DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Newly Passed California Fair Pay To Play Act Will Allow Student Athletes To Receive Compensation

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act into law. The bill permits college athletes in the state to hire agents and be paid for endorsements. For the first time, student athletes will be allowed to promote products and companies and financially benefit from their college sports activities. The legislation bypasses an National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) ban on players receiving any compensation aside from scholarships. Current NCAA regulations disallow student athletes from executing any endorsement deals or accepting payment for the use of their images. The new California law, which is scheduled to go into effect in 2023, would now allow them to reap the financial rewards for their athletic abilities. It would also bar the NCAA from retaliating against the colleges and student athletes.

The NCAA has a lot at stake. The organization realized over $1 billion in revenue and profits of about $27 million in 2018. The NCAA—along with college sports conferences—are fighting this law, arguing that it will bring chaos to college sports and “and make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field,” according to an NCAA statement. Sports economist Andy Schwarz, a supporter of the California law, asserts that college sports are already uneven and “the belief that talent is fairly evenly distributed across the country is blatantly false.”

There are former college athletes, such as Tim Tebow, who believe that college should be about following your dreams and contributing to an institution, as opposed to a means of making some money.

In an interview with ESPN, Tebow said, "If I could support my team, support my college, support my university, that's what it's all about. But now we're changing it from 'us'...from being an alumni where I care, which makes college sports special, to then okay it's not about 'us,' it's not about 'we.' It's just about 'me.'" Tebow added, "It changes what's special about college football. We turn it into the NFL, where who has the most money, that's where you go."

We have sat on the sidelines watching college football, basketball and other sports—ignoring what’s really happening. Top universities earn fortunes from the work of unpaid kids. The monies generated are a significant part of many college’s revenues. The student athletes do all the hard work, damaging their bodies, risking concussions, losing out on study time and the schools reap billions of dollars off of them. While everyone else seems to profit, student athletes are left out without any compensation. We all view superstar athletes in the NFL, NBA and MLB and believe that college athletes too will reap large rewards when they graduate and become professional athletes. However, the sad and cruel reality is that the ones who make it big are the exceptions. Most athletes don’t become multimillionaire professional athletes. Many appreciate their college careers, but are unable to continue in the major leagues. It seems reasonable and fair to afford remuneration for the people who are actually doing all the work, which generates profits for the schools. If this law is not overturned, it will be a game changer.

In an interview with the New York Times, Newsom said, "Every single student in the university can market their name, image and likeness; they can go and get a YouTube channel and they can monetize that. The only group that can't are athletes. Why is that?"

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders tweeted, "College athletes are workers. Pay them."

Highlighting the inequities, former USC athletic director and Hall of Famer, Lynn Swann, who earned millions, was seen signing memorabilia for $200 per autograph. Meanwhile, the USC football team was participating in their usual grueling workouts. If one of the players were to sign an autograph, they’d be summarily suspended.

While compensation from outside parties is prohibited, the NCAA allows Division I players to receive tuition scholarships and the coverage of housing, books and other expenses. The financial aid decreases greatly and is not offered to Division II and III players respectively.

There are some concerns about this new law. Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, claims that by paying football and basketball players, it would increase their visibility and draw the attention away from less-attended sports. Some say that if California moves forward with this law, the best and most talented athletes would only accept admittance into California-state schools. This would create a huge imbalance in talent. It could also spark other states with big sports programs to enact similar laws to become competitive. Seeing this existential threat, Emmert threatened to ban the state's schools from competing in NCAA championships.

An HBO documentary, Student Athlete, highlights the travails of college athletes. A former Rutgers football player is depicted working part-time jobs after graduating and sleeps in his car.

The documentary posits that those who don’t make it big after graduation would at least earn something for all of their hard work.

Former coach and NCAA critic John Shoop said, "The coaches are making millions of dollars and they're coaching players whose parents live below the poverty line." "If you're a reasonable person, it's insane to build a $150 million recruiting facility, pay your head coach $10 million, the rest of your staff $20 million cumulative, but then say there's not enough money to help the players."

The law may finally level the playing field and offer the student athletes the opportunity to be compensated for their hard work.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2...n/#361ad1d57d02

We’ll see how the NCAA and other states react. Cool for the athletes.

I don't think the NCAA will play nice with this. I could see them banning Cali schools from the tournament.

Possibly.

The biggest issue I see with this, aside from it being dumb, is next we'll hear about the swimmers that don't get any money, or the divers, or the shooting team, or the lacrosse team members, etc, etc.

Next law will be "every athlete gets paid the same",

Ohio Congressman (my district) Anthony Gonzalez is proposing federal legislation to the same effect:

https://www.si.com/college/2019/10/02/anthony-gonzalez-federal-bill-pay-college-athletes

****************

I guess I see this as a free market solution that takes universities off the hook from having to pay a salary to ALL their athletes, like those on the fencing, crew, or water polo team. If you're a "big" enough name to merit being paid for your name or likeness, then you will be paid for it. Meanwhile, the scholarships for those athletes whose sports are not mass-consumed (like football or basketball are) will not be threatened. Why should I care if some car dealer in Columbus wants to pay Justin Fields to sign autographs for a few hours at his dealership?

Here's the problem with this:

Oh, we should pay the men's football team, because they bring in huge revenues.

Now you also have to pay the men's and women's soccer players, the Lacrosse players, baseball players, basketball players, and every other student athlete, even if they contribute nothing to the revenue for their sports.

And most collegiate sports are not self sustaining, financially.

However, to my understanding, this would be paying athletes for their representation of the school......getting money for publicity.

And the same arguments hold true. It's a dumb idea.

Edited to add: Even D3 football players get 'paid' currently. It's not called "paid", though.

Sometimes I feel like my posts are only visible to me ... oh well, moving on.

jc

not surprised seeing people mad about athletes being allowed to sign endorsement deals.

the same people who talk about the free market don't want kids to make money off of their own talent. odd.

You must be seeing something I don't. Who's mad?

Arch.

In theory this sounds like a good idea.

When you turn on the game and see the camera pan the very large stadium packed to the brim with screaming fans.....seems the QB (and everyone) should get paid. Since they are certainly making money off of his back.

But it also feels like this is going to corrupt and change college sports.

So, I dunno.

That's kind of where I'm at.

I don't think it's fair that colleges make what they do off of the students talent and name.

But I feel like something like this has to implemented very carefully. As with all things, good and bad, there will be unintended consequences. You just hope this is thought through very carefully.

Really?

I completely agree with this. I don't think the colleges should pay the student athletes, but I believe they should be able to be able to make money from endorsements. Of course, a careful eye would have to be on the booster clubs to not take advantage of this.

I don't think this is "dumb" and I think some are misunderstanding it.

The colleges will not be "paying" the players. The players can make money from endorsements. Thus, we don't have to worry about the colleges paying other athletes like swimmers.

The NCAA is a corrupt organization and they exploit a ton of kids who come from poor families. I see NOTHING wrong w/allowing these kids to make money through endorsements.

The only problem I see is that it could give schools in certain states a huge advantage. I was listening to a show the other day and Marcus Spears [he played at LSU and later w/the Cowboys] was asked if he would go to a state that allowed players to make money. He said w/out a doubt.

Thus, I think that this should be adopted across the nation. Dave posted the link regarding Ohio. I have heard that states like Florida and N. Carolina are already discussing passing this, as well.

Actually, the link I posted was about proposed legislation in the US House of Representatives. Anthony Gonzalez (former Buckeye WR) is my congressman. If his bill passes it will cover all the states in "in one swell foop".

I think it changed the Olympics. It used to be the Olympics were the greatest amateurs, but when they allowed the US Dream Team to compete with a star studded team filled w/professional NBA players it changed everything. But, that is also what makes it fun when teams with professional, million dollar entitled athletes & fans get beat by total unknowns from Croatia etc.

The political triumph! Voila!

Brand new set of taxpayers. Everybody feed the kitty.

I tend to agree with you. I think when a college agrees to give a kid a scholarship, they are agreeing to give the kid an education for his play. I don't think it gives that college the right to own that kids image and time away from the game.

As such, if a kid can get an endorsement deal, that's his time away from the program and they have no right to any of it or to stop the athlete from doing that.

To me it's more about the right of an athlete to make money outside of school. It's no different to me than any other job a kid in college would take.

That makes sense, and I agree with it.

Don't get me wrong Pit, the current system blows and is completely unfair to the athletes who put in the work..

but this will go sideways, there will be unintended consequences that negatively impact college sports.. we just aren't 100% sure what they are yet.

Don't forget that student athletes, who this would most benefit, already get a free ride to the school of their choice, free meals, free room and board, and so on. I do think that the NCAA should provide student athlete health insurance, (maybe a national NCAA policy, with premiums paid by the individual schools) along maybe with a very small stipend while they are in class, or involved in their sports activities. In other words, if they go home during their time off, then no stipend. It would have to be a small number, because along with providing insurance, it will take a huge chunk out of the pie. Even $50/week would cost the member schools over $1 billion/year. (figuring 460K student athletes, at $50/week, for 52 weeks) Insurance would probably double that.

I worry about endorsements for some of these young kids, because where an entity like the NFL has to be aware of deals some of their 2000 or so players might sign .....(and face it, backups and practice squad guys aren't getting huge endorsement deals) The NCAA has to watch over 460,000 student athletes. Again, not all student athletes are going to have people screaming for their endorsement, but it's a huge pool to have to police.

I don't know how they'll settle this. I do know that the NCAA will not allow a single state to force their hand, when so many high profile schools are against this. Maybe the California schools will wind up having to play each other only. I can't see a school playing a game in California, and having to provide a benefit for one week, that their student athletes don't get the rest of the year.

We'll see what happens.

That doesn't mean you stand pat and don't try and address it...don't try to invoke change. Just needs to be well thought out. And I agree, no matter how well thought out it is, there will be unintended consequences. The sport will either fold or the changes will continue to evolve until they get dialed in.

But it's past the point of doing nothing.

Another avenue for BangBros to get into the sports realm.

I don't mind the idea behind this one bit. If a big-name QB wants to trade some autographs for tattoos, who am I (or anyone) to tell him no and then drop the hammer on him. Stupid.

As others pointed out, it's easy for this to turn sour, though. Too easy to imagine boosters spinning this out of control.


But at the end of the day, anything that gets the NCAA's undies in a bundle is ok in my book.

The free (or lower) cost education & room and board, free clothing, free tutoring, stipends, and high paying cushy jobs scholarship athletes already get aren't enough?

My 2 cents - these kids and their parents are making a choice to have the kid play a sport and go to school for low/no cost. The alternate choice is to pay regular prices like the rest of us. Sure, football and basketball are the moneymakers (normally), but those programs pay for the existence of most, if not all of the other sports at the school. Start paying kids and you'll see the number of sports drop at every school, down to zero in some cases. And where does it stop - pay them and some kids will want more, others will still break the rules. Nobody is forcing you to play sports - if you choose to, take your free education and shut up

Let me guess. You are white? You were raised in a middle class suburban family? You have no athletic talent? You think it's okay for baseball players to sign out of high school? You think hockey and baseball fights are cool. You think NBA and NFL fights are the acts of thugs?

Seems like you didn't read the main article. No school will be paying a dime for the athletes. The money the school brings in will still go to the other low generating sports. The students will be free to get money outside the university, selling their likeness as they see fit.

I prefer to describe it as NOT getting bent over a table because they sold a couple autographs.

I'll admit, I didn't read it that way. My bad.





Next question from me would be: Since SOME people on here gripe about Baker, as an NFL athlete now, doing commercials and appearances for money, will that same attitude from SOME on here continue? I.E. Say the 'stud' qb from whatever California school does ads, gets perks, etc........then he has a bad game or 2.....will people gripe about that qb spending too much time with the self promotion?

Probably. People will always have different perspectives and perceptions.

People will criticize a player after any loss, if they've collected a paycheck for a commercial or not. Some will view a 30-second spot for a local car dealership as the cause for a errand pass 6 weeks later, I don't see the connection.

Heck, the "you should have been watching tape and practicing more" works for any loss in any sport in any context. Someone has to lose and sometimes people have bad games/moments, it happens. It doesn't mean they aren't allowed to live their life the other N hours a week (unless we're expecting player X to be in the film room 24/7).

Oh, I agree.

I think you saw/see the point I was making though?

Oh, we saw it.

Don't let him derail this thread w/the personality crap he loves to pull at every opportunity.

Back to the topic:

Coach K is part of a growing list of influential supporters for this act. Check it out:

I think most would have no problem with, using my example from above, if Carl Towns Chevy wants to throw $10K at the starting QB of a MAC school to run a few spots during the game.

What if some boosters use this as a backdoor to simply dump loads of cash on the players. Let's say some rich woman owns all the Taco Bell restaurants in a state and she tosses $250K at every key player that commits to the university as long as they appear at one of her restaurants one day to sign autographs.

Are both okay?

Using it as a backdoor to funnel funds to players would still be illegal under NCAA rules.

Here's my only problem with it. This will only benefit the top shelf athletes for the most part. I'm an Ohio state fan so I'll use that as an example. Players like Justin Fields and Chase Young may actually get million dollar contracts in a single endorsement deal. Maybe even more. Yet some kid from Kent state may not see a dime. So it does bring up the issue of disparity.

I believe that this kind of thing would pull top players to the schools in the biggest markets, so they could get the biggest endorsement deals. (local and other)

I wonder how the OL, who toil in obscurity, will feel about blocking for free, (or almost free) for a QB who is making millions?

I'm not sure how you feel that's any different now. Athletes who feel they have a chance to play in the NFL find the best opportunity for them to shine in the best schools with the biggest markets. Five star recruits generally play at the best school to offer them a scholarship. Be that Ohio state, Alabama, Clemson or another top school.

There are exceptions of course. I mean if you will be third string at Ohio State or have the chance to start at a lesser school, you may consider the chance to start a better opportunity. You may want to play closer to home or go to your parents alma mater. But for the most part, if your plans are to go to the NFL you will go to the best school available to you. I don't see how this changes any of that.



Once again I think it's big picture. If you wish to be drafted into the NFL, rolling over and playing dead in college won't get you where you want to go in life. You'll play your arse off to increase your odds of being drafted.