House, Senate members drum up support for compensating college athletes

[Carnac]

WASHINGTON -- Federal lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill this week with interest piqued in finding new ways to compensate college athletes.

U.S. Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., spent Wednesday drumming up support for a proposed bill that could make it possible for all U.S. college athletes to accept endorsement money as early as January 2021.

Walker introduced a bill in March that would change federal tax code to prohibit the NCAA and its member schools from requiring college athletes to sign away the rights to their own name, image and likeness in order to play college sports. The bill would have the same effect on a national scale as a first-of-its-kind state law passed in California two weeks ago.

Other lawmakers also have shown an interest in working with the NCAA to find a solution if the association is willing to changes its ways. U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., and the co-sponsor of the tax code proposal, said Wednesday he was hoping the NCAA would "find their own inner angel" and propose a better way forward.

"If the NCAA wanted to make this fair, they could find a way to do it," Richmond said. "The point is the NCAA has proven unwilling to address this."

[Story]

 

[Ozimoto]

We'll see how this all works out. A couple of thoughts that come to mind on this that are summed up in the following two "old saws."

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions
2. The world is full of unintended consequences

However this works out, it will change the face of college athletics for the "big guys" with very little impact on the vast majority of college athletes. That could be good and bad depending on your position on the topic. What is almost guaranteed is that the final result won't be what everyone thinks it will be as these proposals move forward.

 

[the Q]

We'll see how this all works out. A couple of thoughts that come to mind on this that are summed up in the following two "old saws."

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions
2. The world is full of unintended consequences

However this works out, it will change the face of college athletics for the "big guys" with very little impact on the vast majority of college athletes. That could be good and bad depending on your position on the topic. What is almost guaranteed is that the final result won't be what everyone thinks it will be as these proposals move forward.

I think Congress needs to FTF out of the way on this one. They have far bigger fish to fry.
And the “unintended consequences” are clear: this is a false flag for legalizing private pay for play.

 

[Ozimoto]

I think you are right on what this will ultimately turn into. I can foresee a system in the very near future where schools with big time boosters will essentially "buy" the services of the top tier athletes who will make out very well. It will essentially "legalize" the stuff that has been going on behind the scenes for decades.

The majority of "student athletes" (fast becoming an oxymoron at many power 5 schools) won't see any benefits from this action with the possible exception of minor endorsements from their home town businesses. It certainly won't result in a financial windfall for the majority of kids involved in college athletics.

 

[the Q]

I think you are right on what this will ultimately turn into. I can foresee a system in the very near future where schools with big time boosters will essentially "buy" the services of the top tier athletes who will make out very well. It will essentially "legalize" the stuff that has been going on behind the scenes for decades.

The majority of "student athletes" (fast becoming an oxymoron at many power 5 schools) won't see any benefits from this action with the possible exception of minor endorsements from their home town businesses. It certainly won't result in a financial windfall for the majority of kids involved in college athletics.

I could see a lot of athletes getting product placements on their insta pages. Things like that. I’m cool with those types, although I’m curious how it fits with schools contracts (ie coke/Pepsi)

 

[Ozimoto]

I wonder if the product placement on instragram pages will result in money compensation? I see that as more of a "if you mention our product on your insta we'll send you samples of our product to use." That in itself does have value.

 

[hoopsfan22]

I think Congress needs to FTF out of the way on this one. They have far bigger fish to fry.
And the “unintended consequences” are clear: this is a false flag for legalizing private pay for play.

We already have pay to play. It's allowed as long as your school mascot isn't a canine, and your school isn't in a state called Connecticut.

 

[the Q]

We already have pay to play. It's allowed as long as your school mascot isn't a canine, and your school isn't in a state called Connecticut.

Lmao. why you gotta call out Yale like that?

 

[eebmg]

Good thing Congress has alot of free time on it's hands.

 

[j66kicker]

Mitt Romney to NCAA: "We're coming for you."

Sen. Romney to NCAA: 'We're coming for you'

Members of the House and Senate spent Wednesday trying to drum up support for finding new ways to compensate college athletes.

www.espn.com