California is going to allow college players to get paid
- Thread starter ClarkeFan83
- Start date
This is more about the NCAA than colleges themselves (which should still be done but that fight comes later). As it stands right now, the NCAA doesn't allow kids to endorse products, sign with agents, or make money off their name or likeness which is a big load of BS. Kids can't go to the Olympics (because sponsorship deals are how athletes pay for the training and trip), they can't even monetize Youtube videos. The only way the NCAA allows them to make money is by going and getting a "real" job and piling that on top of school and practice, which is simply not feasible. The NCAA nor any school should have a say in a kid using his name or likeness to make money.
Last edited:
So, should the schools not offer scholarships to those who are able to make money off their likeness? Will the NFL change their rule about requiring those who want to play in the NFL to wait 3 years after graduating HS? Will they require them to have a HS Diploma?
I would expect scholarships to be need basis. If a top player makes more than tuition and board, no scholarship is needed. Each player will need to submit a copy of tax return each year to qualify. In the NFL, as they join the real world of employment, the only requirements will be ability and criminal background check. Other than that the rest will eventually go away, by choice or lawsuit.
Take a university like Northwestern. Annual tuition, including room and board, is around $73,000. Take that and times it by 5, assuming most take a red shirt year, that equals out to $365, 000. So in my opinion, that athlete is getting paid $365, 000 to play sports and get their education. Throw in all of the meals, free clothing, travel, tutors, etc... things non scholarship students have to pay for and I am positive it goes over $500,000.
Athletes also get medical insurance and far superior access to medical professionals that an average student. They also get a meal plan that typically allows for 3-4 meals daily and sometimes a meal stipend. Some universities spent over $3 million just to feed their athletes for a year and one report provides a list of 20 colleges and their combined total to feed athletes was over $40 million.
Regular students are coming out of college with mass amounts of loan debt (current US student loan debt is $1.3 Trillion) that takes decades to repay and with interest, usually doubles the amount originally borrowed. I know the argument about colleges making money off of the athlete, but the colleges make money off of all students. I know how much time athletes put in, but they are also given assistance to help manage that time, which regular students are not afforded and a good number of students are working jobs for the same amount of hours that athletes put into their sport and they have to work to make ends meet.
I feel that the college athlete is already compensated enough. I also think the new rule will make recruiting a nightmare and more cut throat than it already is, plus professional athletes get jealous about their teammates getting more endorsements than they do, imagine what college athletes will be like. I think a bigger concern is that schools are paying million upon millions on fancy, not needed facilities and millions in coaches salaries.
Athletes also get medical insurance and far superior access to medical professionals that an average student. They also get a meal plan that typically allows for 3-4 meals daily and sometimes a meal stipend. Some universities spent over $3 million just to feed their athletes for a year and one report provides a list of 20 colleges and their combined total to feed athletes was over $40 million.
Regular students are coming out of college with mass amounts of loan debt (current US student loan debt is $1.3 Trillion) that takes decades to repay and with interest, usually doubles the amount originally borrowed. I know the argument about colleges making money off of the athlete, but the colleges make money off of all students. I know how much time athletes put in, but they are also given assistance to help manage that time, which regular students are not afforded and a good number of students are working jobs for the same amount of hours that athletes put into their sport and they have to work to make ends meet.
I feel that the college athlete is already compensated enough. I also think the new rule will make recruiting a nightmare and more cut throat than it already is, plus professional athletes get jealous about their teammates getting more endorsements than they do, imagine what college athletes will be like. I think a bigger concern is that schools are paying million upon millions on fancy, not needed facilities and millions in coaches salaries.
This isn't really a pay for play deal. If a kid can make money off of their likeness than so be it. If you are on academic scholarship you can, why shouldn't a student athlete be afforded the same opportunity. Of course there are going to be some pitfalls and some shady recruiting practices but don't we have those already?
You're not really grasping the situation. The school still gives out the scholarship, the fact the kid can make money off his likeness is not relevant. Why would you expect the kid to pay the school to play there? The Lakers still pay Lebron a salary regardless of the fact that he has enough money from endorsements not to need the salary because guess what, he's working for them and those kids work for that school.
Once again, this isn't related to any school. This law exists so that the NCAA itself no longer controls the financial potential of these athletes, whatever it may be. Unless you're in favor of large governing bodies being allowed to choose how much money an individual is allowed to make before declaring it illegal, which sounds suspiciously like communism, then I have no idea why anyone here would support the NCAA.
Correct me if I am wrong but a student who is on an academic scholarship can get paid for his/her likeness, endorse products etc. Why shouldn't an athlete be afforded the same rights? Furthermore, whether you are on scholarship or not, you can't get paid for your likeness, etc. Olympians have to navigate very carefully about the money they accept and what it is used for. It is a ridiculous nightmare.
Look at this foolishness from the NCAA just a few years ago, I'd love for someone to try and argue for them and why the NCAA gets to decide where your money comes from.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...be-videos-ncaa-again-plays-villain/530965001/
Kid starts Youtube channel, channel becomes moderately popular (his current numbers are great but are a reflection of this situation exploding, he was not a bigtime Youtuber prior to this event) and he stood to make a moderate amount of income (I doubt he'd have made $20,000 a year with the views he was getting at the time) from the monetization of the videos, an option available to literally everyone on Youtube. UCF didn't help him, the NCAA didn't help him, he and he alone grew the channel through his own hard work yet the NCAA decided they and they alone have God-like power to decide who can and cannot profit while working at college and playing sports (hint: literally nobody except the college itself).
The NCAA is a trashbag organization and belongs in the garbage.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...be-videos-ncaa-again-plays-villain/530965001/
Kid starts Youtube channel, channel becomes moderately popular (his current numbers are great but are a reflection of this situation exploding, he was not a bigtime Youtuber prior to this event) and he stood to make a moderate amount of income (I doubt he'd have made $20,000 a year with the views he was getting at the time) from the monetization of the videos, an option available to literally everyone on Youtube. UCF didn't help him, the NCAA didn't help him, he and he alone grew the channel through his own hard work yet the NCAA decided they and they alone have God-like power to decide who can and cannot profit while working at college and playing sports (hint: literally nobody except the college itself).
The NCAA is a trashbag organization and belongs in the garbage.
or
they can stop using the likenesses
oh wait
then the NCAA would not make money
Even if the NCAA adopts a new rule where athletes can profit off of their likeness, it will still create unfair recruiting advantages. The athlete would have to pay federal and state income taxes...each state does not have the same tax rate or percentage. I can guarantee that coaches will figure out monetary numbers to throw out to recruits about how much they could stand to make/lose by going to a school in another state. States such as Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Washington do not have a sales tax. Other states have double digit income taxes. I can hear the coach now, hey kid why go to California to play when you can come to Texas and keep that extra $130 for every $1000 you can make.
Same point is brought up for the pros. Yet California, New York, and Massachusetts teams don't seem to have a problem signing free agents.
I don't really see how you can compare professional athletes making multi millions of dollars, opting to go to California, NY, etc...and paying more in taxes when they have already earned 10's of millions to 100's of millions if not more, to an 18-21 year old who will be earning their first dollar. It is much easier to make that decision when you are already set for life and not just first starting out. Very few athletes are going to be pulling in big dollar gigs. I would bet money, that if you asked an 18 year old if they made $100,000 if they wanted to keep all $100,000 or only get $87,000 they would opt for the full amount. The majority of the athletes will be making money to help offset living expenses or hopefully saving and investing for their future, knowing the big pro sports money isn't a guarantee. That is when that extra tax money comes in place.
Not all free agents are making 100's of millions or even 10's of millions. Granted they are making more than a college student is making off endorsements and the such. However, the more you make the more you pay, not to mention, those multi-million dollar athletes are in the highest tax bracket. If anything they have more reasons to head to non-state income tax states. They stand to gain (or lose) a lot more. I guess it's all perspective: If you go to Vegas with $100, hit big for $10,000 then gamble it all away, did you lose $100 or $10,000?
There are all sorts of issues with the law before the decision ever gets down to a tax versus no tax state consideration. I fully support kids being able to make money off their likeness, skills, etc., however, as with most things the devil will be in the details. This law will probably just legalize what is already being done under the table at a lot of places. Taxes, unfair competitive advantages, implications for other athletes in non-revenue sports, etc., etc., all will impact the model. In theory the concept is long overdue, in practical implementation there are miles to go and the reality is the California bill is a grandstanding piece of legislation by some politicians looking to score a few publicity points and take the spotlight off the absolutely miserable job they continue to do in managing the affairs of their own state and constituents.
You are only looking at that one sided though. I'm not telling anyone how they should feel about this situation, but using the tax thing as a reason, a contrary point would be going to schools that they would get more recognition or a bigger time program, which 3 of the top 5 teams on average are nowhere near the attractive states (Alabama, South Carolina, Ohio).
As far as whoever mentioned about scholarship being gone, that is absolutely ludicrous to think would happen. Most of the kids who would benefit probably wouldn't benefit to that extent, and even if they did, that is still taking a good bit of the money they received. And then you would see schools try to set the precedent in offering them. And exactly how do you think that would work? This high profile kid goes to a college with the expectations of making money and doesn't perform, so now he is punished because he didn't live up to expectations? That seems really fair smh.
The only issue I have with this is how kids will undoubtedly be treated differently, and certainly by sport. And even worse to me is that different kids will be treated unfairly based on things other than their ability. The skill guys would be more marketable than lineman, better looking people are more marketable than others, and football/basketball players are higher profile than the other sports. Yet those other athletes are still under the umbrella of not being able to work, etc.
NCAA will probably end up just regulating how much players can make now and how much the schools can spend to get recruits.
Pandora's box. Company's will direct recruits to certain schools with promises of money coming their way for their tee shirts,shoes, and anything else they can think of. This will be awful.
I have always felt that scholarships were payment enough. However, like most bureaucracies, the NCAA has over reached, over regulated, lost any common sense they may have had and generally became “big brother “ on steroids.
Maybe it is time for the schools to get together and come up with something to replace the NCAA.
Maybe it is time for the schools to get together and come up with something to replace the NCAA.
I agree on the scholarships as payment and historically that has been more than fair and still remains fair for the large majority of players outside of select number of high profile players. However, the ever increasing money makes it harder and harder to justify a more equitable distribution of the revenues. Not sure what the solution is but, just to clarify, the schools you advocate "getting together" are already the NCAA so they cannot really replace themselves.
The question now is the same as it has been for quite some time and that is whether the NCAA works for the equal benefit of all its members or more for a select few? The reality is the NCAA is doing exactly what it has been redesigned for over the years and that is shielding its members(the schools), their leaders(the Presidents) and other behind the scenes powerbrokers from the public criticism and scrutiny that comes with running a billion dollar for profit venture under the disguise of a tax exempt, non profit public institution. There is a reason that each subsequent executive director has been slimier than his predecessor. The current mouthpiece filling the role is the absolute worst yet. It becomes increasingly more difficult and expensive to find a guy willing to be a puppet. Mark Emmert is easily the worst yet. The guy at best lacks integrity and morals and at worst is an outright crook. He has had a brilliant career always managing to get out of town one step ahead of the posse coming for him while leaving some brewing scandal or situation of dubious origin and then falling up the ladder to the next big mark for equal or greater pay. He has now found his golden parachute at the NCAA.
Last edited:
I agree with most of your comments. I would assert that the member schools can in fact quit the NCAA. There is no requirement for membership in the NCAA. If enough universities exited, the NCAA would become basically irrelevant. And then you start over. If I recall correctly the SEC at one time discussed leaving the In NCAA and holding their own championship game in football. That never gained much traction but who knows what the future may hold? My daughter goes to a NAIA member college. There are other organizations.
What if:
Texas, Alabama, Auburn, Notre Dame, Georgia, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kansas all leave the NCAA and formed their own “conference” and regulated themselves. (These are just the first schools that came to mind with big followings...insert your own if needed).
That would hamstring the NCAA. TV revenues would be ridiculous just to cover those matchups. Then they do whatever they want as far as scholarships, pay for play, etc.
Last edited:
Oh yea, this is terrible. Kids definitely choose their school only for sports and academics, at no point do boosters shower cash, family employment, cars, or housing on them and it definitely hasn't been that way for decades upon decades.
While there will drawbacks and unintended consequences, the good outweighs the bad. For one thing it will bring all of this out into the open instead of the underhanded backroom dealing that's happened forever.
Another benefit will be the small school or small sport athletes will have the ability to be featured at camps, clinics, etc. without fear of reprisal.
The only people against this are those that are making huge amounts of money based on the hard work of these young men and women.
If you want to say they shouldn't get a salary because they are already getting paid by the university with a scholarship that's fine. However, not being able to make money using your own face or abilities is decidedly un-American.
Something will have to give and a break up or reformation is a possibility. The biggest issues with that are (1) What is the number of teams that would have to go in order to create enough critical mass to keep revenues in the ballpark with the present system (2)Are they ready to kill the golden goose known as the NCAA basketball tournament and try to resurrect it with the big schools and (3)what are the other implications, pitfalls or potential consequences(competitive, regulatory, etc.) that a split might create.
It is one thing to fill out a 10 to 12 game football schedule but, another matter to fill a 30 game hoops schedule or the non revenue schedules and then there is the gorilla in the corner known as Title IX. Change is necessary and coming and as is always the case money is going to be driving the bus or sitting very close to the driver's seat.
Depends on the school. Kansas, Auburn, Louisville, etc. They have been using shoe companies to pay their recruits. Not all schools do this. Haven't heard any such accusations from VA Tech or UVA. This new law would just allow this crap to be out in the open. Those few schools wired into big shoe companies or other companies will set up funds for their elite athletes, while other schools will be left out. Recruiting will become nothing but a bidding war.
Literally every school cheats. You can argue the severity or degree of cheating but they all do it. Nobody is clean in that business, it's just not how things go.
I still don't know why you think these companies are going to get a bunch of 17 year olds to endorse their products when so many kids go bust it'd be an embarrassment to the company to have it happen. Nobody's going to hand $100,000 to some 4* LB from Indiana who's picking between Iowa and Nebraska to endorse Subway sandwiches. This is for stuff like Jalen Hurts or Tua or Travis Etienne, you think every kid's going to be signed up and bid on and that's foolishness. You won't even notice it, the schools have contracts for things like pro teams do so it's not like Hurts can get money from Adidas to wear their stuff in his games, he'd just film a commercial or something like pro players do.
I think you are right that cheating is widespread. I also think you identify one of the implementation challenges which is who controls/has precedence if individual opportunities are in conflict with school contracts? Lots of little devils and curves in the details in my opinion.
I mean, just do it the same way as pros and work fine. Either fines or just don't let players play. Your endorsements certainly don't supercede the team's endorsements and there's certainly no language in the law to suggest otherwise. A kid's ability to sign an endorsement doesn't guarantee them a spot on the field.
Not nearly that simple as the pro relationships of player and team are employer/employee which is exactly what the schools and NCAA are trying to avoid because that opens the door to a lot of other things.
What are you talking about, it's exactly the same. The kids literally sign a contract each year stating that in return for practicing/playing they get room/food/education. All you do in said contract is include language like "our school is sponsored by Nike, you are not permitted to wear Adidas gear during games" it's absolutely no different than what pro teams do. You guys are trying to look for the worst-case, most complicated situations imaginable where 3,000 kids a year sign endorsements and now one kid wears Nike and the other Adidas and so there's trouble and companies recruiting teenagers to a school based off an endorsement and it's just useless theorizing which will never transpire. What will happen is this will eventually happen one way or the other and people need to accept reality. When it does happen, a tiny handful of kids each year will probably make significant money based on them being current college stars, the number will probably be counted on two hands. Beyond that, a few kids on each team will probably get hired to do commercials for local businesses and whatnot and make a small amount of money which will ease their living situations during school. The other 90+% of kids will not be impacted whatsoever.
This isn't about Pandora's box, this is just corporate greed run amuck. Imagine your jersey shop at a college selling #9, 29, and 59 jerseys that year then imagine a QB blowing up next season only he wears #7 then imagine the shop stocking #7 jerseys, selling a ton of them, and then pretending like the QB isn't the reason the jersey is selling. I've got a closet full of old official VT jerseys and gee isn't that weird that they're the same number Mike Vick or Bryan Randall or Eddie Royal or Tyrod Taylor wore. Must have just been a coincidence, it definitely isn't the college profiting off the kid's back or anything.
Let's be clear, the schools and NCAA are not looking out for the interest of anyone but themselves. They're not concerned about anything but stopping money coming out of their pockets and going to the people that worked for it.
Last edited:
Since we are being clear, I have never said the schools and NCAA are not looking out for themselves, that players are not entitled to make money or that greed is not involved as well. My objectives are about reality. The student athlete contract is not an employer/employee relationship nor all the things that entails and your assertion otherwise is wrong.
I'm not really sure why you think this is going to lead to the Great Struggle. They will literally just adjust wording in the LOIs and NCAA by-laws and move on, you're not going to read about some kid taking UCLA to court because the school has a Nike contract and the kid has an Adidas one.
Like I said, you're all theorizing worst case scenarios that won't ever exist.
Also, even if all your worst case scenarios came to fruition they would in no way, shape, or form be worth not moving forward with this incredibly long overdue legislation.
Nothing has ever been said by me that advocates not moving forward on rule changes despite any reservations about challenges. It is merely the recognition that things might not be as simple as what you seem to think and there are other potential unforeseen circumstances and complications. Your uncertainty appears to be rooted in your less than clear understanding of contract laws, the employer/employee relationship versus the student athlete contract and the differences between a commercial environment and the "nonprofit" education environment student athletes currently operate in. You cannot claim with certainty that worst case scenarios won't ever exist anymore than I can claim they will. However, the old motto you do not plan to fail but, fail to plan applies. Successful people do not assume that something will not ever exist, they consider all the possibilities and make decisions to mitigate risks and appropriately quantify the risk/rewards of potentially doing nothing.
Every school cheats? I'm calling bs. I can only speak to one but UVA basketball does not and has not cheated. There are others out there. Only the elite will get these sweetheart deals and in basketball that will be the kids from Kentucky and Duke. In football it will be Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, LSU, Ohio St Oklahoma. These kids will be promised compensation for signing. What about the kids going to East Carolina? This will have huge unintended consequences that will out weigh any positive intentions.
One report I read a few years ago. Chris Weber of Michigan time out fame had just played a game in sold out Chrysler Arena. When he left the game he stopped by a local sports goods place, in the window was a jersey with his name on it. The jersey was about $250, Chris said he did did not have enough money on him to buy a hot dog. That's when he decided to forego the sham of college sports and turn pro. Simple matter, when coaches came make millions of $$$$$ and the players get almost nothing,its time to change things.
Weber was getting one thing (though he did not take full advantage of)...an education — that some of his classmates are probably still paying for...
I would not describe an education as almost nothing.
Guys and gals, whatever side you are on with this discussion, let's please try to not make out that free room, board, meals, and education is nothing.
That is something that 90+% of college students are paying for, and most are probably still paying for.
That doesn't mean that if you admit that fact that you are against them making other money, but let's not act like they are doing it for free, or getting nothing out of it
Another part of that is what benefit you think kids get out of playing in college? Do you think that they would be as successful going right out of HS? I doubt it. So one way to look at it kind of is an internship
That is something that 90+% of college students are paying for, and most are probably still paying for.
That doesn't mean that if you admit that fact that you are against them making other money, but let's not act like they are doing it for free, or getting nothing out of it
Another part of that is what benefit you think kids get out of playing in college? Do you think that they would be as successful going right out of HS? I doubt it. So one way to look at it kind of is an internship
Not too many unpaid internships these days. My point continues to be that athletic scholarships aren't the only scholarships, yet they are the ones that seem to most regulated. Are there other types that dictate how much you can work/earn and the manner in which you earn your money? Furthermore not every student-athlete is on scholarship. Why should they be under the same financial restrictions as those who are being compensated.
"Amateur" sports is a completely made up concept, conceived by the upper class with the intent of keeping the lower classes out of their sports. By making it so you couldn't earn money doing your sport you had to be from a wealthy family in order to properly train to compete. Those from the lower classes had to work to live. There were those that had benefactors but that just proves what I'm saying: The upper class would pick and choose who got in and who didn't.
