New California Law allows players to be paid - Ramifications
- Thread starter WestCoastCornhusker2
- Start date
Do these politicians not see the far-reaching effects of these laws? Teams that are on TV more often and are in magazines will benefit, while smaller schools will be further damaged. Just a terrible idea.
Unless you put names on things as well, how do they split the baby? If I buy a #7 Jersey does Frost, Crouch, Mo Berry, or Reggie Baul get the money?
That scenario is a large reason why we excelled in the 70s-90s. Should we forfeit all those wins, conf and national titles from this time because we had an unfair competitive advantage over lesser programs that weren't on TV or in magazines all the time?
Our period of excellence was during a time where there were much fewer “haves” than “have-nots” and we happened to be one of the haves. Once the TV money came pouring in and access to games among power 5 teams became almost universal things changed. As the playing field became more equal we have had a harder and harder time competing.
Last edited:
Now that we have the transfer portal, I have to wonder if we will see indirect recruiting of other teams players if they can get paid for their name. Take a guy like rondale at Purdue: is there any question that a guy like Phil knight wouldn't give him an endorsement contract and subtly suggest that he could make more money if he transferred to Oregon? Just make up a story about how somebody made a racial slur to you and next season you'll be making 3 times as much.
People are very short-sighted with this stuff. It's a TINY percentage of all NCAA sports that are profitable and could support paying players.
Letting CFB and CBB essentially go pro would be the death of a ton of programs. Only the biggest of the big would survive.
I don't have a problem with letting a player profit from their likeness or their own jersey sales but I think ultimately the sport will be worse off if this happens on a large scale.
Letting CFB and CBB essentially go pro would be the death of a ton of programs. Only the biggest of the big would survive.
I don't have a problem with letting a player profit from their likeness or their own jersey sales but I think ultimately the sport will be worse off if this happens on a large scale.
The question is, do you put stipulations on how the players can profit from their likeness? What would stop Phil Knight from offering every top recruit a multi-million dollar Nike endorsement deal if they sign with Nike? What would stop boosters from paying them $100,000 for an autograph?
I believe the NCAA will have the last say in this, I pity the athletes that are misled to believe it is ok to accept this money and find themselves disqualified to compete.
Florida in the mix now, too
the end of the ncaa is neigh
They're going to mess it up for everybody.
Just like the NCAA games.
Colleges will just quit using any player on any school advertisement.
But if you can make money get ready to pay taxes. lol
Just like the NCAA games.
Colleges will just quit using any player on any school advertisement.
But if you can make money get ready to pay taxes. lol
has nothing to do with schools, just individuals. they'll pay taxes on it.
schools will continue to profit tax-free in an environment devoid of competition, don't you worry.
Seems like after the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit a few years back that a number of schools removed player names from the jerseys.
On a different note, the silver lining is that the bagmen will at least be walking away with an autograph.
On a different note, the silver lining is that the bagmen will at least be walking away with an autograph.
It's only fair to the student-athletes.....but this will be a death sentence for all athletic departments that don't make a profit or have a lot of rich boosters.
Nebraska should pass the law like California and start paying their players. What's the NCAA going to do? If they don't let us compete for championships in 4-5 years so be it we weren't going to be anyway. At least this way we can use 'paying players' as a recruiting tool to attract the best talent. Win enough and in a couple of years when the NCAA concedes we'll look like we were ahead of the curve and talent wise we'll be ahead of the curve.
I hope the NCAA wins.
will really change college sports and recruiting if the courts go against the NCAA.
If NCAA gives in or loses, it will be interesting to see the reactions when hundreds of male athletes nationwide get offers for serious money and only a handful of female athletes get any offers at all.
California is such an egalitarian state that they will not allow that to stand.
California is such an egalitarian state that they will not allow that to stand.
A lot of these kids are like lotto winners cause without football, they wouldnt be able to get into a good college. Or a college at all. Which means good luck making $$$$ w a hs diploma. But the extra money they make over their lifetimes by having a degree is never figured into the equation of the value of a scholarship.
Nor is leaving college debt free and not having to pay off student loans and interest for years after graduation is never figured into that either.
Obviously the athletes that make $$$ off of their image would be taxed at ordinary income rates. Would they then be taxed by the state of their university or their residence? Also since their income is based of playing in different state, would they be taxed in those states much like professional athletes?
Personally I just see this as California try to find another way to get people paid so they can tax the hell out of them. Now with athletes possibly getting paid, could they also be taxed on the value of their scholarships? This raises so many more questions than it answers.
Personally I just see this as California try to find another way to get people paid so they can tax the hell out of them. Now with athletes possibly getting paid, could they also be taxed on the value of their scholarships? This raises so many more questions than it answers.
or not.
scholarship entitlements and outside personal profit have nothing to do with one another.
Kyler Murray made $5M from the A's last year while playing football on scholarship at OU. Did this question come up one time?
also, did you hear 1 time there was jealousy in the locker room?
these concerns are old man yells at cloud levels of legitimate.
I like the road you're going down. If California state tax is 40% on an endorsement and Nebraska can make it 1%, that makes it a totally different ballgame. Quite the rabbit hole we could be going down on this.
I think he hit the nail on the head with the tax revenue the state of California could siphon from the income from endorsed college players. Wider net remember.
I could not care less of old men, clouds, Kyler Murray, or locker room jealousy. Those Pandora box side demons I'll let you worry about.
Does California really need more money to fuel it's insanity?
If that is true, they they might want to make sure that the tax code as written is being followed, to ensure that either the athletes or their parents are reporting the scholarships and stipends as income on their tax returns.
code today says tuition portion is tax free, everything else is taxable & needs to be claimed by individual or those claiming them as a dependent.
I'd imagine this wouldn't change and really it's a non sequitur to this discussion/new rule.
the two have nothing to do with each other.
I know. I didn't say it applied to the new law. You said that "more tax payers > less tax payers". I'm saying that if you believe that more tax payers and more taxes are better, then maybe they should enforce the tax code that exists and be sure to collect the taxes they are due. It would be my guess that many of these athletes aren't reporting their scholarships on their tax returns and thus paying taxes on the room and board, stipends etc.
I don't care if they pay their taxes or not. It seems that part of your argument in favor of the new law is to collect more taxes on athletes. If that is your argument, than I would think you would be in favor of collecting taxes due from the athletes based on the current code as well, which may or may not be happening.
seems you need to review the thread before jumping in
I stated a fact, which is more tax paying citizens is better than less tax paying citizens
are you arguing that fact? would you like more on the take?
my argument is people should be able to profit from their likeness. that's it. very simple. someone else brought up the tax grab issue, to which I respond: who cares? it's a means to a better end, in my opinion
now kindly piss off, troll
Anyone that thinks college football players should be paid please answer me how do you pay a player like Vaha Vainuku? Or Pernell Jefferson’s? These guys don’t deserve $$$. No one is profiting from them. They cost the university $$$. Or what about John Raridon? Raridon is a really good one to look at. He hasn’t played any meaningful minutes but was a 4 star US Army All American. Does he get locked into a salary out of high school as a way to land his commit? And it’d be worse at Bama, OU, & Clemson. They have highly rated kids bust all the time
Does Trent Hixson get paid? If walk ons don’t get paid, does it delay coaches handing out scholarships to walk ons
The obvious effects of paying players IMO lead to a) cutting down the roster size b) cutting players c) free agency. Then we basically have the NFL. And if we all want the NFL we should just watch the NFL
Does Trent Hixson get paid? If walk ons don’t get paid, does it delay coaches handing out scholarships to walk ons
The obvious effects of paying players IMO lead to a) cutting down the roster size b) cutting players c) free agency. Then we basically have the NFL. And if we all want the NFL we should just watch the NFL
nobody is talking about college football players being paid a salary simply for playing college football.
this is simply about their ability to market themselves and profit from it. if a company wants them in a commercial or to endorse their brand, they can now.
do you understand?
I get it. I guess I’m thinking one step further. It’s not going to be like the letter of the law is attempting to handle this. IMO Boosters who own businesses will start paying recruits through their business as a “marketing expense”. And It’s the best of both worlds for them. Now they can legitimately write this expense off too. And they won’t pay just the stars of the team. They will start off paying the top recruits. Then they will pay all the recruits. Then they will start paying kids who aren’t playing at other schools to transfer. Then the NCAA will give In and cut out the boosters and we will end up with college football being a paid sport
But that’s just my opinion and the way I see it going. The second you allow loop holes, the second you allow many things
No thanks, no need to review the thread, I had responded specifically to your quote where you referenced the thread regarding the tax grab issue.
Which is why I posted my original response and I’ll say it again. If this is a fact, as you say, then it might make sense to make sure that the existing tax code is being upheld. If you disagree with this, then fine, but that would seem inconsistent with the thought that “more tax payers > less tax payers”.
No and No
Great
Awesome
Last edited:
Not directed at you, just grabbed a post and hit reply.
Does anyone really think people buy Nebraska jerseys because Adrian Martinez plays at Nebraska? I think that people buy Nebraska jerseys not Martinez jerseys.
What would stop Phil Knight? How many MORE sales does an apparel company realize because the NCAA says the player can profit from their likeness? I don't think much. So if I am an exec or shareholder in Nike, why do I want to share my profits with some college player? I lose money on that deal.
