F the NCAA

[holidaysmore]

The fact the bill was signed during a taping for LeBron's TV show shows you just how much confidence CA has in this ever going into effect.

Anyway, this is all pointless. While S.B. 206 does allow college dudes to make money off of the use of their name and likeness while retaining their eligibility, it doesn’t force universities to actually pay them. Under the law, a football player at Kansas may be able to monetize a YouTube channel or hire an agent without fear of losing his scholarship, but that's it.

A basketball player at KU could also sign an endorsement contract with Adidas if the rule was in place.

And I believe, using KU as an example a player could sign an endorsement deal with Nike.

[zsn]

I don't understand what the law can do. Surely they don't think they can compel the NCAA to grant eligibility to a player getting paid for his likeness.

No, the law cannot compel the NCAA to do anything. It puts the NCAA in an awkward place though. The law requires schools to pay the player for use of n/i/l. If the school, in cahoots with the NCAA does not want to use the n/i/l then no payment, no problem. However, if the NCAA and the school want to make any money at all, selling merchandise etc (will be a good test case whether souvenir programs sold at the games constitute profiting from n/i/l) then they are required by law to pay said player(s). This also puts schools in an awkward place - either get out from under the NCAA or get the NCAA to change their dogma.

[jfish26]

https://twitter.com/AschoffESPN/status/ ... 4767438848

[Mjl]

I am not understanding something here.

There was never anything illegal about student athletes signing with agents or getting paid for use of their likeness - they didn't do it because it was against the NCAA's rules, and still is.

[zsn]

The fact the bill was signed during a taping for LeBron's TV show shows you just how much confidence CA has in this ever going into effect.

Anyway, this is all pointless. While S.B. 206 does allow college dudes to make money off of the use of their name and likeness while retaining their eligibility, it doesn’t force universities to actually pay them. Under the law, a football player at Kansas may be able to monetize a YouTube channel or hire an agent without fear of losing his scholarship, but that's it.

There is some dispute as to whether the Bill was actually signed during the show.....the paper LeBron held up was not the Bill. Anyway, it is set to go into effect only in 2023, presumably to avoid litigation regarding athletes already in college under the old rules.

The NCAA is having an ouchie about this, but similar laws are being worked-on in other states (NC, Colorado, Maryland, Washington etc.). State universities are goverened by the State govt and thus the NCAA is mostly SOL, except in specific cases (competition rules). This is the reason that the State of CA can prohibit state schools from traveling to states where there are "discriminatory laws".

Yes, the NCAA can say that the schools from these states cannot play in the tournament, but imagine the blowback if KU, UNC and Duke cannot play in the NCAA tournament or Clemson in Bowl games (if the NC law is similar to CA law all schools in the state, public or private will have to pay student-athletes for commercial use of their name-image-and-likeness)

Legislation like this and litigation related to the n/i/l issue help shape public opinion. We have 75% of basketball coaches now saying that N/I/L is the future. The fans are following and increasingly saying N/I/L is the right and just thing.

It's similar to gay marriage. It was something like a 40-50 point jump in the US population stating that it should be legal AFTER the SCOTUS struck down all the state bans.

Cnb: Interesting you should select this analogy. Gavin Newsom was also the one who set off the first domino in the gay marriage area by granting marriage licenses as Mayor of San Francisco! Even though he didn't initiate the SB206 he was quite instrumental in getting it passed. He is in the thick of this one too!!!!

[jfish26]

I am not understanding something here.

There was never anything illegal about student athletes signing with agents or getting paid for use of their likeness - they didn't do it because it was against the NCAA's rules, and still is.

Well, what the California law will do (if I understand it correctly) is make it illegal for the NCAA to enforce certain of its rules against athletes.

I think there are a lot of potholes for the California law to survive the challenges that will come (particularly commerce clause-based challenges that will say only the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce).

That said - I don't think the purpose of the law is actually to become the law of the land. I think it's intended to raise the pressure on the NCAA to get out of the business of enforcing outdated, unethical rules, that are (generally speaking) for the benefit of rich white dudes, and to the detriment of kids with much more varying backgrounds.

[Mjl]

I am not understanding something here.

There was never anything illegal about student athletes signing with agents or getting paid for use of their likeness - they didn't do it because it was against the NCAA's rules, and still is.

Well, what the California law will do (if I understand it correctly) is make it illegal for the NCAA to enforce certain of its rules against athletes.

I think there are a lot of potholes for the California law to survive the challenges that will come (particularly commerce clause-based challenges that will say only the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce).

That said - I don't think the purpose of the law is actually to become the law of the land. I think it's intended to raise the pressure on the NCAA to get out of the business of enforcing outdated, unethical rules, that are (generally speaking) for the benefit of rich white dudes, and to the detriment of kids with much more varying backgrounds.

Makes sense

[zsn]

Well, what the California law will do (if I understand it correctly) is make it illegal for the NCAA to enforce certain of its rules against athletes.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The NCAA would be free to enforce it's rules of eligibility and the CA law would say it's illegal not to pay. This would mean that NCAA would declare that athletes from the entire State (and those of other States who pass similar laws) are ineligible for competition.

Imagine the chaos for the bball tournament and bowl games! That will create a stalemate/dilemma for the schools who will have to sort this out. I think that is what this law is intending to accomplish - get the schools/public to pressure the NCAA.

[Geezer]

The law doesn't go into effect until 2023. That will give time for A) more states to pass similar laws and B) give the NCAA time to adjust rules.

[CrimsonNBlue]

That’s great, because (B) is the intended effect.

[Deleted User 266]

The fact the bill was signed during a taping for LeBron's TV show shows you just how much confidence CA has in this ever going into effect.

Anyway, this is all pointless. While S.B. 206 does allow college dudes to make money off of the use of their name and likeness while retaining their eligibility, it doesn’t force universities to actually pay them. Under the law, a football player at Kansas may be able to monetize a YouTube channel or hire an agent without fear of losing his scholarship, but that's it.

There is some dispute as to whether the Bill was actually signed during the show.....the paper LeBron held up was not the Bill. Anyway, it is set to go into effect only in 2023, presumably to avoid litigation regarding athletes already in college under the old rules.

The NCAA is having an ouchie about this, but similar laws are being worked-on in other states (NC, Colorado, Maryland, Washington etc.). State universities are goverened by the State govt and thus the NCAA is mostly SOL, except in specific cases (competition rules). This is the reason that the State of CA can prohibit state schools from traveling to states where there are "discriminatory laws".

Yes, the NCAA can say that the schools from these states cannot play in the tournament, but imagine the blowback if KU, UNC and Duke cannot play in the NCAA tournament or Clemson in Bowl games (if the NC law is similar to CA law all schools in the state, public or private will have to pay student-athletes for commercial use of their name-image-and-likeness)

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3Cc5vsHvVf/?

[DCHawk1]

[ousdahl]

Wait, paid in blow?

[hartjack8]

The truth is the NCAA head in the sand trying to hold on to the past and not really being futuristic is going to mess up college sports. There is I believe the possibility that all this will lead to a favorable outcome for Kansas.

https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... ism-future

[jhawks99]

Wait, paid in blow?

Or, in the case of Louisville, hookers and blow.

[jfish26]

The truth is the NCAA head in the sand trying to hold on to the past and not really being futuristic is going to mess up college sports. There is I believe the possibility that all this will lead to a favorable outcome for Kansas.

https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... ism-future

I think it's 100% part of our long play to string our stuff out for so long that punishing us for what has been alleged will be untenable (and perhaps contrary to the rules and/or the law of the land, had the conduct occurred as of when the punishment would be enforced).

[jfish26]

Hadn't read this before:

https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-con ... y_2016.pdf

From both a moral and legal perspective, there is eroding tolerance for selective
commercialization restrictions on student-athletes in a system that many perceive to be
exploitative, unethical, unfair, inequitable, and unnecessary. Such continued selective
enforcement in the name of protecting intercollegiate sports will continue to leave the NCAA
vulnerable to litigation and invite broader attacks on the amateurism model as the perception (if
not reality) of the unfairness intensifies.

[...]

This paper ultimately concludes that the non-game related NIL restrictions are unnecessary to the
NCAA’s core goals and may actually be counterproductive. This paper thus recommends that
the NCAA’s definition of “amateurism” should be narrowed to permit a regulated market for
non-game related NILs. This narrowed, less-restrictive definition will allow for improvements to
student-athlete welfare while also permitting the NCAA to more effectively focus its relatively
limited resources on its core educational and amateurism/anti-professionalization goals.

As the Knight Commission has recommended in the past, the NCAA and its member institutions
should take further steps to protect the integrity of college sports and its academic ideals. The
NCAA should institute regulations that ensure that NIL arrangements, like all other forms of
commercial activity undertaken as part of college athletics (including broadcast and sponsorship
deals), are conducted within the appropriate constraints of higher education and do not unduly
interfere with the NCAA’s core mission. We should move past the question of “should we allow
student-athletes to be paid for their non-game related NILs” to “how should we allow student-
athletes to be paid for their non-game related NILs” while maintaining the prominence of
education and the overall mission of the NCAA.

[twocoach]

The fact the bill was signed during a taping for LeBron's TV show shows you just how much confidence CA has in this ever going into effect.

Anyway, this is all pointless. While S.B. 206 does allow college dudes to make money off of the use of their name and likeness while retaining their eligibility, it doesn’t force universities to actually pay them. Under the law, a football player at Kansas may be able to monetize a YouTube channel or hire an agent without fear of losing his scholarship, but that's it.

A basketball player at KU could also sign an endorsement contract with Adidas if the rule was in place.

And I believe, using KU as an example a player could sign an endorsement deal with Nike.

No, the CA law explicitly states that a player cannot sign an endorsement deal with an apparel company that is not the same as the company who has the apparel company with the school.

[jfish26]

A basketball player at KU could also sign an endorsement contract with Adidas if the rule was in place.

And I believe, using KU as an example a player could sign an endorsement deal with Nike.

No, the CA law explicitly states that a player cannot sign an endorsement deal with an apparel company that is not the same as the company who has the apparel company with the school.

That's one of the aspects of the law that I think make it pretty ripe for challenge.

[CrimsonNBlue]

There's the obvious interstate commerce issue, but, and this is going back to law school, I don't know that NCAA has standing to challenge until the law goes into effect.