For those interested in further reading about what is likely driving the NCAA's new D1 subdivision proposal, here are a couple of good articles.
Recap of a March Congressional hearing: https://apnews.com/article/nca...0926e1c7cae18d4d2368
Overview of a proposed California Assembly bill: https://apnews.com/article/pol...aeb2a2b0ab854b5b843f
Key paragraphs:
“The lack of uniformity across different states and institutions has created confusion and uncertainty and a federal standard is needed, so all athletes are playing by the same rules,” Bilirakis said. “In short, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of college athletes to profit from their own NIL while keeping the amateur status for all college athletes.”
“We need transparency in the market place,” Washington State athletic director Pat Chun said.
Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association, pushed back. He said any NIL regulations would only serve the interests of schools, conferences and the NCAA.
“The federal government should stay out of the NIL free market,” he said.
The concern among many in college sports is NIL is being used as a recruiting inducement or as de facto pay-for-play, which are still against NCAA rules but have become difficult to enforce.
----
Assembly Bill 252 calls for Division I schools in California to share 50% of revenue with athletes who are considered to be undervalued because the amount of their athletic scholarships doesn’t match their market value. That would mostly be aimed at athletes competing in the revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball, but not exclusively.
Money paid toward scholarships would be included in the 50% that goes toward the players. The rest would go into a fund that would pay out yearly. Individual payments would be determined based on what schools bring in and could not exceed $25,000 per year for any one athlete.
Any excess revenue from the athletes’ share would go into a degree completion fund that athletes would be eligible to draw from after they have graduated within six years.
California was the first state to pass a law that gave college athletes the right to be compensated for name, image and likeness back in 2019. That triggered similar action by state legislatures around the country.
My guess is that Baker and the NCAA have some insight that the California bill is going to pass, hence the new FBS D1 subdivision proposal, with terms that are similar to those in the bill but which firmly puts the NCAA in control of athlete's NIL deals.