California Gov Signs Fair Pay to Play Bill

-
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
8,386
Likes
10,771
Takes effect in 2023. Legislative moves underway to follow suit in other states, including NY, FL, WA, MD, CO, NC, SC...

 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
8,386
Likes
10,771
Our road to the final four just got easier. The NCAA will have to give programs in those states the boot.
Emmett threatened CA with that and they basically told him to go pound sand. Then the other states started ponying up. The NCAA will have no choice but to back down.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,080
Likes
2,001
Emmett threatened CA with that and they basically told him to go pound sand. Then the other states started ponying up. The NCAA will have no choice but to back down.
Maybe the NCAA will stick to its mission of amateurism, and the big money schools that can afford to pay players will form their own league without having to worry about the number of text messages they send to recruits and show-cause penalties for their coaches?
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
8,386
Likes
10,771
Maybe the NCAA will stick to its mission of amateurism, and the big money schools that can afford to pay players will form their own league without having to worry about the number of text messages they send to recruits and show-cause penalties for their coaches?
This has nothing to do with teams paying players
 

Bigboote

Lectroid feom Planet 10
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
2,482
Likes
4,086
I just about busted a gut when I saw the title of the bill. How many politicians have lost their jobs in pay-to-play schemes? Now a bunch of politicians have voted FOR it? There isn't an emoticon for the irony.
 

MilfordHusky

Voice of Reason
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,106
Likes
34,806
This seemed inevitable. It will interesting to see how it works. Will California schools gain a recruiting advantage? Or be banished from the NCAA?
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
8,386
Likes
10,771
This seemed inevitable. It will interesting to see how it works. Will California schools gain a recruiting advantage? Or be banished from the NCAA?
Too many relevant CA schools (and plus NY, FL, etc are following soon). NCAA will cave rather than risk creating a competitor league who can use more $$ to attract the best athletes.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
51
Likes
17
So, john, joe, sue, Kim, and David all wear #12 in basketball over the last 10 years. So who legally gets the proceeds from Jersey sales of #12. To take it even farther, say your all time great player was number 12, 40 years ago, and your university still sells jerseys in that # because of them.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
1,087
Likes
1,768
Maybe the NCAA will stick to its mission of amateurism, and the big money schools that can afford to pay players will form their own league without having to worry about the number of text messages they send to recruits and show-cause penalties for their coaches?
No way in Hades. The NCAA is too addicted to the cash they get from college athletics. If the big money schools go so does the cash cow.
 

CocoHusky

1,000,001 BY points
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
11,466
Likes
20,479
So, john, joe, sue, Kim, and David all wear #12 in basketball over the last 10 years. So who legally gets the proceeds from Jersey sales of #12. To take it even farther, say your all time great player was number 12, 40 years ago, and your university still sells jerseys in that # because of them.
Simple suggestion/solution: put the name and number of the jersey. Track sales by name and number & conpensetate Joe, kim, etc according to sales of their jersey.
 

Argonaut

No, not that Providence.
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
540
Likes
2,011
Simple suggestion/solution: put the name and number of the jersey. Track sales by name and number & conpensetate Joe, kim, etc according to sales of their jersey.
Would Geno go for that?
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
8,386
Likes
10,771
Would Geno go for that?
Then names would be on the jerseys for sale, not necessarily on the ones actually worn by the players. This is commonplace now.


For instance, the Yankees have never had names on their jerseys...

1569986569959.png
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
8,386
Likes
10,771
Now a U.S. Congressman is coming forward with a Federal version of this bill. He’s going to wait until Emmett’s NCAA working group has submitted their recommendation on the issue before he formally introduces the bill.

 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,080
Likes
2,001
Wouldn't it just be easier to get rid of the NCAA? What purpose does it serve other than as a jobs program for Indianapolis?
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
213
Likes
178
It's an interesting situation, because the NCAA is just an association. Schools are not required to join. In fact, WBB just joined the NCAA in 1981. Club sports have their own governing bodies, not the NCAA. There is nothing to stop a new association from coming in and getting schools to join them instead of the NCAA.

The interesting part to me is that, can the government come in and make an association, that membership is completely voluntary, make them change their rules?

Since the NCAA also determines the "rules of the game", what's to stop some state from passing a law that says for all football games played in my state, touchdowns are worth 10 points instead of 6, etc. You see where this could go. Many bad things have come from the best intentions.
 

cockhrnleghrn

Fan of the Garnet & Black
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
3,129
Likes
2,877
Our road to the final four just got easier. The NCAA will have to give programs in those states the boot.
The NCAA can't afford to lose California. Combine all of those states and it's 25% of the population.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
7
Likes
13
There is not an much money in Jersey sales as most people think.

For an example.

During Johnny Manziel's last year at Texas A&M the school made $59,690 on "ALL" jersey sales. Even if 3/4 of them were his after taxes he might have gotten $15,000. The schools will still get part of the revenue because they own the jersey design and the school logo which has more value than the players name. Then you subtract the cost of agents and accountants to manage the business side there's not going to be much if any left over for the player.

The biggest issue most folks don't talk about is the effect on the locker room where most of the players will get little or no money. In all team sports the bench and roll players make the "stars" shine and if they see their efforts making the star money while they get little or nothing how will the locker room dynamics be effected? My guess is it will get ugly in some cases. Teams with unhappy locker rooms don't historically do well.

In the long run it will be bad for everyone who just loves the game they play.






.
 
Last edited:

KnightBridgeAZ

Grand Canyon Knight
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,692
Likes
2,375
It is a tough subject. In effect, college serves as a minor league (or midway step) for the NFL, NBA, and most sports to some degree. Many of the "star" athletes that have a professional future are NOT attending for academics, which is not to deny that there are those that do want an education (and return after or during their pro careers to complete their degrees).

Of course this is dicey since lots more athletes think they are pro prospects than actually are, and not all that make it to the fringes of professional sports are making huge or lifetime changing earnings. And the vast majority of athletes are never going pro, as the NCAA reminds us.

That said, what makes this tough is also that college sports in large part exists outside "education" - it is a money making and or goodwill generating world of its own, who's mission is difficult to mesh with an "educational" model. Is it fair (I don't know the answer 100%) to generate income by employing someone to earn you money in exchange for an educational opportunity, the chance to grow your "game" and some minimal and or necessary benefits (insurance, food and such)?

College athletics will collapse if schools are ever allowed to pay players whatever they can afford to, as the divergence between the haves and have-nots would widen. Similarly, benefits such as the "moving the parents" and cash incentives would have the same effect. OTH, I find it harder to object to an athlete receiving funds from his jersey or from endorsing the local car dealership, although this too will be more beneficial to the haves than have nots (but the haves already are advantaged by having proven that by their success they have a greater benefit on you future than other schools).

I am interested in seeing how it plays out. I am neither for or against this (or paying athletes) "on principle". Rather, as it plays out, I am interesting in studying the ramifications across the greater playing field.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
1,338
Likes
1,468
It is a tough subject. In effect, college serves as a minor league (or midway step) for the NFL, NBA, and most sports to some degree. Many of the "star" athletes that have a professional future are NOT attending for academics, which is not to deny that there are those that do want an education (and return after or during their pro careers to complete their degrees).

Of course this is dicey since lots more athletes think they are pro prospects than actually are, and not all that make it to the fringes of professional sports are making huge or lifetime changing earnings. And the vast majority of athletes are never going pro, as the NCAA reminds us.

That said, what makes this tough is also that college sports in large part exists outside "education" - it is a money making and or goodwill generating world of its own, who's mission is difficult to mesh with an "educational" model. Is it fair (I don't know the answer 100%) to generate income by employing someone to earn you money in exchange for an educational opportunity, the chance to grow your "game" and some minimal and or necessary benefits (insurance, food and such)?

College athletics will collapse if schools are ever allowed to pay players whatever they can afford to, as the divergence between the haves and have-nots would widen. Similarly, benefits such as the "moving the parents" and cash incentives would have the same effect. OTH, I find it harder to object to an athlete receiving funds from his jersey or from endorsing the local car dealership, although this too will be more beneficial to the haves than have nots (but the haves already are advantaged by having proven that by their success they have a greater benefit on you future than other schools).

I am interested in seeing how it plays out. I am neither for or against this (or paying athletes) "on principle". Rather, as it plays out, I am interesting in studying the ramifications across the greater playing field.

This will open up a can of worms that will eventually destroy college athletics and the scholarship system. Basically the value of college athletics is tied to team affiliation. Take that away and the market value of the players is just a step above nothing. The farm system in baseball is only viable with financial support from the Big leagues. Now football might be able to support it's farm system if it becomes removed from college sports, but sports like WBB can bearly support the top-level teams let alone a farm system.

The California legislature has been long inhabited by financial morons who have been running the state into debt for decades. I guess they are no longer satisfied with the destruction of the state's economy and have started to branch out into education. Maybe they are just looking for more areas that they can tax revenue since scholarships are tax-free.

Take the student-athlete out of the equation and what will be left is nothing but local semi-pro teams which in most sports no one will even go to see and which, without public support, will fold. It would have to mimic the European model which relies totally on business and city financial support. The emergence of TV and the broadcasting of Big league Sports has pretty much eliminated the support that local teams used ot enjoy.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Messages
985
Likes
1,339
It's an interesting situation, because the NCAA is just an association. Schools are not required to join. In fact, WBB just joined the NCAA in 1981. Club sports have their own governing bodies, not the NCAA. There is nothing to stop a new association from coming in and getting schools to join them instead of the NCAA.

The interesting part to me is that, can the government come in and make an association, that membership is completely voluntary, make them change their rules?

Since the NCAA also determines the "rules of the game", what's to stop some state from passing a law that says for all football games played in my state, touchdowns are worth 10 points instead of 6, etc. You see where this could go. Many bad things have come from the best intentions.

I'm puzzled that you seem to think that a legislature would or should not have the authority to pass laws that conflict with the rules of a business association.

Why would the voluntary association have primacy over the people?

I'm sure there is a Constitutional challenge coming. I also suspect that if the NCAA adopts a reasonable framework that the legislatures may amend the laws. There is surely the chance of a settlement.
 
Top