Interesting angle: cali to pay college players

[markstanco 12,627]

https://deadspin.com/ncaa-president-threatens-california-schools-over-state-1835814205

 

Earlier this year, two California state senators introduced SB 206, much to the chagrin of NCAA bureaucrats. The bill, which is also known as the Fair Pay To Play Act, would allow college athletes to make money off of their own names, images, and likenesses starting in Jan. 2023. The state Senate approved the bill last month, with a 31-4 vote with two abstentions, which means it will head to the California Assembly’s Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee for a hearing and vote tomorrow.

Naturally, the NCAA hates this, since its business model is based on denying athletes the right to profit from their own labor. One week before the Senate voted to pass the bill, the NCAA announced the formation of a working group “to examine issues highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation” regarding athletes being able to be paid for the work they currently do for free. If you were wondering whether that group would explore whether athletes should be paid, well, no.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

With the bill making the rounds through the California legislature this month, NCAA president Mark Emmert reportedly wrote a letter to the chairs of two State Assembly committees, whining about the possible threat the bill’s passage would pose to his racket. His badgering has already prompted the bill’s authors to add language stating they’d monitor the results of the working group. In his letter, Emmert even threatened to ban California schools from NCAA championships if the bill was passed, because of the possible asymmetries created by paying only one state’s worth of athletes. Per USA Today:

 

“We recognize all of the efforts that have been undertaken to develop this bill in the context of complex issues related to the current collegiate model that have been the subject of litigation and much national debate,” Emmert wrote in his letter to the committee chairs. “Nonetheless, when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships. As a result, it likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist.”

 

It is very in-character for the NCAA to moan about equal treatment and fret over a level playing field under the guise of protecting college athletes, when the most obvious systemic issue harming players is the existence of the organization itself. Emmert and the NCAA do not care about the welfare of the labor pool. Efforts to slow the bill down are transparently not about fairness; they’re about maintaining control. Emmert’s biggest fear is that other states will think this is a good idea.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Mark Emmert made $3.9 million in 2017. There’s no reason he should be paid to lie about the virtues of amateurism when his entire labor base works for free. California should make him follow through with threat and pass the bill.[/Quote]

 

I hate to use the ridiculously overused and most misused term of 3D checkers, but this may be the case here. The cali legislature knows that paid players wont get to play for a championship. Maybe they are trying to drag a few more states along with them to finally get these players who make universities BANK.

 

My take is give the kids some legal money. However, that makes them an employee. If they suck, you can get fired. Cant have it both ways.

 

[gmr548 16,617]

UCLA will still find a way to underachieve.

[Bullneck 19,213]

The student-athlete model is pretty much the same as it was 50 years ago . . .  for the student.

The amateur sports model has gotten incredibly skewed for athletic departments employees and C-level execs.  

[Zombie 284]

I agree with this in principle. But as a practical matter, how will this work when most universities lose money on their sports programs?

[Beau Vine 54,462]

Terrible thread name: California is not going to pay college players.  

[Beau Vine 54,462]

1 minute ago, Zombie said:

I agree with this in principle. But as a practical matter, how will this work when most universities lose money on their sports programs?

They don't and this won't affect that because this law would not require universities to spend any money.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Beau Vine

[millhouse 2,617]

So that's why Bru left

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

I didn't realize the term "3-D Checkers" was overused.

[HtownHorn 14,786]

State of California looking for some new tax revenue.

[Pato del Muerto 52,613]

17 minutes ago, millhouse said:

So that's why Bru left

He won’t be playing college football in 2023

[markstanco 12,627]

I didn't realize the term "3-D Checkers" was overused.

Maybe I should have used 4d, 5d, and 6d like texags uses constantly concerning jimbo.

[markstanco 12,627]

State of California looking for some new tax revenue.

Naa... they may be on to something here. I doubt it will pass, but if it does can you imagine the players who will go to cali simply because of the money? What a simple sell for USC and UCLA. After a few years the NCAA will cave like usual, but California will be ahead of the curve.

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

8 minutes ago, markstanco said:

26 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

State of California looking for some new tax revenue.

Naa... they may be on to something here. I doubt it will pass, but if it does can you imagine the players who will go to cali simply because of the money? What a simple sell for USC and UCLA. After a few years the NCAA will cave like usual, but California will be ahead of the curve.

Certain conferences will never allow that to happen and could move faster than the government. If it even gives the appearance of happening you can bet say, oh I don't know, the secX3, will allow their members to do the same (assuming their states don't have similar laws like the ones in Texas regarding amateurism and pay.)

I think the main takeaway here is that Cali looks to be trying to fire that first shot to get the party started. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, markstanco said:

6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

State of California looking for some new tax revenue.

Naa... they may be on to something here. I doubt it will pass, but if it does can you imagine the players who will go to cali simply because of the money? What a simple sell for USC and UCLA. After a few years the NCAA will cave like usual, but California will be ahead of the curve.

Lolz at offering the opportunity to work for money beating out good old fashioned slush funds....

You ain’t gonna beat ‘free’ ever.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Oh, I can start making these payment OVER the table now?

/SEC

[gecko 1,104]

The potential for manipulation and outright fraud in this has no upside.

[Beau Vine 54,462]

1 minute ago, gecko said:

The potential for manipulation and outright fraud in this has no upside.

Fraud?  Please explain a situation where someone could get defrauded if this passes?

[EastTexan 662]

So Reggie Bush could get the Heisman Trophy back.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

This should unleash some overdue chaos. Unless the SEC and B1G want to go along with this, it will create a schism-- the Pac-12 will get kicked out of the worthless NCAA since allowing athlete compensation in some conferences but not others creates an unlevel playing field. 

Hell, if this is just California schools, it creates a schism in the Pac-12, at least potentially--  it is fair to assume that Oregon and Washington state, being mostly politically aligned with California, would pass similar legislation to stay competitive. Utah and Arizona, not so much.

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

Do it. The Olympic model. If some dude wants to pay an 18year old 100k for an autograph who gives a shit. Just make sure the schools educate them on tax withholding etc. It could also be a good learning experience to see just how much Uncle Sam takes and maybe start training them with money in a controlled environment to lower the number of professional athletes who file for bankruptcy 

have the schools offer to manage their money in a trust or retirement account as another additional option. (Not mandatory and a good excuse to keep kid off of the front line from friends and family assault for that money)

[Armybrat 40,920]

29 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Fraud?  Please explain a situation where someone could get defrauded if this passes?

Well, some coaches get paid very well for non-production, so why not players?

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

30 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Fraud?  Please explain a situation where someone could get defrauded if this passes?

I don't think it's fraud per se, but the uninformed and hysterical Internet speculation has always been that a big money, dipshit donor like Tillman Fertitta could offer every recruit his school's targeting a lucrative endorsement deal just to get them to sign. So, not fraud/defrauding, but sham endorsement deals that let a player "profit from his likeness". Which as another poster pointed out just moves the under-the-table stuff onto the top of the table. It doesn't necessarily change anything.

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

Just now, SwanderedTalent said:

I don't think it's fraud per se, but the uninformed and hysterical Internet speculation has always been that a big money, dipshit donor like Tillman Fertitta could offer every recruit his school's targeting a lucrative endorsement deal just to get them to sign. So, not fraud/defrauding, but sham endorsement deals that let a player "profit from his likeness". Which as another poster pointed out just moves the under-the-table stuff onto the top of the table. It doesn't necessarily change anything.

And really though, who is “harmed” in this situation?  Alabama may not like it but is it much different than we have now?

[VirginiaLonghorn 4,781]

Do they get free healthcare, too?

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

And really though, who is “harmed” in this situation? 

anyone who is currently paying players effectively, because now everyone will be able to do it (theoretically)

so I expect A&M to be really, really, really against it

Edited June 25, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

College football can’t protect their amateurism and “the integrity and fairness of the playing field” at the same time. It’s either about the students or it’s not. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

College football can’t protect their amateurism and “the integrity and fairness of the playing field” at the same time. It’s either about the students or it’s not. 

Ha! What students? 

You are right. This should-- might-- force a reckoning. Amateurism as a concept has been hanging on by its fingernails (its sharp, deeply-dug-in, fingernails) for a while now. The vast majority of college football players only have any business being on a college campus as employees of the University-affiliated semi-pro football program. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

I'm all for it. However, I hope they have the foresight to set up programs to help people manage their money. There will be a large problem of "25 and broke" for many of these players. 

The NFL already has a problem with this

 

[GopherRock 1,770]

I've been saying this for years: Either the NCAA fixes this matter themselves, or someone else will fix it for them, and they're probably not going to like how someone else fixes it. 

[NWAustinDude 2,252]

Surprised Emmert isn't demanding that all licensing fees go to raise his puny (for sports commissioners) salary of $3.9M. But when he gets home from work every day, I'm sure his wife DeLaine and his dirty sock and astroglide bottle will always be devoted to him.

[Beau Vine 54,462]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I'm all for it. However, I hope they have the foresight to set up programs to help people manage their money. There will be a large problem of "25 and broke" for many of these players. 

 

The current model of recruiting poor underprepared kids who have no business being in a college classroom and having them take just enough blowoff classes to keep them eligible for four seasons does wonders to avoid the "25 and broke" problem, so it would be a shame if California ruined that.   

[Pato del Muerto 52,613]

20 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I don't think it's fraud per se, but the uninformed and hysterical Internet speculation has always been that a big money, dipshit donor like Tillman Fertitta could offer every recruit his school's targeting a lucrative endorsement deal just to get them to sign. So, not fraud/defrauding, but sham endorsement deals that let a player "profit from his likeness". Which as another poster pointed out just moves the under-the-table stuff onto the top of the table. It doesn't necessarily change anything.

Except now the player has to pay taxes on the amount, and the payor gets to make it a business expense. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Except now the player has to pay taxes on the amount, and the payor gets to make it a business expense. 

and those aspects of it will make a huge impact on how much I enjoy watching the games each Saturday

FUCKING TACKLE THAT MOTHERFUCKER!!!! AND DON'T JUST TAKE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION WITHOUT CONSULTING A TAX PRO!!!!!!! GODDAMNIT!!!!!

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

Would LJH still be here if he could have been the face of Roger Beasley Mazda?

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

College football can’t protect their amateurism and “the integrity and fairness of the playing field” at the same time. It’s either about the students or it’s not. 

It has not been about the students for 50 years or more

Edited June 25, 2019 by slorch

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

Of course not, so let the student get as much as they can just like the man 

[markstanco 12,627]

50 minutes ago, VirginiaLonghorn said:

Do they get free healthcare, too?

They already get that. 

[Horn80 6,133]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Oh, I can start making these payment OVER the table now?

/SEC

Yo, Reggie Bush.

[midtown 3,348]

11 hours ago, Zombie said:

But as a practical matter, how will this work when most universities lose money on their sports programs?

Same way it works with most professional sport franchises who lose money on their sports programs.     

 

This could start a snowball..Lots of top fight athletes would go play for Cali schools for the pay.  Of course if your SEC it might be a pay cut.    Other schools would have to follow to stay competitive.  Little by little everyone would be kicked out of the worthless NCAA

Edited June 25, 2019 by midtown

[JMFP 1,125]

Do it. The Olympic model. If some dude wants to pay an 18year old 100k for an autograph who gives a shit. Just make sure the schools educate them on tax withholding etc. It could also be a good learning experience to see just how much Uncle Sam takes and maybe start training them with money in a controlled environment to lower the number of professional athletes who file for bankruptcy 
have the schools offer to manage their money in a trust or retirement account as another additional option. (Not mandatory and a good excuse to keep kid off of the front line from friends and family assault for that money)

That would be awesome if T Boone could offer the top 20 or so recruits every year 100k to sign with OSU. He hasn't got much longer and he's still waiting for that championship...

[aggie08 21,550]

I don't think universities should pay their athletes, but it's always been fucking criminal that players can't independently profit off of their names and likenesses when the universities, coaches, and TV networks damn sure are. Hope it passes.

And I couldn't possibly care less about all of the "snowball" arguments.  If boosters want to throw their money away on fake endorsements for some 18 year old offensive tackle who might turn out to be good, let them.  The market will eventually correct itself.

Edited June 25, 2019 by aggie08

[Grippe 313]

So, umn, no CR here or anything but...

Where does California have the money to pay for this?

And before you say they'll tax the schools and companies making a profit - is it reasonable to expect that money will ever actually make it out of Sacramento?

[Beau Vine 54,462]

8 minutes ago, Grippe said:

So, umn, no CR here or anything but...

Where does California have the money to pay for this?

Pay for what?

[HornsOverIthaca 2,335]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Would LJH still be here if he could have been the face of Roger Beasley Mazda?

Yeah but then I’d probably have a Mazda instead of a Honda.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,254]

The Texas legislature and every state legislature in the SEC should be ashamed of themselves.  A bunch of hippies in Cali are gonna out bubba-football the birth places of bubba-football. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

9 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Pay for what?

yeah I don't think people are reading the article-- which, it IS Deadspin, so I get the reluctance

but guys, you gotta read the article

[utee94 15,867]

People are clearly confused.  Read the quoted text from the article.

This isn't about the universities paying the players.  It's about allowing players to profit off their likeness, collect money for endoresements, etc.  In theory that would be companies like Nike having a college player endorsing their products.  In reality it would end up with a a little of that, but a lot more would just be a bunch of fake endorsements coming from shell companies owned by boosters, funneling money  to recruits.

Some people have a problem with that, and some don't.  But either way, the universities wouldn't pay a dime more than they currently do.

Edited June 25, 2019 by utee94

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

19 minutes ago, Grippe said:

So, umn, no CR here or anything but...

Where does California have the money to pay for this?

And before you say they'll tax the schools and companies making a profit - is it reasonable to expect that money will ever actually make it out of Sacramento?

Are you assuming the school would pay them for their likeness?

side note: NCAA football video games. If they try to offer a contact for all students to be in the game does that then violate Title 9?  Could they avoid this by having contacts with individuals only?  

[Sbbruin 21,897]

13 hours ago, gmr548 said:

UCLA will still find a way to underachieve.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

If they try to offer a contact for all students to be in the game does that then violate Title 9?  

I don't think anyone can say with any certainty how anything other than profiting off of your likeness is affected by Title IX. The likeness issue isn't in any way incompatible with Title IX and allowing athletes to profit from their likenesses doesn't open up athletic departments or the NCAA to legal jeopardy.

It's all a guess, some guesses being more reasonable than others, but if someone claims they know with certainty how any major change in that compensation model will impact or be impacted by Title IX, they are probably full of shit and also probably have very strong pre-existing opinions about Title IX and related politics. There is the statute as written, there's the statute as interpreted in athletic departments today, and then there's speculation about how those things and our insanely litigious society will react to changes in student-athlete compensation.

Edited June 25, 2019 by SwanderedTalent