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?
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 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.
