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

[ZagzKrak]

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.

[willandi]

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.

Absolutely.

[ZagDad84]

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

[TexasZagFan]

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...

[CB4]

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-basketball/news/candid-coaches-would-you-support-an-olympic-style-model-for-student-athletes/

[ZagWhoShotLibertyValance]

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.

[TexasZagFan]

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.

[willandi]

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.

[RenoZag]

NCAA Responds w/ Letter to CA Governor

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.

[webspinnre]

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?

[MDABE80]

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.

[TexasZagFan]

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.

[TexasZagFan]

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.

[Gonzdb8]

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.

[webspinnre]

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.