Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 99

Thread: OT: California Legislature Proposes Law Allowing Athletes to Make Endorsement Deals

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    I hope to see this pass everywhere.

    At the very least, kids should control their own persona. The schools are already making money off jersy sales and such, this would only allow the student to do the same.
    I agree BUT what kind of protection would/could be installed against large benefactor buying 1000 jerseys of some stud?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,605

    Default

    The direction this thing could get started down you might see a draft. You might need a draft to save the industry.

    Would Power 5 draft first? Remember football pays the bills
    Think Big. No think Bigger than that!

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,495

    Default

    Just going to throw this out there... what if an endorsement comes from alumni or fans of the teams... at that point, are we not talking about Sam Gilbert and guys like him? Quite conceivably, I could see a major recruit coming into GU and flat out asking, how much are you going to get me in endorsements to play for you? Very very slippery slope into corruption.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Zag Country
    Posts
    3,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Just going to throw this out there... what if an endorsement comes from alumni or fans of the teams... at that point, are we not talking about Sam Gilbert and guys like him? Quite conceivably, I could see a major recruit coming into GU and flat out asking, how much are you going to get me in endorsements to play for you? Very very slippery slope into corruption.
    I agree. There are far too many pitfalls.
    Parlez-vous français?

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,297

    Default

    Name ONE player in a team sport that did not require the other players to succeed.

    That is what I see as the real problem.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Just going to throw this out there... what if an endorsement comes from alumni or fans of the teams... at that point, are we not talking about Sam Gilbert and guys like him? Quite conceivably, I could see a major recruit coming into GU and flat out asking, how much are you going to get me in endorsements to play for you? Very very slippery slope into corruption.
    Phil Knight...hey come play for Oregon and get your Nike endorsement. No good can come from this.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Just going to throw this out there... what if an endorsement comes from alumni or fans of the teams... at that point, are we not talking about Sam Gilbert and guys like him? Quite conceivably, I could see a major recruit coming into GU and flat out asking, how much are you going to get me in endorsements to play for you? Very very slippery slope into corruption.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZagzKrak View Post
    Phil Knight...hey come play for Oregon and get your Nike endorsement. No good can come from this.
    Absolutely.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    IMO, the student athletes already get a choice.

    1. Go the college route, get room, board, tuition, coaching and maybe a stipend (worth $50,000 - $75,000/Yr) and stay for up to 4 years (5 yrs with a redshirt).
    2. Sign all the endorsement deals you want and play in the G-League, Europe, Australia, etc.

    Yes good old Zion was a household name coming out of high school, but his value to the endorsement community went up 10-fold or more by playing a single year for Duke. I think Zion, even without being able to claim his endorsements during his single year at Duke, came out far ahead.

    In reality, the NCAA deals with something like 480,000+ student athletes in their amateur model and what we are dealing with this issue is really a minor issue for the vast majority of student athletes. Maybe only the top 1,500 student athletes in football and basketball would make any significant amount of money with this endorsement deal which could significantly impact the other 475,000 student athletes.

    IMO not worth it for the privileged few who are going to get their money within the next year anyway.

    ZagDad

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagzKrak View Post
    Phil Knight...hey come play for Oregon and get your Nike endorsement. No good can come from this.
    Might as well scrap the current conferences in place, and have a Nike Conference, UnderArmor Conference, Adidas Conference. Add to that this image of official NCAA Corporate Champions, and there's your solution. These Champions can bid for the universities of their choice!



    I think I'm going to be sick...

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    709

    Default

    It is so grossly un-American to suggest that if our top young athletes want to make money they need to move to Europe or Australia or some other land. We import talent we don't export it.

    Of course, players can make money and sign endorsement deals in the G League, but market has spoken: the money you can make in the G League is outweighed by a year of NCAA exposure. NCAA basketball is the main event. Pigs get fat hogs get slaughtered (or something like that). The NCAA is a hog that will be in the slaughterhouse if they don't adapt. College Playoff Series for football isn't controlled by the NCAA - that's where the money is. Super conference? Maybe soon.

    Wouldn't take much for the CA schools to start their own March madness, invite other teams as other states pass similar laws. NIT used to be king. Maybe another tournament will take the place of MM. If NCAA doesn't take note of the endorsement thing and allow it they'll blow it.

    It's not even about sharing the wealth, it's about loosening restrictions on the right for young men to make money on their own two feet.

    What do the NCAA college coaches think?

    CBS Sports college basketball writers Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander surveyed more than 100 coaches for our annual Candid Coaches series. They polled everyone from head coaches at elite programs to assistants at some of the smallest Division I schools. In exchange for complete anonymity, the coaches provided unfiltered honesty about a number of topics in the sport. Over the next couple of weeks, we'll be posting the results on nine questions they were asked.

    Athletic departments, thanks to lucrative media-rights deals and various other revenue streams, have never generated more money than they generate today. So it should be no surprise that college coaches, in all sports, have never made more money than they're making right now -- with Duke's Mike Krzyzewski on the basketball side, and Alabama's Nick Saban on the football side, each reportedly earning more than $8 million annually. Simply put, folks are getting super-duper rich. And yet the student-athletes who are largely responsible for creating the product that generates all of this money still aren't allowed to make their fair-market value. They can accept a scholarship and, in some cases, a cost-of-attendance stipend. But, basically, that's it. Thus, an intense debate has emerged in college athletics -- one centered on whether student-athletes should get more or just be appreciative of what they already get. So, with this in mind, we decided to ask more than 100 college coaches the following question:

    Would you support an Olympic-style model that allows student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness?

    Yes: 77 percent
    No: 23 percent

    Quotes that stood out

    "I would support players having a chance to live in a more comfortable manner. I would like to see something that would help student-athletes at all levels of schools better their financial situation -- and if it's decided that model is the best, then I will support it. I just know student-athletes at every level of Division I sports are fighting to make the ends of each month meet."
    "I'm for it because it's the right thing to do. And I think we'll get some version of it relatively soon."

    "Why would we restrict someone from making money off of their likeness? If there is a market to make some extra money, student-athletes should be allowed to do it. For some, it could mean staying in school longer and completing their education. That's consistent with the NCAA's mission."

    "The unspoken-about aspect of paying student-athletes is how Title IX comes into play. Allowing all student-athletes, regardless of sport/gender, to profit of their name/image/likeness is a way to infuse money into student-athletes' pockets without bankrupting athletic departments that aren't fiscally solvent. I envision this happening in the next 5-to-10 years as student-athletes continue to have a louder voice in the creation and changing of NCAA rules. The one big gray area I foresee is boosters who own businesses guaranteeing X-amount of dollars in advertising income to prospective recruits that they'll be given to attend specific schools."

    "It would be nuts for me to be making the money I make and then turn around and tell you I don't think the players deserve more. And the Olympic model is the obvious way to do it. It's not perfect. It'll create some issues. But it would do more good than bad. It would make our sport better. So I'd vote for it.
    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...dent-athletes/

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Cali state legislature 72-0. A basketball sports board (where our team would be one of the ones most likely to get hurt) it seems 3/4 opposed. The reality is that many D1 athletes are not living in the lap of luxury while many basketball coaches are their state's top paid employee. Its just sports. Its entertainment. Supposedly, its a sidelight for most of us, to enhance the pleasures of our day. But, its not a sidelight for the players--and it should be for us. Some of us care way too much about this form of entertainment and are willing to sacrifice the well-being of the players so that we are more entertained. "Go play in the G-League." Its the sports equivalent of saying if you don't like it move out. Not a good argument and a worse value. In my opinion. Pay the players. Its all professional anyway. Lets just be honest about it.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagWhoShotLibertyValance View Post
    Cali state legislature 72-0. A basketball sports board (where our team would be one of the ones most likely to get hurt) it seems 3/4 opposed. The reality is that many D1 athletes are not living in the lap of luxury while many basketball coaches are their state's top paid employee. Its just sports. Its entertainment. Supposedly, its a sidelight for most of us, to enhance the pleasures of our day. But, its not a sidelight for the players--and it should be for us. Some of us care way too much about this form of entertainment and are willing to sacrifice the well-being of the players so that we are more entertained. "Go play in the G-League." Its the sports equivalent of saying if you don't like it move out. Not a good argument and a worse value. In my opinion. Pay the players. Its all professional anyway. Lets just be honest about it.
    So what you're saying is there's no value in the scholarship, coaching, and training facilities given to these players.

    Yeah, let's just be honest about it...shut down all collegiate athletics for the sake of the 1% that will go on to professional careers.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,297

    Default

    So you are the starting guard and tackle on a contending National Championship football team. You two toil in O-line obscurity, maybe getting drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round and, if you prove to be good and durable, get a 2nd contract and make a few million.
    All the while, in College, your quarterback is making $400 thou per year. and tens of millions later.
    How long before you don't block as hard?


    A little more locally.

    Nobody, outside of Spokane and his family in Denver, really knows, or cares, How Josh Perkins is doing.
    A local car dealer has him come out, pose for a billboard shot: "Get an assist from Perkins and buy a car from us!"

    He makes $100 grand.

    Meanwhile Rui sweeps Japan and his image is on Cup of Noodles, Men's chapstick and on and on. Rui is making $10 MILLION his junior season, just on endorsements using his name and image.

    How long until just a bit of envy or jealousy creep in? How about for Clarke, maybe even a more integral part of the team but as a transfer, nobody knew or cared before he was here and then gone?

    Even on a team as close as the Zags. There will be friction.

    If you want to get paid, go pro, either here or overseas. If you want to be part of a TEAM sport, all expenses paid (and then a little bit more), with a chance to earn a huge paycheck afterward...Come to College. If nothing else, you will have a great education to fall back on.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Just north of I-80
    Posts
    45,052

    Default NCAA Responds w/ Letter to CA Governor

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    I wonder what the NCAA has to say on this...
    The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports. Text of the letter follows:

    LINK: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...enate-bill-206

    California Senate Bill 206 would upend that balance. If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions. These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions.

    Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports.

    The NCAA continues to focus on the best interests of all student-athletes nationwide. NCAA member schools already are working on changing rules for all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play. The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university.


    Basketball Web Sites Listing

    "The most interesting place exists between how people see themselves and how other people do." -- Wright Thompson

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    4,372

    Default

    What exactly would it mean that "all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play." They have a right to their own name, image and likeness, but can't make any money off of them? In that case, do they actually have a right to those things?
    I will thank God for the day and the moment I have. - Jimmy V

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,958

    Default

    I doubt it'll come to this but if NCAA dictates that if California carries their plan through, and NCAA basically bans the CA schools from NCAA games, and obviously championship play, I wonder how long it would take before blue chip or even medium grade athletes flee the state? And there are other and multiple implications as well. One thing comes to mind is TV revenue losses in CA.

    Used to be that California was the beacon of the future. This is a poorly thought out plan like most everything in CA is these days. One thing's obvious to me though: they're courting chaos with this move. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,426

    Default

    Thanks for posting, Reno.

    I find it ironic that the obvious benefits of being paid for one's likeness will go only to 1% of the athletes, at most. Might go up to 5% at Division I level for football and basketball.

    It will kill March Madness. It won't do anything to the CFP, because less than 10 schools have a chance at the brass ring every year.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    I doubt it'll come to this but if NCAA dictates that if California carries their plan through, and NCAA basically bans the CA schools from NCAA games, and obviously championship play, I wonder how long it would take before blue chip or even medium grade athletes flee the state? And there are other and multiple implications as well. One thing comes to mind is TV revenue losses in CA.

    Used to be that California was the beacon of the future. This is a poorly thought out plan like most everything in CA is these days. One thing's obvious to me though: they're courting chaos with this move. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
    Will the colleges throw in an extra benefit, i.e. tax planning and preparation? The IRS will have a field day auditing those who will reap the rewards of this new world. These athletes will be considered self employed consultants for tax purposes, subject to 15.3% SE tax on top of federal, state, and local income taxes. Income tax returns from self employed individuals are a target rich environment for IRS audits. It's a subject I'm familiar with, as I used to prepare tax returns for over 30 years.

    Texas and Washington should reap huge rewards of this "new world", as neither state has a state income tax.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    spokane
    Posts
    476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyZag View Post
    seems simple, but it's not. Pandoras box. This would POTENTIALLY threaten to eliminate the "amateurism" rule. I like the idea of the trust fund, but somehow I think that violates the CA law, because it requires special mandates that other students/people don't have to go through. I see super shady things in the future if/when this happens. Remember SMU football in the 80s? Think of the "recruiting" ... Billionaire alumni (Oregon, Oklahoma state, Arkansas) paying recruits $$$$ for PR work. Come sign autographs at my car dealer son.. here's $100k for your afternoon of work.. oh and sign this here letter of intent.

    If the NFL, NBA and MLB all agree to take kids straight out of HS... it would help... but it wouldn't prevent it.
    Sorry, i probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. I didn't mean to imply that the implementation and untangling/resolving of the legal complexities would be simple, or that it might not have unintended consequences. I meant that from a values perspective, this is a no brainer for me. I don't necessarily hold a rigid view of property rights, but in this instance i actually do. If anyone should be able to control/profit from your likeness/image, its you. No one should be able to represent and make money off of who you are without permission or reasonable compensation. i just find that this is a basic right that shouldn't be denied someone just because they are a student athlete. reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that however.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    4,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzdb8 View Post
    Sorry, i probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. I didn't mean to imply that the implementation and untangling/resolving of the legal complexities would be simple, or that it might not have unintended consequences. I meant that from a values perspective, this is a no brainer for me. I don't necessarily hold a rigid view of property rights, but in this instance i actually do. If anyone should be able to control/profit from your likeness/image, its you. No one should be able to represent and make money off of who you are without permission or reasonable compensation. i just find that this is a basic right that shouldn't be denied someone just because they are a student athlete. reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that however.
    I tend to agree with this. I also understand that it may lead to the end of college athletics as we know it, but personally the right to profit off your image/likeness seems to be a more foundational right than that of having college athletics function as they currently do.
    I will thank God for the day and the moment I have. - Jimmy V

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzdb8 View Post
    Sorry, i probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. I didn't mean to imply that the implementation and untangling/resolving of the legal complexities would be simple, or that it might not have unintended consequences. I meant that from a values perspective, this is a no brainer for me. I don't necessarily hold a rigid view of property rights, but in this instance i actually do. If anyone should be able to control/profit from your likeness/image, its you. No one should be able to represent and make money off of who you are without permission or reasonable compensation. i just find that this is a basic right that shouldn't be denied someone just because they are a student athlete. reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that however.
    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    I tend to agree with this. I also understand that it may lead to the end of college athletics as we know it, but personally the right to profit off your image/likeness seems to be a more foundational right than that of having college athletics function as they currently do.
    Then allow NO usage of name or likeness, for profit, of ANY student athlete!

    There...That wasn't so hard, was it!
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    I tend to agree with this. I also understand that it may lead to the end of college athletics as we know it, but personally the right to profit off your image/likeness seems to be a more foundational right than that of having college athletics function as they currently do.
    I don't think there is anybody going to argue that a person has a fundamental right to profit off their image/likeness. If you can sell it, go for it.

    The question is, do you have a right to profit off your image/likeness AND play collegiate sports. Nobody has a fundamental right to play collegiate sports, that is up to the NCAA and its member institutions. If you don't like the rules and restrictions imposed by the NCAA and its member institutions, don't play for them.

    I may be wrong, but wasn't there a court ruling recently in which one or more of the video game manufacturers was told that they could no longer use the image/likeness of collegiate players without their consent?

    ZagDad

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    709

    Default

    77 percent of head coaches agree with the Olympic endorsement model being presented by 100 percent of the CA Legislature. I guess they disagree with the whole "if you don't like it get out" sentiment.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    I tend to agree with this. I also understand that it may lead to the end of college athletics as we know it, but personally the right to profit off your image/likeness seems to be a more foundational right than that of having college athletics function as they currently do.
    IMHO that would be the best outcome.....the relationship between Universities, especially Public Universities and billion dollar " amateur" sports like football and basketball has been a sad spectacle since television bought their souls....

    As a society we too often conflate equal opportunity with equal outcomes.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Interesting to see that so many posters are willing to risk (or throw out) the current NCAA (amateur) model to provide a benefit to a relatively small percentage of the student athletes. The current NCAA (amateur) model, warts and all, has provided billions of dollars to the member institutions athletic departments. Generally speaking only Mbb and Football are money making programs (and many times these programs still operate at a loss) with the rest of the athletic programs (generally speaking) operate at a loss. Where would the athletic departments come up with the replacement funds if the current model is trashed or significantly reduced?

    While the legislation will impact all student athletes, in reality, this legislation will only have a significant ($$) impact on what, 1% maybe 2% of the student athletes? On this 1-2% of the athletes, they are not being asked to give up their money, but to delay it for a year, maybe two in exchange for a paid college education, room and board, stipend, coaching, etc.

    Once the one and done rule is done with by the NBA, the number of student athletes (Mbb) that would see a significant benefit from this legislation is going to be reduced significantly.

    IMO, I don't see that the benefit in helping the future millionaires (top 1% of student athletes) get some additional money outweighs the potential risk to the hundreds of thousands of student athletes which will not see a dime from this legislation.

    To each their own,

    ZagDad

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •