Maybe it has been discussed and I missed it. Why wouldn’t this give California a huge recruiting advantage. Wouldn’t it be a death sentence for the rest of us?
Is it more complicated than that? Am I missing something?
That’s the first thing that comes to mind for me. If schools can pay athletes whatever they want, we’re never going to be able to keep up. Only the really huge programs will be able to truly benefit from that change.
EDIT: I posted hastily. The California law “allows college athletes to hire agents and to be paid for endorsements and the use of their images.” In other words, if adopted widely it will make NCAA sports like professional sports. There’s a legal question about whether a single state can change the flow of commerce in the other states. We’ll see what happens.
1 Like
IIRC schools can’t pay athletes directly. Athletes can hire agents and sign endorsement deals however.
Since coaching salaries and facility spending has gone through the roof, you can easily argue that the commercialization of college football has already begun/happened. But this just seems to further that trend. I don’t watch pro sports b/c it’s all about money. I fear college FB is well on it’s way to that as well.
1 Like
Yes, I understood that schools aren’t paying them directly. But if you are a high profile, marketable athlete, why would you go to any school outside of California, assuming you live in the West.
3 Likes
How this gets implemented to not violate the NCAA rules will be the interesting part.
Now, I do have to give the State of California some props for working to even the playing field with the SEC. ok, what the $EC is doing isn’t legal, but the NCAA isn’t sanctioning them for their payola program, either. U$C’s getting busted when Bama is doing what they did is a big motivator.
#CheatOn
I was a little off in my post. I’ve added more info:
I think this is the issue. The law right now makes the players professional athletes which goes directly against the NCAA. So one or the other is going to have to blink for the California schools to be allowed in the NCAA.
It’s going to be an interesting 4 years.
Welcome to the new and improved site!
1 Like
Here’s a decent New York Times breakdown:
And here’s a little info about the legal challenge the NCAA is threatening. I think the case would go all the way to the Supreme Court.
If a California school restricts the endorsements and continues to follow NCAA rule what penalties can they expect from the State of California? I haven’t read a ton on this new rule but if it simply states the endorsements are allowed but doesn’t require the schools to permit it then I wouldn’t expect much of a change.
Probably none from the state, I’d imagine, just from the market of recruitable athletes.
I don’t really think it’s going to be a big issue. How many college athletes are gonna move the needle for an advertiser? There might be 1-2 guys in high profile roles for brand name teams that will benefit in an outsized way. But for the most part these kids aren’t going to be marketable enough to advertisers to drop a bunch of sponsorship deals. By all means pay the kids a royalty on jersey sales, let them sell autographs, bring back NCAA football video games and pay kids to be on the cover. The guys who stand to benefit the most are already attending Alabama, USC, tOSU, Texas, OU etc. I don’t think this changes much at all. Might even keep a few stars in school longer.
One could argue that talent will spread as a function of marketplace opportunities. If all the talent stays together, how many will get a payday for adds? How many will get paid for name recognition in a herd?
1 Like
The Los Angeles advertising and merchandise market is the second-largest in the USA. It’s impressive to see how much USC gear is being worn around here – mostly, I assume, by people who never attended USC. The Bay Area can’t be too far behind as a market. It’s crazy not to think the lure of endorsement dollars won’t make USC, UCLA, Stanford and Cal the go-to schools for players who think they can make money with their faces on t-shirts, coffee mugs, and the like. Those schools already have a big recruiting advantage. The rich will get a lot richer. If California’s law starts a free-for-all and other states pass laws copying California, schools like Utah, Wazzu, Oregon State, Arizona and ASU will suffer. I can’t see this as something we shouldn’t worry about.
1 Like
If students can make money off their likeness, does that mean they can also act in commercials? I think this will open up a huge new market, where you have athletes getting paid a few grand to hawk the local plumbing company or car dealership.
1 Like
Interesting thoughts. Transfers could happen sooner and more often toward California where athletes elsewhere make a name for themselves and get offers for endorsements… if they transfer to California somewhere.
But you’re right, not all athletes will get deals in California regardless.
If this stands, I’d imagine every other state in the PAC12 will quickly pass similar laws. A lot of people outside of California are excited about this because they think it will end up drastically reducing or even ending the NCAA’s authority to regulate college athletics, but I don’t know why that would be the result if they lose this case.
But at that point, it seems like it shouldn’t be associated with an institution of higher learning. I suppose it already doesn’t with coaches paid millions and always the highest paid government employee in every state.