Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jalapeno

California Fair Pay To Play Act SIGNED

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, jdgaucho said:

 

It matters in that other States are following suit, introducing their own versions

Again I'm not sure how it matters even if other states adopt it.  Until the NCAA changes their own rules about it, if you play for a school under the NCAA umbrella you won't be allowed to get paid to play. Of course if enough States adopt it and enough schools leave the NCAA and form their own organization they could then do it, but then they'd lose their tv contracts, government support (at least temporarily until it can get re-established), and in place infrastructure.  That sounds risky.  I think the NCAA will adapt before any of that happens, they hold all the cards really.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NevadaFan said:

Oh Christ. You’re the first to complain that Johnson doesn’t give enough to athletics yet you bemoan the fact that the cost of school is going up? Answer me this. What percentage of Nevada’s budget was funded by the state 20 years ago compared to now? And then ask yourself who foots that delta. 

Why didn't you respond to what I wrote? I know you think you are making a good point here but all you did was reinforce my pont about in-state students in Nevada. They get a decent education for a reasonable price. Nevada is one of the few "value" oriented 4-year Universities. Most around the country are not like this, especially those highly selective private schools that are sending graduates into the workforce with a $200K debt burden and a degree in Social Justice.

"You pukin morons are just plain too dumb."

-bluerules008 aka jibscout aka Hal "Mosquito Man" Newman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Does this law really matter at all? Just because it was passed doesn't mean the NCAA can't create/enforce their own rules.  

 

13 hours ago, jdgaucho said:

 

It matters in that other States are following suit, introducing their own versions

Well, if one Congressman has his way, the states won't matter.  U.S. Rep Anthony Gonzalez wants the Federal Government to step in.  

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27751454/congressman-propose-federal-legislation-paying-college-athletes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lobo Amor said:

We think transferring is starting to get out of hand now, Imagine how it will be when/if this really goes though?

Then again, it might help bring more parity to the sport as top tier players move about looking for center stage. The new recruiting pitch will be along the lines of ... "Come play for us and we'll find you a really nice advertising sponsor."   Companies will get involved in the recruiting process and cause a lot of recruiting infractions

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, madeinhawaii said:

Then again, it might help bring more parity to the sport as top tier players move about looking for center stage. The new recruiting pitch will be along the lines of ... "Come play for us and we'll find you a really nice advertising sponsor."   Companies will get involved in the recruiting process and cause a lot of recruiting infractions

.

 

If it has that effect then that would be a positive. So what about schools in poorer regions or that don't have rich sponsors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lobo Amor said:

If it has that effect then that would be a positive. So what about schools in poorer regions or that don't have rich sponsors?

Even the poorest neighborhoods have big corporations that sell goods to them. They will find at least one or two good sponsors. Enough to get someone interested. Besides, if they were that poor, there would't be a Uni in the area.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, madeinhawaii said:

Even the poorest neighborhoods have big corporations that sell goods to them. They will find at least one or two good sponsors. Enough to get someone interested. Besides, if they were that poor, there would't be a Uni in the area.

 

 

Like a Ja Morant at Murray State, for example.  I don't know how rich the area they are located in is, but they certainly have businesses who sponsor them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2019 at 1:28 PM, SleepingGiantFan said:

Maybe. However, I think SDSU will be fine. Indeed, I think that because schools won't be paying this fee that once it's implemented, we and Fresno will have somewhat of a recruiting advantage over other schools in the MWC until their state enacts a similar law. (For SJSU, the legislation will barely be a blip on the radar.)

Strange, but SJSU in this decade has been ranked higher than San Diego State when in Top 25 post season.  

SJSU ranked #21 in the year 2012; San Diego #25 in 2016.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was listening to sports talk radio in Vegas and they had Justin Watkins on, who is a lawyer and former state representative; he said he would be surprised if a similar bill wasn’t passed in Nevada in 2021. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 2:01 PM, SleepingGiantFan said:

To repeat, unless they use players' likenesses, it's not the universities which will be paying the lion's share of this, it's companies. As to schools, my guess is those like SDSU which aren't rolling in money will work out something where the players get a cut of the profits from sales of media guides and the like and it won't amount to much money for the great majority of them. (I'll bet SDSU doesn't make a profit of more than 50 grand or so from doing that.)

For companies like video manufactuers, I'm just guessing but my sense is it will be a similar situation to what MLB players earned from Topps for baseball cards before Marvin Miller took over running of the players' association. IIRC, Miller's autobiography indicated that in the mid-sixties, that was just $250 per player per season or the equivalent of a couple grand today. The first thing Miller did after he turned the players' association into a COLLECTIVE bargaining organization certified by the NLRB was to tell Topps that the MLBPA was now the agent for all the players and that, as such, Topps needed to deal with Miller rather than individual players to be able to place players' photos on cards. Topps said something like BS, Miller said something like have your lawyer read this court decision and get back to me and then Topps sat down with Miller and agreed to bounce the payment up to something like $1,250 for the season. Having immediately gotten all the players an extra grand for each season when the average salary was only something like $10,000 immediately made Miller a hero.

Could this California law possibly lead to unionization of college athletes? Not unless the NLRB overturns a decision it rendered half a dozen or so years ago when that board found that college athletes are more in the realm of students than employees and therefore have no legal right to union representation.

I don't know.

In theory of course I don't have a problem with Johnny Manzel or Tua making a buck off his marketability.  In fact, I support it as part of their college education and graduating to the real world.  And for godsake, it is disgusting to watch college coaches makes millions a year while the players make nothing.

But, the devil is in the details.  Nike and Underarmor will cut deals with specific schools to promote their players, and those schools will recruit off that.  Which of course will lead to more street agents like what we seen in AAU basketball.

The stipend thing is a whole separate issue, and even more complicated, so I won't go into that.

I want to agree that college players should get royalties when their likeness is used, but it gets very muddy how that would play out when you get in the weeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure whether this has been posted, but it’s an excellent article by an SI legal analyst: the Commerce Clause and precedent say it probably won’t pass legal scrutiny.

Unless, of course, Rep. Gonzalez gets his way (which I don’t see happening).

Is it fitting or irony that possibly the most versatile word in the English language is also of unknown origin?

5810036134_cb4d739b38_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bornsilverandblue said:

Not sure whether this has been posted, but it’s an excellent article by an SI legal analyst: the Commerce Clause and precedent say it probably won’t pass legal scrutiny.

I read it and listened to it.

Again, I kind of think an athlete should get paid if his mug is on a billboard.

But athletes like Eddie O on their highhorse about it are a little tiring.  OK, so O'Bannon's NBA career didn't work out.  He still made lots of money.  And life is a journey, not a destination.  There is no reason he couldn't have utilized his fame from basketball to enhance his post basketball career.  He would have had every opportunity to do so.  McClain had a longer NBA career, but he wasn't a star.  Yet he parlayed that into a successful career as a commentator.  Did O'Bannon get screwed?  Sure, I can see how it wasn't fair that UCLA made money off of him.  But shit, life isn't fair, no one ever said it was.  We've all been screwed one time or another, focusing on that isn't helpful to him.  It's up to him to figure out what to do post career.  Let's say he got paid 300 grand for royalties, would that really matter in his life in 2019?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CPslograd said:

I don't know.

In theory of course I don't have a problem with Johnny Manzel or Tua making a buck off his marketability.  In fact, I support it as part of their college education and graduating to the real world.  And for godsake, it is disgusting to watch college coaches makes millions a year while the players make nothing.

But, the devil is in the details.  Nike and Underarmor will cut deals with specific schools to promote their players, and those schools will recruit off that.  Which of course will lead to more street agents like what we seen in AAU basketball.

The stipend thing is a whole separate issue, and even more complicated, so I won't go into that.

I want to agree that college players should get royalties when their likeness is used, but it gets very muddy how that would play out when you get in the weeds.

I'm not a fan of the law, but I will defend it as not being a contract between a business and a university.  Sure, it allows Under Armor to pay an individual athlete but running that through the school is not part of the deal.  If it becomes a situation where a school has X dollars promised from a sponsor to offer recruits, then it becomes crooked.  If they're going to do this, it needs to be an agreement between an athlete and a business without any interference from the school.  Once that part is settled, the athlete and the school need to iron out how much he's going to pay the university for the use of the uniform and creation of his opportunity to achieve that contract.  I can't wait to see Florida suing their starting QB for a cut of his royalties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Headbutt said:

I'm not a fan of the law, but I will defend it as not being a contract between a business and a university.  Sure, it allows Under Armor to pay an individual athlete but running that through the school is not part of the deal.  If it becomes a situation where a school has X dollars promised from a sponsor to offer recruits, then it becomes crooked.  If they're going to do this, it needs to be an agreement between an athlete and a business without any interference from the school.  Once that part is settled, the athlete and the school need to iron out how much he's going to pay the university for the use of the uniform and creation of his opportunity to achieve that contract.  I can't wait to see Florida suing their starting QB for a cut of his royalties. 

I can’t ever see that happening, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Again I'm not sure how it matters even if other states adopt it.  Until the NCAA changes their own rules about it, if you play for a school under the NCAA umbrella you won't be allowed to get paid to play. Of course if enough States adopt it and enough schools leave the NCAA and form their own organization they could then do it, but then they'd lose their tv contracts, government support (at least temporarily until it can get re-established), and in place infrastructure.  That sounds risky.  I think the NCAA will adapt before any of that happens, they hold all the cards really.  

If a law forces the NCAA to “adapt” I would say it “matters”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Headbutt said:

I'm not a fan of the law, but I will defend it as not being a contract between a business and a university.  Sure, it allows Under Armor to pay an individual athlete but running that through the school is not part of the deal.  If it becomes a situation where a school has X dollars promised from a sponsor to offer recruits, then it becomes crooked.  If they're going to do this, it needs to be an agreement between an athlete and a business without any interference from the school.  Once that part is settled, the athlete and the school need to iron out how much he's going to pay the university for the use of the uniform and creation of his opportunity to achieve that contract.  I can't wait to see Florida suing their starting QB for a cut of his royalties. 

There are so many simple ways to work around this. For example instead of big boosters giving their annual gifts to the athletic department it goes into a private account.  Then the football coach tells the donors how much to pay this player and that player. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...