ADVERTISEMENT

California Allowing College Athletes To Be Paid

TUMU

I.T.S. Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
3,409
1,193
113
SACRAMENTO, Calif.

Defying the NCAA, California’s governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements — a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.

Under the law, which takes effect in 2023, students at public and private universities in the state will be allowed to sign deals with sneaker companies, soft drink makers or other advertisers and profit from their names and likenesses, just like the pros.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and others cast the law as an attempt to bring more fairness to big-money college sports and let athletes share in the wealth they create for their schools.

“Other college students with a talent, whether it be literature, music, or technological innovation, can monetize their skill and hard work,” he said. “Student athletes, however, are prohibited from being compensated while their respective colleges and universities make millions, often at great risk to athletes’ health, academics and professional careers.”

Newsom tweeted a video showing him signing the law during a special episode of HBO’s “The Shop: Uninterrupted” alongside NBA superstar LeBron James and other athletes.

He predicted other states will introduce similar legislation. Two lawmakers in South Carolina have already announced plans to do so.

The new law applies to all sports, though the big money to be made is in football and basketball. It bars schools from kicking athletes off the team if they get paid. It does not apply to community colleges and prohibits athletes from accepting endorsement deals that conflict with their schools’ existing contracts.

The NCAA, which had asked Newsom to veto the bill, responded by saying it will consider its “next steps” while also moving forward with “efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.”

The NCAA, which has 1,100 member schools and claims nearly a half-million athletes, said that changes are needed but must be done at a national level through the athletic association, not through a patchwork of state laws.

Before the governor signed the bill, the NCAA cautioned that the law would give California universities an unfair recruiting advantage, which could prompt the association to bar them from competition.

Powerhouses like the University of Southern California, UCLA, Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, could find themselves banned.

But while the NCAA is the top governing body for college sports, membership is voluntary. If the California schools are forced out, they could form a new governing body.

The law represents another instance of California jumping out in front of other states and positioning itself in the vanguard of change. The movement to allow college athletes to profit from their hard work on the court or the playing field has been cast as a matter of civil rights and economic fairness.

Professional athletes have endorsed the law, including James, whose 14-year-old son is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles and will be 18 when the measure takes effect.

On Instagram, James exulted over the signing of the measure, saying it will “change the lives for countless athletes who deserve it!”

He added: “NCAA, you got the next move. We can solve this for everyone!”

Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner, the bill’s author, said it corrects a longtime wrong: “For decades, college sports has generated billions for all involved except the very people most responsible for creating the wealth. That’s wrong.”

The new law does not go so far as to allow colleges and universities to pay athletes directly for their play.

The NCAA has steadfastly refused to pay players in most cases. But a committee led by Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith and Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman is studying other ways players could make money. Its report is expected in October.

The NCAA does let some athletes accept money in some instances. Tennis players can accept up to $10,000 in prize money per year, and Olympians can accept winnings from their competitions.

Also, many schools pay players yearly cost-of-living stipends of $2,000 to $4,000.

The NCAA reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017.
 
Unfortunately, this will be the end of college football for schools like Tulsa. The only way TU football survives is if there are two separate leagues. Essentially large schools with a lot of money will be the pro version and the rest will compete with the Ivy League.
 
I see nothing but negative repercussions for this. Especially for small schools like Tulsa.

Interestingly enough, the entire reason the NFL / NBA don't let players come in right out of high school is because they were having kids being paid huge sums and coming in unprepared for the professional responsibilities of the game.... so they said, "Go to college where you can learn to be an adult for a couple years" Now you're going to have every star player with enough money to get themselves into huge trouble before they really learn how to use it appropriately. (I think if this takes effect we will see a large uptick in college players getting in legal trouble)
 
They are already compensated. They receive a $250,000.00 education; if they choose to go to class, + laundry money.
 
The NCAA can easily say "We don't care what the state law of California say if a student athlete receives money from a third party then they are ineligible under our guidelines". In the end the P5 schools will ultimately decide whether student athletes can receive money in this manner. I have no real feel for which way this will go at the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4tu2
CA cooking up bat :crap: crazy stuff again

That noted...

The ncaa will DQ any player who takes any $
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4tu2
I don't see this being anything to be too concerned about at the moment, surely the NCAA won't stand for this. You have to wonder how the SEC and Big XII will look at it, though.
 
I don't see this being anything to be too concerned about at the moment, surely the NCAA won't stand for this. You have to wonder how the SEC and Big XII will look at it, though.

I would pay much more attention to the responses from the SEC, Big10, Big12 and the ACC than that of the NCAA. Those conferences will determine the ultimate fate of this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerCane16
If the Power 5 want to rebrand themselves as a separate level from the G5, just like their spokesperson Saban wishes. Then this is exactly how they do it.
 
Don’t miss the overall. It threatens the tax exempt status of the business wings of the athletic departments. It’s an attempt by California to capture tax revenue that is currently escaping them. They are just wrapping it up in the player pay issue because that polls well.

FWIW, Stead and Gragg have both said that paying the players would actually help TU, especially basketball. Stead was on the committee that approved the stipends they get now. I can’t rememver his reasoning, but Stead was adamant it would help TU when I asked him about it.
 
Wasn’t Stead the one who hurt TU financially such that it became Kaiser U?
 
Because some players might make more than others ( income inequality), they should share the same amount.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like they are starting a new NCAA.
They shouldn’t be allowed to play D1. Then it comes down to who follows if any to form a new semi-pro league.

There’s quite an expense to put up an Athlete 4 years though school.
 
There are a number of different things at play, and more than just some video game. 1st, the NCAA will almost assuredly say that any player who gets money from NIL is ineligible to compete in NCAA sanctioned events because they have forfeited their amateur status. 2nd, Huffy mentioned those institutions losing tax-exempt status. That's a big deal. 3rd, if the NCAA rules as we think it will, and the P5 decided to break away, there will be an antitrust lawsuit that follows because of the $ differences going to the P5s vs G5. That will be interesting to see play out. 4th, and this is something none of these idiot schools have thought about I guarantee it. There is a Title IX issue they will need to remedy here. NIL doesn't just impact a kid's ability to go and get an outside endorsement deal. LeBron James said it in his interview when asked about the new law. He said if he went to college, Ohio St or somewhere, that school would have made $MILLION$ on a #23 jersey with no name on it. Well, that's the school getting rich and if they have to pay players for NIL on programs, jerseys, posters, arrange autograph days, they are going to have to lay out the same amount of $ and resources for women's soccer, women's basketball, rowing, etc.

One plus is if EA sports decides to get back in the NCAA football and basketball game, they will have to negotiate with the schools on $ amounts to be paid, which would then in turn go to the athletes. The issue will be when EA starts wanting to negotiate with individuals.

There are other states already working on similar bills...New York and Maryland are two I believe.
 
There are a number of different things at play, and more than just some video game. 1st, the NCAA will almost assuredly say that any player who gets money from NIL is ineligible to compete in NCAA sanctioned events because they have forfeited their amateur status. 2nd, Huffy mentioned those institutions losing tax-exempt status. That's a big deal. 3rd, if the NCAA rules as we think it will, and the P5 decided to break away, there will be an antitrust lawsuit that follows because of the $ differences going to the P5s vs G5. That will be interesting to see play out. 4th, and this is something none of these idiot schools have thought about I guarantee it. There is a Title IX issue they will need to remedy here. NIL doesn't just impact a kid's ability to go and get an outside endorsement deal. LeBron James said it in his interview when asked about the new law. He said if he went to college, Ohio St or somewhere, that school would have made $MILLION$ on a #23 jersey with no name on it. Well, that's the school getting rich and if they have to pay players for NIL on programs, jerseys, posters, arrange autograph days, they are going to have to lay out the same amount of $ and resources for women's soccer, women's basketball, rowing, etc.

One plus is if EA sports decides to get back in the NCAA football and basketball game, they will have to negotiate with the schools on $ amounts to be paid, which would then in turn go to the athletes. The issue will be when EA starts wanting to negotiate with individuals.

There are other states already working on similar bills...New York and Maryland are two I believe.

My understanding in the application of this law is it would allow athletes to sign with agents and then market their likeness to third parties. The contracts and revenue would not go through the schools but be private contracts between the athlete, agent and third party. Am I reading this correctly? If so, I don't see how many of these issues such as tax exempt status, Title IX, etc...apply. There are currently college athletes such as wrestlers who are allowed to receive money from third parties during "Olympic years". Students on any type of scholarship but athletic are allowed to contract with third parties and profit from their skills or likeness.
 
My understanding in the application of this law is it would allow athletes to sign with agents and then market their likeness to third parties. The contracts and revenue would not go through the schools but be private contracts between the athlete, agent and third party. Am I reading this correctly? If so, I don't see how many of these issues such as tax exempt status, Title IX, etc...apply. There are currently college athletes such as wrestlers who are allowed to receive money from third parties during "Olympic years". Students on any type of scholarship but athletic are allowed to contract with third parties and profit from their skills or likeness.
Slippery slope. There are going to be a lot of things players (and their parents) are going to want to take advantage of with this new law. Jerseys, posters, and any other promotional materials they've appeared on before for the program, I can see many of them wanting to be compensated for now. So could the university be one of those 3rd parties? And if they can, that's where you will run into the Title IX issue. Plus, if universities are behind the scenes negotiating deals with 3rd party vendors as part of their recruitment efforts (i.e. TU negotiates a deal with Mazzio's to provide $1M per yr to use TU athletes as endorsers and appear in commercials and TU can then turn around and use that as a recruiting tool). I think this last part is where you will start to destroy college athletics as we know it. You might as well let the boosters just pay the players and give them cars (and this will happen....booster car dealership owner gives players a new ride to appear in a couple of commercials). The more I talk about this, the worse and worse it sounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverickfp
My understanding in the application of this law is it would allow athletes to sign with agents and then market their likeness to third parties. The contracts and revenue would not go through the schools but be private contracts between the athlete, agent and third party. Am I reading this correctly? If so, I don't see how many of these issues such as tax exempt status, Title IX, etc...apply. There are currently college athletes such as wrestlers who are allowed to receive money from third parties during "Olympic years". Students on any type of scholarship but athletic are allowed to contract with third parties and profit from their skills or likeness.
Students on any other type of scholarship aren't being recruited / competing with other universities unless maybe they're going to an ivy league school, in which case they're still not typically paid for their research more than a simple stipend.

I believe a collegiate athlete is a person agreeing for free schooling in return for their aid to the university. It doesn't matter that they make the school money any more than it matters that a Walmart employee makes Walmart money, or when an engineer / accountant saves their company a bunch of money. In most cases, these athletes (especially the ones at small schools or in non-revenue sports, or even just role players on good teams) are getting far more out than they're benefiting the school.

I see two legitimate and equitable solutions:

A) The NCAA puts salary caps on coaches (much lower than current contracts) and mandates athletic surpluses over a certain percentage goes to need based scholarships for the schools.

B) They lobby the pro leagues to let in ultra talented HS'ers that believe they don't need to prove their professional value in college. I don't see why people get so frustrated with the NCAA when the NCAA wouldn't be in this predicament if the pro's wouldn't require these kids to go to college. It's really the NBA / NFL that are the errant parties. If you think about it, baseball / soccer / track / golf don't have these problems with players complaining about pay.... because the pro leagues let in HS age kids.
 
Last edited:
Slippery slope. There are going to be a lot of things players (and their parents) are going to want to take advantage of with this new law. Jerseys, posters, and any other promotional materials they've appeared on before for the program, I can see many of them wanting to be compensated for now. So could the university be one of those 3rd parties? And if they can, that's where you will run into the Title IX issue. Plus, if universities are behind the scenes negotiating deals with 3rd party vendors as part of their recruitment efforts (i.e. TU negotiates a deal with Mazzio's to provide $1M per yr to use TU athletes as endorsers and appear in commercials and TU can then turn around and use that as a recruiting tool). I think this last part is where you will start to destroy college athletics as we know it. You might as well let the boosters just pay the players and give them cars (and this will happen....booster car dealership owner gives players a new ride to appear in a couple of commercials). The more I talk about this, the worse and worse it sounds.

I have to believe the Universities will try to stay as far away from this as possible to avoid such things as Title IX issues not to mention having to deal with the third party vendors. I also don't believe a athlete can sell a TU jersey without obtaining TU's approval to do licensing issues. I can't imagine the schools will give that up. Thus, it leaves the athlete and his agent to contract for things not covered by University owned licenses. Correct? There is zero doubt is gives the big power schools a huge advantage as there are more marketing opportunities.

Aston, I'm not arguing either side and would prefer the system stay as it now stands. If there were laws which prohibited that Walmart employee from making money outside of Walmart we would all have issues with the same. As I stated above, there are currently provisions which allow a student athlete to receive money or contributions (often rather large amounts) and still maintain their amateur status, There is some hypocrisy here.
 
Last edited:
Your Walmart analogy doesn’t apply. If the Walmart employee was paid 250,000 in 4 years and after that had a college degree and could then make all he can for the rest of his life they would be lining up outside the Walmart for jobs. The reason jerseys and colleges came up in the discussion is that LaBron specifically mentioned that scenario when supporting the legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: astonmartin708
I have to believe the Universities will try to stay as far away from this as possible to avoid such things as Title IX issues not to mention having to deal with the third party vendors. I also don't believe a athlete can sell a TU jersey without obtaining TU's approval to do licensing issues. I can't imagine the schools will give that up. Thus, it leaves the athlete and his agent to contract for things not covered by University owned licenses. Correct? There is zero doubt is gives the big power schools a huge advantage as there are more marketing opportunities.

Aston, I'm not arguing either side and would prefer the system stay as it now stands. If there were laws which prohibited that Walmart employee from making money outside of Walmart we would all have issues with the same. As I stated above, there are currently provisions which allow a student athlete to receive money or contributions (often rather large amounts) and still maintain their amateur status, There is some hypocrisy here.
I think the most important thing the NCAA should prioritize is maintaining a competitive landscape with some degree of parity to maintain the purity of the sport among the member schools.

No one is donating large sums of money to Walmart either. No group of competitive entities exists in a truly free market and as such, their constituents / employees don't either. The best thing we can hope for is that one employee's gain for the company is spread semi-equitably to all the other employees rather than consolidated at the top. The problem we're seeing in football is basically a man-made model of societal wealth inequality.
 
I think the most important thing the NCAA should prioritize is maintaining a competitive landscape with some degree of parity to maintain the purity of the sport among the member schools.

No one is donating large sums of money to Walmart either. No group of competitive entities exists in a truly free market and as such, their constituents / employees don't either. The best thing we can hope for is that one employee's gain for the company is spread semi-equitably to all the other employees rather than consolidated at the top. The problem we're seeing in football is basically a man-made model of societal wealth inequality.

I would argue with over ten football programs making over $100M per year and coaches making over $5M per year the purity of amateur athletics disappeared long ago. It's not only a business but it's big business. These schools need some sort of competitive balance so your argument about wealth inequality has merit. However, the P5 conferences do address that in part with the equal distribution of TV revenue. Northwestern gets the same payout as Ohio State. There is still inequalities even among conference mates but those are in large part due to the success of each school as it relates to ticket sales, merchandising, etc... Are there sufficient numbers in the P5s to care about the growing gap between them and the rest of D1? In football the answer is probably that the P5s can stand alone and schedule each other if necessary. I've been arguing for years that we're seeing college football split into two divisions whether it's a formal split or not. This law only increases the likelihood of a formal split imo. If that happens it will be interesting which group the AAC is ask to join.
 
I would argue with over ten football programs making over $100M per year and coaches making over $5M per year the purity of amateur athletics disappeared long ago. It's not only a business but it's big business. These schools need some sort of competitive balance so your argument about wealth inequality has merit. However, the P5 conferences do address that in part with the equal distribution of TV revenue. Northwestern gets the same payout as Ohio State. There is still inequalities even among conference mates but those are in large part due to the success of each school as it relates to ticket sales, merchandising, etc... Are there sufficient numbers in the P5s to care about the growing gap between them and the rest of D1? In football the answer is probably that the P5s can stand alone and schedule each other if necessary. I've been arguing for years that we're seeing college football split into two divisions whether it's a formal split or not. This law only increases the likelihood of a formal split imo. If that happens it will be interesting which group the AAC is ask to join.
I wasn't referring to wealth inequality between schools. I was referring to wealth inequality between players / students and administration / coaches. Basically, you can have two systems.... one where more wealth is distributed to the people at few top, or one where wealth is distributed largely between people at the bottom.

Do you want a system where the incoming wealth from fans goes to the players and the students? Or do you want one where it goes to coaches / presidents. I think investing the money back into the university's academic program benefits the university's constituents (students + student athletes) as a whole rather than what we have now which invests the money in the bank accounts of those in the positions of power. The problem is, the university administrations are never going to vote via the NCAA to agree for their salaries to be cut. That's why I think federal legislation is in order. This state legislation is garbage and short sighted.

I want the product to remain similar to how it has been, but I want the monetary distributions to be more fair to the people who need it most. This California bill basically made it where the people who need it most are likely to get less, and the product is going to deteriorate over time.
 
Doesn't the California law actually provide for the distribution of wealth to some of those at the very bottom....the student athlete. People who are currently among the poorest in the country and certainly the school. The money they will receive will be money which the school likely wouldn't have received in the first place.

I do agree that coaches in the revenue sports make an obscene amount of money. However, they make that money because they are responsible for generating an obscene amount of money. Still don't like it but it is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
If EA, ESPN, schools, Nike, or any other organization sells anything with a players likeness on it, the player should be compensated by that organization, company, etc or, have the legitimate option of not allowing that likeness to be used.

Just a percentage of those specific sales. I don't feel it should include season tickets as they are a school brand nor gate money.
 
If EA, ESPN, schools, Nike, or any other organization sells anything with a players likeness on it, the player should be compensated by that organization, company, etc or, have the legitimate option of not allowing that likeness to be used.

Just a percentage of those specific sales. I don't feel it should include season tickets as they are a school brand nor gate money.
And that's where the water gets murky. If the school has to pay the players for NIL usage (jerseys, posters, bobblehead giveaways,etc.) you will have issues with Title IX come into play.
 
Just a new way for boosters to channel money to favored players.
I agree. Instead of setting players up with sham jobs, they can now throw them in a commercial and give them a car. Come to OU, we'll make it worth your while. Brand new Lexus, we'll put you in an ad or two.

The more we discuss the more I am convinced this is going to destroy college football and perhaps college basketball.
 
And that's where the water gets murky. If the school has to pay the players for NIL usage (jerseys, posters, bobblehead giveaways,etc.) you will have issues with Title IX come into play.

I can't find anything in the law that requires the school to pay the athlete for putting their number on the back of a jersey. The law appears to be only directed at an athlete's ability to contract with third parties outside of the school's or NCAA's current restrictions.
 
Doesn't the California law actually provide for the distribution of wealth to some of those at the very bottom....the student athlete. People who are currently among the poorest in the country and certainly the school. The money they will receive will be money which the school likely wouldn't have received in the first place.

I do agree that coaches in the revenue sports make an obscene amount of money. However, they make that money because they are responsible for generating an obscene amount of money. Still don't like it but it is what it is.
It only provides for distribution of wealth to a select few, which further perpetuates the problem. For example.... you can have a star QB... but without a decent offensive line blocking for him, he's not going to be around for very long. But the linemen aren't going to get any advertising deals.

The people who need it most aren't the stars who are going to play in the NFL in a year or two. They're the students (and student athletes) at the university who may not have full rides. People like softball / soccer players who might have to pay a portion of their income, or intelligent kids that are struggling to pay their way.

Fundamentally, the schools wouldn't be around to have a football team at all if it weren't for the academic students creating demand for education. There would be no players, no coaches, no professors, no presidents if it weren't for the students. By benefiting the students (including non-revenue athletes), you benefit the quality of the education and you increase the value that the players are getting for their scholarships. That's the way it should be handled. Handing sacks of cash to kids who are already going to make sacks of cash later on just perpetuates the problem for everyone else that is actually struggling.

Let's go ask Shabazz Napier if he'd like to hand back the millions he made in the NBA in exchange for a meal plan and a scholarship.
 
I can't find anything in the law that requires the school to pay the athlete for putting their number on the back of a jersey. The law appears to be only directed at an athlete's ability to contract with third parties outside of the school's or NCAA's current restrictions.
It's going to happen. Every last person knows that the #12 TU game jersey I wear (or my kids wear) to games is a Paul Smith jersey...even without the name on the back. Guarantee that one of these players from OU, Ohio State, etc. will get his agent to either have the school cease and desist selling them because there is enough of a tie that the school is using the popularity of that player tied to that number to sell a crap ton of those jerseys OR enter into an agreement to pay the player. Likeness is pretty vague and broad in this respect. It was the same thing with the EA Sports games. They only had numbers and no names on the players but everyone knew exactly who they were.
 
It's going to happen. Every last person knows that the #12 TU game jersey I wear (or my kids wear) to games is a Paul Smith jersey...even without the name on the back. Guarantee that one of these players from OU, Ohio State, etc. will get his agent to either have the school cease and desist selling them because there is enough of a tie that the school is using the popularity of that player tied to that number to sell a crap ton of those jerseys OR enter into an agreement to pay the player. Likeness is pretty vague and broad in this respect. It was the same thing with the EA Sports games. They only had numbers and no names on the players but everyone knew exactly who they were.
They also had height, weight, skin tone, and dominant hand as well as play style.

Also, for some people #12 is special for Paul Smith, but for Allie Green's family it's probably special for him. Before that it was probably special to Jordan James. I'm sure there will be another good #12 to come through too. (Unless we retire the Jersey)
 
It only provides for distribution of wealth to a select few, which further perpetuates the problem. For example.... you can have a star QB... but without a decent offensive line blocking for him, he's not going to be around for very long. But the linemen aren't going to get any advertising deals.

The people who need it most aren't the stars who are going to play in the NFL in a year or two. They're the students (and student athletes) at the university who may not have full rides. People like softball / soccer players who might have to pay a portion of their income, or intelligent kids that are struggling to pay their way.

Fundamentally, the schools wouldn't be around to have a football team at all if it weren't for the academic students creating demand for education. There would be no players, no coaches, no professors, no presidents if it weren't for the students. By benefiting the students (including non-revenue athletes), you benefit the quality of the education and you increase the value that the players are getting for their scholarships. That's the way it should be handled. Handing sacks of cash to kids who are already going to make sacks of cash later on just perpetuates the problem for everyone else that is actually struggling.

Let's go ask Shabazz Napier if he'd like to hand back the millions he made in the NBA in exchange for a meal plan and a scholarship.

You're jumping around. To be fair that soccer player or softball player wouldn't likely be playing D1 ball but for the football and basketball players funding their sport. The money currently being made by those revenue sport players is being distributed to the players you mentioned.
 
It's going to happen. Every last person knows that the #12 TU game jersey I wear (or my kids wear) to games is a Paul Smith jersey...even without the name on the back. Guarantee that one of these players from OU, Ohio State, etc. will get his agent to either have the school cease and desist selling them because there is enough of a tie that the school is using the popularity of that player tied to that number to sell a crap ton of those jerseys OR enter into an agreement to pay the player. Likeness is pretty vague and broad in this respect. It was the same thing with the EA Sports games. They only had numbers and no names on the players but everyone knew exactly who they were.

I believe the language of the law as well as it's intent is pretty clear in that the school is not subject to the same. If I'm reading this incorrectly please feel free to correct me.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT