graduate college upwards of 160,000.00 ahead of others. This is how I'm saying "they are getting paid"
i'm not commenting on anybody being up-in-arms about this new law, just that there's going to be way more than a handful of kids getting paid.
It's sad, in a sense, but long overdue in my opinion. The notion of competition for competition's sake seems very noble--but people even make money from pick up basketball games on up. Reality of the world, and pretending it doesn't happen or exist only benefits the current beneficiaries (ie the powers that be).
Well, it's not as if all this is immune to economics. Most pro athletes on a given pro team don't have endorsement deals, so I'm unclear why there would a gold rush to get at college student-athletes. Some top tier athletes, the names everyone already knows, sure. But for relatively unknown student athletes the economic incentive to use/license that student athlete's "name, likeness, or image" would also fall.
The whole argument that it is OK for the adults to divvy up a multibillion dollar pie amongst themselves while they give the kids a crumb here and there is fair is beyond ridiculous.
So what if kids are going to get some cash? As JT pointed out, if this is a PA law and DT, The Truth, Jason, Bo or Zain want to spend a Saturday signing autographs to posters for 50 bucks a clip - have at it. I hope they each sell a 1,000 posters every Saturday.
So what if kids are going to get some cash? As JT pointed out, if this is a PA law and DT, The Truth, Jason, Bo or Zain want to spend a Saturday signing autographs to posters for 50 bucks a clip - have at it. I hope they each sell a 1,000 posters every Saturday.
Some levity on a contentious issue. I'd buy AC picks!
Given the population, Jeff Jaggers stone squeezing skinning jeans would have made Jaggers a fortune off of Columbus sales alone.
College football and basketball is already incredibly corrupt, California's law will just bring it out into the open. I am not a lawyer, and maybe someone who is can explain....not sure if California state law can prevent the NCAA from punishing colleges in California for allowing athletes to except payment for their likeness. If you become a member NCAA school, you agreeing to follow NCAA rules. The same would go for individuals.
After all, even though it is legal in Colorado, if you are a Denver Bronco you better not get caught with MJ in your system.
I think California loses if they are the only state. If other states pass similar legislation then the NCAA will have to change their rules.
After all, even though it is legal in Colorado, if you are a Denver Bronco you better not get caught with MJ in your system.
I think California loses if they are the only state. If other states pass similar legislation then the NCAA will have to change their rules.
this isn't about the economics of licensing, it's about recruiting and getting the kids to sign with your team. It's already happening all over the country, and has been for decades, just not legally. You're taking the wording too literally. nobody has a problem with the top 1% actually making some money after they've earned it via on-field performance in the NCAA. This is basically just a way to legalize the bag man industry, and that's where certain people have an issue with it.
The law is literally only about licensing.
Incrementalism is why people should not diet to lose weight. Why risk anorexia?
Will be interesting to follow in coming years, however I don’t think it’ll play into cal poly overtaking penn state as the nations premier wrestling program
It is pretty obvious what is most likely to happen. Certain school's boosters will hire pretty much every player on Team A. The word will spread that......if you come to our school....you will be making much more money than if you go somewhere else. Boosters won't have to deal in cash envelopes, free cars and housing for parents. You just do a commercial for us and we give you cash.....lots of cash. Recruiting will be highest bidder wins. #NotNostradamus
Probably the worst part of this is allowing college players to hire agents -- possibly the sleaziest faction in sports.
Lots of college athletes gonna discover their "signing bonuses" were loans due at signing with interest, etc.
Either the bill was (at least partially) intended to transfer wealth from the poor to a rich and powerful special interest, or Sacramento yet again passed the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Lots of college athletes gonna discover their "signing bonuses" were loans due at signing with interest, etc.
Either the bill was (at least partially) intended to transfer wealth from the poor to a rich and powerful special interest, or Sacramento yet again passed the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This is way too easy to fix. Give the kids their scholarship. If they can make more money beyond that because of their accomplishments, congratulate them and let them collect.
What good is a slush fund if athletes can be paid legally? Time to update the 3” binder?
Exactly. I thought this was about using someone's likeness on a game to make money then they would have to pay the athlete. I don't see companies running out to do that although I see the argument about why some corps would do something like that to recruit but then how would they benefit from that even if a kid is wearing nikes to play basketball he isn't getting paid unless the company is making money off how likeness
I'm guessing the concern is that, if the head of a company is also a booster, he could find any excuse to use the likeness of a kid whose way he wishes to pay . . . so that his favorite team benefits. Personal profit in this case, is not the consideration.
I didn't take the time to read the article, though . . . not sure whether there is any sort of cap on what a kid can "earn" under this model?
If it's taxable income, there is no limit. Or if there is, the legislature will fix that ASAP.
Similar threads
