KTLA: California Law Would Allow College Athletes to Be Paid

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Aug 16, 2012
1,708
956
743
56
#25
How about if we just stop exploiting them? Stop using their name or likeness to make money.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
As far as the university goes, any earned money is for them. Does it go to them directly? No. But the money they make goes to supporting the program to provide them with the best conditions possible to be successful. Cannot speak of how video games go as I have not played video games since the age of Banjo Kazooie 20 years ago. Do schools or the NCAA contract with the likes of EA Sports? Are kids identified by name in the games?
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,873
3,724
743
49
#26
How about if we just stop exploiting them? Stop using their name or likeness to make money.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
As far as the university goes, any earned money is for them. Does it go to them directly? No. But the money they make goes to supporting the program to provide them with the best conditions possible to be successful. Cannot speak of how video games go as I have not played video games since the age of Banjo Kazooie 20 years ago. Do schools or the NCAA contract with the likes of EA Sports? Are kids identified by name in the games?
They don't do college based sports games anymore.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,802
497
213
48
Boulder, CO
#27
They don't do college based sports games anymore.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Right, but they don't anymore due to the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit. Could change if this law becomes reality & other states follow suit. Interestingly, the 23 California schools have come out against this measure.

Heard an interesting discussion on the Dan Patrick show earlier & I can't help but wonder if we're in the midst of the NCAA's final years. It's not groundbreaking or anything, but the P5 schools breaking away on their own may be closer than we think. One of the stickier points to it all, imo, is that football's just such a completely different animal than all of the other sports.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,131
6,779
1,743
Yukon, OK
#28
As an engineering student, any achievements (such as patents) or any product/design I would have made utilizing university resources would have been property of the university, and I had to pay to utilize those resources. Why should athletes be treated any differently when (for the most part) they're not paying a dime during their 3-4 years there?... The product they create with university resources is on the field so following the same logic that applies to non-athletes the university is who reaps the benefits, no? I just don't personally see why people think there is such a strong argument for paying players. I respect what they do and work that the put in to entertain us on gamedays but they shouldn't be treated any different than any other student IMO. If they're good at what they do then they'll have the opportunity to use their skills and make their money after graduation, just like the rest of us...
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,873
3,724
743
49
#29
They don't do college based sports games anymore.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Right, but they don't anymore due to the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit. Could change if this law becomes reality & other states follow suit. Interestingly, the 23 California schools have come out against this measure.
The discussion on the franchise had one guy who was all for it and that the reason was because the committee that came up with the bill included people from the universities. So that's weird.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,802
497
213
48
Boulder, CO
#30
The discussion on the franchise had one guy who was all for it and that the reason was because the committee that came up with the bill included people from the universities. So that's weird.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
"
Some California colleges, including both the California State University and University of California systems, are opposed to the legislation. Michael Uhlenkamp, spokesman for CSU's chancellor, told Inside Higher Ed earlier this year the legislation could lead to athletes some of whom may be on athletic scholarships, being ineligible to compete. Uhlenkamp said he had no further comment on Tuesday.
The bill ultimately "would do more harm than good and likely deny our students a chance to compete at the highest levels" because athletes risk losing eligibility, University of California spokeswoman Sarah McBride said in a statement.
"We believe that any sweeping policy change around student-athlete compensation should first be addressed at the national level, to ensure consistency and a level playing field across all states and intercollegiate athletic conferences, she said.
Stanford University spokesman E.J. Miranda provided a written statement on the university's behalf, stating that Stanford officials "support the goal of protecting and advancing the wellbeing of college student-athletes," but that the bill conflicts with the NCAA bylaws.
"As we await the NCAA recommendations, we oppose SB 206 because we believe there needs to be a rational and consistent national framework for addressing these issues," the statement reads in part.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,519
50,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#31
Old Rx said, "So, what about Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona where there is no such law? Wouldn't this give the California schools an unfair advantage?"

We believe that any sweeping policy change around student-athlete compensation should first be addressed at the national level, to ensure consistency and a level playing field across all states and intercollegiate athletic conferences, she said.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,519
50,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#34
The article goes on to say that the NCAA won't enforce any ban, & thus, other states will pass a similar measure.
From the NCAA:

NCAA responds to California Senate Bill 206
Measure would upend level playing field for all student-athletes
September 11, 2019 10:08am

The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports. Text of the letter follows:

Governor Newsom:

The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes. This core belief extends to each member college and university in every state across the nation.

California Senate Bill 206 would upend that balance. If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions.(emphasis added) These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions.

Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports.

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

It isn’t possible to resolve the challenges of today’s college sports environment in this way — by one state taking unilateral action. With more than 1,100 schools and nearly 500,000 student-athletes across the nation, the rules and policies of college sports must be established through the Association’s collaborative governance system. A national model of collegiate sport requires mutually agreed upon rules.

We urge the state of California to reconsider this harmful and, we believe, unconstitutional bill and hope the state will be a constructive partner in our efforts to develop a fair name, image and likeness approach for all 50 states.

Sincerely,
Members of the NCAA Board of Governors

Stevie Baker-Watson, DePauw University
M. Grace Calhoun, University of Pennsylvania
Ken Chenault, General Catalyst
Mary Sue Coleman, Association of American Universities
John DeGioia, Georgetown University
Michael Drake, The Ohio State University
Philip DiStefano, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mark Emmert, NCAA
Sue Henderson, New Jersey City University
Grant Hill, CBS/Warner and The Atlanta Hawks
Sandra Jordan, University of South Carolina Aiken
Renu Khator, University of Houston
Laura Liesman, Georgian Court University
Ronald Machtley, Bryant University
The Rev. James Maher, Niagara University
Denis McDonough, Former White House Chief of Staff
Tori Murden McClure, Spalding University
Gary Olson, Daemen College
Denise Trauth, Texas State University
Satish Tripathi, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York
David Wilson, Morgan State University
Randy Woodson, North Carolina State University
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,519
50,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#35
The Chronicle of Higher Education article in its entirety:

California Is Poised to Challenge the NCAA Over Amateurism. Here’s What Could Happen Next.
By Wesley Jenkins SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 PREMIUM

For the foreseeable future, California’s most anticipated athletics showdown probably won’t be on the gridiron, the court, or the diamond: It will be in the courtroom.

Awaiting the signature of Gavin Newsom, the state’s governor, is a bill that would prevent colleges in California from prohibiting their players from being compensated for the use by others, such as advertisers, of their names, images, or likenesses.

If Governor Newsom were to sign the bill, it would seriously challenge the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which forbids such compensation under its definition of amateurism. On Wednesday the association sent a letter cautioning Newsom against approving the bill, which would make the Fair Pay to Play Act a law. The letter, which was signed by all members of the organization’s Board of Directors, called the California legislation “unconstitutional” and said “it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics.”

Newsom now has 30 days to sign or veto the bill. A spokesman for the governor declined to comment on his intentions, but Newsom has shown support for student-athletes in the past.

If the bill becomes law, expect litigation to follow. Lawsuits are nothing new for the NCAA, which has long fought athletes’ claims that they have a right to some of the millions in revenue they help bring in. But the entry of California — the country’s richest and most populous state — into the debate suggests real change could be coming to college sports’ amateurism distinction, though perhaps not as extensively as state legislators envision.

“I think the NCAA will make some effort to avoid litigation, but I don’t think the NCAA will ever cave and do what the California law says to do,” said Gary R. Roberts, president of Bradley University and a sports-law expert. “If the governor signs it, then it becomes a ticking clock.”

The NCAA could also punish or disqualify California colleges. It has already threatened to ban them from competing in NCAA championships, in a letter sent to two State Assembly representatives in June.(emphasis added) Were that to happen, the colleges would have grounds to file their own federal antitrust suit, so some experts believe the ban to be an empty threat.

The timeline of any potential litigation on the NCAA’s end is murky at best. The California bill wouldn’t go into effect until the start of 2023, meaning the NCAA would have 40 months to reach some sort of compromise before suing. The group has already commissioned a committee to study athletes’ compensation for the use of their names, images, and licensing rights, and that committee is scheduled to release its first report in October.

The legal stickiness of the California bill derives from its nationwide impact, not necessarily from the language of the measure itself. “It’s not so much the rule, it’s the uneven application of the rule,” said Gene A. Marsh, an emeritus professor of sports law at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

According to federal interstate-commerce law, states cannot define rules that govern nationwide issues, and the imbalance across states would present an even bigger issue for the NCAA, because the essence of the organization is that all colleges are on a level playing field.

For change to occur within the NCAA’s definition of amateurism and the constraints around it, either the NCAA must craft the modification or Congress must change the federal law, according to Matthew Mitten, a law professor at Marquette University and executive director of the National Sports Law Institute. At least the latter possibility has potential. The Student-Athlete Equity Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this year, now rests with the House Committee on Ways and Means. If passed, the measure would amend the federal tax code to prevent amateur-sports organizations from “restricting the use of an athlete’s name, image, or likeness.”

But Michael McCann, director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire, believes the NCAA won’t wait for the federal bill to work its way through Congress. “I think they see the tea leaves,” he said. “I think the NCAA has to come out with some vigor to oppose what would be a pretty substantial change to their model of amateurism.”

A court case from 1992 could signal a likely outcome for the forthcoming legal battle between California and the NCAA, said Bradley University’s Roberts. In NCAA v. Miller, the NCAA had investigated the University of Nevada at Las Vegas men’s basketball program and scheduled a hearing, which members of the team refused to acknowledge, instead demanding that the NCAA conduct its investigation in accordance with a recently enacted Nevada statute. Ultimately, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada found the state’s statute in violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Miller case falls in a long line of court decisions that show deference to the NCAA, said Gabe Feldman, director of Tulane University’s sports-law program. That expectation of deference has lessened since 2014, when the O’Bannon v. NCAA decision found the NCAA in violation of federal antitrust law. (O’Bannon also set the standard that any athletics compensation must be “tethered to education,” which could create yet another sticking point in any litigation over California’s measure.)

Despite the challenges facing the California bill, the NCAA’s constraints around amateurism are “more likely to get some change than ever before,” Feldman added.

If the bill is signed and change does arrive in 2023, it might not involve athletes’ cutting deals directly with companies. Andy Schwarz, a sports economist, said a best-case scenario might see athletes’ negotiating contracts that give their names, images, and license rights to their university in return for a lump sum, royalties, or any other incentives-laden deal. In that scenario, the colleges would not need to worry about the athletes’ sponsoring unsavory products, and the athletes would make money off their images while controlling the terms of the deal.

But Schwarz said he thinks that’s unlikely, given the NCAA’s track record of response. “They have this sort of cut-off-their-nose-to-spite-their-face attitude, which is if we have to share it with the athletes, we’d rather lose it,” Schwarz said. “What I think the NCAA is going to do in the very short run is, they’re going to put out a proposal that they hope people are fooled into thinking is granting athletes their NIL [name, image, likness] rights when in fact it’s a Scooby Snack, like ‘here’s crumb of what your rights should be, now shut up.’”

But to continue responding in that style could risk even more, said Exavier B. Pope, a sports-law expert. “I think the NCAA is in danger of losing the Power Five conferences,” Pope said, envisioning a world in which the competition for top talent becomes so intense that the biggest conferences disaffiliate from the NCAA in order to create their own rules.

Even if the down-the-road consequences of litigation could be huge, the immediate implications of the California legislation probably won’t change things for many athletes. After all, not all student-athletes actually have desirable names, images, or likenesses.

“Even at a program like Alabama, what is the third-string right tackle’s value for name and image rights?” Marsh asked. “If that’s even true at Alabama, think about how inapplicable this whole concept is at so many schools.”

Wesley Jenkins is an editorial intern at The Chronicle. Follow him on Twitter @_wesjenks, or email him at wjenkins@chronicle.com.
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,802
497
213
48
Boulder, CO
#37
Where exactly does the article say that, because I can't find it.
Don't have the article pulled up any more, but a couple of law professors were quoted speculating that.

Reading more about it, it's going to be an interesting legal battle to follow. Could be nothing, could be a major paradigm shift we're watching.

I was too young to know what was going on with the Curt Flood case back in the day, but I've got to imagine there were plenty of people railing against his cause & saying how disastrous it would be if he won.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,519
50,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#38
A couple of law professors speculating is not the same thing as "the NCAA won't enforce any ban."

I don't see how the NCAA could NOT take action.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,802
497
213
48
Boulder, CO
#39
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...wing-athletes-be-paid-name-image-and-likeness

"The NCAA could face another antitrust lawsuit if it attempted to enforce a post-season ban in California, Marc Edelman, a law professor at Baruch College and a sports law expert, wrote in an essay in Forbes.
Federal courts would likely disagree with a private association attempting to “usurp the power” of the California government, “a behavior that early Supreme Court antitrust opinions regularly condemned,” Edelman wrote.
“By way of analogy, under federal antitrust law, if a national association of retailers with market power were to decide to ban all members that chose to operate in California and thus complied with California's minimum wage laws, such conduct would fairly easily be recognized as an illegal restraint of trade,” he wrote. “Any attempt by the NCAA to ban colleges that comply with the Fair Pay to Play Act would likely be viewed the same.”

----------------------------

The NCAA will likely have to allow the California bill to take effect without consequences, which would open the possibility for other states to pass similar legislation, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. The other option is for the NCAA to create a model allowing athletes in all states to be compensated, he said.