California new law (almost): Pay Them

[Jim3k]

California has almost passed a law providing that student athletes attending California schools can receive endorsement money for their athletic endeavors. Different versions of the same law have passed both houses and only need to be reconciled. After that, the bill will go to the governor for his signature. Gov. Newsom has already signaled he will sign the bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sports/college-athlete-pay-california.html

The article notes that several other states have already been looking into similar statutes.

The NCAA and its California member schools have already voiced their opposition. But the cat is out of the bag now and the terrain has been severely changed by this statute. I foresee a large amount of litigation which the NCAA cannot possibly win. I perceive that there will be a lot of lawyers rubbing their hands together to get a piece of this action.

Given the high level of College tuition these days, it seems only right that the lawyers should do well here. (Yeah, I'm a lawyer though retired. So sue me.) :cool:

[dukelifer]

California has almost passed a law providing that student athletes attending California schools can receive endorsement money for their athletic endeavors. Different versions of the same law have passed both houses and only need to be reconciled. After that, the bill will go to the governor for his signature. Gov. Newsom has already signaled he will sign the bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sports/college-athlete-pay-california.html

The article notes that several other states have already been looking into similar statutes.

The NCAA and its California member schools have already voiced their opposition. But the cat is out of the bag now and the terrain has been severely changed by this statute. I foresee a large amount of litigation which the NCAA cannot possibly win. I perceive that there will be a lot of lawyers rubbing their hands together to get a piece of this action.

Given the high level of College tuition these days, it seems only right that the lawyers should do well here. (Yeah, I'm a lawyer though retired. So sue me.) :cool:

Universities do not inhibit what their star academic students can make- in fact, they encourage entrepreneurship in every way. There is supposedly a “fair” system in place that allows every school to be competitive for championships based on simply the lure of the scholarship to get an education- but in the end, only a few schools are in the hunt in football and basketball every year. Ironically, California schools seem to be on the outside looking in. Athletes should share in the enormous profits they are making for the NCAA and schools. At a minimum- they should be able to make what they can from the market. Their marketability is very short lived given the high risk of injury.

[burnspbesq]

If you ask the wrong question, you’re unlikely to get the right answer.

“Why shouldn’t D1 schools allow athletes to earn money (or pay them)” is the wrong question.

The correct question is” why should universities be subsidizing the NFL and NBA, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, by running their player-development systems without compensation?”

[cato]

If you ask the wrong question, you’re unlikely to get the right answer.

“Why shouldn’t D1 schools allow athletes to earn money (or pay them)” is the wrong question.

The correct question is” why should universities be subsidizing the NFL and NBA, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, by running their player-development systems without compensation?”

You misplaced the question mark in your question. It should have ended after “player-development systems.”

[UrinalCake]

9771

[HereBeforeCoachK]

...beware Pandora, what you remove from the box.....

[Indoor66]

...beware Pandora, what you remove from the box....

Bingo. Watch for unintended consequences of this shortsighted legislation.

[uh_no]

Bingo. Watch for unintended consequences of this shortsighted legislation.

will be sad not to see any california teams in the big dance.

[SlapTheFloor]

Bingo. Watch for unintended consequences of this shortsighted legislation.

I think the intended consequences outweigh any unintended ones. Do you disagree that this is a more fair system for the student-athletes? Shouldn't that matter more than the NCAA tournament or a bowl game?

[cato]

I think the intended consequences outweigh any unintended ones. Do you disagree that this is a more fair system for the student-athletes? Shouldn't that matter more than the NCAA tournament or a bowl game?

I agree. Preserving a particular tournament or platform for playing a sport should never trump considerations of whether the people playing the sport are being treated fairly.

More practically, if the teams can pay players, that may lessen the allure of payments by agents on the DL.

[left_hook_lacey]

I think the intended consequences outweigh any unintended ones. Do you disagree that this is a more fair system for the student-athletes? Shouldn't that matter more than the NCAA tournament or a bowl game?

Sure. And they should all be paid equally, including Olympic sports and women's sports.

[SlapTheFloor]

Sure. And they should all be paid equally, including Olympic sports and women's sports.

This bill isn't about schools paying athletes. It allows athletes to seek endorsements. So, no, it won't be equal pay even within a single sport, but I don't think anyone has been on Nike's case to start doing that.

[ChillinDuke]

We've hashed and rehashed and overhashed this PTP debate for years on DBR. At this point, I'm almost excited to let this play out, especially if California turns into a test case of sorts before infesting the rest of the country.

I don't have time to research the prospective law, but is there anything in here that regulates what is considered an arms-length endorsement? One of the most blatant avenues for corruption here is a school and/or wealthy booster paying a player a huge rate to endorse their business in exchange for playing at the school. And I'm far from the first person to bring up this hypothetical, we've discussed it ad nauseum.

Does the law deal with that (and other similar) scenario(s)? Or does it stay silent under the claim that such an endorsement is totally fair because someone is willing to pay it? Or worse, does it stay silent because they simply haven't thought of that and/or don't care and thus leave the NCAA (or some future organization) to figure out the mess?

Again, having done no research into the law, it's hard for me personally to envision this working out for all stakeholders. Sure, I think some kids will make good money. But I also think it will ruin the sport for everyone.

Of course I could be wrong. But I'm tired of debating it. So let California do what California is going to do. And we all will have no choice but to see how it goes, for better or for worse.

- Chillin

[Wander]

I think the intended consequences outweigh any unintended ones. Do you disagree that this is a more fair system for the student-athletes?

I think this idea would result in a great amount of unfairness. Get ready to see the last guy off the bench on mediocre men's basketball teams get paid orders of magnitude more than star women's players.

[left_hook_lacey]

This bill isn't about schools paying athletes. It allows athletes to seek endorsements. So, no, it won't be equal pay even within a single sport, but I don't think anyone has been on Nike's case to start doing that.

Ah I see. Goodbye what's left of college athletics, which isn't much.

[cato]

Sure. And they should all be paid equally, including Olympic sports and women's sports.

Why?

[uh_no]

Why?

were the school to be paying, by title nine they'd have to pay the women If they paid the men, for one.

[cato]

were the school to be paying, by title nine they'd have to pay the women If they paid the men, for one.

So the schools pay the same amount for men’s and women’s athletics currently?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I agree. Preserving a particular tournament or platform for playing a sport should never trump considerations of whether the people playing the sport are being treated fairly.

More practically, if the teams can pay players, that may lessen the allure of payments by agents on the DL.


Who decides what's "fair?"
Why is it unfair now? Is anyone forced to play college sports? Are they not given any special considerations?
Be careful what you wish for. I mean, you may have it now, or part of it. Unintended consequences are far greater than some around here think. Mark my words.

[75Crazie]

Is anyone forced to play college sports?
My answer, in a word … yes! At least those that have any aspirations (realistic or not) of professional advancement. There are still no feasible alternate paths for such advancement, particularly in football. Basketball has one or two possible alternatives, but those have nowhere near the buy-in as yet to make them as enticing as college play ... especially since most colleges pay minimal, if any, lip service to academic requirements (uNC is not the only offender here, by a long chalk, just the most obvious).

[uh_no]

So the schools pay the same amount for men’s and women’s athletics currently?

title 9 has several criteria for determining compliance, and the precedent has been built over time to include things like same number of scholarships, though not overall budget. it would be impossible to say for sure, but i can't imagine that paying male players but not females (or even a lesser amount) wouldn't bring an almost immediate title IX challenge. While I can see an argument where you can provide women equal opportunity with lower overall budget, I can't imagine an argument where paying men more than women wouldn't constitute unequal opportunity.

but i have no real idea.

[gep]

But.... Isn't this California initiative meant to allow student-athletes to profit over their likeness, etc? Not to be paid by the school. So a lot of negative comments on schools paying players, fairness, male/female, etc. But if I understand correctly, schools are not paying a cent.

Next issue... boosters, business, etc paying gobs of money to athletes to attend certain schools. So, what about a "salary cap". Like they have in pro-sports. All "contracts" have to be reported to the school and NCAA, and "salary caps" are monitored. Wouldn't this kinda "level the playing field"? And, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, golfers, etc, male and female, can all profit. With a "cap", one school will not be any more desirable than another, if all "contracts" are equal. Then it will come down to the school, coach, environment, etc. Am I missing the point :confused:

[cato]

Be careful what you wish for. I mean, you may have it now, or part of it. Unintended consequences are far greater than some around here think. Mark my words.

“I never had a shortage of people trying to warn me about the dangers I pose to myself.”

- Patterson Hood, Heathens

[ratamero]

I still don't understand why "the market will regulate itself" is good enough for everything in life, except sports. Let the kids profit from endorsements. Let rich boosters pay ludicrous amounts for specific players. Surely they'll find exactly how much each player is worth after some time, and isn't it fair for that player to be paid exactly what they're worth?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I still don't understand why "the market will regulate itself" is good enough for everything in life, except sports. Let the kids profit from endorsements. Let rich boosters pay ludicrous amounts for specific players. Surely they'll find exactly how much each player is worth after some time, and isn't it fair for that player to be paid exactly what they're worth?

First, I'm a free market guy...and it's hardly the case that we have a self regulating market economy today. Unfortunately. Second, the inherent worth of a college athlete is deeply tied to the many decades of tradition, the name on the front of the jersey, and the fact that there is a national game. How do you factor that? Third, what you're saying is the non revenue athletes are worth zero, by this definition. Fourth, the small schools (Duke) cannot survive in this climate. Again, perhaps that's okay with you, and I can respect that. Just know what you're opening up here.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

But... Isn't this California initiative meant to allow student-athletes to profit over their likeness, etc? Not to be paid by the school. So a lot of negative comments on schools paying players, fairness, male/female, etc. But if I understand correctly, schools are not paying a cent.

Next issue... boosters, business, etc paying gobs of money to athletes to attend certain schools. So, what about a "salary cap". Like they have in pro-sports. All "contracts" have to be reported to the school and NCAA, and "salary caps" are monitored. Wouldn't this kinda "level the playing field"? And, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, golfers, etc, male and female, can all profit. With a "cap", one school will not be any more desirable than another, if all "contracts" are equal. Then it will come down to the school, coach, environment, etc. Am I missing the point :confused:
You assume that a cap evens the playing field by eliminating illicit payments behind the scenes. A cap doesn’t dissuade a school, a coach, boosters, etc., from finding ways to exceed the cap and regain an advantage.

[ratamero]

First, I'm a free market guy...and it's hardly the case that we have a self regulating market economy today. Unfortunately. Second, the inherent worth of a college athlete is deeply tied to the many decades of tradition, the name on the front of the jersey, and the fact that there is a national game. How do you factor that?

That's priced in. A player might choose to play for Duke even though less money is being offered rather than go to Nebraska. Not every value perception is necessarily monetary.


Third, what you're saying is the non revenue athletes are worth zero, by this definition.
I'm not saying anything. The market might say that. Or not. I'd imagine the NCAA is still a thing and scholarships are still being handed out; Saying that olympic athletes will be worth nothing is the same as saying all athletes are worth nothing in the current situation.


Fourth, the small schools (Duke) cannot survive in this climate.
The ones that provide an interesting value proposition (taking into account exposure, coaching, future prospects, available playing time) will do well, the other will do... less well. Just as it is at the moment, but with kids that are compensated.

[ChillinDuke]

That's priced in. A player might choose to play for Duke even though less money is being offered rather than go to Nebraska. Not every value perception is necessarily monetary.


I'm not saying anything. The market might say that. Or not. I'd imagine the NCAA is still a thing and scholarships are still being handed out; Saying that olympic athletes will be worth nothing is the same as saying all athletes are worth nothing in the current situation.


The ones that provide an interesting value proposition (taking into account exposure, coaching, future prospects, available playing time) will do well, the other will do... less well. Just as it is at the moment, but with kids that are compensated.

Ugh, I got dragged in...

Your bolded comment is waaayyy too simplistic. Depending on many factors, not least of which is the practical implementation of this law and its potential acceptance more broadly by the entire country, there is no guarantee that the size of the pie (as a whole) doesn't shrink. And potentially considerably. For all stakeholders. Your comment seems to assume that the pie stays the same size, and the slices are reallocated.

There are more than kids/players involved here. There are fans, schools, coaches, media outlets, sponsors, etc. It's not a one variable equation.

- Chillin

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The Ben Watson thread should fold in here nicely. A creative solution that includes athletes making money independent of the power conferences - which seems contrary to the underlying assumption of most debate here and other places. Worth a look.

[ratamero]

I'd argue the size of the pie, if anything, grows. The NCAA will still get theirs from TV contracts (not affected by individual endorsements), the schools will still get theirs from the NCAA and their current shoe contracts (also not affected by individual endorsements, I'd assume). The money is not coming from either of those entities. More money enters the system through a new avenue. Everyone wins and we do the fair thing for the kids. Money already wants to go to them (as evidenced by all the under-the-table and almost-legal ways in which families are alredy being paid), we just allow it to do so.

[mkirsh]

I'd argue the size of the pie, if anything, grows. The NCAA will still get theirs from TV contracts (not affected by individual endorsements), the schools will still get theirs from the NCAA and their current shoe contracts (also not affected by individual endorsements, I'd assume). The money is not coming from either of those entities. More money enters the system through a new avenue. Everyone wins and we do the fair thing for the kids. Money already wants to go to them (as evidenced by all the under-the-table and almost-legal ways in which families are alredy being paid), we just allow it to do so.

I'm not so sure about this as there are gives and takes. Nike pays Duke so that Zion is shown wearing the swoosh when he appears on Sports Center highlights, but if Nike can just pay college Zion directly, why pay Duke? I assume some add revenue from all companies currently earmarked for the school will be diverted to the players. However, I do think the schools, if they are creative enough, could find new revenue sources - ie neither Zion nor Duke individually could sell Duke Jerseys with "Williamson" on the back without mutual licencing, but they could work together to create a product that does not exist today. Similarly NCAA video games is currently a lost opportunity compared to the success of Madden and NBA 2k. I'm generally in the camp of allowing players to profit from their likeness, but there is a TON of complexity to iron out.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

That's priced in. A player might choose to play for Duke even though less money is being offered rather than go to Nebraska. Not every value perception is necessarily monetary.


I'm not saying anything. The market might say that. Or not. I'd imagine the NCAA is still a thing and scholarships are still being handed out; Saying that olympic athletes will be worth nothing is the same as saying all athletes are worth nothing in the current situation.


The ones that provide an interesting value proposition (taking into account exposure, coaching, future prospects, available playing time) will do well, the other will do... less well. Just as it is at the moment, but with kids that are compensated.

With due respect, I think you have miscalculated on all of these answers.....your idea of choosing Duke over Nebraska only works in a universe where basketball drives the bus, and that's not where we are now. Football schools will overwhelm everybody financially.....your idea that "the NCAA is still a thing and scholarships are still being handed out" ignores where the money comes from to "hand them out."

[HereBeforeCoachK]

title 9 has several criteria for determining compliance, and the precedent has been built over time to include things like same number of scholarships, though not overall budget. it would be impossible to say for sure, but i can't imagine that paying male players but not females (or even a lesser amount) wouldn't bring an almost immediate title IX challenge. While I can see an argument where you can provide women equal opportunity with lower overall budget, I can't imagine an argument where paying men more than women wouldn't constitute unequal opportunity.

.

And yet, some here argue this will be the market......that's impossible for reasons you pointed out.

[cato]

And yet, some here argue this will be the market...that's impossible for reasons you pointed out.

There is a market right now, of course.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I suspect that all the points made here are likely correct. It would open the floodgates, cause a massive shift in recruiting and inequality across leagues, and would be challenged on every level.
I also suspect California politicians aren't so naive as to not be aware of this.
This was a move to start the discussion in earnest and to get people thinking about the questions rather than just saying "well, this is the way it's always been. You cab either work/play in exchange for an education, or you can pay for your school."

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is a market right now, of course.

But only for FB and BB, mens BB, at a percentage of schools. As it is, very few athletic departments make money, or have the facilities they want to have.

And this money will come from somewhere...maybe endorsement money OUT of schools and coaches contracts and OUT of TV contracts and into a very few players direct...but that's still going to impact schools, conferences, and thus non revenue sports and facilities.

And if we're talking about schools paying players, and of course many are, then that's directly from the schools, with the same consequences. This is going to be a re-apportionment of money already in the system...and it's going to hurt where it's taken from...and I suspect far greater than many want to contemplate. So there's a market, but most sports at most schools and thus most athletes are NOT in the market. There's nothing about this that's going to inherently increase the market IMO. In fact, I think it will begin to shrink it, but that's to be seen.

Also, last year, coming in, RJ would've likely been higher paid than Zion. Wonder how that would have played out in the locker room.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Is that the NCAA rather than being proactive and addressing a situation that has obvious biases and flaws is instead steadfast in a no change mode. So rather that change orchestrated by those that understand it is addressed by the California legislature.

SoCal

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Tim Tebow weighed in.