In what is sure to start a flurry of conference reviews, and a wildfire of bonafide discussion overall, the state of California just passed a bill, named the Fair Pay to Play Act (SB 206) which was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom and allows athletes to now be compensated for their likeness.

Let's face it, NCAA Sports is BIG Business, especially football.

And while it is in fact a membership privilege to be a part of the NCAA, they look to suffer considerable power loss at the hands of what could change the face of college athletics sharply.

You can read about the legislative move in detail here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

The NCAA is obviously not happy with the move, as they are basically being cut out from the decision making process, but then again, what stake do they really have other than a rule making body that cashes in on others efforts on the field of play.

The current "CEO" of the NCAA is NCAA President Mark Emmert, who made $2.4M per year as of 2018 per the USA Today.

That's pretty ridiculous for a body that relies on others to generate revenue and really has no product to show for themselves other than what the membership institutions put out.

Here is their reaction to the passing of the California Bill; which appears to be nothing more than a plea to allow them to stay in control and govern this action themselves.

"As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process," it said. "Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

"We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.

"As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide."

Nice try, but a little late.

Power shift is probably coming given eventual pay evolution that schools outside of California will have to adopt to compete against them, and it may hurt smaller programs like those in the G5 the most. They won't be able to keep up with the likes of the SEC (who will quickly follow suit with big cash reserves) to attract talent, and will soon lose footing to compete.

Licensing becomes another issue down the line, but for now, all eyes on the immediate response by the members appears the focal point.

Here is my old school thoughts. Hold on tight to all my young friends. Like a lot of California policies, I'm for keeping them in California. Let the California schools flow this file shod they choose. BUT, they will not be able to participate with the other schools in the other 49 states. I'm not saying that players should not get a small spending budget. I think they should. Their schedules prevent them from earning a couple hundred dollars a week like many students do. On top of their scholarships , student athletes should get a little spending money so they can live like normal students. Not a lot. But definitely something
 

Auto correct....follow this rule should they choose

They DO get a stipend now for spending, plus a guaranteed 4 year education for free, no loans, plus food, medical - WATY BETTER OFF THAN REG. STUDENTS!!!!

Ya don't like it - DON'T PLAY! Tell me one person on here would not have loved the deal the kid's have now - oh and all TAX FREE!!!!!! This new income for the select few STARS won't be!

The logic behind this is that the universities, "owners", are profiting off the kids in exchange for a scholarship.  Yes they are.  The same way business owners profit off the work of employees in exchange for a wage. California is not fans of business owners. Their policies are driving businesses and people out of the state. This new rule will not turn out well.

If I am a college coach for any sport or an athletic director and I offer a student a full ride scholarship + meal + housing + medical + stipend for a minimum of four years I am making an investment in that student so they will make the team and school athletic program better. I understand that students can go through tough times during their four years at any university. The consensus is that when there is an investment in something, you are normally looking for your return on investment. In the case of Johnny Manziel, he was a good investment as he was provided the resources to return the schools investment in him and he made their football team more successful then it was the year before.

If you are a student and you use the university's resources to develop a product and then attempt to sell that product, the university is going to send a lawyer that students way to ensure that the university gets reimbursed for that product as it provided the resources for that student to develop it. I see the same thing happening where the students may be able to make money but it will be a lawyers dream to sue schools and schools suing college athletes if they believe there is money to be made. This will be an ugly transition that is not good for college sports.

The free education, the stipend, and playing for a program that gets you noticed and makes you a target to be drafted would seem like the payoff.  It is a slippery-slope, and I get that other students could make money off their likeness or can have jobs.  But here is how I could see this being used:

Alabama recruiter: "Clemson has a donor who is going to give you $50k to put your picture up on his Ford dealership billboard?  Pfft!!!  We have a Chevy dealership who will give you $75k!"

And the divide between the haves and the have-nots will grow even wider.  Maybe that is an exaggerated extreme, but this will ONLY benefit like a couple of dozen (almost 100% male) athletes at the very most across the country, and will provide those kinds of "opportunities" for places with deep pockets or in certain markets to rig the system.

I am passionate about this subject and here is all I am going to summarize it with….

I currently donate money (as do many of you, and it's not $20, it is thousands a year) to subsidize FAU football.  Our student body currently pays fees and takes loans to do so in order for our players to have this program and opportunity.

The minute I see a FAU player receive payment…will be the last dime I ever donate to athletics.  Will consider still supporting the program by going to games, but never will donate to professional athletes.

I think everyone is thinking too big picture. This would allow a company running a youth football camp to compensate the players who teach drills at it or for student-athletes who have a YouTube channel or a Twitch.TV account to live stream and monetize that content. 

Yes, a lot of the bigger schools will get bigger deals and opportunities for players. And it’s not going to be perfect at the start. But it opens the door for some great possibilities.

Let the players make money off their brand. An All-American shouldn’t make *nothing* when the school uses a billboard of them and their likeness in commercials, advertisements and so forth. 

Local Owl said

The logic behind this is that the universities, "owners", are profiting off the kids in exchange for a scholarship.  Yes they are.  The same way business owners profit off the work of employees in exchange for a wage. California is not fans of business owners. Their policies are driving businesses and people out of the state. This new rule will not turn out well.

Posted On: Oct 1st 2019, 7:23 AM #389336

Ok,  there is a lot to digest here and I know people get crazy about this issue, but I think we should just let it play out before we stop watching college football.

Californa is acting on behalf of its students, which I wish more states did in many other ways.
People love to take shots at that state, but they pay more in federal taxes than they receive, states that like to call themselves "fiscally conservative'' WV, Alabama, Kentucky all depend on billions of dollars from the federal government they love to hate, to keep their state running.

 The NCAA will not stop California schools from playing in other states. They know to due public pressure and laws they will have to change before any of these laws take effect.

I am just guessing how it might play out, but the NCCA could say "ok you want to be paid? We are going to regulate all of it.''

If you do not think the Clemson's and Bama's of the world are not paying kids thousands of dollars anyways to attend their schools you're being navie.
Just look at the schools being investigated now in basketball.

Paying some players for their likeness might get rid of a lot of dark money and highschool street handlers taking advantage of the kids.

There is too much money being made in the NCAA for anyone to just let it be destroyed because football players get a small check for their likeness in an NCAA video game or someone like Tua signing he shoe deal early.

It could end up helping schools in metro areas who can offer more off the field opportunities.

I am just going to sit back and see how it all plays out before I decide whether this is good or bad for college sports.