Sports

NCAA Doesn't Want California To Allow Student-Athletes To Be Paid

NCAA has warned the state that if the "Fair Pay To Play Act" passes, all California schools would be ineligible to participate in postseason play.

|

With the debate over compensating college athletes nearing a tipping point in recent years, California is now trying to pass legislation that would allow student players to profit off their own images. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) isn't pleased. 

On May 22, the Fair Pay To Play Act (SB 206) passed the California Senate by a 31-5 vote. Now, it heads to the Assembly's Higher Education Committee for final approval, which must be decided on before July 11.

The law would allow college athletes to earn money from sponsorships and endorsements. It does not require student-athletes to be paid by their universities or to be viewed by universities as employees. But under the new legislation, universities that bring in more than $10 million from media revenue would have to remove restrictions on student-athletes that currently prevent them from using their own image for financial gain.

Nancy Skinner (D–Berkeley), who introduced the bill, said the purpose was to allow California's student-athletes to "enjoy the same rights as all other students—to earn income from their talent."

The NCAA, however, isn't a fan. It has warned the state that if SB 206 passes, all athletes at California schools would be ineligible to participate in postseason play.

In a June 17 letter to the Assembly's Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee, NCAA president Mark Emmert wrote: 

We recognize all of the efforts that have been undertaken to develop this bill in the context of complex issues related to the current collegiate model that have been the subject of litigation and much national debate. Nonetheless, when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships. As a result, it likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist.

Furthermore, the NCAA is worried about how the change to California law could affect the athlete recruiting process nationwide. As Sports Illustrated notes, "a high school athlete who could earn thousands of dollars in endorsement opportunities that would be unavailable to him or her if they instead went to college in Oregon, Texas, Alabama, or Florida would presumably be more inclined to go to college in California."

Both the University of California and California State University systems are opposed to the bill.

Rep. Mark Walker (R–N.C.) introduced a federal bill in the House in MarchWalker said his bill would provide "college athletes with the same opportunities that every American should have in a free-market."

Advertisement

NEXT: Maryland’s Health Care Price Controls Aren’t Solving Problems—They're Creating Them

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Slavery Bundage would be so proud of the NCAA.

  2. They are a private organization

    1. Exactly. And if getting a scholarship in return for playing is such a horrible deal for players, players are free to turn it down. Claiming players must be paid because universities make a lot of money from sports is no different than claiming everyone must be paid a living wage or any other such nonsense. The players should be “paid” however much they and the universities are willing to bargain for.

      1. All this would end if the NBA/NFL would just change their rules so teams can draft 18 year olds. But they don’t because they don’t have to and they get to protect the owners from themselves.

        1. It has changed in basketball. Top players can and have signed overseas out of high school. Any basketball player who doens’t like the deal the NCAA is offering is free to sign with any number of pro leagues in Europe, Asia and Austrailia. That alone should put an end to any idea that NCAA basketball players are being exploited.

          1. Oh for fuck’s sake. Cubans can do the same thing by coming here. Are you gonna argue that that means that Cuban sports is market-friendly?

            1. Cubans have to be smuggled out of the country. For fuck’s sake are you retarded? Who says you are owed a job at 18 in this country for the employer you want?

              1. I’m not making the argument that anyone is owed a job. YOU are making the argument that opportunities (barriers to entry/exit) are all hunkydory HERE because somewhere else in the world, they have an opportunity to get a job if they move there.

                And this isn’t about MLB, NBA, or NFL being individual employers. They control the SPORT itself at a professional level here. NCAA is the means by which NBA/NFL undercut other potential professional leagues in the absence of an explicit anti-trust exemption like MLB has.

            2. First they have to escape Cuba. But it’s not just that. There’s no law or government policy in the USA against anyone’s employing college age participants in sports or anything else. Even the laws on employing minors are loose enough that there’s a School for Professional Children in New York City, over a century old, for talented children who can’t maintain an ordinary school schedule. I know because I tutored a young professional, award-winning violinist who went there. Heck, collegians even coach football, in some cases for money I’m sure. There are probably more of them as tennis or golf pros, who make most of their money coaching.

        2. 18 yos don’t belong in the NFL

        3. and why do you think the NFL imposes those types of restrictions on employment? Gee, I wonder? If this blows up the current model of collegiate sports, that’s awesome.

        4. The NBA will, again, allow 18 year olds to enter the draft next year. 25 years ago, there were a lot of mistakes made that harmed players more than teams. Now, there’s better support structure for it.
          There have been like, maybe, 5 guys in the last 50 years who could’ve survived the NFL at 18. MMQB had an article on the subject a few months ago. The one most often mentioned was Adrian Peterson – the guy who just ran for 1,000+ yards as a 34 year old and who ran for 2,100 yards the season following a torn ACL, whose recovery was like nothing Dr. James Andrews has ever seen. Freak of nature.

          Some NBA prospects have chosen to play in Europe or Australia instead of college. One first round pick this year took a $1m internship at New Balance instead of playing college ball.
          These guys have plenty of options. College scholarships are worth hundreds of thousands, plus the opportunity to learn.
          The NCAA makes boatloads off of them, sure – but it’s hardly comparable to slavery.
          99% of NCAA athletes don’t provide their schools any profit. So who should get paid? How much? What about payroll taxes? Income tax – wouldn’t you have to add the scholarship value to their salary?
          And if any state starts paying athletes, the NCAA has to kick them out – because you now have semi-pro teams against a field of amateurs, and an absolute recruiting advantage.

          1. On another note:
            The US Women’s soccer team should definitely be paid more than the US Men’s team.
            They have both accomplished more and bring in more revenue.

            1. call me when they can beat the men’s team.

              1. They beat them on revenue.
                Numbers are a couple years old, but there’s no reason to think the trend changed as the men’s team didn’t even make the 2018 world cup.

                “The women’s team brought in slightly more of that revenue: $26.8 million, including $3.2 million in World Cup revenue. The men brought in revenues totaling $21 million. But that’s a difference of about $5.8 million, nowhere close to the $20 million cited in the graphic. (It’s worth noting that expenses exceeded revenue for the women’s World Cup, so that particular event resulted in net losses rather than profit for U.S. Soccer.)

                In its report, the federation cited both teams’ successes in contributing to the budget-busting revenue, but it singled out the women’s team for its World Cup win and the nine-game victory tour that followed.

                For the upcoming year, the federation predicts the women’s team will bring in about $17.6 million in revenue, resulting in a net profit. The men’s team, on the other hand, is expected to bring in about half of that, $9 million, and end up with net losses.”

                As much as I hate citing it, this is the only good comparison I found.
                http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/apr/06/other-98/facebook-post-exaggerates-discrepancy-between-us-m

          2. If it got that unbalanced in treatment of their athletes, they would kick them out. But endorsements are such small potatoes affecting so few, I don’t see anyone leaving because of them. After all, for many years you’ve had no-athletic-scholarship schools, the Ivies, scheduling against schools that had athletic scholarships, and although that made the competition lopsided, they still played. Until Rutgers boosted their football program, Princeton was competitive against them even in football; and they tended to clean their clock in basketball.

        5. The stated reason for the NFL is that 18 year olds are not physically developed enough to endure the physicality of the pro game.

          Perhaps it is BS, perhaps they are protecting themselves from liability issues.

          1. It’s not complete BS, but it’s not the real reason, and it’s not liability either. NFL has agreements in restraint of trade with NCAA and NAIA, and this is one of them. This one saves NFL teams a lot of work they’d need to do scouting sub-college age athletes for possibilities in football to stay competitive with each other. You could count on one hand the number they might ever have in their training camps at age 18 in the entire league, but NFL clubs would still have a big roster of scouts looking for them.

            NFL’s agreement not to compete with colleges for days to put games on live TV was voided a few years ago IIRC. I don’t know if anyone’s challenged this one, though.

        6. This. Both the NBA and NFL are using the NCAA to achieve de facto anti-trust exemption similar to MLB’s de jure exemption. The 250 football and 350 basketball teams in D1 serve the same function as the 250 minor league baseball teams.

          Sports would be much better off and more widespread if we separated ‘leagues’ from ‘teams’. Leagues by definition have to violate anti-trust law in setting up schedules, rules of the sport, etc. But when those are owned by the teams and the teams are exempt from anti-trust, then they can entrench a barrier to entry over the entire sport. And that’s what allows the team owners to screw the players and cities

          1. Just to give an example of how different things could be here. The German Football Association has 6+ million members (soccer players) and that’s the entity that sets the rules of the sport and the different league structures. It means that even a local bar’s soccer team can, in theory, compete its way from totally amateur to semi-pro to pro to champion. Which is one reason so many play the sport there and are interested in it when played by others there.

            The leagues themselves are organized to benefit the teams in that league that year. So they get the media contracts/revenue and other stuff that comes from ‘game’ revenue. Clubs are owned separately – also owning the stadium at pro level – so they get the attendance/sponsorship/fan type revenue. But those teams don’t have any power to dick around with some other team’s business. They compete ON THE FIELD. And that sort of structure can support 26,000 different clubs and 170,000 teams (yes – mostly amateur) – in ONE sport.

            Our system – like any monopoly – tries its damndest to reduce the number of teams and reduce the opportunities for people to play the sport at a level where they might be able to turn it into an income.

          2. Players get 50% or more of the revenue. Players all have strong unions and are all well paid. They are not being screwed.

            And you think sports would be better off like that but who made you king? If you don’t like the NBA, go start your own league. There is nothing stopping you. What are you arguing for here other than the government taking over sports leagues and remaking them into something you like better?

            1. Players get 50% or more of the revenue.

              HAHAHA. OK so they get pretty much exactly what ‘labor costs’ are in most regular companies. Well at least they get 50% of the ADMITTED revenues (not the tax scam benefits).

              The difference is — NO ONE has ever gone to a game (or watched one on TV) to watch the owner own. They go to watch the players play. That’s quite different than your regular company where the employees (players) are irrelevant compared to the product. In a competitive market, the market power would belong to the players – not the owners.

            2. Oh – and players ARE getting screwed. Hence the NCAA getting pissed off that CA might actually pay players. Or minor league baseball where players earn $2000 – $10,000 per SEASON – but can’t even have good part-time jobs in those towns where they’re playing cuz their actual contract is with the MLB team elsewhere and they might have to move tomorrow. The latter is a major reason good athletes no longer play baseball and why baseball instead is heavily focusing on DR/Caribbean – folks who are OK with earning way less than minimum wage.

          3. But how could the separation you propose be achieved? The clubs are already owned separately. They’re members of their leagues. Nothing stops them from pulling out. In minor league football, men’s and women’s, clubs change leagues at the drop of a hat. Some of the leagues are closed circuits, forbidding member teams from competing in other leagues, but not all of them always are, and there are independent clubs.

            Actually what I think would be of benefit — and it’s how the XFL is being organized — would be exactly the opposite: single-entity leagues of teams all owned together. This would give the leagues more flexibility and encourage a more level playing field.

            Countries where a single entity registers the players — that’s true of rugby now in the USA, and has long been the case for competitors in individual sports like bowling and golf at the pro level — are at least potentially a greater tyranny over them than anything NCAA, AAU, or pro leagues could ever exercise.

            1. Actually the individual clubs OWN the league. And the leagues have found legal ways to either own or eliminate a sports governing body. So they de facto own the sport.

              Not sure why you assert eg USGA can be tyrannical. Most golfers aren’t a member, can get tee times, take mulligans, and would be offended if asked about their handicap. But if a golfer wants to play other golfers they don’t know; they need a governing body to set rules of the game, set standards for courses (par, ladies/men/pro tees, etc), market the sport to future players, set up tournaments, etc. And the existence of what that governing body does makes it very easy to play golf.

              They can deal with subsets of participants – eg PGA and the even more exclusive PGA Tour – but aren’t owned/run BY those big money participants (who prefer to eliminate participation so that people just spectate and watch THEM play).

              Team sports really aren’t much different – except leagues/rosters replace tournaments. But the governing body really does have to exist – and for the primary benefit of participants in that sport – esp for team sports which are very difficult to organize otherwise.

      2. It’s not quite the same as a normal scholarship. If I were on an academic ride and wrote a best seller. I get to keep that money, but the 400+ page NCAA contract forbids making more than $2,000 a year (technically). If this just allows players to use their celebrity w/o the school having to pay more than the contract, I have no problem. It allows for players to exercise that option and freedom. But yes they could also turn down the contract.

        1. Non compete clauses are legal and quite common in the business world. If I am employed as a research scientist for example, everything I discover belongs to my employer and my employer can prohibit me from doing outside work. The example you give of writing the novel is no different.

          1. Non-compete clauses are void in California because they were used to prevent someone from working after they left a company.

            1. California is free to allow colleges to pay athletes – they just can’t compete in the NCAA anymore, because they’d become professional teams sponsored by a university.
              It’d be an interesting experiment. I hope California goes ahead with this – they can compete in a California only pro league. Sure, the PAC12 gets screwed – but it’s not like they haven’t pilfered from other conferences themselves.
              Unfortunately for Cali schools, it’s tough to see them being able to retain any sports besides football and basketball, and maybe baseball (doubtful).
              But how would this effect Title IX?
              Say UCLA and USC field semipro football and basketball teams – wouldn’t they have to field two women’s sports teams also, and pay those players *equally*?

    2. That’s not exactly true unless the NCAA is paying for all the stadiums they’re playing in, paying the coaches, uniforms…

      1. That makes no difference.

      2. NCAA don’t pay for shit. All NCAA does is provide a means for schools to organize competition between each other.

        Remember that the NCAA arose from a compromise when varsity football was threatened to be banned. However, that ban would likely have been enforced by the colleges themselves, not by government (except at government institutions, where the colleges are government).

    3. Not only that. they are a private organization founded on the principle of AMATEUR athletics.

      Student athelets are free to earn money from their atheletic talents. They just become professionals if they do are are not eligible for awards from private organizations founded on the principle of amateur athletics.

  3. When I attended UCLA, Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) had an apartment, much nicer, in the same building I lived in. I drove a 1955 Mercury that I had saved three years for. He drove a brand-new Mercedes that he bought for $10.
    Student athletes are seldom real students. They find ways to be paid as well.

    1. I foget his name but there was a big UCLA booster who took care fo the UCLA players and explains why so many of the best high school players in the country decided to go to UCLA during the 60s.

      1. Nick Nolte

      2. It was Sam GIlbert. Interesting googling about him and UCLA basketball. He had a lot more to do with UCLA’s winning record than John Wooden.

  4. Maybe the NFL and NBA should pony up some money since they are using college athletics as their own minor leagues.

    1. Why should they have to? The NFL and NBA have every right to set age minimums for who they hire. Moreover, since when do employers owe educational institutions money? Should IBM pony up money to MIT because it saves IBM the cost of training its engineers? I don’t see how. And saying the NBA should pay colleges for training its players is no different.

      1. What a poor analogy. IBM isn’t a government protected cartel as far as I know. The big professional sports leagues in this country are protected and granted all manner of special privileges.

        1. Except for baseball’s antitrust exemption, pro sports leagues in the USA have no legal privilege against competition. Their member clubs may get favors like municipalities’ building of stadiums, but the municipalities will make those available to competing clubs too. Remember that the TrumpsGenerals played in Giants Stadium, for instance, as did the Cosmos.

        2. It’s the colleges that have privileges, with all their government funding (direct or indirect) and tax-exempt status. Pro sports clubs have no tax exemption. The leagues may not pay taxes, but there’s no profit in running a league or association of competitors unless you’re charging the members more in dues than your costs.

  5. They are paid through scholarship. The problem with 90% of the whole pay the athletes crowd is they legitimately do not want to live in the world they are clamoring for or they want it for the million articles they will than proceed to right about how unfair it is that this person gets this and this person doesn’t. Not to mention it will mean the end of womens sports programs as we know it. It does bother me that these guys/gals can’t get paid for their likeness during the 1-3 years they attend these degree mills but in the end it’s just whatever.

    1. The only reason their likness is generating money is because of the uniform and program it is associated with. Zion Williamson is a big star because he played at Duke. If basketball were like baseball and the top young players were in the minor leagues, Williamson would be known by a few hardcore fans and have absolutely no marketability until he proved himself in the NBA. His current marketability comes entirely from the platform playing at Duke provided him. So, it is entirely fair that Duke keep the money from that.

      1. If Federal Baseball Club v. National League supreme court case never happened, I might be able to get down with this. But we have this backwards cartel model for our professional sports leagues that distorts the market, and the NCAA takes advantage of that.

        1. The NCAA takes advantage of the NBA and NFL’s unwillingness to train their employees. And there is nothing wrong with that.

          1. This is true. Pro football went nowhere until they started signing college football stars. In the beginning the pro football teams were populated by players who’d never been to college, and the college teams were getting all the audience. Pro football at that level got about the attention high school football did locally, and in most places had no teams at all. Ever go to minor league football games, men’s or women’s? More people on the field than in the stands, usually.

            It was the same with pro basketball.

            Anyway, nobody makes colleges send anybody into NCAA competition. There’s always the NAIA. But the NAIA has effectively the same rules. Why does anybody think that is? Why did college women’s basketball switch from the AIAW to NCAA? Of course the colleges don’t have to belong to either the NCAA, NJCAA, or NAIA to have intercollegiate sports. For that matter, their students don’t have to play on the school’s team or under the school’s name.

      2. That may be partly true, but I think you’re selling Zion short — he is one talented mofo. So talented, he could’ve played for literally any mid-major or better and taken them to the big dance. IMO, he’s up there with Curry (Davidson) and Trae Young (Oklahoma).

  6. “The NCAA … has warned the state that if SB 206 passes, all athletes at California schools would be ineligible to participate in postseason play.”

    SURE they will.

    I’d love to see the NCAA tell California schools like USC, UCLA and Stanford that they cannot participate in postseason play, especially football and basketball. The NCAA has just created a football playoff to compete with the bowl games and get rid of the BCS. The NCAA expanded the basketball playoff to 64 teams in order to kill off the national invitation tournament. If it excludes the California schools, they will merely participate in these alternative tournaments. And I’d love to see the NCAA explain this to the networks and ESPN.

    I remember a few years back when the NCAA tried to tell schools that they would be barred from postseason play if they had team nicknames that referenced Native Americans. As soon as the NCAA realized that schools like Florida State would be rendered ineligible, it backed down and adopted a watered-down version of the rule.

    1. Actually NCAA could go and withdraw all sanction and just forbid NCAA schools from playing the schools from those teams, just as they ended the practice of NCAA basketball varsities playing preseason games against AAU teams. But if NCAA tried that, those schools playing football against California teams with players ineligible under NCAA rules would basically say, “So what?” NCAA’s sanctioning of games is practically worthless.

      NCAA exists only to arrange competition. If schools want to play a schedule outside the NCAA, they will. Dropping AAU basketball teams from their schedule was a small enough price, but there’s no way they’ll call off varsity football in the PAC 10.

      1. The limiting factor is that Arizona schools aren’t going to leave the PAC 10 because they think the competition is unfair because the California students can get paid endorsements. It’s not that big a deal. If the California schools start hiring professionals to play, that’s when other schools are going to stop playing with them.

        1. The Mountain West would love for California to start paying players.
          Welcome goes out to ASU, Arizona, Oregon, Oregon State, UW, WSU, Colorado, Utah!
          Have fun playing each other all the time, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State, ummm…

          1. Cali schools will not be missed. PAC12 is already way below SEC, ACC, BIG10, BigEast (basketball), and can sometimes compare to the Big12 – plus PAC12 would lose the non-Cali schools.
            UCLA, USC, and Stanford won’t cause any tears. Two of those programs are decidedly also-rans, and Stanford is B tier

            1. Yes, they would be missed. The alumni and many fans expect those games, regardless of what tier they’re playing at. Therefore they’d call NCAA’s bluff.

            2. College sports aren’t scheduled primarily on the basis of good competition, but on the basis of prestige and tradition. Oregon schools aren’t going to stop playing California schools because of some technicality, or because some star player at a California school makes paid endorsements; those matches are expected. Otherwise you wouldn’t see non-scholarship schools playing scholarship schools for years, and other rivalries carried on for decades after their record becomes lopsided.

              1. Counterpoint: Texas vs Texas A&M

                None of the rivalries that aren’t intra California – like UCLA/USC, Stanford/Cal – come anywhere close to UT vs A&M. And those two stopped playing and got over it.
                What’s a big rivalry between a Cali team and non-Cali team? USC/Notre Dame is decent. Stanford/ND isn’t a big deal. Stanford/Oregon is new, and only the product of them being the best 2 teams (in the conference) over the past decade plus.
                If the NCAA kicks the Cali teams out, wins over those teams don’t officially count. We can speculate as to how The Committee would weigh it, but I don’t think Oregon is going to be throwing away their chances of a National Title for the sake of some “rivalry” nobody cares that much about. Oregon will just go play Wisconsin or LSU or FSU or Texas instead.
                If you think USC or UCLA are still premier programs, you’re wrong. Nobody under 50 gives a shit about them – or Stanford.
                Oregon, because of that Nike sponsorship, is the most significant program in the PAC12. Nobody else really matters nationally.

                1. I’m curious: what are the big rivalries with California teams other than the ones I’ve mentioned?
                  I can’t think of any.

                  1. The schools in Washington and Oregon have been playing football against ones in California since the 19th Century.

                    The issue you bring up comes up in high school football a lot. Teams would play a lot of out-of-circuit or out-of-level games against traditional rivals that wound up not counting for eligibility for state playoffs. That even came up in The Rocket Boys (October Sky). High school athletic associations eventually responded by expanding playoffs to ridiculous numbers of teams and games. The point is, it was more important to the schools to play their traditional rivals than to qualify for playoffs, and eventually the associations accommodated them rather than vice versa.

                    For every example you can give in a given year of a college breaking off from a longstanding match, there are several where the longstanding matches continue as mismatches. Sure, eventually they’ll break those strings, but the general pattern runs counter.

                    1. The NCAA isn’t going to cave to a bunch of mediocre-to-subpar programs on the west coast demanding to be special.
                      If it was the SEC or Big10? Maybe.
                      The PAC12? It’s a joke.
                      Basketball might survive, but football would be done.
                      Washington and Oregon aren’t throwing title hopes and their national profile out the window to retain their nationally insignificant rivalries at all costs.

    2. SURE they will.

      Oh, you better believe they will.

      This isn’t some minor case of political correctness. The core purpose of the NCAA is to act as a cartel controlling the price of college athletics labor. This is why something as minor but compensation-like as some athletes trading jerseys for tattoos got postseason eligibility eliminated and a popular coach blackballed at a major program, while massive academic fraud to keep players eligible at another school is ignored as irrelevant.

      And, alternative tournaments? The NCAA is the current operator of the NIT, so only teams nationally ranked #133 and lower would theoretically be available to play California teams in some alternative basketball tournament. And the existing bowls-and-playoffs-slots in football already absorb every program with a better-than-.500 record.

      The only credible alternative postseason option would be intra-California play. And at that, it would only be credible for the revenue sports at Division I-A programs, because they’d be the only ones able to come up with third-party money to pay for the costs. All the non-revenue sports, all the Division II-or-smaller basketball programs, and all the I-AA-or-smaller football programs would simply not have a postseason anymore.

  7. Proof positive that California now has to bribe people to move there – – – –

  8. “a high school athlete who could earn thousands of dollars in endorsement opportunities that would be unavailable to him or her if they instead went to college in Oregon, Texas, Alabama, or Florida would presumably be more inclined to go to college in California.”

    Yeah, yeah, yeah – that student was only heading to Oregon, Texas, et al, because it offered him an opportunity to play ball in college and get a scholarship for doing so. Which would put him in a position to be picked up by a pro-team. So he’s already doing it ‘for the money’.

  9. NCAA overplayed their hand here. They’re afraid of athletes flocking to California to be paid because the other 49 states will ask the NCAA to change their stupid rule or threaten to leave.

    As much as I hate slave comparisons, yeah, the NCAA is a 21st century slavemaster.

    1. It’s only a tiny minority of collegiate athletes who’d be affected by this. How can you be a slave master if you have hundreds of volunteers for every “slave”?

      1. It’s the attitude the NCAA takes that they can deny everyone what they’re entitled to, threaten them if they try to demand it through legitimate means, and that we are omnipotent so you won’t dare challenge our threats. The NCAA is just a league. They don’t drive the sport; the players do. If the NCAA resists legislative change, enterprising individuals will create a new league.

        1. If California players start getting a big boost in draft stock, then sure – things might change. But it’s more likely to go the other way because Cali players will compete against a smaller talent pool.
          When is the last time a Cali school won a major (ie, football or basketball) championship?
          Fewer players than you think will choose the Cali pittance over the exposure and coaching provided by Saban, Sweeney, Kirby (go Dawgs!), Coach K, Calipari, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, UNC, Kansas, Texas, etc.
          California has a weak, virtue signaling hand here.

          1. I do agree that the NCAA’s attitude sucks – just like the FedGov, NFL, Google, and all gigantic, dominant orgs

          2. If great players can make enough money from endorsements, they will start to move west. At some point, the cost-benefit will shift away from draft stock (you know you’re great and are a shoe-in) and towards making millions while you’re 18-21. That will make the west more competitive and incentivize players who want to boost their draft stock and make some money while they’re at it.

            I see the potential for this to go either way.

            1. Very few, likely nobody, will make millions on endorsements outside the NFL.
              Ever hear of Maurice Claret?
              The Cali boosters might be willing to fork over millions upon millions every year, but otherwise they’re screwed.

  10. The NCAA doesn’t college and university athletes paid.
    Otherwise slavery in those institutions of higher indoctrination would be forced to give up slavery and spread the wealth around to those who make millions of dollars for them.
    Heaven forbid!

  11. Unrelated yet tangential:

    If it passes and the NCAA makes good on its threats, it would be a bit of an interesting turnabout given California’s earlier decision to bar public funds being spent for travel to states which have policies/laws that California deems discriminatory towards LGBT.

    Get UCLA a good team and then tell them they can’t play UNC or KU away.

  12. […] NCAA has threatened California on this bill.  Saying that if they pass it the NCAA could make it so the Universities and Colleges […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.