Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profit from Endorsements (npr.org)
288 points by DesaiAshu 16 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 266 comments



The NCAA has an interesting choice to make here.

Option 1, they remove the California teams from the NCAA. The Power 5 have been talking about a "division 0" league for a long time. Chances are that would push them all to leave the NCAA and create their own organization.

Option 2, allow California to be the exception. This would be great for California, because if you're a top high school athlete, would you rather play in California where you could potentially make millions, or anywhere else? Presumably a bunch of other states would pass similar laws and demand the same exception, until the NCAA was forced to allow paid players everywhere.

Or Option 3, just change the NCAA rules to match California, and let players get paid.

If sounds like the only winning move here is for the NCAA to allow paying players. I think California just forced their hand.


>Or Option 3, just change the NCAA rules to match California, and let players get paid.

It needs to be pointed out that this law doesn't allow schools to pay players directly. There probably isn't enough money for that without totally restructuring athletic departments around the country (a football team like USC is wildly profitable, but most of that profit goes to pay for unprofitable teams like swimming, volleyball, etc). Paying players directly also has a number of Title IX repercussions that would likely need to be ironed out in court.

This law instead allows the players a way to make money for themselves based off their participation in sports. That simply frees athletes up in the same way that non-athletes are unrestricted from how they can earn money while in school. No actor is going to be kicked out of their school's theater program because they got $200 for acting in a local car commercial. Now the football player won't either.


How do the military academies get around the "no direct payment" rule? AFAIK, all their students (athletes included) are salaried members of the armed services. For a Navy football players, it's literally part of their job description to go to practice and show up on Saturdays.


I know for the Naval Academy, you don't get the salary. Even if you were previous enlisted you are no longer paid your salary, though I believe the 4 years in the academy count towards retirement.


That's not true.[1] After expenses, the "take-home" is minuscule, but they are still salaried members of the armed services.

1 - https://www.usna.edu/Admissions/Student-Life/General-Informa...


It is a stipend, and stipends are allowed by the NCAA. The handbook in your link calls it a stipend. Since there is a hard cap on how much cash you can actually take from your "pay", I would call it a stipend.


How is that different than a scholarship paying room/board/tuition for athletes?


Because in addition to room/board/tuition, those at military academies are also paid a salary. It's above and beyond cost of schooling, and goes directly to the students instead of to defray education costs. I think that's the "direct" part of "no direct pay".


You are not paid a salary while in a military academy, you are given a stipend from which they deduct food, board, and other costs.


jkeuhlen covered it.

Students at the military academies are both on full scholarship (tuition and board paid by the taxpayers) and salaried. After required [non-academic] expenses (uniforms, laundry, etc) the "take home" is tiny. But, that doesn't negate the fact that they are salaried employees of the US government.

And, just to be clear, I'm in no way arguing students at the service academies are over-paid, or shouldn't be paid, or anything like that. I'm just curious if they have an explicit exemption from the NCAA, or if the NCAA isn't following it's own rules.


Is USC's football program wildly profitable? The Washington Post published a great investigative piece in 2015 showing how most big football programs are in the red: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/runni...


"Profit" just isn't really the right concept here. They pay their coach $3.2 million every year. In 62% of US states, the highest paid public employee is a football coach. In another 16% it's a basketball coach. Regardless of whether they return some of their windfall to the endowment, they're raking in cash.

Hollywood movies often show a loss after the studio deducts all the expensive things they bought themselves. Everybody with points against net gets nothing, but the studio still does just fine.


I think profit is the right concept. People see the massive spending of these programs, and even if it strikes them as extravagant, they also see the massive revenue of these programs. I think most discussions around this issue take as an assumption that the revenues covers the spending. I think a common way of thinking is "Yeah, it's pretty ludicrous for our university to spend that much money on the football program, but they make it all back, so it's a wash." But it usually doesn't. That's important, and I think would change how people considered the programs if this fact was more widely considered.

I don't think Hollywood movies are a good comparison. The studios will play accounting tricks by setting up shell companies for the purposes of screwing over the people who actually made the movie [1]. That's just pushing paper around, though: if the movies makes more than the studio spent, they turned a profit. Universities aren't doing that; many of their football programs are actual money losers, and they get that money from student tuition or the state if it's a public university.

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/holly...


The football programs are mostly non-profits, same with the NCAA. So no, profit, at least for the major programs, is not a concern. The programs receive millions from multiple sources that are spent on staff, coaches and other sports that need to be spent (Universities are not supposed to be profit making institutions). While the athletes that are generating the revenue through their performance every Saturday are paid with scholarships and money for room and board (can't be more than $60k or $70k a year - assumption here). Works out great for the coaches and administrators, not so great for the athletes. It is also not in the NCAA, college administrators, boosters or coaches interest to have the current setup change. Why mess with a good thing. No competition for player salaries leaves more in the coffers to pay the coaches.


> The football programs are mostly non-profits, same with the NCAA. So no, profit, at least for the major programs, is not a concern.

Non-profit doesn't mean “doesn’t earn profits” or “doesn’t prioritize profit”, but “doesn’t return profits to investors”.


We can agree that profit is gross revenue minus expenses, correct? Non-profits are focused on maximizing the revenue, but not on the profit for the exact reason you stated, there are no share holders or investors that need to be paid dividends, etc. The non-profit is incentivized to put the net revenue back into the organization. This can be in the form of staff salaries, facilities, other programs in the university. The "profit" portion in a given year means they are just carrying over the revenue for future operations or to stash in a fund. It should not be used in a argument for the "major" universities or top performing programs as to whether or not they should play the players. Revenues are not an issue in those cases. Don't cry to me (universities) that you don't have the money to pay student athletes when your university made over $100+ million dollars in a year and you "barely made a profit" as a non-profit organization.

I can't find the original HBO Real Sports link, but they go into depth about the Non-profit status and the way the funding is spent. It is a real eye opener and made me rethink how the argument that profit/revenue should be considered when dealing with the larger organizations.

Below are references, but not only highlights.

https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/student-athlete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK5BmWP1y98


> The "profit" portion in a given year means they are just carrying over the revenue for future operations or to stash in a fund. It should not be used in a argument for the "major" universities or top performing programs as to whether or not they should play the players.

Why not? The economic value of work to the entity for which it is performed is a significant factor in the criteria under which the law now requires other formerly unpaid, often student, workers such as many interns to be paid, even when their employer is a nonprofit. Why should athletes be treated worse?


Is there a meaningful difference between a school paying players with booster-provided money and a company doing so?

EDIT: To clarify, I mean a "practical" difference whether a booster gives money to a school to pay players or gives it to a company to do so. The payer matters to law, not to the paid nor to the practical result.


You will have Title IX problems as soon as the school is directly involved paying players. No school receiving federal funds can provide a benefit to its male football players that it doesn't also provide its female field hockey players.

Personally, I also feel that boosters have too much direct involvement in athletic departments as is. Removing the school from the booster-player relationship and bringing booster payment to players out from under the table could potentially help clean up some of the corruption in college sports.


In terms of title IX repercussions, there very much is.


I was a bit too succinct and therefore unclear. To rephrase, is there any meaningful difference between a booster paying players via the university or a booster taking their money to pay a player and doing it via a company instead? I understand the legal ramifications of who the payer is seen as, I am talking about the practical ramifications and whether a school having a player that is paid by a company rooting for the school (and with monies from same pockets) is meaningfully different. I'd say not.


The practical difference is that title IX means that universities have to provide equal opportunity for male and female students. If a donor wants the university to pay male athletes $1 from his pocket per athlete, he would have to donate $2 per athlete, since there needs to be equal opportunity for males and females. Currently that manifested itself in equal scholarships, but if the law changes, I would assume it would end up mandating equal $$


Of course - think about schools with deep pockets compared to those without much; top talent will flock to these, leaving smaller/less wealthy schools. Today athletes weigh a lot of factors when choosing where to attend - academics, athletic program, campus life, etc. If this becomes the norm I suspect we'll see clusters of high talent in "rich" schools. I don't think that will be good for the long run.


That already happens now. See Ole Miss: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892...


One is an employee, the other is basically an influencer?


In Mexico, there is a simpler option: universities affiliated with professional teams. Tigres UANL and UNAM Pumas in Liga MX are examples. Leones Negros UdeG in the Ascenso.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigres_UANL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Universidad_Nacional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leones_Negros_UdeG


University teams in the US have a storied history. The University of Alabama isn't going to shutdown Crimson Tide so that they can work with out of state NFL teams.


In futbol teams make money via transfer fees when players under contract move on to bigger clubs. Currently, when a player at Alabama goes to the NFL, Alabama does not recover any of its costs associated with the player's recruitment, development, and maintenance. Part of the reason the NFL is so profitable is that youth development is subsidized by parents, then (often public) middle and high schools, and finally (often public) colleges and universities.

Alabama had 56 players on NFL rosters at the start of the season. https://www.al.com/sports/2019/09/alabama-leads-colleges-in-...


U of A can simply spin out Crimson Tide as a professional team. Or license the name to someone who wants to run a professional team.


I'd bet the Crimson Tide is likely even worth a bit more than some low level NFL teams.


For reference, and take all these numbers with a grain of salt (plus, I have no real idea how to value a business), the University of Alabama's athletics department revenue was $175M in 2015-16 [0]; the Buffalo Bills (per Forbes the least valuable NFL team) have a revenue of $386M [1], so more than double Bama.

[0] https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2018/01/alabama_athletics... [1] https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#tab:overall


According to a recent Forbes article, the least valuable NFL team is worth over $2B.


> The Crimson Tide's football program reported $103.9 million in revenue for 2016 and posted a $47 million profit. That's up 3.6% from last year.

According to a CNN Money article.


The least valuable NFL team had profits of $126M on revenue of over $400m.

So I suspect the answer is a strong "no", but they're at least in the same zipcode if not the same ballpark.


The least valuable NFL team - the Bills - had $86m in operating income.[1] Net profit would be lower.

The Cleveland Browns only had $32m in operating income, coming in as the 5th least valuable team. The Oakland Raiders were the 12th most valuable, with $28m in operating income (of course their value is high due to other factors).

Seems plausible that Alabama's program is worth over a billion dollars solidly. The value boost of being in the NFL is obviously what really separates the situations, regardless of comparable incomes.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/?list=nfl-valuati...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/09/04/the-nfls...


Does that include sales of things like generic UofA apparel and stickers? There's a great deal of UofA 'stuff' that isn't labeled football.


If most teams allow players to be paid, and Alabama doesn't want to play those teams, their position in the market will plummet. If you don't think that can happen, review the Nebraska Cornhuskers' history.


the worst argument I've heard from skeptics associated with the NCAA is "THE COLLEGE PLAYERS ARE ALREADY PAID!". As if forcing young student athletes who are often from very low income families to resort to illegal bribes is a better solution than regulated endorsements for something they're absolutely entitled to.


NCAA college athletes are paid in completely allowable ways. They just aren't paid based on the value they generate for the school.

When I was in school all the scholarship athletes had food, clothing, and housing stipends that were considerably more than they needed for any of those three things. Not to mention that the free education they receive.

I understand that the "education" most top tier football players receive isn't quite the same as the other students (football is a full time job). I just don't know how you can start paying players without causing some really sweeping side-effects that change the reason that so many people love college football.

With the proper regulation, I suppose you could probably give the players money that they deserve, while still keeping some of that amateur sports magic. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into the pre-NFL where only schools with money have football teams.

I'm also a little interested what could happen with Title IX. As far as I know, all athletes in a school have to get the same benefits and if you start paying college football players (the only ones that typically make any money for the school) what do you do about the girls on the gymnastics team or the guys on the lacrosse team?


Tell that to any injured student... or those students not actually given enough time to study for classes that aren't excessively easy to pass.

IMHO, if you're accepted on a Sports scholarship, you should be allowed to complete at least 5 years of schooling regardless of injury or ability to continue playing, and if you fail to meet scholastic eligibility, you should be released for a year to "catch up" while continuing coursework.

That would more closely resemble a fair exchange. As it stands a significant number of student athletes don't get a real education and/or are dropped before able to complete because of injury.


> if you're accepted on a Sports scholarship, you should be allowed to complete at least 5 years of schooling regardless of injury or ability to continue playing,

This is significantly the argument between Bobby Dodd and Bear Bryant leading to Georgia Tech leaving the SEC.


> regardless of injury or ability to continue playing

And short term disability insurance, and long term disability insurance - along with the school paying for health insurance (currently students are required to have health insurance, but the school isn't required to pay.


I think an illuminating question is what do you consider more important, fair compensation to the workers, or maintaining the sports magic? Or, even, do you care about the tension of the two at all? For example, I don't care about the sports magic, which makes the solution simple to me - pay the athletes, and whatever happens as a result is a better result, because we're not longer exploiting them.


It's a tricky question, because they're not workers. They're players.


How are they not workers? They have to show up to work (practice) and play in games. If they get hurt, they loose their scholarship (just like an hourly contract employee).


Training for and playing the game is their labor, which generates enormous revenue for the institution they belong to. In any other setting - including professional sports - we would call them workers. And it's brutal, punishing work that they will live with for the rest of their lives.


If players are getting paid they should also be disqualified from receiving scholarships and ALL the other "free" benefits student athletes receive, while still maintaining academic progress. No more free "tutors," athlete-only[0] meal-plans and dining halls, and even access to trainers, PT's, etc.

Are top performing student-athletes being exploited? Maybe, but people seriously underestimate the value of benefits they receive on campus beyond scholarship amount. And there need to be substantial consequences for both students and universities if athletes fail to graduate.

[0] These dining halls might technically be open to all students, but non-athletes have to pay steakhouse prices for slightly better cafeteria food, while athletes eat for free. These are the ways universities get around NCAA rules today.


The amount of benefits is miniscule relative to the value they are generating and their true market value. Further, the biggest benefit, free college, effectively doesn't count because no one in a competitive program has the time to major in anything that would plausibly provide a good job right after graduation. It is a big story whenever a football player graduates with a STEM degree given how hard it is from a time management perspective (or at least this used to be very rare iirc). Also if we are being real, a lot of these players don't belong in college academically. They would not be accepted on grades alone and would not survive without the hilariously enormous support system in place solely designed to keep them in compliance with the rules.

Most college students in STEM won't even work unpaid internships and yet these guys are expected to generate orders of magnitude more value while being unpaid or hilariously under compensated.


You're right, it's unrealistic. But the benefit value to the player is only miniscule if you ignore the biggest benefit, which almost no one includes:

The biggest benefit is the free 4-5 year top-of-the-line professional training camp.

(I didn't mention it above because I don't think this dollar amount should be counted against scholarships, if you could even calculate it.)

They're getting (upto) 5 years of intense training in their field, by teams of professional-grade coaches. All of their required equipment is paid for, facilities are free, they're being marketed to the pro scouts, traveling across the country, and they're getting all of this with free room and board.

It's really hard to put a true dollar amount on that, but the closest comparison in the professional world is a college degree. Which they should be getting, and at no cost to them.

When this is included, I think it balances out enough to be fair.

Or to put it another way... How many of these players could go pro without the benefit of college training. I'd argue very few. And by definition, fewer than the number who declare early for the draft, which is already a small number.

And I don't feel any more sympathies for them than I do any other startup millionaire that probably could have skipped college but didn't.

Tangent: I've also argued that being an athlete should/could be a degree in and of itself, given a properly designed program. It should include classes in kinesiology, dieting, health, financial management, speaking to the media, marketing yourself, etc. I think that would also solve many of these issues.


Very fair point. I had never considered this before.


I'm unclear why these players are students at all. if your playing well enough to make millions for the university, surely you're good enough to make millions for a professional team?


The NFL has a rule for draft eligibility. You have to wait for four seasons if yo do not attend college. There are ways to get an exception, but it is rare. Makes it very hard to go from High School straight to the NFL.

https://www.nflregionalcombines.com/Docs/Eligibility%20Rules...


While this is true, if players weren't benefiting from college, more would declare early for the draft, after 3 college seasons. I don't know what the percentages are, but there are more players getting drafted after 4 years of college than those drafted after 3.

Which implies that players not only seem to value the training and experience of college athletics, but that they value all 4 years of it. Arguably red-shirting extends this to 5 years.


I knew some athletes at OSU. They get lots of free stuff, like backpacks, ipads, etc.


Shutdown unprofitable teams. That's what will happen.


We have an interesting societal conundrum here. Student athletes are below college material for specific sports (college football being a great example). If we do not allow the footballers in, then they would not be at the college, however, by allowing these sub par students into the college based on a need from the college, they are effectively subsidizing their educational capabilities to maintain NCAA eligibility (athletes at colleges have a different support system than us “normies.” With dedicated staff for tutoring, transportation, food, and housing). There can be a case made for the NCAA paying out more than living wages to these athletes while they are there.

What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable: looking at you water polo. The athletes are playing and doing similar workout regimens as the football, yet no pay... what do you do with this. What about Title IX discrimination when the men’s football gets monies while the ladies do not.


> What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable

The law does not require the sport to pay anything more, this removes the "you may not use your own likeness" rule as being bad for the players.

The new change does not apply to anything they do on-field and it only starts in 2023, so it will definitely change decisions for college admissions.

This does not add any significant burden to the sport organizers, except they lost their captive monopoly on the athletes appearing in a commercial.

Right to negotiate for yourself is a big one.


> forcing young student athletes who are often from very low income families to resort to illegal bribes

No one is forced to do anything here, as if children from low income families somehow have less agency than others.

You can complain about a system where children from low income families make a rational calculation to skirt the rules to better their position.

No one is talking about regulating endorsements. The law simply says you can’t keep a player off a team for being paid.


They're paid with a free education. That doesn't balance out the inequity of profits made off their labor but it isn't nothing.


Yes and no. Some, not all, are given full or partial scholarships. And of those that are given full scholarships, many have a very difficult time balancing their studies and their athletics. Athletes are generally limited in which majors they can choose due to study time requirements and class, practice time conflicts.

I once inadvertently enrolled in a "business calculus" class that was apparently hand selected by the football coaches. Almost the entire class was the football team. We barely got through the first 5 chapters of the book and that was the easiest A I ever got.

So while the free education and room and board have some value, they don't have nearly as much as people think. I have known student athletes that quit playing and got a full time job just so they could afford to pay their own way and have time for classes.


The average cost of 1 year of University is approx. 35k a year for private colleges according to collegedata.com. The average salary of 1 first year NBA player is 3 million. The lowest paid NBA player makes approx 500k. That doesn't sound like a "free" education to me. Players would be better off going straight to the NBA and going to college later, if they were still inclined.


The NBA tries to educate college players or prospects to focus on their education as much as possible. I think the numbers are that even if you're a Div 1 college player, you only have a 6% chance of being drafted to the NBA.


yeah, so why wouldn't you try joining the NBA first, then go to college to actually study when you don't get in?


Or forgoing college and play professionally in another country.


a tiny tiny sliver of college athletes will play professionally,

a good way to think about it, is that college athletics is sort of communist society in action where the future professionals athletes subsidize benefits for the athletes that won't be future professionals.

Relative to most minor league athletes or aspiring Olympians,

35K isn't a bad salary.


In theory they get a free education, but in reality the huge majority of a student-athlete's focus is on sports (at least football and basketball). Just look at the majors for athletes on the teams - almost never anything too difficult.

There are also plenty of examples of "classes" that athletes have taken in the news, i.e. University of North Carolina, and more


If they aren't interested in academics they don't belong in college.


This is backwards. The system is set up to make it impossible for players to both be successful students and successful athletes -- they're expected to spend most of their time on sport. That that's the case is absurd, but placing the onus on the students to rectify the situation bizarre; they have the least power of anyone involved. The onus should be on the schools.

Universities' principal missions should be pedagogy and research. If college sports as they now exist require hampering students' ability to learn (or, I suppose, do research), having those sports teams and operating them the way they do is in conflict with what should be their mission, and they should stop having sports teams.


The NCAA is a cartel. The absurdity is that Congress won't do anything about it. Of course that would irreparably damage football and the extra four years professional wannabes need to bulk up on HGH and whatever steroids they can sneak past the test regime.


but if college ball is the path to the pros... look at Basketball and Football vs. Hockey. Hockey has a well established Junior/Major Junior feeder system. NBA/NFL benefit from an unpaid sorting mechanism via the NCAA.


It isn't college's responsibility to serve as a farm league for professional sports. Particularly those with money to fund their own.


The 4th option is to disallow teams who are in states that violate the bylaws from joining post season play at NCAA events (basketball), and to lobby CFP committee to do the same.

I believe the NCAA will go with option 4, then once more states pass the same laws, eventually go to option 3.*

D0 is not really on the table because it is dilutive to 'P5' school earnings vs today's system of pretending to include G5 while excluding them from the big payouts.

*The reason they will go with option 4 is that the only conference impacted by the law will be the Pac 12. While Larry Scott (Pac 12 commissioner) is probably not happy, he can't really move the needle for the NCAA like Big10/SEC could. If this law get enacted in Florida, that would be the tipping point to go to option 3. Going with option 4 today really only leaves the Rose Bowl as the only loose end.


Texas is the other state with enough teams in the NCAA that enacting a similar law would tip things to option 3.

Question is if both states, under regulatory capture, will allow any similar law to pass. I dare say that NCAA sports are bigger business in Texas and Florida by percent when compared to California, which has other very profitable industries. Thus the college boards have a far deeper connection to the legislature. So in a prisoners dilemma, either both of them can choose not to pass similar legislation, keeping the money out of the hands of athletes, or either state will pass similar legislation in order to complete with California for athletes. The other state would have to follow to compete for athletes, forcing the NCAA's hand to go with option 3.


Texas is unlikely to lead the way on such legislation and will have to be a reluctant follower if this is to play out nationwide. In general they don't like to mess with the autonomy of their institutions, do not require the incentive to keep players in state, and acknowledge in top-heavy big-12 country that the status quo is still a very healthy situation for most (i.e. all people that aren't top-level players). That often goes with all Texas legislation on national concerns, they tend to wait for things to play out.


>D0 is not really on the table because it is dilutive to 'P5' school earnings vs today's system of pretending to include G5 while excluding them from the big payouts.

Actually, currently, P5 schools lose money on the other schools in college football. The D0, in my mind, is not so much about California, as it is about evening out the chances of all the P5 schools. Right now you have to pay to play all these low level schools, which for a lot of P5 schools really does eat into profits. Additionally, in the current structure, the SEC for instance might play FCS teams and then fewer conference foes. This makes an uneven playing field for the BIG 12 or PAC 12 or what have you. So if you want a more even shot at one of the big 4 slots, you have to either pay out more money to play an extra low level school, or get the SEC to play an extra conference game. It's a bit more complex than that, because for instance OSU has plenty of money, but the conference won't let them play an additional cupcake. But you get the idea.

Now I'd bet a lot of the AD's would never actually admit it, but D0 is probably an attempt to tilt the scales in their direction by eliminating these, and other, structural impediments to their own success.


D0 is a made up concept by fans. No P5 AD wants to lose the money on home games or eyeballs for their games by moving to a 'smaller' division.

Currently P5 programs choose to play FCS opponents because they make so much revenue on home games that it is worth paying an FCS team a few million. The reason the math works is that the TV deals are already set, and the only incremental money they can make is through ticket sales to 100k fans.


I could see this scenario, but the NCAA would have to worry about losing their sanctioned monopoly status if they started punishing teams for following their state's laws.


What are these numbers, D0, P5, G5?


D0 == Division 0. Right now all the top teams play in Division 1 athletics, with a bunch of other teams that generally don't get nearly as much money or notoriety but give the top teams some other teams to "beat up on" so to speak (although they do sometimes lose). Division 0 is this idea that the Power 5 (see below) would form their own division.

Right now there are three divisions, and they are based on school size, which is why all the big schools are division 1 but there is a big difference in quality. The idea here is to take the top teams and split off regardless of school size.

P5 == Power 5. These are the five conferences that have almost all the top teams. Big ten, Big 12, the ACC, the Pac-12, and the SEC.

G5 == Group of 5. These are there conferences with the lesser know teams. American, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, and Sun Belt


Where can I read about this? Are conferences what divisions are subdivided into?


Just google college athletic divisions.

The g5 and p5 are media constructs (not official) designations to help with ratings and assign teams to various invitational competitions like the college football playoffs.


Division 0 (instead of DI, DII(2), or DIII(3) divisions on collegiate sports.

P5 = Power 5 conference, ie ACC, SEC, Pac12, Big12, Big10

G5 = No idea.


NCAA should be counting on the fact that more states will adopt California's stance on this issue.


Yes. This decision will most definitely cause a land-grab rush, unless the NCAA overwhelmingly punishes CA, other states will just do the same thing.

It's a pretty big change - my guess is CA's stance will win, because the alternative is massive disruption of the NCAA.


Yes, if auto emissions, minimum wage, contractor laws, and many other progressive policies are any example: blue states often pile on to each others' policies to spread them widely. NCAA shouldn't count on NY, IL, WA, MA, or other big blue states not doing this.


Right, but this CA change is (probably) an unalloyed good for CA, which gives other states even larger incentive to copy it -- whereas the incentives to copy minimum wage or auto emissions or other 'progressive' policies may be non-obvious or nonexistent.


I find it mind-boggling that of all the millions of dollars that middle-men in this industry make, the players - the whole point of the industry - were the only ones not getting paid.


It's rather simple, the assumption that the industry is for the players is incorrect.

The industry will loudly tell you it's about the athletes. That's bullshit.


Sorry, I need to correct your post to use correct NCAA-approved groupspeak.

"The industry will loudly tell you it's about the student-athletes."


The economics surrounding most minor league sports suggest that the level of skill demonstrated by the players is not, in fact, the economic driver behind the revenues generated in college athletics.

If you want to see athletic accomplishments done at a high level...

Your typical D League basketball game, Arena League football game, or triple A baseball game features higher skilled athletic performance.

To me, this suggests that it's the tribal/communal aspect of college athletics which drive the interest and revenues.


Option 4: ban college sports. School should be about education, not sports.


> Option 4: ban college sports. School should be about education, not sports.

Are you okay with paying higher tuition that would have otherwise been offset with TV, merchandising, ticket revenue and alumni donations?


Overall, sports drain money from the universities; they don't provide it.

About half of D1 football and men's basketball programs do make money, but even at those schools, the athletics program as a whole is still a money loser.


Option 4: Litigation. Bring suit to have the California law declared unconstitutional and request an injunction on the law taking effect until a decision is made. I’m willing to bet the NCAA will spend millions on this, not for the benefit of student athletes, but to allow the NCAA to continue to exploit student athletes.


I doubt this would work all that well. Of course the NCAA can bring suit on whatever topic it pleases, but I don't see a court granting an injunction for something like this. It's a pretty common practice to enshrine into law rights that you aren't allowed to waive in contracts, and I don't see a judge believing this particular thing to be weird at all, let alone enough to grant an injunction.

There might be an interstate-commerce-clause justification here on the side of the NCAA, but it seems pretty thin. IANAL, of course, so what do I know.


I was thinking a dormant commerce clause[1] argument. And after a bit of duck ducking (duck duck going?) it seems they've won at least one case in the past using the theory.[2] I only skimmed the opinion but that case overturned a Nevada statute that set out due process requirements for those accused of NCAA violations. From the decision:

> Essentially, the Statute requires any national collegiate athletic association to provide a Nevada institution, employee, student-athlete, or booster who is accused of a rules infraction with certain procedural due process protections during an enforcement proceeding in which sanctions may be imposed. Many of the procedures required by the Statute are not included in the NCAA enforcement program. For example, the NCAA does not provide the accused with the right to confront all witnesses, the right to have all written statements signed under oath and notarized, the right to have an official record kept of all proceedings, or the right to judicial review of a Committee decision.

I'm not sure I really agree with the court's reasoning that it's a per se violation of the commerce clause but the rational is in Section B @ 638 if you're interesting.

Here's hoping this precedent gets overturned but I'm not terribly optimistic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

[2] https://casetext.com/case/national-collegiate-athletic-assn-...


Option 3 is definitely the path of least resistance in terms of long term consequences.

That said, I fully expect the NCAA to aggressively threaten Option 1, then back down when it becomes clear that they'll just lose out on all the revenue of that new league/competing governing body, which would have no trouble growing as schools that don't make a ton via the NCAA system looking for a recruiting edge race to join (a funny subplot for anyone who follows this sort of thing: how fast would SMU race to join a governing body that lets players sell their endorsement?). Then, they'll settle on Option 2, which allows them to do nothing and blame others for the fallout, despite it being the worst of the 3 options for all non-NCAA bureaucracy stakeholders.


Can you explain who the Power 5 are, and what Division 0 would mean? And would Division 0 be inside or outside the NCAA? I don't get the implication of them all leaving the NCAA to create their own organization is, because I don't know the players in this 'game'.

EDIT: Answered in a jedberg reply elsewhere in this thread.


I always thought the NCAA was a voluntary organization. Seems they can just take option 4 and ban teams that don’t comply with their rules.

This move would have been more successful if had passed during a period when CA had competitive teams.


Evidently that’s what California is for.


> If sounds like the only winning move here is for the NCAA to allow paying players.

That is the end of the NCAA. If California can dictate the fundamental nature of a voluntary organization, there's really little sense for the organization to exist.


Thank goodness, NCAA has been a blight on collegiate education for decades. The end of NCAA would be good for students, good for athletes, good for athletics, and good for colleges and universities. If most of what an organization does is harm, then absolutely that organization shouldn't exist.


I’m curious how ending the NCAA would be good for all those stakeholders.


The NCAA's monetary and administrative requirements distract from the educational mission of colleges. Ending that distraction would be good for students and colleges. NCAA's conservative tendencies and commercial interests hurt athletes directly as documented extensively on this page, and as often attested by the athletes themselves.


Option 4: you're a member of a voluntary organization, and your state can't change our bylaws.

Which is what's probably gonna happen.


I think the state can change the bylaws of a voluntary organization, or at least make them illegal.

From the official digest of the bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... :

The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.

AFAICT this law would make the current NCAA bylaws illegal in California. Any California player who accepted an endorsement and was subsequently prevented from playing would be able to sue.


That only applies to the NCAA if the NCAA continues to operate in California. If they decide that their current rules are more important than the participation of California schools, they can leave the state and prevent their member schools from playing in California or with teams from California and avoid California's legal jurisdiction.


Correct, which is option 1 from the parent post. MisterBastahrd seems to believe that the NCAA can just say "you have to follow these rules if you join us even if you're from CA", which is not true because the bill outlaws those rules.

The 4th option that they're suggesting only serves to open them up to lawsuits should they ever try to enforce the rule for CA players.


This is why the bill is unconstitutional.

From Miller vs. NCAA, P 28:

'Under Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. at 2084, when a state law directly regulates interstate commerce, it can generally be struck down without further inquiry. The Statute directly regulates interstate commerce and runs afoul of the Commerce Clause both because it regulates a product in interstate commerce beyond Nevada's state boundaries, and because it puts the NCAA, and whatever other national collegiate athletic associations may exist, in jeopardy of being subjected to inconsistent legislation arising from the injection of Nevada's regulatory scheme into the jurisdiction of other states. Because the Statute violates the Commerce Clause per se, we need not balance the burden on interstate commerce against the local benefit derived from the Statute.'

Replace Nevada with California and you've got the same issue. A state is not allowed to unilaterally make special statutory carve-out demands on a national organization.

They can say "hey universities, your student-athletes must be allowed to profit from their own likenesses." Totally within the state's power.

They can't say "hey, NCAA, screw your rules, we decided to make up our own for you and you have to deal with it."


Then the bill violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and is illegal.

https://openjurist.org/10/f3d/633/national-collegiate-athlet...


Not by the arguments put forth in that decision. The key bit on the Nevada law is stated in paragraph 21:

> By its terms, it regulates only interstate organizations, i.e., national collegiate athletic associations which have member institutions in 40 or more states.

Nevada made the mistake of specifically targeting interstate associations. California does not, so based on the reasoning in that decision the California law does not violate the Commerce Clause per se as the Nevada law did.


You either didn't fully read or don't comprehend what you read.

The NCAA engages in interstate commerce. California's bill requires that any organization that does business in California allow players in California to be paid. It is requiring the NCAA to provide a carve-out for California.

This is the exact same scenario, legally.


This is Option 1. They can't litigate a state to change the law.

And given that the only choice is to remove the largest state from you organization. With that cali makes their own league and now the NCAA has a huge competition for the top talent. Why would you go to school anywhere else than Cali.


> This is Option 1. They can't litigate a state to change the law.

Sure, they can (well, that is, litigate against a state to neutralize the law), usually by claiming it violates federal law (including the Constitution). That's tough here, but I suppose you could throw a hail mary at either a contracts clause or a dormant commerce clause action.


I think there is a strong argument to be made for violation of the constitutional right to contract.

If a college/university contracts to be included in a athletics association, there is nothing wrong with requiring the schools to comply with NCAA rules/regulations.

If a student athlete contracts with a college/university to play a sport for them, there is nothing wrong with the college/university requiring them to comply with both the college and NCAA rules/regulations.

Without the benefit of looking at all the various agreements and the actual CA Bill, it sounds like their approach to cure the issue may amount to an unconstitutional restriction on the athletes' Constitutional right to contract.


They don't have to litigate a state to change a law.

They can simply say "your student-athlete is ineligible to participate."

Can California create their own league?

Sure.

Will doing so decimate their schools' athletic budgets? Probably. There's not going to be much national demand for a state-only organization, and it's going to get particularly ugly when the feds discover schools colluding with rich boosters talent in order to attract them there because of Title IX.


> There's not going to be much national demand for a state-only organization

Uh, this would be true of many states but not of states like CA/TX/FL.

There would absolutely be demand for a CA-only athletic organization.

There's a reason California did this and not, say, Alaska (no offense to Alaska of course).


There's not one example of a regional sports league that has had any sort of success in recent memory.

One of the foundational reasons that the WWF / WWE became the dominant power in the wrestling market is that they were the first to ignore regional barriers.

Rinse, repeat.


> There's not one example of a regional sports league that has had any sort of success in recent memory.

Er, we're talking about them right now. College sports are extremely regional but still have significant national appeal. Many, many people tune into SEC conference games who have no connection to the SEC.

If you think people wouldn't watch an SEC-only league (I'm using the SEC here because it's the most obvious example), then I think that betrays your knowledge of college sports.


I think that the SEC has the drawing power it does because of how it competes on a national level. The SEC in and of itself is a bunch of mediocre to good teams and a few powerhouses that bear the load for its reputation. Every P5 conference in existence would be irreparably harmed if they engaged in purely regional competition / contracts.


Every collegiate conference is regional. [0] Long flights are expensive and inconvenient. You could maybe justify a national conference for men's basketball, but that would eliminate all the minor sports and also would probably violate Title IX.

[0] admittedly, minor confused conferences like Conference USA and Big 12 stretch the definition a little bit, but they're still essentially regional.


I think there a lot of conclusion jumping. The NCAA only make $1 billion in revenue with 900 million in expenses.

A state-only organization the size of California can easily compete especially when any player in any sport with financial planning would move to California.

Why would anyone watch the NCAA in football, basketball or anything else when we'd know all the best player are in the California League.

Also, the point is that rich boosters colluding wouldn't be illegal. This wouldn't have anything to do Title IX. I do agree those rich donors will pull all the best talent to California though.


That's the same as Option 1.


The state can change the bylaws. Or at least make the bylaws unenforceable within state boundaries, which has the same effect. I believe that is what California has done here.

For another example, suppose there were some chemical company organization that had a bylaw like, "You cannot print information about carcinogenic ingredients in your products." But then California passes prop 65. The bylaws are now moot -- if you have to choose whether to comply with bylaws or state law, you either have to take your ball and go home, or the bylaws have to change.


Wouldn't this make it illegal to prevent players from profiting from endorsements ? Voluntary organizations can't break the law.


The NCAA doesn't really have to choose anything here, just enforce rules on the books and nothing changes. It seems as if the law only removes the restriction that student athletes can't be paid, not that it requires payment. Whichever teams decide to pay their athletes will be excluded from the NCAA.

Absent legislation with more teeth or a broad coalition of states and schools from across the country, I highly doubt California schools will drop out to create their own league. In fact, the money they're looking to give to athletes will soon dry up, absent the lucrative contracts the NCAA holds. Who would watch an independent league with so few teams in it and basically no national tournament circuit?

Far from forcing the NCAA's hand, I think Newsom just passed feel-good legislation which doesn't really change anything. Perhaps other states will jump on board, but there doesn't seem to be any sight of that at the moment.


Your arguments are very much tail wagging the dog. NCAA has lucrative deals because of the schools, not vice versa.

A division with UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, UCSD, UC-Davis + plenty I'm forgetting would be instantly watchable in football and basketball. Really the only thing they'd be missing out on would be March Madness (a big deal) and the college football championship (a minor deal). There would be a very swift Rose bowl replacement, and I'm sure the invited BIG10 would be happy to attend, and if not for whatever reason a top 2 from that division would be a fun championship game too.

Really I see the only blocker here being participation in March Madness- but that feels like a short term roadblock and 'lets figure out when to pull the trigger' situation rather than an impossible hindrance.

The smaller sports will certainly suffer in the short term- but California is a massive market and having a California only college league is totally plausible.


Another option: CA universities become the least desirable place for the very best high school athletes.

The objective of the very best players is not to merely pay for college, but maximize their chance to join professional teams. Those odds are maximized by access to world class facilities, equipment, trainers, coaches, medical care, and more. Winning helps too.

If some schools have less money because sponsorships are going to specific players instead of the school/league, they will be able to provide fewer top-tier resources to players. Consequently, those schools will be less attractive in the areas of essential importance to the very best players.

If the very best athletes gravitate toward non-player-sponsorship schools, it will create a self-reinforcing cycle to get other top athletes, because they want the best teams to maximize their chances of winning.


The overwhelming majority of top college players have negligible chances of playing in the NFL. The potential rewards for a high school player getting paid ASP generally dwarfs any long term career prospects.


The players who have a good change of playing in the NFL likely heavily overlaps the players who will be offered endorsements. 99% of college athletes simply aren't good enough for either and will probably be unaffected by this.


At the very least it means being able to do things like offer coaching or training services or even just run a lawnmowing business under their own name, which is prohibited by NCAA rules.


I disagree. You are thinking of endorsements as if Nike and Underarmor are the only players here. But in every college town in America, Jim's Chevrolet or Thomson's Car Wash or whatever, would love to be able to have some of the local players on their tv or radio ads.

I'll bet car dealerships will be the first place in CA that you will start seeing college athletes on the billboards.

And it won't just be the top guys in the state. It will be the top guys on the local team. Even for smaller schools.


Ask any 18 year-old 3-star high school senior football recruit whether he's going to play in the NFL. Let me know how many of them tell you "maybe, but I'm not sure I'll get there."

Then ask the 4- and 5-stars.


I had to squint really hard to understand the point here. I think I get it, but it seems fairly obvious to me that, to the extent that player sponsorship money is reallocated from schools, it'll be reallocated from schools' athletic programs overall, not specifically from the institution for which the sponsored players play.

That is to say if $shoeco wants to sponsor $bigplayer but does not want to increase their overall athletics funding beyond its present $100M level, they will not take away $1M from $bigplayer's school, they'll take it away in very small amounts from all schools they sponsor.


>Another option: CA universities become the least desirable place for the very best high school athletes.

That's laughable.

The best high school basketball players are only gonna be in college one or two years in any case. It's legal formality currently that makes them go there.

The idea that draft picks and their families are going to forego free money in California for the purposes of supporting the NCAA is, again, just a bit fanciful. These guys are gonna get drafted no matter where they go. So I can pretty much guarantee you that their agents will swing them to Cali.


Southpark nailed why this needed to happen in their episode "Crack Baby Athletic Association" [1], where Cartman essentially poses as a Slavery-era plantation owner, and wants to ask the University of Colorado for "business advice" on how to make people work without paying them - like their college athletes ("slavery"):

>> "Now when we sell their likeness for video games, how do we get around paying our slaves…erm - student-athletes then?" - Cartman

NSFW / Trigger warning etc: I realize Southpark isn't for everyone. But on this issue I feel like they nailed it by showing just how ludicrous the NCAA really is.

[1] - https://www.businessinsider.com/the-crack-baby-athletic-asso...


The media talked about a 'plantation mentality' by NBA owners ad nauseam with the Donald Sterling affair, but the NCAA is where the real analogy lies. South Park indeed hit this one on the head.

Additionally, the whole amateur vs professional sports thing has always been questionable grey area, with artificially created red lines.


>Southpark nailed why this needed to happen in their episode

Yes and no. The problem is that the NBA and NFL had an implicit requirement of college before making to the league. This meant that players with no interest in college were nevertheless funneled through the college system. That's not fair to the players that wanted to start earning money from their profession.

The NBA has lifted the restriction on high-school players graduating to the NBA - so at this point young athletes can move directly to the NBA, or G League, or play overseas. Under these conditions I think it's fine to leave NCAA as is, since college is no longer mandatory.

Professionally-oriented football players don't really have that option, and NFL careers are much shorter as well. It's not a great look that those guys can't make any money in their college career.


> It's not a great look that those guys can't make any money in their college career.

... And especially when the ones that don't make it to the NFL are basically left broken for the remainder of their lives (position specific of course). Once you are a valuable player on an NCAAF team - particularly offensive line - your body and academics pretty much go out the window in favor of your performance. These guys are broken and have no long-term healthcare, no financial incentive, etc. [1,2,3]

To top it off - we have entered a bizarro world where the NCAA now SELLS INSURANCE [4] to student athletes so they can protect against future earnings losses as a result of injury in college.... It's just crazy to me, but hey they have this going for them:

>> Student-athletes approved for this program are automatically eligible for a loan... The interest rate is very competitive, and a co-signer is not required.

... which is nice.

1 - https://kdvr.com/2015/05/13/masking-the-pain-toradol-in-coll...

2 - https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/i-...

3 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4628259/

3 - http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/insurance/exceptional-st...


> It's not a great look that those guys can't make any money in their college career.

Especially since someone else with none of the talent and assuming none of the risk, is making wheelbarrows full of money.


This was long overdue. Thank you. College coaches get paid millions of dollars a year, yet when a poor athlete gets rent money for his dad, all hell breaks loose. Let's stop pretending that college sports is anything but a glamorized professional sporting franchise, and pay the people who make it happen. Actually, this bill doesn't even ask the colleges to pay the athletes their fair market value. It simply allows athletes to make money from their own brand. Not sure how anyone can be against this. If someone is making money off me, in a free society, I sure should be able to make money off myself as well.


I agree completely. I truly don't care for sports, despite attending several of my alma mater's football games, but I've always felt the same way.

Why are college players limited to "scholarships" (which are essentially 100% tuition coverage, 100% on-campus food/dining coverage, and a $1500 scooter to get around -- of course nothing to scoff at when compared to a student taking out loans for the same education), while the colleges rake in millions?

Colleges - at least the one I attended - make a ridiculous amount of money off these games via tickets and merchandise, the latter even when the team is in the off-season. There's a reason why colleges are able to pay their coaches millions. (My own alma mater left a "bad" coach with a multi-million dollar severance package.)


I have long thought the NCAA model actually does a lot to undermine/harm "student"-athletes as well.

Not only can they not make money and send it home ... they can't even make enough money for a normal social life. It's no wonder players (especially from poor backgrounds) end up making dumb choices and find themselves in bad situations.

At a basic level, you've got division one basketball players who don't even have enough cash to take somebody out on a normal date. It's no wonder a lot of players end up at parties in dumb situations every year - they can't afford paid entertainment to stay out of trouble.


>I have long thought the NCAA model actually does a lot to undermine/harm "student"-athletes as well

The athletes most hurt by it are certainly the football and basketball players. All the other athletic programs, men and women, benefit immensely. American collegiate sports program is probably the best in the world, so much so that I suspect that a good chunk of all Olympic athletes (American and foreign) are probably go through the NCAA program.

Basketball players have many options for a professional career. They can jump to NBA or G League directly from high school, or play overseas - so they are fine. Football players don't really have those options and their careers are shorters and their bodies are beat-up more. I feel for those guys. Those guys should be able to make money.


Even athletes from sports without any professional outlook at all are hurt by it. I knew people who were on the women's swimming team with zero post-college prospects who couldn't hang out with friends because they weren't allowed to have a part time job to have spending money.

Yeah, the scholarship meant they could go to school, but it wouldn't have anyone (or their "amateurism") if they'd been allowed to work enough to afford a trip to the movie theater once in a while.


To be fair though, college basketball and football players, especially in competitive schools wouldn't need a part-time job, scholarships and sponsorships would probably be enough to give them a nice amount of cash.

On the other side, without the revenue coming from those sports, your friend's program wouldn't be nearly as competitive, facilities wouldn't be as good, scholarships would be reduced, and coaching would be lower quality, and quite possible that there would be out of pocket expenses. There is a huge net positive to all other student athletics that comes out of the most competitive college sports programs. The programs that can usually pay their own way are mens/womens basketball, mens football, and womens gymnastics. Tennis, volleyball and soccer can probably break even. Everything else needs big subsidies.


NCAA literally has the slave model and most likely has origins in that mentality. Just like a race horse can't ask for money because it is a property of its owner, student athletes are not any different from NCAA perspective. It is strange to think that such rule existed for so long in the "free" society.


I'd say this is confusing where we've ended up with where we started.

In the beginning, the "amateur" in "amateur athletics" was taken quite seriously; college athletics was seen and treated as part of the education system.

There's been considerable erosion of this ideal, and at this point it's better to treat college athletes as minor leaguers who happen to be affiliated with colleges.


The history of how we got here is very odd. The NCAA's worship of amateurism has it's roots in Ivy League gentleman amateurs, and for many, many years was explicitly racially segregated.


The roots were very much more in the public's insistence that college students had to stop dying while playing football. Lots of players were paid in the old Ivy League days. Those like Theodore Roosevelt who "saved" the game did so mostly by not letting students handle the payments. Only much later (1940s and '50s) did NCAA take on the form it has today.


>It simply allows athletes to make money from their own brand. Not sure how anyone can be against this.

Indeed. I'm not necessarily opposed to amateur sports remaining "amateur" (whatever that looks like). But the fact that these athletes aren't allowed to make money from their likeness on their personal social media accounts is preposterous.

Trying to go pro is not easy. Most people dedicate their entire young lives to the effort and end up with nothing to show for it.


I understand what you're saying about being able to market your own brand.

A serious question, though, "Who is truly building that brand?" In many respects, it is the NCAA and member schools which are making the athlete famous and marketable. It is rarely talent alone which makes the athlete's marketability so valuable. Put the best quarterback at Alabama and Wyoming and which is more valuable? Should Alabama be allowed to negotiate a cut upon acceptance? What if they are the best collegiate 10k women's runner? Their fame is at least partially built by the league itself.

Another issue is the collusion of the NFL and NCAA to establish dual monopolies over the same sport.

My personal opinion on the NCAA is that it is all corrupt and it should be burned to the ground.


Correct. The university also provides tremendous support in media training and publicity garnering. For example, when you see a media interview blitz for a Heisman candidate - that's certainly not being organized by the 20 year old athlete.

It will be interesting to see the schools strong-arm athletes into giving a revenue cut.


> Let's stop pretending that college sports is anything but a glamorized professional sporting franchise

For 95+% of colleges athletes, their experience with college sports has absolutely nothing in common with professional sports. The pro-football edge case should probably be addressed somehow, but not in a way that ruins amateur sports for everyone else.


Amateurs don't need NCAA to play sports. I was on my college kendo team, and NCAA doesn't care about kendo. There are lots of other competitive collegiate club sports that have escaped NCAA's plundering. The obvious solution to most schools' Title IX woes would be to declare that all sports are club sports. A compromise would be to say that basketball, football, and softball are official, and everything else is club.


I agree that the NCAA is terrible. But imho a much better solution would be to ban schools from making money on sports, rather than letting students profit.

Most institutions don't "make money on sports", in the sense that their athletic departments operate at a loss, which if it can't be covered by alumni donations or by taxes for public institutions must be extracted from students. (College administrators might not see a difference between the latter situations and "profit"...) Like many other aspects of the modern university, a huge portion of athletic expenses are incurred by employing many times the number of administrators required in decades past. The NCAA functions on the athletic side in much the same way that the bankruptcy-impervious student loan functions on the academic side: ratcheting up revenue to support the inexorable growth of administrative staff. Colleges and universities aren't doing a better job than they did years ago, so by charging more they defraud both students and society.

Whether students are allowed to profit or not, I certainly support your proposal to ban colleges and universities from taking commercial interest in student sports.


What top athletes are paying for rent? The ones who could get endorsements are surely on full rides. IIRC, they even get a modest monthly stipend.


USC got heavily penalized and the football program was set back decades because Reggie Bush's father got free rent from an agent. It is laughable, when USC's coach was Pete Carol who minted millions


Why would the college I went to pay my dads rent? That’s so far from an athlete getting housing I can’t even call it apples to oranges.


I don't see what business the government has in regulating what athletes get paid anyway. Just let the market sort it out.


I don't think the government is the limiting body in what the players can make. The NCAA was the restricting governing body that prohibited players from making money. What this bill does is guarantee the college athletes can make money from external sources and the NCAA can't supercede the legal system. I think I'm getting that right.


Right, and now money will not change the game one bit. Alabama players will get millions and your school will lose every game by 100pts. Now every player will go to whatever school pays the best by their affiliations (no company will pay your to go to Alcorn State).

I am not against paying them, I am against paying them right away, and I am against paying them millions. Forget college sports, it's now just pay for play. Most of them will not get a degree, the best will be rich and blow it all on drugs and cars and gambling. The pay should be given to them after they turn 21. Or just forget sports entirely, let's just have professional teams and call them by sponsor. Instead of cheering my college team, I can just cheer the Microsoft Manglers.

We shouldn't have to have scholarships either, why act as if anyone will go to school? If you aren't good enough to earn millions you can't play. Alabama's pros against your crappy team of walk-ons. In the end maybe no one will pay most of the players because their school is pathetic to watch on ESPN.


Oh god, can we read the bill first ? No college is paying anything to anyone. This is about a person using their own image to make money. There is no benefit in going to Alabama vs. Acorn state, as you can be a big star in a small program as well.


The players should be paid a salary, full stop. If you're an athlete at a D1 school in the primary money making sports of men's basketball or football you're hardly a student -- most days are spent training or preparing for a game, the athletes notoriously take cupcake classes and majors; and we've seen enough academic scandals to know that 'student-athlete' is a misnomer. The NCAA is another case of cartel like behavior in the American economy and I'll be glad when this phony amateurism is put to rest.


Anyone on a full scholarship at a D1 school already gets a monthly stipend, basically a small salary that covers miscellaneous expenses. It's not much but most student athletes simply don't provide any value to their school beyond that. However, there is the 1% of top athletes who are worth millions of dollars of marketing value and this bill will hopefully allow them to capitalize on that.


While most of these student athletes are unlikely to make millions, this bill allows that bottom 99% to make money in other ways that were previously prohibited, such as providing private coaching to younger athletes.


>The players should be paid a salary, full stop.

This is where I disagree. I don't think the schools should be obligated to provide a salary. These are amateurs, by definition.

That said, if you are popular enough to make money outside of the school, of your own volition, the NCAA has no business stopping you from doing so.


> These are amateurs, by definition.

They are unpaid workers providing economic benefit to their employer, the same way that has been federally outlawed most of the other places it was practiced (often also with students) when the rules on unpaid internships were tightened down.

They are amateurs only by circular definition: the trade association of their employers prohibits paying them, so they aren't paid, so they are “amateurs”. Using that as an argument to continue not paying them is ludicrous on it's face.


Just to reiterate the point above, they're not entirely unpaid, unless they're a walk-on. Scholarship players receive tuition, housing, food, health care, clothing, professional career prep beyond the classroom, supplemental tutoring, a stipend, and all kinds of other benefits.

It's not as cut and dry as, they get nothing. The all in spend on a College Football player annually is probably well over $80k.


There are a lot of activities that happen in the course of normal academics that contributes to the economic benefit of the school. Most of this is seen as being a normal course of attending school: tasks assigned for academic credit, or simply voluntarism. Athletics used to be that way until the demand side of the equation got out of hand.


Well a lot of those activities are paid too. Marching bands get paid. Tutors get paid.


Graduate research and teaching assitants get paid. People doing graded, required internships that provide non-incidental value to the employer get paid, per IRS rules. Yes, lots of them used to be unpaid, but term slavery in exchange for education has fallen out of favor.

Well, except for athletics, but that is starting to be seen as problematic, too.


This is where I think the argument falls down. They do get a free ride. That might not seem like much, but I worked full time while going to school full time. I could have created a lucrative start-up in the hours I was working to pay for school. The athletes also get the primetime TV exposure and ESPN highlights that lead to a chance for $MM contracts. They also get some of the best training and coaching facilities that money can buy.

I get that the players are taken advantage of but so do all of our employers. They aren't slaves, they can try out for professional sports around the world right out of high school and start making money. It will probably be less but they have options.

The one fallout of this is that there are lots of collegiate sports that will go away. They schools won't pay the money for the field hockey team so all the players can get a salary.

All this to say that this is much more grey than a lot of people think it is. I think the right solution is to get rid of college athletics completely. Move it to an intramural setup. All the other leagues can create their own farm systems like baseball has and people can start having minor league NFL and NBA teams in their middle sized towns instead.


> The one fallout of this is that there are lots of collegiate sports that will go away. They schools won't pay the money for the field hockey team so all the players can get a salary.

So, what you are saying is that the field hockey team wouldn't meet the economic benefit to the school test to determine that they were entitled to pay if rules like those for unpaid internships were applied? And, therefore, wouldn't be covered, at all?


I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it's definitely a distortion of the market that college athletics bring in significant revenue and none of it beyond scholarships accrues to the athletes themselves. On the other hand, this is essentially the legalization of paying college athletes because wealthy college alumni/boosters can easily guarantee promising athletic prospects a certain amount of money in endorsements even if those endorsements don't make financial sense. E.g., a $1MM endorsement for Alumni Bob's Radiology Practice. That's certainly not going to improve the broken state of post-secondary education in the US.

Edit: It's going to have lots of interstate ramifications, too. If this goes through, why would you ever go to Notre Dame if you could also go to USC?


Depth charts in college sports already work to even out the teams. The reason a top QB recruit would go to Notre Dame instead of USC is because USC already has 3 top ranked QBs and you wouldn't get any playing time until your senior year. Whereas at a lower tier school that same recruit might be able to start much earlier and therefore be able to enter the league draft earlier. Obviously this doesn't solve the problem 100% but you already see recruits taking this into account when signing and in some cases even transferring.


Yeah, I agree. This basically means paid college players. It will be far too easy for the boosters to funnel money in via "endorsements".

But I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.


> But I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.

It's hard to predict, but one could expect larger disparity than even exists today amongst schools (arguably the disparity today is based on coach and facility costs, and will grow when it includes players). That disparity is not only one school compared to another, it's also the programs within a school itself and the ability for NCAA and conference funds to be redistributed. So much legislation was focused on equality of services across sports programs and universities, this is clearly a step towards inequality (even if it is a good step).


At the same time - there are a lot of wealthy alumni from schools without a noteworthy program that would be more than happy to directly play some players to come put their alma matter on TV for a couple seasons.


Athletes are a tiny fraction of most schools' student body, so whatever is broken in higher education probably has nothing to do with them.

It's absurd that anyone pretends they're truly students, but it doesn't change the quality of the education for other students.


>>That's certainly not going to improve the broken state of post-secondary education in the US.

Tangential. This isn't about fixing public education, this is about worker's rights.

As for "Wealthy schools get best athletes" that's already what happens. Also, why is that any worse than the Yankees being perennial WS contenders while the Royals have to get lucky with player development to field an elite team? That's just the nature of sports. Pretending that there's a level playing field now (go look at some of the articles about LSU's new 28 million dollar football facilities) is laughable. Besides you're never going to get there, and it doesn't really have to be a goal for the school.


Seems fair. Non-athlete college students are allowed to earn money and profit from endorsements. There shouldn't be special rules just for athletes.


Hypothetically, if a student with a full ride merit scholarship wanted to take a job in his field of study, he could. He could also speak at a conference, write a book, and do all sorts of other things that would allow him to monetize himself.

There's no reason athletes should be different. The fact that there are greater opportunities for a star QB to advertise shoes shouldn't mean that we need to limit them.


The analogy doesn't totally fit. There's nothing to stop a college student from also playing a pro sport outside of college, either.

I'm still in favor of college athletes getting paid endorsements if only because the practical alternative is rampant corruption, but college athletics are hosted and promoted by the colleges.

That's a distinction that matters.


They can’t play pro sports because of agreements between the NCAA and the pro leagues. For example, to be eligible for the NFL draft you must be 3 years out of high school and used up all your college eligibility. NBA also has similar rules to stop pro teams from poaching out of highschools.


Does this mean every pro basketball player in the US goes through college? Why? What do they typically study? "Sport science"?


That description isn't quite accurate. All players must be 19 or 1 year after graduating from a US high school to be eligible in the NBA. This was changed around 15 years ago and has led to a lot of basketball super stars playing 1 year in college (One-and-done).

There are a lot of "reasons" why. Most argue that it was fueled by a lot of 18 year olds that flamed out and were unsuccessful in the league in the late 90s and early 2000s. There is a great book that came out recently detailing that time period.[1]

Some people say this is to protect the players and give them a degree to fall back on, but IMO it has become much more obvious lately that it is a free way to scout players for another year and see them compete against each other to get a better handle of who is worth investing in. The NBA is planning on dropping this age requirement back to 18 in the next several years.

As for what they study, the answer is typically not very much. Some of these players are basically physically ready to play in the NBA at 16 and college is a complete waste of time. They just need to pass their classes in the first semester (or first two quarters) to stay eligible through the post-season in March before dropping out and preparing for the draft. It is a farce. Ben Simmons is a recent example if you want to read about it or watch his documentary. [2]

Football is a little different. The requirement is 3 years from HS graduation and very few players are physically ready for the NFL at 18. Careers are also much shorter in the NFL, so you really only see players skipping a few games at the end of their final college season to stay healthy for the draft.

Baseball has the best system in my opinion. You can be drafted out of HS or Junior College, but, if you turn that down or are not drafted, you aren't eligible until you turn 21 or finish your 3rd year.

This system wouldn't work well as well in the NBA because of how their contracts work, but this is already way too long of a post.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Boys-Among-Men-Prep-Pro/dp/080413927X

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_%26_Done


Don't college athletes already have the same right to profit from endorsements as college students that non-athlete college students have? And then they get additional subsidized opportunities for being athletes?

What I am saying is that all college students have the same rights to profit from their endorsements as "college students" whether they are athletes or not.


>Don't college athletes already have the same right to profit from endorsements as college students that non-athlete college students have?

Not under the current NCAA rules, no.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/frequently-asked-questions-about-n...


I mean they're allowed to earn money from endorsements already, they just aren't allowed to compete in future NCAA competitions if they do so. Even if this law prevents CA universities from punishing students who accept endorsements, they still won't be able to compete in NCAA competitions so what is the actual point?


See other comments here for why the NCAA can't just do nothing about this situation. The scenario you describe is unlikely to happen.


They will be able to complete in NCAA competitions, or at least they will be able to sue the NCAA in California if they are prevented from doing so. The law applies to both universities and athletic associations.


> The law applies to both universities and athletic associations.

So they made the Olympics illegal even though they are set to host it in 2028?


The IOC removed the requirement to be an amateur in 1971. The requirement of the USOC for US athletes to be amateurs was eliminated in 1978. Individual sport associations still prevented professionals participating in some sports until 1986. Since 1986 all Olympic sport have allowed professionals.


Fair. But the IOC still bans many forms of athletes using their likeness to earn money, which is what this bill addresses. Even under this bill, students still wouldn't be allowed to earn money by coaching HS students or whatever.


The IOC only banned using their likeness to earn money while the games were ongoing. They could do so before and after the games. I use the past tense because the IOC forwarded an amendment to 40.3 to the national olympic committees this summer to be implemented which greatly relaxes that ban.


The Olympics are neither a university nor an athletic association, and even if they were Olympic athletes are not, in most (if any) sports, prohibited from paid endorsements.


The IOC is 100% an athletic association. And they absolutely prohibit athletes from accepting many forms of paid endorsements. I'm not sure to what extent they have "authority over intercollegiate athletics", but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of college sports defer to rules created by the IOC governing bodies. E.g. I wasn't a swimmer in college, but it wouldn't surprise me if the bylaws of college swimming called for the use of Olympic size pools.


> I'm not sure to what extent they have "authority over intercollegiate athletics",

Zero.

> but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of college sports defer to rules created by the IOC governing bodies

To the extent those rules conflict with what the new law allows universities and athletic associations to do, a university doing so would be a violation by the University, but not by the IOC, which doesn't govern intercollegiate athletics at all.


Tons of college students compete in the Olympics in sports that they play during college. It's not a huge stretch that the IOC could be considered being a de facto authority of intercollegiate athletics. E.g. I would also consider the IOC as having de facto authority over WADA, even though it's theoretically a separate entity.


> It's not a huge stretch that the IOC could be considered being a de facto authority of intercollegiate athletics.

Even taking that as true for the sake of argument, de facto is a phrased used specifically to distinguish from de jure (in law), and we're discussing application of law.


The law also states the NCAA can't prevent students from doing so. So if the NCAA prevents them from competiting they can and will be sued.


Good, that was pure exploitation. Student athletes should be able to profit off of their talents, just like any other student could profit off of their own talents.

It is like when a software engineer working at a tech company comes up with an idea at work, they could develop, release a product, and then make a fortune ... right? ... ... uh oh!


I think that one is a little bit on the software engineer for not negotiating that out of their contract. There are plenty of shops who won't try to own your brain at work and at home.


I mean look at Robert Pera, the founder of Ubiquiti Networks but started working on his idea while at Apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pera


Hopefully this works out the same way to how California sets clean car standards just for themselves. California is a big enough market and it's not worth making different cars just for California. So all cars sold in the U.S. are manufactured to that standard.


My preference would be for a world where college athletes were genuinely student-athletes: held to the same academic standards as other students while genuinely acting as amateur athletes.

But that's not the world we live in (particularly for football and basketball.) The quasi-professional setup we have now, where athletes generate tremendous revenue for schools and and capture very little of that, is untenable. I don't necessarily think athletes should get paid by schools, but it's hard to articulate why they shouldn't be able to benefit from endorsements.


>My preference would be for a world where college athletes were genuinely student-athletes: held to the same academic standards as other students while genuinely acting as amateur athletes.

For the most part, that IS the case. Big 5 schools make up only a tiny fraction of student athletes.

My experience with student athletes was that they had in general, above average academics compared to the rest of the students in their department, which included my engineering department. Granted, this wasn't at a big 5 school or anything, but I'd predict roughly the same there on average as it reflects personality traits correlated with success: i.e. to be successful in college athletics, it usually takes strong social skills, self-motivation, discipline, and consistency. These things tend to carry over to other endeavors. There's also additional motivation among athletes to maintain a sufficiently high GPA to keep their scholarships/financial aid.


Tremendous revenue but not really any profit. College sports overall are not "profitable" except at a very few elite programs. (Schools hope knock-on effects, like increased alumni interest, make them pay off).


In a narrow sense, you're right. But even if a college isn't directly profiting on an program, there are a couple things to consider:

- If a university is breaking even on a program but its donations are captured on a different part of the balance sheet, it's still reasonable to think of it as profitable. - College football coaches are able to capture a huge share of the football revenue at a school in part because players are unpaid.


If that's accurate, and college sports in aggregate have no net positive value to the schools (through alumni donation, local economic stimulus, etc.) that's all the more reason to not support the status quo. That would mean these kids are making lots of money that's not benefiting anyone except the NCAA and others able to siphon value off.


Oh, I totally agree.

I don't know how to fix it, but I don't like how education and competition teams are tangled up in the US. In lots of Europe, schools don't do that, and there are a greater number of local recreation centers that have quality competition teams both for kids, college students, and adults for very reasonable, low fees.

It seems like a better model, but we're used to doing it the current way and have built up large facilities at high schools and colleges.


> Tremendous revenue but not really any profit. College sports overall are not "profitable" except at a very few elite programs.

Those elite programs are probably the only ones where athletes would have any significant endorsement opportunities, anyway.


Seen from Europe, the whole concept of college sports is just strange. What do the two have to do with each other? One is a place of study, the other is sport. Here if you want to be an athlete, you join a sports club. If you want to be a computer scientist or historian, you go to university. You can also do both but they have no interactions. Apparently one of the ways to get a scholarship in the US to pay the high tuition fees is through good sport results. But what does swimming really fast have to do with someone's aptitude for studying biology or astronomy or finance?


As is the answer with almost anything in the US, the answer is: "There are some who stand to make money from it at the expense of others."

US is fundamentally different from most other countries. In most countries, govt designs (or tries to design) laws and systems for the public good. Not so in the US.


> US is fundamentally different from most other countries. In most countries, govt designs (or tries to design) laws and systems for the public good. Not so in the US.

I think this is overly simplistic. There's plenty of corruption in many European countries as well, it's just in a different form.

It seems also deeply cultural. What would count as greedy and offputting behavior here, is seen as laudable and ambitious in the US. People are supposed to be pushing for more and more money and they are considered successful to the extent they can make it.

This results in good and bad things alike. Most of the other parts of the world suffer from some form of the tall poppy syndrome: if you want to be socially accepted, you aren't supposed to be deviating too much from those around you. Meaning that entrepreneurship is much smaller and also that many things are just not considered to be for sale in good taste (private prisons, expensive private schools, expensive hospitals).


> I think this is overly simplistic. There's plenty of corruption in many European countries as well, it's just in a different form.

Not denying corruption doesn't exist in other countries, including EU.

However, if you look at it closely from a 3rd person perspective, you'll see that the laws in US are designed to snatch rights away from citizens vs laws in most other countries are designed to give rights to its citizens.

One may ask where it comes from? It seems comes from a place of profit for a lobby.

No payment for student athletes? NCAA and others suck in value of labor of young kids by denying right to earn money for their labor

No universal healthcare or clean competition in healthcare? Private insurance and healthcare institutions suck in value of humans by denying right to get basic healthcare as a service.

No cheap education? Lenders racketing on student's worth by denying students access to low cost capitalistic education.

No rights for private prisoners? Immigrants? Civil forfeiture? Every thing is designed as a system to take away rights for the benefit of a few.

The US govt and private industry are a nexus of money making for large lobbying groups.

This won't fly in another non-corrupt democracy, let alone in EU.

> It seems also deeply cultural. What would count as greedy and offputting behavior here, is seen as laudable and ambitious in the US

Yep, there's another way of looking at the fundamental difference. The govt exists to make money for a few at the expense of others.


Part of the reason could be that the stakes are just much higher in a single country of the size of the US and the lobbying takes less effort. Even with the EU, Europe is just much more fragmented and there's less chance for some business oligarch or parasite corporation to have good relations with all the different governments across all ~50 countries of Europe, each with their own slightly different systems.


But even then, you would think lobbying inside Germany would be crazy.

But it isn't. Why? Because people (rich people included) see society as something to be shared. Not something to be taken from others by hook or crook.

US used to be more sharing, like under FDR. But it is more and more like flawed democracies.


Arguably the car industry gets away with a lot in Germany. But that lobbying isn't as open and overt as in the US for sure.


Low quality reporting. Two things that should go in the top few sentences:

* Name of the Bill: SB 206

* Link to bill text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Instead the bill is only accidentally named in the embedded tweet.


California from the contractor law to this has made it habit to muscle large organization to doing the progressive and right thing. Pretty interesting to see one state change so much nationally.


Honestly I dont understand what College Sports is there for. If they're going to get paid its really stupid to have the athletes paid more than the professors.

I've heard the justification that the sports brings in money to the school, but if they athletes get paid that wont be much.


Colleges put an ABSURDLY high price on the value of athletics and the "school pride" they bring.

Does it actually improve the common student's education? Probably not.

I assume the teams actually make money, since people would not run them if they were run at a loss. I've heard that the "sports teams pay for themselves." I assume this is bullshit and colleges like to have their vanity projects in the form of big stadiums and athletic teams.


California has been on an absolute tear with progressive legislation recently. Love it or hate it (I happen to be the former) it's definitely an experiment in how efficacious modern progressive policies will be.


The NCAA's main argument against paying college players is completely bogus, which is that there is an uneven playing field between "amateur" and paid players. In reality, some players already claim that advantage by coming from rich families, which according to NCAA logic is unfair.

The real separation between college and professional athletics is being a student. Rich and poor students both only have 24 hours in a day and as long as a significant portion of that is dedicated to classes, then that's fair enough for me. 12 units / semester is the current minimum.


There's a lot to family background. I went to a division 1 school and while I didn't personally know any of the "big name" players, it was obvious life was a lot less comfortable for many of them (even with a certain future in the NBA) than the walk-on with no professional ambition but a surgeon for a parent.


No doubt we aren't doing enough to compensate our college athletes. We treat college Football like the AAA farm system for Baseball, and these kids have incentives to go out and hit hard and stand out so they can advance to the NFL. All without much of a safety net.

I have a friend who was on an athletic scholarship, but he blew out his knee and was cut from the team. Luckily his parents found a way to cover the cost for his final year, but overnight he went from having access to tutors, trainers, and special classes, to being tossed in with everyone else and having to cover his own knee surgery and rehab costs.

Now I'm not saying this is good that athletes got special treatment, but it really drives the point home that they are given special treatment when you deprive them of it right before the graduation finish line... My friend struggled; this is actually where I met him, as he was seeking tutoring.

He was trying, like really trying. Putting his all into academics to try and get caught up. There's only so much you can do, and he had been given such an easy pass to that point he simply wasn't able to do any of the work. He was depressed, felt like his whole life had been taken away, felt like his parents had sold everything they had to help him at least come out with a degree... and he didn't want to let people down.

This was all in the early 2000s, so I don't know if it's changed... what I think would be good:

* Make scholarships irrevocable due to injuries. If you get football scholarship, you get to stay no matter what. With full access to team tutors. A school can't offer someone a life-changing education, and then rip it away just because that person got hurt trying to help entertain the school's athletic audience.

* Make health funds available. Any injury you get while at work, work is liable for. You get hurt playing football, the team has to pay your insurance premiums and provide trainers for your rehab. Like a pension fund. Not like these programs don't have the money...

But paying athletes... slippery slope. It feels like then we really should split sports out into their own AAA systems, rather than relying on schools. I recognize that the drive to be a top athlete can permeate into other areas of a person's life, and sports built team mentality and promote physical fitness... It's just such a sketch gray area when you think about the NFL (and sure, others) diverting risk and responsibility for these kids to the NCAA.


The school isn't paying the athletes. Yes, there might only be a whisker separating an "alumni sponsorship" and the school itself paying, but that's the alumni's choice. You can't spin out an NFL or NBA minor league at this point, because you'd just have to rip sports out of college entirely.

The issue is that the NCAA's amateur rule prevents players from capitalizing on their likeness. There's no reason for that rule to stay in place. If you're working in any other field, like say Comp Sci, you can go out and get work in that field while going to school. Why shouldn't athletes? You're a QB, you can sell your likeness to NCAA 2K19 or whatever and make some money. You can sell merch or do jersey signings. That all seems extremely reasonable.


To me athletes should be able to go pro (NBA, NFL) straight when they're in high school. College is a waste of time for these guys. Problem solved.


This strikes me as somewhat dystopian. It is going to enhance the incentive to become a student athlete without helping students that are currently having difficulty affording education without loans, thereby potentially enhancing an already not insignificant sense of discord between athlete and non-athlete students on college campuses.


Amazing how much the TV series "Ballers" seems to reflect what's going on behind the scenes in sports. I've felt for years that NCAA rules has treated the athletes like a virtual slave class, while everyone, other than them, makes huge amounts of money.


The sooner we can separate sports and education and allow the market play itself out, the better.


Can someone share some light on why NCAA doesn't want the college athletes to be paid?


Because it's really odd to associate a university with a professional sports team and not paying the athletes was the last straw after stadiums in the hundreds of millions, coaches salaries in the millions, television deals, etc. etc. already all made it seem like a joke.

There's nothing wrong with being a sports fan or being a player, or competing while at university, but the levels that football and basketball have gotten to are plainly ridiculous. Those games and how much money is sunk into them are just ridiculous to have at a university.

There is no reason they should enjoy any tax benefits and their presence distracts and overshadows the purpose of a university.


College athletes already were getting paid with free tuition, room, board, meal plans, expenses, etc.


Interesting that no one has raised the implications of this on the taxable income in the state. Given budget shortfalls in the state, and 50-some NCAA institutions with several power programs, this would surely be a welcomed source of revenue for the State government. It begs the question of intent behind the law.


This is precisely what I just thought about. CA has some of the highest income tax rates in the US with 10.3% for income over $275k -> 13.3% for income over $1million. From a tax revenue standpoint, this is a no brainer. If other states end up adopting this rule successfully and I were an athlete, I'd probably consider playing in a state that has a more favorable income tax or none at all like NV, WA, WY, FL.


CA has a $200bn budget. The tax gains from this will be barely noticeable


I mean, they could have proposed this at any time in the last X decades, why now?


In case you're lacking context (not all readers here are US basketball fans) - John Oliver has an excellent take on NCAA salaries issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0


America likes its markets free, but it's sports socialist (unpaid college, revenue sharing, salary caps, drafts, etc). Funny how it's progressive CA is going to cause college athletics to a whole lot more market oriented....


If you somehow think that "unpaid laborers" in college sports is a socialist ideal, I think you need to do literally any reading at all about what socialism is.

How do the workers have any control over the "means of productions" in that situation? How is that a confederation of laborers setting the market collectively for their efforts? You do realize that markets exist in a socialist paradigm right?

Progressive California is going forward for the right for laborers to make money off of their labor, which is an extremely socialist ideal (as opposed to being paid in "exposure", sorry, "college education" as if that's a real commodity)


Good.


[flagged]


They would be available to males and females. Where does it say only males get this? In fact, title 9 might require the male athletes to share some of their profits with the female sports.


Stop spreading misinformation. The bill applies to all NCAA athletes regardless of gender.


[flagged]


There are elite women college athletes who are celebrities and could perhaps bring in more money via endorsements of whatever. There are of course a lot more famous football and basketball players who are almost all male.


Football teams are coed.


I get that this is your burner account to spam nonsense, but what?

I mean, if these are your complaints aren't you just arguing that title IX doesn't go far enough, which is basically a settled matter?

I don't believe there's any rule preventing women from trying out for a men's team if there isn't a women's team in that sport, and there have been several women (although, not many) who've played NCAA football.


I'm sorry, is this bad satire or are you confused about what this means?

Let's say you're the star center on the Stanford's women's team. There's nothing that says you can't get a shoe deal here, the same way a WNBA player might.


Since there are not many women playing football, it should be possible for them to join a mens football team.


It is, if they qualify.


I honestly wish more women would try out for football, though I completely understand at least some of the reasons why they might not want to.


There are few if any women who would be able to make a D1 football team, and it's an inherently unsafe sport, so I'm not sure I agree.


Ah yes, hello modern misogyny, thanks for showing up!

No one said D1, and there are plenty of women who could make football teams in CFB. People like you are probably why they shouldn't bother.


Ah yes, let's increase the pool of people exposing themselves to CTE on a regular basis, and attack someone's moral character if they think otherwise. Thanks for attempting to engage in a rational discussion.


Oh right, because women can't decide for themselves how to live, so thank god a man like you can step in and prevent them from making the horrible choice.

You gave up on rational discourse the moment you decided you knew best for women.


Do you also believe female MMA fighters should be allowed to fight with men?

You seem like a toxic, mean-spirited person, so I'll refrain from engaging further. Good day to you.


If both a man and a woman want to fight one another, who are you to say they can't? They'd know better than you if it's alright.

And the only toxic behavior I see here is yours. Enjoy your day!


There’s also a bigger question of why should being able to play sports get you into university in the first place? The only reason the sports scholarships have existed is because they are massive profit centers for the people who run them - most of the money raised just goes back into the sports facilities and management, the players frequently get dumbed down courses - especially given they’re required to participate in a training regime that hampers the education their scholarship is meant to entitle them to, and by the time they graduate they have long term health problems and most can’t join a professional team so don’t have earnings post-uni.

It’s a system that is fundamentally unfair: it’s unfair to the students who are academically capable but are deny spots by less academically capable players, and it’s unfair to the players who aren’t given a quality education, aren’t supported for their long term health issues, and aren’t compensated for the money they bring in or even permitted to make money themselves.


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: