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

[ZagDad84]

It's not just the top 1 percent though. Hachimura's earnings would have likely dwarfed nearly everyone, except some other top ballers. Yet others will earn too.

You can easily see how a player on the tennis team could get paid for an appearance at a youth camp - that's a cool few grand - how a golf athlete could do the same. How an athlete in volleyball could capitalize on his or her 30,000 Instagram followers. How a baseball player could be paid to endorse a summer program or new local bat company. The list goes on. Believe it or not, ZagDad, but a lot of these kids are pretty creative in how they can make money. There are complete unknowns making millions of dollars through Instagram endorsements.

Also I disagree with the premise that it blows up the system. The NCAA has a huge compliance department. If knight gives kids generous deals to play at Oregon they will be on that. College bball will stay the same but the kids won't be as poor. Maybe they can fly their mom out to Hawaii or Atlantis for the invitational.

Let me clarify that I absolutely agree that a player should own the rights to their name/image and I don't think you would get any argument from most of us on this board.

CB4, maybe you and I have a difference of opinion on this statement that I made:

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.

The key word is in bold. In the context of my statement above, my definition of significant means $10,000s or more, not the $500-1,000-2,000 benefits that golfer, tennis player, etc. could possibly earn. Not that the $500-1,000-2,000 is not "significant" to a student athlete.

I am not exactly sure on how much money the member schools and/or NCAA are really making off the name/image of the vast majority of athletes in golf, swimming, cross country, rowing, volleyball (in most cases), gymnastics (in most cases), etc. but I am relatively sure they are certainly not making millions, let alone billions of dollars on the name/image/likeness of student athletes in the non-elite (read non-Mbb and non-football) sports.

Let me play devil's advocate here and throw out some conceptual issues.

What about names on the back of jersey's, do the students get paid and if so how much? Rui gets $10,000, Kispert gets $2,000 and Timme only $500? Do some people get names on the jersey's and others not?

If you want to use the name and picture of a student athlete on the team's annual program, soda cup, do you have to negotiate with each member of the team individually?

Have you ever or sent kids (grandkids) to a Zag summer camp? Are we now going to have to negotiate with the players if we want them to participate in this camp or compete with alternative camps that are run by the student athletes? How much is the cost of the summer camps going to have to increase to cover the costs and how many kids are going to be priced out of the summer camp? Tough luck kids.

I could go on and on and maybe the California bill has addressed some of these issues, I have not read bill. But there will be significant ramifications that are not foreseen by passage of this bill that will negatively affect collegiate athletics far beyond Mbb. Like last year's tax cut, the bill will affect most of the student athletes, but the Top 1% will be far and away the biggest beneficiaries. The rich will get richer.

The good thing is that if the California bill gets passed, it will not take affect until 2023 and you can bet that by the time the NCAA and California get done negotiating, the bill will be significantly changed.

Nice discussion everyone.

ZagDad

[CB4]

Let me play devil's advocate here and throw out some conceptual issues.

What about names on the back of jersey's, do the students get paid and if so how much? Rui gets $10,000, Kispert gets $2,000 and Timme only $500? Do some people get names on the jersey's and others not?

If you want to use the name and picture of a student athlete on the team's annual program, soda cup, do you have to negotiate with each member of the team individually?

Have you ever or sent kids (grandkids) to a Zag summer camp? Are we now going to have to negotiate with the players if we want them to participate in this camp or compete with alternative camps that are run by the student athletes? How much is the cost of the summer camps going to have to increase to cover the costs and how many kids are going to be priced out of the summer camp? Tough luck kids.

I could go on and on and maybe the California bill has addressed some of these issues, I have not read bill. But there will be significant ramifications that are not foreseen by passage of this bill that will negatively affect collegiate athletics far beyond Mbb. Like last year's tax cut, the bill will affect most of the student athletes, but the Top 1% will be far and away the biggest beneficiaries. The rich will get richer.

The good thing is that if the California bill gets passed, it will not take affect until 2023 and you can bet that by the time the NCAA and California get done negotiating, the bill will be significantly changed.

Nice discussion everyone.

ZagDad

We're conflating revenue sharing (the University paying the player) with endorsements (third parties paying the players). The CA legislation prohibits revenue sharing, including $$ for names on jerseys like you address in your hypothetical. So that wouldn't really be an issue. Nor would it be an issue regarding how much the University has to pay each player for their image on other items.

California Senate Bill 206

This bill would prohibit California postsecondary educational institutions except community colleges, and every athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, from providing a prospective intercollegiate student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness, or preventing a student participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness or obtaining professional representation relating to the student’s participation in intercollegiate athletics. The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.

To summarize, the bill prohibits colleges from paying student athletes for their likeness, image. It also prohibits colleges and the NCAA from preventing a student athlete from profiting off his or her likeness in other respects, such as endorsements from third parties. So, schools won't have to pay players anything. Same as it is now. But Cup Noodles can pay Hachimura to endorse the product.

[Mr Vulture]

My take is this, the NCAA is absolutely making huge amounts of money. However, to say that member institutions (which I take as athletic programs) are making huge money is not accurate in most cases. I don't think the answer is allowing athletes to get endorsement deals as that is far to easy to manipulate with boosters, etc essentially changing the amateurism of the sports. In all honesty, less than 2% of all college athletes go professional and the majority of sports at the NCAA level are funded primarily from football/basketball...the number of sports programs will decrease with a pay model.

I'm frankly tired of hearing about the "poor athletes" when they have the opportunity to get a degree at no financial cost, healthcare, training tables, nutrition/conditioning programs, and the select top tier build their brands at this level as well. I have no problem if the NCAA itself were to distribute out revenue to each athlete in intercollegiate athletics as long as it is at the exact same level regardless of the star status or sport. It would take information I don't have access to in order to determine what that amount is but I don't think $20k is realistic if all athletes are paid.

[CB4]

Vulture, why do you think rowers at Gonzaga, as an example, should receive the same distribution as college basketball players at Gonzaga under some system of revenue sharing?

[FloridaZagFan]

My take is this, the NCAA is absolutely making huge amounts of money. However, to say that member institutions (which I take as athletic programs) are making huge money is not accurate in most cases. I don't think the answer is allowing athletes to get endorsement deals as that is far to easy to manipulate with boosters, etc essentially changing the amateurism of the sports. In all honesty, less than 2% of all college athletes go professional and the majority of sports at the NCAA level are funded primarily from football/basketball...the number of sports programs will decrease with a pay model.

I'm frankly tired of hearing about the "poor athletes" when they have the opportunity to get a degree at no financial cost, healthcare, training tables, nutrition/conditioning programs, and the select top tier build their brands at this level as well. I have no problem if the NCAA itself were to distribute out revenue to each athlete in intercollegiate athletics as long as it is at the exact same level regardless of the star status or sport. It would take information I don't have access to in order to determine what that amount is but I don't think $20k is realistic if all athletes are paid.

Well said! I couldn't agree more with your comments. Unfortunately i feel if you start to allow sudent athletes to be paid even if all are paid exactly the same it will open up pandora's box.
I dont think it would be long before crazy things start to happen. I can see cheerleaders and (human) mascots say that are integral part of the team and should be paid. The students who attend games could make the same claim and want to get paid. I realize this sounds crazy but Las Vegas dosnt think so! Home games and fans definitely influence point spreds maybe 2-4 points. If a player who averaged 2 points a game gets paid where does it end?

[CB4]

Well said! I couldn't agree more with your comments. Unfortunately i feel if you start to allow sudent athletes to be paid even if all are paid exactly the same it will open up pandora's box.
I dont think it would be long before crazy things start to happen. I can see cheerleaders and (human) mascots say that are integral part of the team and should be paid. The students who attend games could make the same claim and want to get paid. I realize this sounds crazy but Las Vegas dosnt think so! Home games and fans definitely influence point spreds maybe 2-4 points. If a player who averaged 2 points a game gets paid where does it end?

If a student who attends a game wants to endorse a product on Instagram - and some of them do (namely: beautiful people, artistic people, fashion people, travel people, funny people, you name it) - they can. They don't lose their eligibility to sleep through college classes. If a college athlete wants to make an account on Cameo or endorse a product on Instagram or elsewhere, they lose their eligibility to play basketball, cause their program to be stripped of seasons or titles, and become a pariah to a certain degree.

[sylean]

nobody knows any famous college tennis players, or college baseball players, or golf players.....lets get real.....

its a very bad idea......rich teams will be able to entice the top players because they mostly exist in large populated areas with lots of opportunity for advertising....true, these same teams have a leg up on top recruits anyway, but this new ruling just makes the advantage exponentially better....

college game will be over.....what will be left will be semi pro teams.....which is not what we watch college basketball for. ..

[willandi]

The reason the NCAA banned athletes from accepting money was because it was rampant with fraud and cheating. Athletes were being paid huge sums for little to no work.

This is opening that Pandora's box again. Who will determine how much any given athlete should be paid for the use of their name or likeness? Is that amount for EACH usage or a blanket amount.

Even with the prohibition in place, boosters have cheated. This will just make it worse.

[FloridaZagFan]

If a student who attends a game wants to endorse a product on Instagram - and some of them do (namely: beautiful people, artistic people, fashion people, travel people, funny people, you name it) - they can. They don't lose their eligibility to sleep through college classes. If a college athlete wants to make an account on Cameo or endorse a product on Instagram or elsewhere, they lose their eligibility to play basketball, cause their program to be stripped of seasons or titles, and become a pariah to a certain degree.

Great point! I dont agree with all of the NCAA's rules and i think many are ridiculous. Maybe I'm old school but i think the Olympics have been ruined by alowing professionals to compete. College sports are still being played by amateurs, if all athletes in all sports shared equally in some type of revenue sharing it might not change basketball because outside of the NCAA & maybe AAU there really arnt any amateur leagues that im aware of that you would be excluded from after college. Sports like golf however trake amateurism very seriously, you would be banned from playing top level amateur events.
I dont think enough value is put on education (a fee education) what is the tuition at GU this year? If you are in the very small percentage of athletes who are planning on going pro then you have two choices coming out of high school
1. I am good enough to turn pro and go make some money.
2. I'm good but I want to (USE)college to get better and showcase my skills. That means i will take the scolarship $$$$ learn from the best coaches$$$$ play aginst the best competition $$$$ work with the best trainers and doctors$$$$. After that i will use the world wide exposure of TV$$$$$$ to promote my brand.

Sounds to me like NCAA athletes get a heck of alot that has serious Value!
I would say that Zion was able to use Duke to the tune of maybe $25 million? Great player coming out of high school but NCAA basketball created his image.
Look at the brand Rui created at Gonzaga!

I dont ever want to take advantage of a college student!
I think they get a heck of alot and they deserve it! I just dont think they should get paid. Either you are an amateur or a pro. In the larger income sports i feel for the walk on's really.

[bartruff1]

The market is very efficient at determining value.....if it is allowed to work.....the value of anything is what a buyer is willing to pay for it at a point in time...… who gets.... how much..... for what...…. is a very simple problem to resolve….

[ZagDad84]

Sounds to me like NCAA athletes get a heck of alot that has serious Value!

I would say that Zion was able to use Duke to the tune of maybe $25 million? Great player coming out of high school but NCAA basketball created his image.
Look at the brand Rui created at Gonzaga!

I dont ever want to take advantage of a college student!
I think they get a heck of alot and they deserve it! I just dont think they should get paid. Either you are an amateur or a pro. In the larger income sports i feel for the walk on's really.

While it varies widely depending on where you go to school, various estimates figure that a full scholarship athlete (room, board, tuition books, fees, coaching, nutrition, trainers, etc.) gets a value of $50,000 - $130,000 per year not including any stipends they may be paid. Trying to tell the students (and me for that matter) that have to pay for that same value out of pocket that these full scholarship athletes are "poor" sticks in my craw. Even when these full scholarship athletes graduate from college, whether they play pro or semi-pro ball or not, they are not saddled with the ever burdening student debt that a large portion of our collegiate graduates have to deal with.

That orthopedic doctor putting the student athlete's shoulder (knee, ankle, etc.) back together may have a $250,000 in student debt that he is paying on for the next 20 years.

You want to argue that the students athletes have a right to earn additional money based on their name/image/likeness, fine, I can accept that argument. But calling a full scholarship athlete poor (or deprived, undervalued, etc.) they are far from it.

ZagDad

[GorgeZag]

nobody knows any famous college tennis players, or college baseball players, or golf players.....lets get real.....

its a very bad idea......rich teams will be able to entice the top players because they mostly exist in large populated areas with lots of opportunity for advertising....true, these same teams have a leg up on top recruits anyway, but this new ruling just makes the advantage exponentially better....

college game will be over.....what will be left will be semi pro teams.....which is not what we watch college basketball for. ..

Exactly. The backup kicker at Alabama will make more than the starting quarterback at wazzu.

[RenoZag]

Associated Press writer Eddie Pells' article on the proposed changes hit the local fish wrap this morning:

https://www.apnews.com/3d147819a61f4c93a0ecef8e1e8cfdd4

"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," the letter said.

The second part of this argument makes sense. If a player who attends college in California can get a sponsorship deal while those in other states can't, it builds in an advantage that not even the shadiest college recruiter and his shoe-company buddies can match.

But the first part -- the part about the "critical distinction between college and professional athletics" -- is disingenuous to the core, a notion as antiquated as the peach basket and leather helmet, and the reason this whole thing is bound to change.

The notion that these near-full-time athletes in these billion-dollar sports are amateurs, or that they shouldn't get paid, runs counter to the tenets of basic fairness and feels downright un-American. Hard to believe the Olympics -- hardly run by the most forward-thinking or athlete-centric organizations -- were decades ahead of the NCAA when it came to unwinding the charade of amateurism in its sports.

"It's a fundamental truth of life that our innate ability is what creates our livelihood," said Jeremy Bloom, the former skier/football player who, years ago, got caught in the NCAA crosshairs for having the temerity to want to play both sports and to have sponsors in one (skiing) so he could fund his Olympic dreams. "These are the abilities of these people, and there's no reason they shouldn't have the ability to monetize that, irrespective of whether their education is getting paid for or not."

In addition to threatening to bar California schools from NCAA championships (Think of the possibilities: Winner of March Madness plays UCLA for the real national title.), the NCAA called the bill unconstitutional, a notion that immediately brings with it the specter of a court case.

That’s how seriously the NCAA appears to take this threat. It’s a sign of how far NCAA President Mark Emmert and his cronies are willing to go to protect a way of life that has lined all its schools’ coffers along with the pocketbooks of all the administrators, TV networks, coaches and sponsors involved in college sports.

Everyone but the players.

[willandi]

And they won't get one red cent (more then their scholarship [if they have one]).

[kitzbuel]

And they won't get one red cent (more then their scholarship [if they have one]).

Whether we like it or not, nobody pays any money to go see the band.