California gov signs the bill

ADAM BEAM
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – California will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements, defying the NCAA and setting up a likely legal challenge that could reshape amateur sports in the U.S.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday he signed the law that would let athletes at California universities make money from their images, names or likenesses. The law also bans schools from kicking athletes off the team if they get paid.

The law will take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. It does not apply to community colleges and bans athletes from accepting endorsement deals that conflict with their schools’ existing contracts

California is the first state to pass such a law.

The NCAA Board of Governors had asked Newsom to veto the bill, saying it “would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletes.” The board also warned that the law would give California universities an unfair recruiting advantage, which could prompt the NCAA to bar them from competition.

If that happened, powerhouse programs like the University of Southern California, University of California, Los Angeles, Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, would be banned from NCAA competition.

But while the NCAA is the top governing body for college sports, membership is voluntary. If the California schools are forced out, it could prompt others to follow and form a new league.

Professional athletes have endorsed the law, including NBA superstar LeBron James, whose 14-year-old son is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles.

The NCAA has steadfastly refused to pay players. 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. The committee’s report is expected in October.

The NCAA does let some athletes accept money in some cases. Tennis players can accept up to $10,000 in prize money per year, and Olympians can accept winnings from their competitions. Plus, schools in the “Power 5” conferences can pay players yearly cost-of-living stipends of between $2,000 and $4,000.

The NCAA reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017

The new league is exactly what I expect to happen. California and Texas can afford much higher “endorsement” deals than most other states. So, we’d end up with Pro-Lite and NCAA. Bad, bad deal.

And I’m not necessarily against athletes getting paid for their likeness, but how much is the issue

Edit: By the way the 1.1 billion isn’t that much. If the NCAA decides to pay all athletes a minimum of $2000 then it’s $800,000,000. Almost their entire revenue. $3,000 would bankrupt them.

If you throw football in ($7.5 Billion) it would allow the $10,000 but it would be all athletes, not just football or basketball. $20,000 again bankrupts them

The kids would be paid through endorsements not money from the schools.

No idea how this will play out. As with any new law, there are often unintended consequences.

Yes, I just edited, the NCAA can’t pay them, but the “endorsements” from California and Texas can be much larger than the “endorsements” here. Again, bad, bad idea

Good point. Unintended consequences.

Matt has a good point.

The NCAA revenue was reported at $1.1 billion in 2017. That does not take into account what conferences and the individual institutions are making each year. That NCAA revenue is about 80 percent based on what CBS and Turner pay for the NCAA Tournament.

it’s the end of college sports as we know it today… sad.

1 Like

Currently it’s clear that money is exchanging hands between recruits, their family and handlers. Big money. And so far no one has stopped the big guys from that practice. The FBI investigation has shown that it’s fairly common for the (most of) schools that live at the top of the NCAA tournament field.

If this happens then the rich states (programs) will rule.

Kinda like today.

Indeed LD. Top players have been paid for decades. Might as well legalize the practice and bring it out into the open. With sponsorships from companies like Walmart and Tyson, we can compete with most of the big boys.

Texas and Cal have lots of Walmarts and Tysons.

I think it will take a few years, but yes. There is just no way to make this work that leaves any type of level playing field. You don’t think “Big Bob’s Used Cars” in Tuscaloosa won’t be giving every single Bama signee an “endorsement” deal? Schools like USC, Texas, Texas A&M, Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia (just to name a few) will be able to out bid all the rest (add UK in Basketball).

Will we be able to pay more than some? Yes. Compete with the schools named above? Nope. You are going to have kids with $1,000,000 contracts if they are one of the very top football or basketball players.

My guess is you will have schools that voluntarily agree not to do this in one “division” and those that are will to pay in another “division” (either a division of the NCAA or as part of a separate association). Which one will we try to be in? Probably the latter, but we won’t be able to compete.

It will make the difference between the “haves” and “have nots” even bigger.

The $7.5 billion is football revenue that’s not reported as NCAA revenue, don’t ask me how, but it’s actually tracked differently. NCAA football only trails NFL football in sports in the US. NFL makes $12 billion.

I don’t think the ink has dried here yet…long time till 2023. Be interesting.

That is true

The conferences, not the NCAA, negotiate football TV contracts and are responsible for the revenue distribution. The NCAA has zero control over the College Football Playoff. The CFP is not a sanctioned NCAA championship event like the playoffs in every other sport, including FCS, Division II and Division III football. The NCAA does not crown an FBS champion, but does recognize the champion of the CFP in its record books.

The NCAA used to control TV rights for college football, but lost a 1984 Supreme Court challenge to that control. It now has very little control over major college football, other than to hand out postseason bans or other sanctions.

The NCAA’s money maker is March Madness.

Agree but if this happens then we won’t be talking about 5* guys but 7 figure guys. Sure, with Walmart, JB Hunt, Tyson and a few others we can play but if we think it’s hard for us to compete now it will be referred to as the good ole’ days of recruiting once this gets going.

IMO the NCAA started this result when they allowed pro baseball players to play college football, or vice versa etc. Originally once you took any money for playing any sport, you were not eligible for collegiate sports. They should have never changed that. I assume you know I am opposed to any college athlete getting one cent from playing, the payoff should still be a chance for a college education.

I realize I am from another world.

Not only is the horse out of that barn, Bob, but the barn is burning to the ground. We are not going back to the old days. Much work needs to be done before 2023 both in California and on the NCAA level, but athletes will start getting a piece of the huge dollars flying around college athletics. A $100,000 education is nice but it isn’t enough in this climate. You wouldn’t do/have done your job for $5 an hour, either.

It’s not like there aren’t haves and have-nots now, and weren’t in the good old days. You still have to coach them and motivate them, no matter the dollars. Clemson barely escaped a mediocre UNC team Saturday.

There’s no way of knowing all of the potential issues associated with the law. There’s obvious shopping kids around now. Parents and handlers will be asking about the money their kid can earn and there will be a lot of empty promises.

Will kids transfer to a school that has more earning potential?