California new law (almost): Pay Them

[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

[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

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.