This has the potential to significantly shift the balance of power when it comes to recruiting even if adopted nationally.  Schools in large media markets will be able to pitch an income opportunity to prospective athletes that top schools in small markets can not match.  Highschool players will essentially become free agents open to accepting an offer from the school who is in the best positioned to get them paid endorsements.

It won't go anywhere IMO. It doesn't work, it changes the balance of power, it will destroy the NCAA (that may not be bad thing). They, all the remaining schools, will vote to toss the entire State of California out of the NCAA and then they are dead. 

Just more nonsense from the left-coast. A pipedream if you will. 

Carry on folks nothing see here. 

The problem is the NCAA has said that anyone or school that allows this will be removed from the NCAA and not be allowed to participate in NCAA sanctioned events.  So here we go.  No player or school is going to do it or accept it if they are not allowed to be a part of the NCAA.

Paying college athletes is an insane thought. I don't care how much money they make for the school, the money making athletes are going to college for free. Many are getting around 200-250k worth in tuition. Then let's tack on books, apparel, housing, transportation, food, etc. All for free. The only thing the majority of these kids have to pay for is their Chipotle lunch on sunday when they get bored of the dining hall, which they can afford because literally every other thing mentioned is free. The starving football player argument is inaccurate, meals are provided, it's a choice not to eat at that point.

It is one thing to do all that, which I have no problem with, I actually encourage. In college athletes becoming free agents, schools would literally be paying kids to go to college. That is an insane thought. The showcase platform to the pros is already provided, now they would be getting paid to showcase their talents and a degree. What happens when star RB stops going to class, how does that effect his signing bonus? Or when the 7'0 center can't pass intro to english composition? What happens when the junior QB gets drafted and is out of the league in a year. Can he go back to school? Does he get his paycheck? Does the QB get as much as the kicker? What happens when a paid player becomes a non starter, gets injured, quits?

As far as this goes, they'll be booted out of the NCAA. No school with the money to give players will opt out of the NCAA knowing they get the fat march madness and CFB money. This is a classic case of feelings getting involved in a logical argument. "Pay athletes" , "No, they already get XYZ", "But they deserve it!". As good as some athletes are they need the NCAA more than the NCAA needs them. People don't realize that. Duke didn't need Zion, but Zion could've went to Australia and played pro. He would've been popular, but not shoe deal popular. He would be in no immediate position for endorsements, etc. What he needed was airtime and constant top notch competition which he got. These guys can go elsewhere, but they don't want to because they know that with the platform the NCAA gives them they will be in a much better position afterwards.

I have no issue with players making money off their own name or school. If Baker Mayfield wants to sell his jersey he should be able to purchase it off the school for $200 or whatever they go for and sell it for however much he wants. Zion should be able to sign autographs on weekends. Kyler Murray should be able to accept a hamburger from a fan who sees him at McDonalds. Players should be able to make money off youtube, instagram, etc. But it gets tricky when star player is supposed to be in history class but is really at the mall doing a signing. That is where the change needs to lie, not in making 17 year olds millionaires. The NCAA has it's problems and I will stand in the crowd and chant all day, but "signing bonuses" are not one of them. 

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

PABaseball posted:
NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

If I understand NewUmpire correctly. It would not be the school paying, but an outside source. So the school could still give a scholarship. 

As all things that change, the schools will figure it out and find a way to get an advantage. 

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

NCAA responds.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/res...rnia-senate-bill-206

"NCAA member schools already are working on changing rules for all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play. The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university."

Appears NCAA not against the idea of changing the rules. But probably wants to get the "boss's cut."

 

At the bottom it says they belief this is unconstitutional. Who's constitution? I'm legitimately curious about this, particularly since it was sort of throw in at the end.

I also am curious about how they plan to change that. I admit I don't follow the NCAA that closely, but I hadn't heard anything. As I said earlier, maybe California's actions will light a fire under the NCAA to actually move on something.

Iowamom23 posted:

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

They're getting a 200k + education, healthcare, meals, housing, etc, and the biggest showcase platform in the world to display their abilities so they can land sponsorships once they turn pro. They are definitely getting something out of it. That is the trade off. You can have all that but you can't sign autographs. College sports are optional, kids agree to those terms because they are better than playing pro ball abroad. 

I see kids from Michigan, Duke, and UCLA complaining. How many of those kids would have been accepted to these schools if they did not play a sport? That alone is enough to offset the complaints. 

FWIW the NCAA video game series was discontinued over 5 years ago. 

I think there are different conversations here. 

"Skinner, who was elected to the State Senate three years ago, produced a bill that would allow college athletes in California to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness — be they basketball stars signing their own marketing deals or water polo players advertising offers of swim lessons."

The first part I don't think affects very little in sports today, especially baseball.  The second is a different  ballgame.  The first is you can only be paid for advertising using your name, image, and likeness.  That does not happen very often as a whole.  The closest I see is the billboards with the players on them talking about  buying tickets or the conference ads for SEC, ACC, Big 10 or such.

The second is enormous.  A kid being able to hire an advertising company to get him advertising deals and being able to keep them is giant.  We have to know that Trevor Lawrence, Clemson QB, right now could make millions on advertising.  He may be bigger than most pro QB's and wants the money more than they do so would be doing them every day.  I could even see a small market baseball player making lots of money doing car ads or Nike commercials or the likes. 

I will still hold if the NCAA says don't touch it then the D1 schools will not touch it, especially the P5 schools.

As a Californian, nothing this legislature does surprises me.  But I will give them credit for making the effective date so far out that the NCAA has time to either fight it or find a compromise.  At least the NCAA has to do something now.

Lots of the focus is obviously on the big money makers in football and basketball.  But I wonder about a sport like baseball.  Will some kids who passed up college to grab the money after high school now consider committing three years to college?  How much money could Kumar Rocker make in the next two years as a college baseball pitcher after that CWS performance?  Would similar stud HS pitchers opt for college over a couple of years of minor league baseball and long bus rides?  College baseball could be even better with more players choosing college.

As for the "lesser" sports, I'm not sure how much money would really be out there for a star volleyball player or track and field pole vaulter to profit from.  Some of the ridiculous NCAA rules about not being able to put together a volleyball team calendar to raise money might actually be eliminated.

Maybe some good and common sense will come out of it.  Clearly, reading about the shoe scandal in NCAA basketball shows the current system is not working.

Why not just allow players to make money outside of salary (advertising, clothes contracts...) but don't make colleges pay a salary (except for scholarships)? That way NCAA wouldn't have to pay any more money and players still could make some if they are popular enough.

There are 3 scenarios. 1) Remove the CA schools from the  NCAA. This likely results in a Division 0 which P5 schools have been pushing for and  to leave and do their own thing. 2) Let CA do their own thing. Great for CA, and then other states would push for and the same thing. 3) Change the NCAA rules to allow the same thing as CA.

Don't know which one, but I think times are changing, and it's unlikely it's going to be as simple as the NCAA squashing CA.

old_school posted:

They aren't going to be paid because they aren't going to have any marketplace. They aren't going to be in the NCAA tournament or bowl series. They are going to be the Confederate colleges of CA. 

good luck with that. 

Poo-poo that now, but think about it. If a recruit knows they can come to school in California, make $ off their image, likeness or name, and still get a scholarship (assuming schools tell NCAA to pound sand and still give the kids athletic aid)...you don’t think the top recruits aren’t going to flock to USC, UCLA, Cal, SDSU and take advantage of that? That is a recruiting dream scenario! Other states university systems would be begging their state legislatures to pass bills like this in order to retain talent in state to keep their stadiums filled. 

Iowamom23 posted:

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

You sure about that? EA sports stopped making NCAA themed games years ago for this reason...writing was on the wall on how this would play out in courts.

PitchingFan posted:

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

They have everything to gain. If these schools went independent, big deal. The PAC-12 sucks for revenue for teams, crappy TV deal for football, etc. This bill will immediately make these schools coveted by top players. Why wait 1 year (basketball) or 3 years (football) to start making serious coin when you can start as a freshman, start building your brand, and then expand on that when/if you go pro? You people have it all wrong. California D1 programs should be drooling over this. 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
old_school posted:

They aren't going to be paid because they aren't going to have any marketplace. They aren't going to be in the NCAA tournament or bowl series. They are going to be the Confederate colleges of CA. 

good luck with that. 

Poo-poo that now, but think about it. If a recruit knows they can come to school in California, make $ off their image, likeness or name, and still get a scholarship (assuming schools tell NCAA to pound sand and still give the kids athletic aid)...you don’t think the top recruits aren’t going to flock to USC, UCLA, Cal, SDSU and take advantage of that? That is a recruiting dream scenario! Other states university systems would be begging their state legislatures to pass bills like this in order to retain talent in state to keep their stadiums filled. 

There will be many court battles before this is over. it will either fail or force a total realignment that we won't recognize the landscape to day. 

Lets face it folks, we are talking about football and basketball men...nothing else has any drawing power. And even in FB and BB it is only the very top. Nobody cares about getting Duke's star WR jersey or the 8th man at West Virginia who plays great Def. Richmond may have the best damn lacrosse goalie in the world but about 137 people care. As much as we all love baseball most schools average what maybe 200 people game? yea those Central Tennessee jersey sales will make some kid a fortune. 

There will be massive abuses at some schools which will organize some type of buyers union or whatever to make sure they can guarantee $$'s for kids. There will be studies to determine if it is racist, sexist and homophobic on how the athletes get or don't get support. 

Anytime you get big money involved it is going to turn into a huge shit show. Way more then today, the real student athletes, the ones that in theory should really matter are going to lose. the small conferences, the mid majors, the  minor sports...whatever I think NCAA sucks but this is going to be abused in ways those jackasses in CA who think they know the best way to do everything have never even contemplated. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. the SEC may turn to starting charter schools for the elementary level so they have a steady pipeline of talents coming at all times. I can see Ole' Miss scouting the playground at recess. 

 

At least they are standing up to the NCAA, it’s more than anyone else has done. They can alway decide not to enact it if the NCAA takes acceptable steps to change its policy to favor the student athlete, I think this is the real goal here. I guess I am one of those jackasses in California who thinks they know the best way to do everything.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

At least they are standing up to the NCAA, it’s more than anyone else has done. They can alway decide not to enact it if the NCAA takes acceptable steps to change its policy to favor the student athlete, I think this is the real goal here. I guess I am one of those jackasses in California who thinks they know the best way to do everything.

How would you like the NCAA to address this and make the legislation of CA happy? you want to pay every water polo player? There are Title IX issues that prevent that, there is the problem that 90% or whatever schools aren't raking in huge profits from any of this. Yes I know that some of the P5's are making big money and all of them are probably making some money but that is 50ish of 350ish...what about the rest. 

Again is your goal is to change the landscape of college sports, deliver a blow to NCAA (not sure that is terrible by the way) and be able to feel good about righting years of oppression of poor kids (that argument is a joke by the way) I guess it is great. However if you want thousands of kids to have a chance to make an opportunity for themselves this isn't going to help them. 

This is about FB and BB dollars and nothing else. I mean baseball has 11.7 scholarships and 2 coaches how much demand do think there is for the likeness of players...it will be twisted, distorted, abused and bad for the whole of D1 athletics. 

And for the record I hate the NCAA but this is still just a stupid idea. Now please go clean up some of the tent cities before you start another plague out there. 

How did we get here?   As a society, what do we want?   Wasn't the goal of higher education...higher education?  These are the questions rolling around in my little brain. 

As much as I dislike the NCAA, the California "Law" is an over-rotation on college athletics.    I don't think the CA Law  is a good thing, but it does put some pressure on the NCAA to come up with something better.   Now that State Gov't has wanted to get involved in college athletics, it is only time before the Federal Gov't weighs in on how their funding is used.  The NCAA has had 40+ years to build a better college athletics model, but they've been too busy counting revenue for themselves, member institutions, and negotiating broadcast deals.   All of the sudden, the NCAA is looking like the more reasonable option, but they better up their game and keep academics at the center of higher education.

As always, JMO. 

1) Some comments here seem to assume CA has proposed paying salaries to players.  It has not.  The new law would allow players to collect money from endorsements--think appearing in ads for Nike or Gatorade.  Not many players will have this opportunity--we're mostly talking about a handful of basketball or football players in top-tier programs.  There also could be some chances for other athletes to appear on billboards for a local car dealership or local cable TV ads for a restaurant--these won't pay much compared with having your name on a shoe, but the money could be meaningful to a full-time college student.  You may oppose what California has done, but they aren't calling for schools to pay players.

Given the billions of dollars sloshing around college athletics, I'm not opposed in principle to letting athletes earn what the market is willing to pay them.  That's capitalism.  My main concern is the opportunities for corruption this will introduce.  Maybe there is little actual value to a car dealer to putting a particular college linebacker's face on a billboard; but if the dealership owner is a booster, he can pay that player (many) thousands of dollars and call it an endorsement deal.  I see no effective way to police that kind of arrangement.  (Even so, I'm not convinced the CA legislation is a bad idea.  Something needs to change in college sports.)

2)  If CA is the only state to enact such a law, then the NCAA holds all the cards here.  Within days of an announcement that Stanford, USC, UCLA, etc. can no longer play against NCAA programs, California legislators will be deluged with calls from angry alumni.  BUT, if other states go along, at some point the NCAA loses this option.  Maybe fans in other states would tolerate eliminating California teams (in theory--I doubt it would actually come to that), but if five or six large states' schools also would have to go, that's another story.  I make no predictions, but the Tampa Bay Times reported this morning that a Florida legislator plans to introduce California-style legislation in the next session, which begins in January.  This issue isn't going away any time soon.

CTbballDad posted:

Ha, this is so hypocritical to the typical CA legislator.  The only one's benefitting from this will be the elite athlete, who will end up making millions as a professional anyhow.  99% of college athletes, will reap 0% benefit from this.

 

But that's capitalism.  (And whatever opinion you hold of most CA legislators, I don't think any are seriously calling for repeal of that system.  But stop me before I veer into politics--I know none of here want to do that.) 

Nike will never cut me a check to put my name on a basketball shoe.  LeBron gets to earn from that and I don't.  It doesn't necessarily bother me if college athletes don't share equally in market-based compensation. 

The CA law would require a radical re-thinking of at least some aspects of college athletics.  Maybe the cure would be worse than the disease--I'm still thinking about that.  But IMO, it's fundamentally hard to justify allowing colleges to form a cartel (that would violate antitrust laws in almost any other context) to agree on limiting compensation for the folks who generate billions of dollars.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
PitchingFan posted:

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

They have everything to gain. If these schools went independent, big deal. The PAC-12 sucks for revenue for teams, crappy TV deal for football, etc. This bill will immediately make these schools coveted by top players. Why wait 1 year (basketball) or 3 years (football) to start making serious coin when you can start as a freshman, start building your brand, and then expand on that when/if you go pro? You people have it all wrong. California D1 programs should be drooling over this. 

I understand your logic but disagree.  The NCAA still holds the cards.  No one, not even the top talent, will want to go to California schools if they can't play for a National Championship or play against the top teams.  it will make the Ca schools just play each other.  They will be on an island with a few paid athletes and a lot of guys not happy. 

I agree the only way this works is if other states come out with them at this point, but if there is much delay the NCAA will probably jump on this early and say any states that jump ship will be removed from NCAA starting January 1, 2023 and that will eliminate it unless other states, I mean lots of states get in this quickly.  I know here in SC it is being considered but is projected at this point to be voted down because Clemson and USC are afraid of the ramifications that the NCAA will attach to it.  They, meaning the administration and alumni, are not willing to give up the NCAA at this point.  It is a great idea but can you imagine the jump ship from Ca schools if the NCAA comes out next week and says CA schools are not eligible for playoffs or playing any non Ca schools starting next year. 

CTbballDad posted:

Ha, this is so hypocritical to the typical CA legislator.  The only one's benefitting from this will be the elite athlete, who will end up making millions as a professional anyhow.  99% of college athletes, will reap 0% benefit from this.

 

How about the not so elite athlete that wants to monetize his Youtube channel?

I just read that there is a CA-type bill in committee in the NC legislature also.  That doesn't necessarily mean much, but I do think this issue is going to garner more attention in the next year.  

PitchingFan, I agree with you that the NCAA may try to nip this in the proverbial bud by enacting some kind of ban on CA schools right away.  But I expect that would be stayed by litigation.  I won't venture a prediction what the end state will be here, but I think there are a lot of moves to be made yet before we know.

If this were to stick it is going to become a problem. Are schools going to have to pay their athletes to hang a billboard or show up on a schedule with the team picture on it? What about the school website? Can ESPN cut a promo of Clemson vs Alabama without paying Tua and Lawrence? What about unreported taxes? Wait until your star RB is under investigation for tax evasion. I don't see this sticking, but CA is trying to turn the opportunity for athletes to receive a free education into a bidding war. For those who think athletes will flock to UCLA and USC - who is cutting them the check when they're not playing other NCAA teams? When they can't play in March Madness? They lose value without the NCAA unless the NCAA were to dissolve altogether. 

PABaseball posted:

If this were to stick it is going to become a problem. Are schools going to have to pay their athletes to hang a billboard or show up on a schedule with the team picture on it? What about the school website? Can ESPN cut a promo of Clemson vs Alabama without paying Tua and Lawrence? What about unreported taxes? Wait until your star RB is under investigation for tax evasion. I don't see this sticking, but CA is trying to turn the opportunity for athletes to receive a free education into a bidding war. For those who think athletes will flock to UCLA and USC - who is cutting them the check when they're not playing other NCAA teams? When they can't play in March Madness? They lose value without the NCAA unless the NCAA were to dissolve altogether. 

I agree that the CA approach will create all kinds of problems within the current system.  And I'm not going to defend the CA law (not going to attack it either).  But I do believe in the old adage that "if a thing cannot go on forever, it will not."  The college sports model never remotely contemplated the amounts of money at stake today, or the myriad ways it is earned.  Right now we allow the NCAA to allocate those billions of dollars via a cartel.  Generally our laws and economy are built on the idea that markets are the best way to allocate resources--although there are certainly exceptions.  Professional sports leagues operate in a kind of half-and-half world:  MLB's practices would violate antitrust laws (if those laws were applied to it), but there are some market forces that constrain it, such as the requirement that it negotiate with the players union to divide revenues.

Right now, college athletes have almost zero ability to capture any part of the immense revenue stream that would not exist without them.  I admit, it's hard to imagine a world where a star QB recruit plays Clemson off of Alabama to see which school will let him wear his school uniform royalty-free when he appears in a Nike commercial.  And said recruit might need a detailed contract with his college spelling out when and where his likeness could be used without paying him, such as requiring him to show up for the team photo and appear in the annual media guide.  But given the dollars involved, something like that may have to happen.  The days when college sports were just about school spirit and keeping alumni happy are long past.  Seems to me it is time for a new model (of some kind--not sure what that is).  The NCAA can't just pretend it is still 1960.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×