CA Governer signs CA-SB206 - LOL at the NCAA

[LKN]

There goes any advantage Kentucky had.

"Any"? They still have one of if not the best facilities for basketball players. They still play at Rupp Arena. They're still one of if not the most marketable schools out there. I'd add in, if any state will follow to state competitive for california, it's Kentucky. kentucky fans don't take college basketball lightly.

I think people are reading this wrong if they think it's only going to be a boon for schools in big markets. That's not how college sports works. These schools have huge alumni networks, often with deep pockets and tons of fans who love buying merchandise.

It's quite different from how professional sports works. Particularly in the south - college sports are actually bigger than pro sports. SEC football is basically religion in many areas. Here in North Carolina college basketball is BY FAR the #1 draw.

[dhsilv2]

There goes any advantage Kentucky had.

"Any"? They still have one of if not the best facilities for basketball players. They still play at Rupp Arena. They're still one of if not the most marketable schools out there. I'd add in, if any state will follow to state competitive for california, it's Kentucky. kentucky fans don't take college basketball lightly.

I think people are reading this wrong if they think it's only going to be a boon for schools in big markets. That's not how college sports works. These schools have huge alumni networks, often with deep pockets and tons of fans who love buying merchandise.

It's quite different from how professional sports works. Particularly in the south - college sports are actually bigger than pro sports. SEC football is basically religion in many areas. Here in North Carolina college basketball is BY FAR the #1 draw.

I don't think people realize that Rupp Arena for example seats nearly 19% more people than Madison Square Garden. Guys leave Kentucky to play in the NBA in front of FAR less fans. And UK isn't unique. UNC, UL, etc all have bigger arenas than nba teams.

[Curmudgeon]

Why are we getting sidetracked on irrelevant issues? The relevant issue is that the schools have been exploiting these young athletes for decades. The schools are making billions. Athletic directors, coaches and NCAA administrators pull down huge salaries. Sure, the 1-2% of the athletes good enough (and healthy enough) to turn pro make a good living. But what about the other 98%? They get meaningless degrees--if they graduate at all--and wind up coaching in podunk. And don't give me the crap about Clemson football supporting Clemson womens' volleyball. It doesn't. The majority of the money goes back into football, and into the huge salaries paid to administrators and coaches.

It's not going to kill the big football and basketball schools to pay players for use of their names and likenesses. Most players will get only a few thousand a year, and maybe it will help deter the under-the-table compensation that players get from boosters, alumni, would-be agents, sneaker companies and others.

[Showdown]

Very rare that the political class goes against a giant institution, so kudos to them here.

Political class goes against institutions, traditions and moral standards for decades, it is their basic ideology so i really don't understand this ?

[clyde21]

"Any"? They still have one of if not the best facilities for basketball players. They still play at Rupp Arena. They're still one of if not the most marketable schools out there. I'd add in, if any state will follow to state competitive for california, it's Kentucky. kentucky fans don't take college basketball lightly.

I think people are reading this wrong if they think it's only going to be a boon for schools in big markets. That's not how college sports works. These schools have huge alumni networks, often with deep pockets and tons of fans who love buying merchandise.

It's quite different from how professional sports works. Particularly in the south - college sports are actually bigger than pro sports. SEC football is basically religion in many areas. Here in North Carolina college basketball is BY FAR the #1 draw.

I don't think people realize that Rupp Arena for example seats nearly 19% more people than Madison Square Garden. Guys leave Kentucky to play in the NBA in front of FAR less fans. And UK isn't unique. UNC, UL, etc all have bigger arenas than nba teams.

you mean the large arena they built because they dont have labor costs?

[clyde21]

Very rare that the political class goes against a giant institution, so kudos to them here.

Political class goes against institutions, traditions and moral standards for decades, it is their basic ideology so i really don't understand this ?

lol no they dont

[dhsilv2]

I think people are reading this wrong if they think it's only going to be a boon for schools in big markets. That's not how college sports works. These schools have huge alumni networks, often with deep pockets and tons of fans who love buying merchandise.

It's quite different from how professional sports works. Particularly in the south - college sports are actually bigger than pro sports. SEC football is basically religion in many areas. Here in North Carolina college basketball is BY FAR the #1 draw.

I don't think people realize that Rupp Arena for example seats nearly 19% more people than Madison Square Garden. Guys leave Kentucky to play in the NBA in front of FAR less fans. And UK isn't unique. UNC, UL, etc all have bigger arenas than nba teams.

you mean the large arena they built because they dont have labor costs?

As if NBA team build their arenas or pay for them?

[dhsilv2]

Why are we getting sidetracked on irrelevant issues? The relevant issue is that the schools have been exploiting these young athletes for decades. The schools are making billions. Athletic directors, coaches and NCAA administrators pull down huge salaries. Sure, the 1-2% of the athletes good enough (and healthy enough) to turn pro make a good living. But what about the other 98%? They get meaningless degrees--if they graduate at all--and wind up coaching in podunk. And don't give me the crap about Clemson football supporting Clemson womens' volleyball. It doesn't. The majority of the money goes back into football, and into the huge salaries paid to administrators and coaches.

It's not going to kill the big football and basketball schools to pay players for use of their names and likenesses. Most players will get only a few thousand a year, and maybe it will help deter the under-the-table compensation that players get from boosters, alumni, would-be agents, sneaker companies and others.

88% of division 1 athletes based on data from 2017 graduated. Scholarship athletes are far more likely than the general student population to get degrees. Degrees remain one of the best path's for most to a middle class income. The system is a mess but lets not act like scholarships are of zero value or aren't being taken advantage of by most "student athletes".

[xdrta+]

I don't think people realize that Rupp Arena for example seats nearly 19% more people than Madison Square Garden. Guys leave Kentucky to play in the NBA in front of FAR less fans. And UK isn't unique. UNC, UL, etc all have bigger arenas than nba teams.

you mean the large arena they built because they dont have labor costs?

As if NBA team build their arenas or pay for them?

The GSW just spent $1B+ building a new arena.

[chitownsports4ever]

You say that probably none are relevant on the national stage but you contradict yourself in the next paragraph by listing (correctly) how USC, UCLA, Stanford and Cal are relevant.

Imagine you're a top football prospect deciding between USC and Oregon. All of a sudden California makes it so that you can earn extra money off your likeness playing for USC. That may be enough to get you to sign with USC.

If the California schools start dominating the national stage, other states will follow. Popular colleges with big audiences will get the better players and the less popular colleges will find it harder to compete. Scholarships may become less important to players as revenue from other sources grows.

This could be the beginning of the end of the NCAA as we know it. And I'm okay with that.

The problem is the cream of the crop are looking for the best path to the pros and right now there are no 5* prospects even in California that believe those schools are the path to it . So yeah you will get some 3* running there to make money but it wont move the needle and it certainly wont get them to the playoffs or the tournament . The ratings and attendance are already down you are thinking that if a player has a chance at Oregon and its Nike connections on his way to the pros or usc and making a few dollars now with waning tv and attendance exposure ?

Way too much is being made of this ...wake me when the SEC or Big ten states get involved because California is irrelevant to the college sports scene right now

[dhsilv2]

you mean the large arena they built because they dont have labor costs?

As if NBA team build their arenas or pay for them?

The GSW just spent $1B+ building a new arena.

Not the norm...

[clyde21]

I don't think people realize that Rupp Arena for example seats nearly 19% more people than Madison Square Garden. Guys leave Kentucky to play in the NBA in front of FAR less fans. And UK isn't unique. UNC, UL, etc all have bigger arenas than nba teams.

you mean the large arena they built because they dont have labor costs?

As if NBA team build their arenas or pay for them?

NBA actually pays its labor

[Tim Lehrbach]

Btw I think a LOT of you are missing how much money there is in this for the NON money sport's players.

You think some ripped 19 year old male soccer player can't get money from a Gym Shark or some supplement company to imply they use their products to get fit and GASP get a scholarship to a D1 school? Hot super fit track, soccer, volleyball, etc girls can't get deals to push products? There are countless social media influences making real money....no not ungodly rich 7+ figure money, but meaningful and impactful amounts. This opens that market to thousands of division one athletes. Maybe it's just enough cash to not need extras from mom and dad. Maybe it pays for a car while in school. Maybe it means they don't need a summer job. Or maybe it's meaningful cash and they can make a career out of coaching/training/social media followers. Or maybe they get jobs in marketing based on their knowledge from being a part of it in college and making 800 bucks a month?

This is a real and meaningful game changer for a lot more than just the basketball and football stars who are likely to profit the most out of this.

This is an interesting point. I was looking at this more in terms of shifting existing sources of money towards athletes over, say, coaches and facilities, whether that money starts going from sponsors/boosters directly to athletes or continues to go to the schools, who may eventually pay the athletes in wages or licensing agreements in order to at least maintain control over the purse.

But I had not considered the potential expansion of the pool of money from private sources that is currently supporting the non-"revenue" sports. There may be significantly more interest in supporting an athlete's personal brand than in supporting a sport that does not market well. I will refrain from commenting on the merits of such a development until I can give it further thought.

[kombayn]

This is great for every athlete in the NCAA. The woman who wrote this bill based it on the Olympic model. A water polo athlete who's decent can get a deal to promote a local business in their town etc. College athletes have been absolutely abused and used by the NCAA. Good on my Governor for listening to our State Senate and Assembly and passing this through.

Interesting note LZ Granderson from The Morning Show on our local ESPN broadcast stated that pro Tennis players who don't make the Pro Tour go to our University's to get scholarships to play here to better their career and the NCAA doesn't blink an eye. But a player for basketball goes overseas to make money then become ineligible. It's mind numbing it's been allowed for so long. I'm glad the government's are standing up to this industry.

[dhsilv2]

you mean the large arena they built because they dont have labor costs?

As if NBA team build their arenas or pay for them?

NBA actually pays its labor

Yeah...i mean if you want to state things unrelated to the discussion that we all know. Water's wet too.

[lonzo_pelota]

Ncaa has billions stashed away they knew this day was coming

[Clyde Frazier]

I'd like someone to actually provide a logical explanation for why they are opposed to this.  I had an academic scholarship to go to college and I chose to study engineering (ended up with a computer engineering degree).  I had a job doing some software work while I was a student.  Why should I be able to do that, but a student athlete not be able to do that?
I get it - I can see arguments against directly paying the kids... but this?  What in the world is the problem with kids being able to work off the court and earn money however they want?

This is what I've mainly come across:

- people clearly just jealous of these athletes' ability to command that $, especially those who have financial aid payments

- people absurdly naive and think this will ruin "amateurism, the integrity of the student athlete, etc" which anyone with a brain knows doesn't actually exist in major college basketball and football programs

- people who bizarrely think this is about schools paying players, no matter how clearly you spell it out for them

- people who jump to say boosters will sign players to fake endorsement deals and the competitive balance will be lost. of course, we know this is already happening under the table, so get it out in the open and tax it. and maybe that's where regulations do need to be made on capped earnings. we do have a salary cap in pro sports after all. 

I haven't seen a legitimate argument against it, because there is none. 

Then you have guys like gottlieb and dakich spewing their constant rhetoric against it and it literally makes me sick. The hypocrisy of major college sports programs has gone on long enough. Looks like we're finally making some headway with California and now Florida making noise.

[SkyHookFTW]

I'd like someone to actually provide a logical explanation for why they are opposed to this. I had an academic scholarship to go to college and I chose to study engineering (ended up with a computer engineering degree). I had a job doing some software work while I was a student. Why should I be able to do that, but a student athlete not be able to do that?

I get it - I can see arguments against directly paying the kids... but this? What in the world is the problem with kids being able to work off the court and earn money however they want?

I think the main issue is that if you take away much of the NCAA's regulatory presence and turn college sports into a truly free market system then you get just that.

And that may create a gap between the major revenue generating schools and sports and non-revenue generating schools and sports that's just too large to overcome.

Why continue to have sports that generate no profit? Why have sports when you don't have the endowments or booster activity to pay highly talented players to compete? The NCAA provided some oversight with this but if they're out the picture then you allow corporations, agents, and boosters to set many of the ground rules on compensation.

That's great if you're Zion Williamson or Trevor Lawrence or an olympic caliber athlete at Oregon...but they're going to get well compensated anyway eventually. It's catastrophic for 90% of the other athletes who don't generate any profit who may see their sports get cut and be mired in student debt if they want to go to college.

Nice to see someone understands a probable unintended consequence. I did play football at a D1 school and I know that football is the #1 revenue generator for most major colleges and universities, with basketball being #2, and every other sport sucking revenue from those two sports. At Rutgers, you get 50,000 watching our crappy football team (we were good when I played, yay!!), basketball gets a nice crowd even when we suck (normal these days), 400 watching baseball, 300 watching field hockey...you get the picture. Title IX legislation, signed into law by Richard Nixon, also will rear its head into this. For those who need a quick primer on Title IX:

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

If athletes are getting paid, do they really need a scholarship that could be used by an academically gifted young man or woman who wants to be an engineer or scientist? Depends on the athlete I suppose.

Does this open the door to new forms of corruption? Probably...colleges through boosters paying agents and sponsors under the table to help steer a client to their schools may get out of hand.

Will there still be equitable funding across the board for fulfilling Title IX, even if it means every sport get a 10% cut of funding across the board?

Why not just pay the players who are stars instead of giving them a scholarship, then let them skip to the pros? Much more realistic for basketball than football anyway, as nineteen-year olds aren't playing in the NFL like they do in the NBA. Give them the choice at least?

I think this type of free market system means that you will see less talent go to the smaller schools. It also will put a premium on acquiring the top coaching talent, pay be damned. College football coaches are already the highest paid employee at a fair number of colleges. That number will increase, and top basketball coaches will become the second highest paid (or first at some schools) school employee.

The almighty dollar will now be out front for all to see, the real ruler of the sports world as we have known for decades. No more pretending folks. Hail to the $$$$$$$$$$$$.

[NPZ]

Former CA college athletes should also be able to entitled to payments.

Ed O'Bannon (1995 championship Men's Bball team, UCLA) was one of the first people who decried other people making money off of his own likeness after his college career.

[NPZ]

Ncaa has billions stashed away they knew this day was coming

And Div 1 unis especially have been di--king around their "student athletes" when they get hurt and can no longer play. The kid and their families get stuck with all their medical and rehab bills (injuries are a real risk for them while they ain't being paid to even suit up). They want to benefit from the student athlete's ability until it costs them a penny. When that happens, they just dump them.