Jump to content
soupslam1

California Bill to Pay Athletes Passes

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, 1066 said:

Please excuse my ignorance of this proposed law. Does this law apply only to publicly owned universities or does it apply to ALL universities?  There are two large private universities in Cali which would be adversely effected in all sports and several private schools such as U Santa Clara, U San Diego etc. which would be effected in basketball. Also is the decision to allow payments something which the university makes or does the law require schools to allow such payments and do the schools have any right to regulate or limit said payments?  I can see serious problems if the state legislature, composed primarily of people who could not hold a job as a dog catcher, chose to regulate private schools in this manner.

I can see potential but not insurmountable problems in this law depending on who regulates it and how it is regulated.

The law as currently constructed applies to schools who's net media rights revenue exceeds 10 million a year.  IOW...the 4 Pac 12 schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet we can start with EA Sports NCAA College Football  Cali Edition 1st while we wait for the rest of the nation to catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the NCAA still prohibits the payment of student athletes, how would this bill effect those athletes eligibility who do get paid? Could the NCAA rule those athletes ineligible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wyovanian said:

No one is "suffering". Student athletes spend years earning athletic scholarships in sports that 96% will never get paid for. What they DO get is an education and an experience that shapes kids into adults. Unless you're a coddled, spoiled, guaranteed-to-go-pro athlete. Then you hire social media experts to game the pro system and lawyers to fend off criminal allegations.

What you're advocating is "We had to destroy the village in order to save it.".

So it’s ok to exploit people as long as some of the money goes to some people that could use it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

So it’s ok to exploit people as long as some of the money goes to some people that could use it? 

Who, exactly, is being exploited?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RSF said:

The law as currently constructed applies to schools who's net media rights revenue exceeds 10 million a year.  IOW...the 4 Pac 12 schools.

I reached out to the author of the SI article on this bill.  This has changed.

 

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/10/california-fair-pay-play-act-law-ncaa-pac-12

 

 

Hi RSF, thanks for the note. I have updated the story to note that the $10 million mark, which had been included in the bill, was removed in the latest version. So as currently worded it applies to all schools that aren't community colleges. Thanks for reaching the piece. Best, Michael

 

Michael McCann

Professor of Law
Director of Sports and Entertainment Law Institute

UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law

2 White Street

Concord, NH 03301

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

So it’s ok to exploit people as long as some of the money goes to some people that could use it? 

I wouldn’t say receiving a free college education is being exploited. Particularly these days with the cost of a college education. And if you take advantage of that education, your future salary is going to be much higher than without that degree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wyovanian said:

Who, exactly, is being exploited?

Stupid question, but sure I’ll answer. The athletes helping generate revenue that aren’t receiving any of that revenue they helped generate. Scholarships aren’t tied to the revenue. If they were, no athletes would receive them outside of football and men’s basketball players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

I wouldn’t say receiving a free college education is being exploited. Particularly these days with the cost of a college education. And if you take advantage of that education, your future salary is going to be much higher than without that degree. 

The athletes help generate billions in revenue. They should receive a percentage of that revenue. They don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I doubt the athletes you mentioned are going to see any cash come their way. It’s going to be the star athletes that make money. What’s to stop a big time booster selling cars using an athlete’s poster to promote his sales and paying him big money for it. The schools and boosters with the money are essentially going to be bidding for the best recruits. That happens to some degree anyway but it will open Pandora’s box. 

This is a great point and it leads to the notion that even though we should allow student athletes to profit from their likeness, those associated with a program as boosters should be barred from engaging their schools athletes in any sort of promotional deal. It's the only way to try and stop/slow down what you describe here...sort of like when you when there is a prize won you can't have friends or family connecting you to the firm from where the prize originates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

The athletes help generate billions in revenue. They should receive a percentage of that revenue. They don’t. 

They do.  It's just not in cash (most of it), but many do squander it just they would cash and the percentage they receive varies wildly from school to school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RSF said:

The law as currently constructed applies to schools who's net media rights revenue exceeds 10 million a year.  IOW...the 4 Pac 12 schools.

Thanks. This would indicate it is private as well as public universities, do you agree? However the courts not the universities regulate and administer the law. Do you also agree? I actually have nothing against the law. However the NCAA, private universities which do not receive state funding and the federal government which obviously administers title 9 may have other ideas.

Of these I believe the federal government has the weakest case. Another question could the NCAA block a player receiving such funds from playing any game outside the state of California?  What other nefarious things might we encounter from the NCAA.

Opinions are welcome from all, especially any lawyers on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RSF said:

They do.  It's just not in cash (most of it), but many do squander it just they would cash and the percentage they receive varies wildly from school to school.

But they don’t. The scholarships are not tied to revenue, if they were then no athletes would get scholarships outside of football, men’s basketball, and a handful of other programs because the vast majority of NCAA sports generate no revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 307dude said:

If a sought-after kid accepts an offer at any MW institution and wants to pursue a degree in accounting or finance, computer science, civil engineering or such and has the academic chops for it, they’re going to let him pursue it. 

No they aren't.    Not to mention that none of those are science degrees.

If you are a valuable player like say Korey Hall and you are a 4 year starter you might get to take a glorified business degree.   Most players don't have that power.

None get a science degree.

6 hours ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

I know there is some confusion for what the "S" stands for in B.S. and M.S. which are conferred by engineering colleges and universities.  Don't let the jokes and humor confuse you, the S is literally science.

A civil engineering degree is not a science degree and I don't care what the school they graduated from calls itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

But they don’t. The scholarships are not tied to revenue, if they were then no athletes would get scholarships outside of football, men’s basketball, and a handful of other programs because the vast majority of NCAA sports generate no revenue.

You should get a business education so you could actually understand the business world.

When a physical plant like a basketball facility is getting all its expenses paid by men's basketball.   The women's basketball team just needs to make more than the cost of running the lights, to make more money than the building would sitting empty.  One doner every 5 years making a significant donation can make women's basketball a home run profit.    Not to mention all the tickets and food sold at the event probably breaks the school even.

You people are mentally brainwashed fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

No they aren't.    Not to mention that none of those are science degrees.

If you are a valuable player like say Korey Hall and you are a 4 year starter you might get to take a glorified business degree.   Most players don't have that power.

None get a science degree.

A civil engineering degree is not a science degree and I don't care what the school they graduated from calls itself.

 

Ok so a bachelor of science is not a science degree.  A field (engineering) that requires sufficient understanding of physics, chemistry, biology in order to harness or work with those aspects of nature to develop real world results is not a scientific field?  Sure thing blue.  Point is I had a number of football players including starters in my civil engineering classes.  Those weren't cakewalk courses.  Most student athletes are not going pro and are not being exploited but benefit from getting a paid for education and degree with no student debt.  Up to the individual to pick a worthwhile degree or not join a program that is going to try and shoehorn them into a less worthwhile program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

No they aren't.    Not to mention that none of those are science degrees.

If you are a valuable player like say Korey Hall and you are a 4 year starter you might get to take a glorified business degree.   Most players don't have that power.

None get a science degree.

A civil engineering degree is not a science degree and I don't care what the school they graduated from calls itself.

 

Oh, what a bunch of horseshit. Your definition of “science” is all that matters, got it. 

In Bluetools’ world, “lunch” consists of two spoiled pickles, a used 9-volt battery and a dead earthworm consumed at exactly 1:54 p.m. daily. That’s it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

No, the NCAA will lose all its schools if they do not change.

 

Going to be hard for those NCAA guys to afford those big salaries, parties and the scim they get from selling exploited kids athletic prowess if the only schools left in the NCAA are the Ivy League and University of Idaho.

Doubt it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You should get a business education so you could actually understand the business world.

When a physical plant like a basketball facility is getting all its expenses paid by men's basketball.   The women's basketball team just needs to make more than the cost of running the lights, to make more money than the building would sitting empty.  One doner every 5 years making a significant donation can make women's basketball a home run profit.    Not to mention all the tickets and food sold at the event probably breaks the school even.

You people are mentally brainwashed fools.

Cool.

Now what about literally every other sport that doesn’t play at a facility used by the football or men’s basketball team? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AztecSU said:

This is a great point and it leads to the notion that even though we should allow student athletes to profit from their likeness, those associated with a program as boosters should be barred from engaging their schools athletes in any sort of promotional deal. It's the only way to try and stop/slow down what you describe here...sort of like when you when there is a prize won you can't have friends or family connecting you to the firm from where the prize originates. 

Boosters are already prohibited from providing student-athletes with any benefits that may be related to their status as an athlete. My company employed a student-athlete as an intern one summer and I had to clear it with our NCAA compliance office - down to the question of whether I could buy lunch for the student-athlete (answer - as long as it's the same as other employees and not a unique benefit). 

I'm pretty sure that if I paid a student-athlete to use their image in an advertisement, it would be a violation of NCAA Booster rules. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×