Let the fun begin, CA Gov signs college athlete likeness pay bill

[Stakesarehigh]

Right now we got kid who came from Jack shit getting offered let's say 50k for whatever....

So what if that same kid can make 100k on his own? Is he going to risk his eligibility for another 25k when he can make 100 on his own?

And really I know we are talking moreso in line with CFB but the sport with more star power in their freshman year is hoops. By far. I can see more problems with recruiting in basketball.

 

[LawDawg]

There’s a difference between saying “some exemptions have to be made” because a sport can’t strictly follow open market forces, and having the monopoly collude to completely alienate the principals from negotiating their compensation (to the point that they can’t even have a happy meal with a future employer).
Your argument is obtuse to the point of being laughable. Sorry.
Saying “well there aren’t 29 different pro leagues for football players, and therefore it’s not a completely free market” isn’t a justification for monopolistic collusion to keep principals from making money.

You did see the spitballing part of the post, right? Otherwise, glad to have a reasonable dialog about this.

You may see my argument as being obtuse, but it happens to be the law of the land right now ... the NCAA can, in fact, legally decide whether and what they will compensate the players. You may not like that, you may wish it changes, but it is fact the law of the land.

In NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the court held

"There can be no doubt that the challenged practices of the NCAA constitute a 'restraint of trade'" but noted not all restraints of trade were unreasonable, and that only an unreasonable restraint was prohibited by the Sherman Antitrust Act."

Nothing new there really, so that was not surprising. But, that is contrary to what you said above ... the NCAA can have a monopoly to collude to alienate the principals from negotiating their compensation. And, my point about other leagues is spot on, not laughable at all. In fact, even though the Supreme Court held against the NCAA on the issue of restricting television rights (thanks to Board of Regents for us being able to watch wall to wall college football every weekend), they went on to hold:

“… moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like …”

Arguably, that finding, which is not dicta, was weakened in the O'Bannon case in which the Supreme Court denied cert. But, it is still the law of the land and the NCAA does in fact have a right to not pay the players. Again, you may not like it, and after the O'Bannon case they did start paying a stipend. So, who knows what they might do in response to the CA law.

My reference to other leagues was simply to show that there are reasons not to allow the open market to work in certain circumstances, and that it is legal for these leagues to do so. Otherwise, the players unions would have sued long ago. But, my position on college football is simply following the Supreme Court.

Who knows maybe a suit with CA will get to the Supremes, and they will overrule Board of Regents. More likely it plays out like I said ... the NCAA wins, but loses in the long run when teams from states where they have to let the players get paid get all the good players. Seems you would like that result.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

You did see the spitballing part of the post, right? Otherwise, glad to have a reasonable dialog about this.

You may see my argument as being obtuse, but it happens to be the law of the land right now ... the NCAA can, in fact, legally decide whether and what they will compensate the players. You may not like that, you may wish it changes, but it is fact the law of the land.

In NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the court held

"There can be no doubt that the challenged practices of the NCAA constitute a 'restraint of trade'" but noted not all restraints of trade were unreasonable, and that only an unreasonable restraint was prohibited by the Sherman Antitrust Act."

Nothing new there really, so that was not surprising. But, that is contrary to what you said above ... the NCAA can have a monopoly to collude to alienate the principals from negotiating their compensation. And, my point about other leagues is spot on, not laughable at all. In fact, even though the Supreme Court held against the NCAA on the issue of restricting television rights (thanks to Board of Regents for us being able to watch wall to wall college football every weekend), they went on to hold:

“… moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like …”

Arguably, that finding, which is not dicta, was weakened in the O'Bannon case in which the Supreme Court denied cert. But, it is still the law of the land and the NCAA does in fact have a right to not pay the players. Again, you may not like it, and after the O'Bannon case they did start paying a stipend. So, who knows what they might do in response to the CA law.

My reference to other leagues was simply to show that there are reasons not to allow the open market to work in certain circumstances, and that it is legal for these leagues to do so. Otherwise, the players unions would have sued long ago. But, my position on college football is simply following the Supreme Court.

Who knows maybe a suit with CA will get to the Supremes, and they will overrule Board of Regents. More likely it plays out like I said ... the NCAA wins, but loses in the long run when teams from states where they have to let the players get paid get all the good players. Seems you would like that result.

Some compelling points there thank you

 

[ElTexan]

Yeah, again, I’m not arguing what IS, but what OUGHT to be... in line with every basic tradition and philosophy of economic freedom.

 

[LawDawg]

Because the law specifically states schools cannot pay the player

Nothing in my scenarios is the school paying players. I've read the law, I know what it says. My two scenarios are two LLCs paying players for their likeness, just as the law provides for. I could come up with dozens more, if I wanted to.

 

[LawDawg]

Some compelling points there thank you

Thanks, but I am just working through this. My initial reaction was to defend the status quo, and the way I've always loved the game. But, I've seen some compelling arguments the other way. Interestingly, I am seeing some ways this might help college hoops. Got a lot to think about and read up on.

 

[Rambunctious]

Higher education is for learning not earning. If you want to earn money while attending school get a job. Whats next? non students being drafted onto teams?

 

[ElTexan]

Higher education is for learning not earning. If you want to earn money while attending school get a job. Whats next? non students being drafted onto teams?

I hope this is satire.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

“No one is forcing you” is not an argument to support an industrial monopoly. In what world can you even write that in black and white?
And again: this is not an amateur sport. The colleges make millions. The coaches make millions. The broadcasters make millions. The endorsers pay and make millions. It’s a multi billion dollar industry.
It. Is. Not. Amateur. At. All.

It absolutely is an argument. The athletes want to use the NCAA brand and the University brand to profit off of. Without the NCAA and University they play football for, they are nobody.

And if they think they are — feel free to market yourself as an 18 year old HS football player and see how many endorsements they will get without the NCAA or a college team to play for?!?

Better yet — go ahead and enter the NFL draft out of HS and watch how fast you are unemployed.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Thanks, but I am just working through this. My initial reaction was to defend the status quo, and the way I've always loved the game. But, I've seen some compelling arguments the other way. Interestingly, I am seeing some ways this might help college hoops. Got a lot to think about and read up on.

I think it could help spread talent out actually. I would bet we don't see a team like 2015 UK for one.

If a guy can be the "face" and make more money he will go to a school like UGA that has the facilities and backing but not necessarily the prestige to otherwise reel in the big fish.

 

[ElTexan]

It absolutely is an argument. The athletes want to use the NCAA brand and the University brand to profit off of. Without the NCAA and University they play football for, they are nobody.

And if they think they are — feel free to market yourself as an 18 year old HS football player and see how many endorsements they will get without the NCAA or a college team to play for?!?

Better yet — go ahead and enter the NFL draft out of HS and watch how fast you are unemployed.

“If you don’t like it, leave” argument for a monopoly. Brilliant.

 

[Rambunctious]

I hope this is satire.

No not at all, If CA can just pass a law requiring pay they can make an argument for players without the grades to get paid as well. Someone will say hey we can't leave out the slower kids from this bounty. All of those high school stars with D- grades deserve a chance at getting paid.
I can see that happening. CA should stay out of this.

 

[HuskerOC]

I'm too fucking lazy to read all the shit in here, but the real problem down the road is Title IX if it ever gets adopted nationwide.

What do da' bitches get paid if the dudes gunna get paid?

How this can ever survive as just a handful of dudes playing football and basketball simply is never gonna pass the #MeToo United States Women' National Team rhetoric along with Title IX that has been swelling over the past several years.

Is Joe Alabama booster who is paying $100K a year to Tua to advertise his cars on local TV gonna pay Sally Wannaride on the women's basketball team the same $100K to be fair? What about the softball team? Womens' soccer, tennis, cross country, you name it. And hey, what about the dudes on the team that won't get shit like the OL and DL guys, LBs, and most defensive players?

This is a rule for the 1% of the 1% and to aid in legal 'dirty' recruiting.

And lets say the QB gets a $100K deal, and nobody else gets shit while the QB doesn't share anything with anybody else. You think the rest of the team is gonna play with/for him?

Endorsements aren't a problem in professional sports because the rest of the dudes are making a shit ton of money as well. When 3 to 10 guys are making bank,and the rest of the team ain't getting shit, there is gonna be problems.

 

[LawDawg]

I think it could help spread talent out actually. I would bet we don't see a team like 2015 UK for one.

If a guy can be the "face" and make more money he will go to a school like UGA that has the facilities and backing but not necessarily the prestige to otherwise reel in the big fish.

Also, my initial thoughts are that while the one and dones will still be around, the folks leaving when they shouldn't might stay. Those on the margin might stay for another year if they can sign a deal in college for some cash.

 

[LawDawg]

I'm too fucking lazy to read all the shit in here, but the real problem down the road is Title IX if it ever gets adopted nationwide.

What do da' bitches get paid if the dudes gunna get paid?

How this can ever survive as just a handful of dudes playing football and basketball simply is never gonna pass the #MeToo United States Women' National Team rhetoric along with Title IX that has been swelling over the past several years.

Is Joe Alabama booster who is paying $100K a year to Tua to advertise his cars on local TV gonna pay Sally Wannaride on the women's basketball team the same $100K to be fair? What about the softball team? Womens' soccer, tennis, cross country, you name it. And hey, what about the dudes on the team that won't get shit like the OL and DL guys, LBs, and most defensive players?

This is a rule for the 1% of the 1% and to aid in legal 'dirty' recruiting.

And lets say the QB gets a $100K deal, and nobody else gets shit while the QB doesn't share anything with anybody else. You think the rest of the team is gonna play with/for him?

Endorsements aren't a problem in professional sports because the rest of the dudes are making a shit ton of money as well. When 3 to 10 guys are making bank,and the rest of the team ain't getting shit, there is gonna be problems.

I don't believe Title IX is an issue ... that only applies to the schools, and they aren't the ones paying here. Now any alternatives they try to come up with to fend these laws off would have to abide by Title IX.

I share all the other concerns you raise. Proponents of this sweep those unintended consequences under the rug, with a "free market, yo" or something like that.

 

[HuskerOC]

I don't believe Title IX is an issue ... that only applies to the schools, and they aren't the ones paying here. Now any alternatives they try to come up with to fend these laws off would have to abide by Title IX.

I share all the other concerns you raise. Proponents of this sweep those unintended consequences under the rug, with a "free market, yo" or something like that.

Free market and Capitalism? Shit, I didn't think they taught that in our schools anymore.

If you think men's college football and basketball players being the only ones getting major endorsements won't cause a wave of controversy, then you simply haven't been paying much attention the last few years.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

“If you don’t like it, leave” argument for a monopoly. Brilliant.

No one is forcing them to play college football. They are using the University in the same way they use the athletes.

They use the University to get a free education, advanced coaching and use of state of the art facilities.

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

Yeah, again, I’m not arguing what IS, but what OUGHT to be... in line with every basic tradition and philosophy of economic freedom.

I can also argue today's college athlete is getting a better deal out of the current system than whatever the future unintended consequences might be if we started paying players. I'll explain.

The system we have today only began making huge money just in recent years comparably speaking in terms of the history of the sport. It's still very much an amatuer sport, there's almost no market for these college football players if we turned it into a pro model.

If we turned it into a pro model, the rich schools would only get richer and the smaller schools would slowly but surely scrap their varsity football programs as the parody would grow further and further apart. College football revenues support most athletic department budgets, most still run in the red. But if schools started having to compensate their athletes they'd run deeper in the red and might have to scrap their programs. Fan fare is already on the decline as attendance is suffering and participation at lower levels is declining.

College football is HIGHLY regional. Most casual college fans are more interested in their conference and region and could care less what's going on in the national landscape. If the current system of regional matchups gets whacked because schools started dropping off and we had to re-structure the conference alignments on a massive scale, it's going to crush viewership and popularity of the sport. Once that happens, the money drys up.

Right now, 99% of college football players never go pro. But they do gain in education which a majority probably would've never received from their respective schools as well as all the added benefits of tutoring, athletic training, housing, food, and stipends. The value of their earning potential of a college grad is exponentially larger as well. But if we move to the pro model, which as it stands today there's no minor league pro sport that generates any kind of real revenue or an actual education. College football would just dwindle down to something resembling the XFL and putting kids on $30,000 salaries for the 2-4 years of participation they'd give before having to move on from their NFL dream.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Legally speaking, it won't be pay to play.

If you’re stupid, you’ll believe that.

 

[LawDawg]

I can also argue today's college athlete is getting a better deal out of the current system than whatever the future unintended consequences might be if we started paying players. I'll explain.

The system we have today only began making huge money just in recent years comparably speaking in terms of the history of the sport. It's still very much an amatuer sport, there's almost no market for these college football players if we turned it into a pro model.

If we turned it into a pro model, the rich schools would only get richer and the smaller schools would slowly but surely scrap their varsity football programs as the parody would grow further and further apart. College football revenues support most athletic department budgets, most still run in the red. But if schools started having to compensate their athletes they'd run deeper in the red and might have to scrap their programs. Fan fare is already on the decline as attendance is suffering and participation at lower levels is declining.

College football is HIGHLY regional. Most casual college fans are more interested in their conference and region and could care less what's going on in the national landscape. If the current system of regional matchups gets whacked because schools started dropping off and we had to re-structure the conference alignments on a massive scale, it's going to crush viewership and popularity of the sport. Once that happens, the money drys up.

Right now, 99% of college football players never go pro. But they do gain in education which a majority probably would've never received from their respective schools as well as all the added benefits of tutoring, athletic training, housing, food, and stipends. The value of their earning potential of a college grad is exponentially larger as well. But if we move to the pro model, which as it stands today there's no minor league pro sport that generates any kind of real revenue or an actual education. College football would just dwindle down to something resembling the XFL and putting kids on $30,000 salaries for the 2-4 years of participation they'd give before having to move on from their NFL dream.

Good analysis ... to kind of add to your thoughts, those who keep saying there is all this money out there at the universities (not talking the ad money), it isn't like greedy admins are sitting around counting their money and maniacally laughing out loud, planning their next vacation, or buying their third house. In fact, most of the money made off athletics goes right back into the student athletes. It's what pays the valuable scholarships they get. It's the money, along with donations, that pay for their unreal facilities, their training facilities including food that any other student would love to eat. It pays for non-revenue sports. And, so on. The idea that there is some grubby billionaires making bank off the backs of the players is ridiculous. Most of the money raised goes to the athletes, directly and indirectly.

I see the same thing said about the NCAA making a billion dollars. Well, here is where the billion dollars goes: Where Does the Money Go?
Again, it goes to the student athletes who then complain they get nothing while the NCAA makes a billion.

Want to see a really interesting thing, note in the link above where the NCAA's money comes from. Had no idea ... blew my mind ... I know, small explosion, but blew it nonetheless.