Motives behind CA Law on Paying Athletes

[SLOHusker]

I cannot believe the utter lack of judgement shown by California politicians in passing this law. But knowing what I have learned of shifty politicians, I actually wonder if they have ulterior motives beyond just compensating athletes. For one, could this be a way to goad us into another Kapernick-like social debate? Think of which people are more likely to support the current no-pay structure, and which ones view the current system as exploitative. Is this also a way to give California a competitive advantage in recruiting as more and more of its best athletes are leaving to play for other schools? Every state is now going to follow or see their athletics program at a competitive disadvantage, but their is still no way to ever level the playing field between certain schools in Power 5 conferences with tons of exposure and those outside.

The whole idea is terrible and will destroy college athletics as we know it. Scholarships have always been the primary reward for coming to a university. Schools with less exposure can still draw in athletes that want to play when an offer is available, even if they prefer the power schools. Now players may well choose to walk-on at a USC or Alabama knowing they could stand to get much more exposure and a paycheck just by being on the team and appearing on a magazine cover. You think signing day is a circus now? The more exposure, the more appearances, the more money that comes their way.

Also there are terrible disaprities between positions. QB, RB, and WR have more exposure by far than any other positions. Will a guy want to play DB or WR if one position stands to pay more than another. How will lowly offensive lineman feel about blocking for the guys making 100K a year?

In my opinion the only recourse is a federal law that voids the California law. But again, see where that goes?

 

[jlb321]

If the NCAA is right they shouldn’t have any difficulty defending the status quo if challenged in court or if they choose to challenge these state laws.

They have billions to put toward this defense

 

[Harry Caray]

More states are passing similar laws, so it's not just California. I have no problem with universities giving student-athletes a cut of merchandise/apparel sales that include their name and likeness. Or giving them a cut if official sponsors use their likeness in advertisements.

The issue will be when it comes to boosters and agents. The apparel companies and agents already funnel top basketball recruits to certain programs, it will be even more of a circus now.

 

[jmliehr]

Take off the tin foil hat, Olympic sports tried the same crap, now adults can get paid for their likeness and still represent their schools. What does the NCAA have to gain by preventing this? The only thing they lose is money, less of the pie goes to the schools if this takes hold. It amazes me to hear the traditional “capitalism is king, regulation is evil” crowd literally fighting deregulation and capitalism when it comes to college sports.

 

[mwulf]

would it be possible to put any "likeness" money earned into some sort of fund that can be paid out only after the athlete has exhausted their eligibility ?

 

[schuele]

could this be a way to goad us into another Kapernick-like social debate?

Fortunately most people aren’t goaded into social debates all that easily, even though some are drawn to them like flies to shit and seem to have nothing better to do.

But thanks for the warning. That would be really be horrible if someone used this issue to goad people into a social debate. Who would do such a thing?

 

[rrthusker]

Dictator Newsom is all you need to know.

 

[Iroh]

Never understood the Kapernick outrage other than CNN and Fox going for ratings based on outrage. Last I checked it wasn’t a legal requirement to stand during the anthem.. my entire family are veterans and they don’t understand it either as they figured they were fighting for freedom, but whatever...

 

[huskernation13]

More states are passing similar laws, so it's not just California. I have no problem with universities giving student-athletes a cut of merchandise/apparel sales that include their name and likeness. Or giving them a cut if official sponsors use their likeness in advertisements.

The issue will be when it comes to boosters and agents. The apparel companies and agents already funnel top basketball recruits to certain programs, it will be even more of a circus now.

Plus I'd this goes through, at what point does it filter down to high school athletes.

 

[jmliehr]

Plus I'd this goes through, at what point does it filter down to high school athletes.

Who cares? Child actors make movies and do endorsements, Olympic athletes under 18 do endorsements also. Why does the NCAA (or high schools) get to restrict the earning ability of talented people? In every other facet of the economy people are free to market their talents. Why are fans encouraging schools to restrict the free market? What has the NCAA done other than make coaches and administrators rich? Does an athlete benefit more from a 150 million dollar facility or getting $50-$100K annually? The money is going to facilities, coaches and recruiting perks, what is so bad about letting the people actually performing and getting their bodies smashed week in and week out?

 

[barney44]

Never understood the Kapernick outrage other than CNN and Fox going for ratings based on outrage. Last I checked it wasn’t a legal requirement to stand during the anthem.. my entire family are veterans and they don’t understand it either as they figured they were fighting for freedom, but whatever...

Because they made it political and nothing else..

 

[Harry Caray]

Who cares? Child actors make movies and do endorsements, Olympic athletes under 18 do endorsements also. Why does the NCAA (or high schools) get to restrict the earning ability of talented people? In every other facet of the economy people are free to market their talents. Why are fans encouraging schools to restrict the free market? What has the NCAA done other than make coaches and administrators rich? Does an athlete benefit more from a 150 million dollar facility or getting $50-$100K annually? The money is going to facilities, coaches and recruiting perks, what is so bad about letting the people actually performing and getting their bodies smashed week in and week out?

Again, I have no problem with student-athletes getting to profit off of their own likeness. My question is where the line will be drawn between the free market and bribery? Will boosters, agents, apparel companies, etc. be able to bribe top recruits to attend certain schools? Can Phil Knight give endorsement deals to top high school players to bribe them to sign with Oregon and other Nike schools? Could he offer Wandale Robinson an endorsement deal if he transfers to Oregon? Could Howard Hawks pay a high school player $100,000 for his autograph if he signs with Nebraska?

A completely unrestricted free market is not necessarily a good thing. For example, big money/corporate influence in politics.

FWIW, the value of all the tuition, stipends, travel, TV exposure, etc. that college football players receive far outvalues $100k/year. And they receive it tax-free. There are no shortage of high school players out there who would be willing to play college football for "only" a free scholarship and stipend. The best solution for all would be for the NFL and NBA to have real minor league systems like MLB and NHL, so those that are good enough can go pro right out of high school.

 

[jmliehr]

Again, I have no problem with student-athletes getting to profit off of their own likeness. My question is where the line will be drawn between the free market and bribery? Will boosters, agents, apparel companies, etc. be able to bribe top recruits to attend certain schools? Can Phil Knight give endorsement deals to top high school players to bribe them to sign with Oregon and other Nike schools? Could Howard Hawks pay a high school player $100,000 for his autograph if he signs with Nebraska?

A completely unrestricted free market is not necessarily a good thing. For example, big money/corporate influence in politics.

FWIW, the value of all the tuition, stipends, travel, TV exposure, etc. that college football players receive far outvalues $100k/year. And they receive it tax-free. There are no shortage of high school players out there who would be willing to play college football for "only" a free scholarship and stipend. The best solution for all would be for the NFL and NBA to have real minor league systems like MLB and NHL, so those that are good enough can go pro right out of high school.

Value of education isn’t static and will vary from person to person, a player who is doing recreational management may pay the same as the engineering student but the value derived from the programs are not equal. If the average football player’s value is from the age of 18-32, the NCAA is restricting significant earning potential for top athletes.

I do agree that the NFL and NBA are contributing to the issues, they are getting free player development from schools. But that doesn’t give the NCAA and its member institutions a free pass to continue to enforce these outdated restrictions on athletes. A multi billion dollar entity claiming that letting its employees have a free market would harm it is disingenuous at best.

 

[redwine65]

isn't the omaha beef a farm team?

 

[Harry Caray]

Value of education isn’t static and will vary from person to person, a player who is doing recreational management may pay the same as the engineering student but the value derived from the programs are not equal. If the average football player’s value is from the age of 18-32, the NCAA is restricting significant earning potential for top athletes.

I do agree that the NFL and NBA are contributing to the issues, they are getting free player development from schools. But that doesn’t give the NCAA and its member institutions a free pass to continue to enforce these outdated restrictions on athletes. A multi billion dollar entity claiming that letting its employees have a free market would harm it is disingenuous at best.

You can't be an amateur sports league and have a totally free market. Olympic athletes don't really have a free market. There are all kinds of strict rules they have to follow if they have sponsors. They can't talk about their sponsors to the media or mention them on social media, and the sponsors can't reference the Olympics at all. They can't even use the athlete's image to promote their brand during the Olympics.

Would we put all these same rules in place for college athletes? If so, fine. If not, then we have to call college sports a professional league. And if it becomes a professional league, we probably need to institute a draft and have a "stipend cap". Because even pro sports aren't free markets, they have drafts, salary caps, luxury taxes, etc. to maintain competitive balance.

The main reason the NCAA, universities, and Olympics want to preserve amateurism is because of their own official sponsorship deals. Adidas and Pepsi will not want our athletes promoting Nike and Coca-Cola.

 

[Nebraska Fan]

I cannot believe the utter lack of judgement shown by California politicians in passing this law. But knowing what I have learned of shifty politicians, I actually wonder if they have ulterior motives beyond just compensating athletes. For one, could this be a way to goad us into another Kapernick-like social debate? Think of which people are more likely to support the current no-pay structure, and which ones view the current system as exploitative. Is this also a way to give California a competitive advantage in recruiting as more and more of its best athletes are leaving to play for other schools? Every state is now going to follow or see their athletics program at a competitive disadvantage, but their is still no way to ever level the playing field between certain schools in Power 5 conferences with tons of exposure and those outside.

The whole idea is terrible and will destroy college athletics as we know it. Scholarships have always been the primary reward for coming to a university. Schools with less exposure can still draw in athletes that want to play when an offer is available, even if they prefer the power schools. Now players may well choose to walk-on at a USC or Alabama knowing they could stand to get much more exposure and a paycheck just by being on the team and appearing on a magazine cover. You think signing day is a circus now? The more exposure, the more appearances, the more money that comes their way.

Also there are terrible disaprities between positions. QB, RB, and WR have more exposure by far than any other positions. Will a guy want to play DB or WR if one position stands to pay more than another. How will lowly offensive lineman feel about blocking for the guys making 100K a year?

In my opinion the only recourse is a federal law that voids the California law. But again, see where that goes?

can players younger then college age get paid?

 

[baseball31ne]

What will be the taxes raised by this law and how much the schools lose from boosters paying the players instead of donating the tax free donation to the schools?

For CA, it’s the desperation of getting money to spend. Thanks

 

[Eph97]

I think the coaches that object the most to athletes getting paid, like Dabo Swinney, should be told that their salaries are now going to be restricted to $100k a year. The savings will be distributed for academic student scholarships. If the coaches object they are free to go coach in the NFL. Of course they will object, because it is ok for them to earn millions off the cheap labor of student athletes.

 

[Solana Beach Husker]

I cannot believe the utter lack of judgement shown by California politicians in passing this law. But knowing what I have learned of shifty politicians, I actually wonder if they have ulterior motives beyond just compensating athletes. For one, could this be a way to goad us into another Kapernick-like social debate? Think of which people are more likely to support the current no-pay structure, and which ones view the current system as exploitative. Is this also a way to give California a competitive advantage in recruiting as more and more of its best athletes are leaving to play for other schools? Every state is now going to follow or see their athletics program at a competitive disadvantage, but their is still no way to ever level the playing field between certain schools in Power 5 conferences with tons of exposure and those outside.

The whole idea is terrible and will destroy college athletics as we know it. Scholarships have always been the primary reward for coming to a university. Schools with less exposure can still draw in athletes that want to play when an offer is available, even if they prefer the power schools. Now players may well choose to walk-on at a USC or Alabama knowing they could stand to get much more exposure and a paycheck just by being on the team and appearing on a magazine cover. You think signing day is a circus now? The more exposure, the more appearances, the more money that comes their way.

Also there are terrible disparities between positions. QB, RB, and WR have more exposure by far than any other positions. Will a guy want to play DB or WR if one position stands to pay more than another. How will lowly offensive lineman feel about blocking for the guys making 100K a year?

In my opinion the only recourse is a federal law that voids the California law. But again, see where that goes?

1. There is no parity in college athletics...the same teams play every year for championships.
2. How many professional players are sponsored...very few
3. How many amatuer players would be sponsored....very few
4. The best players already go to fewer than 10 schools...how would this change anything...
5. So Tua has his face on an orange juice carton...how is that an unfair advantage...the kid gets paid because he is newsworthy...

 

[EATAFAT1]

Look people, if we are to become the nation and planet we need to be, we need to let people eat babies when and where they feel like it! Freedom now!

 

[HuskerHusaria]

Without reading anything in the thread. I'll just say this -

It's California being California.

Absolutely asinine ideas become reality there. Democracy died decades ago in that territory.

Ruining CFB is known to the State of California to cause cancer.

 

[TFrazier]

I cannot believe the utter lack of judgement shown by California politicians in passing this law. But knowing what I have learned of shifty politicians, I actually wonder if they have ulterior motives beyond just compensating athletes. For one, could this be a way to goad us into another Kapernick-like social debate? Think of which people are more likely to support the current no-pay structure, and which ones view the current system as exploitative. Is this also a way to give California a competitive advantage in recruiting as more and more of its best athletes are leaving to play for other schools? Every state is now going to follow or see their athletics program at a competitive disadvantage, but their is still no way to ever level the playing field between certain schools in Power 5 conferences with tons of exposure and those outside.

The whole idea is terrible and will destroy college athletics as we know it. Scholarships have always been the primary reward for coming to a university. Schools with less exposure can still draw in athletes that want to play when an offer is available, even if they prefer the power schools. Now players may well choose to walk-on at a USC or Alabama knowing they could stand to get much more exposure and a paycheck just by being on the team and appearing on a magazine cover. You think signing day is a circus now? The more exposure, the more appearances, the more money that comes their way.

Also there are terrible disaprities between positions. QB, RB, and WR have more exposure by far than any other positions. Will a guy want to play DB or WR if one position stands to pay more than another. How will lowly offensive lineman feel about blocking for the guys making 100K a year?

In my opinion the only recourse is a federal law that voids the California law. But again, see where that goes?

Trying to “earn” potential future voters.

 

[Native Nebraskan]

How does one control?

5* QB every school wants. You sign with us and we have a well healed donor that will pay you $100,000 for your picture in the HOA newsletter.