I can hear the claim of sexism already when men receive more money than women college athletes. What happens then?
2
Every quote from an NCAA exec, conference commissioner or AD should include their salary working in the not-for-profit, amateur world of college sports.
For example:
"Mark Emmert, ($3.9M in 2017), warned in June that ..."
"The PAC 12, whose commissioner Larry Scott makes $5.4M, issued a statement that..."
"Big 10 commissioner Jim Delaney ($5.5M/yr) opposes FP2P"
8
The California bill is a death blow for women’s athletics. If college football dies, so do women’s sports.
1
NCAA amateurism has always bern a farce. Only in America would an institution of higher learning engage in sports on this scale, with massive salaries for football and basketball coaches. Professional clubs should develop their players in the same fashion that soccer players are developed in Europe. Soccer clubs run their own academies, and PAY their players, under contracts. Why continue the farce of not paying college athletes, while universities and their coaches wallow in TV rights money? Why are American athletes going to college, when I’m fairly certain that they would gladly embrace a youth academy model, instead of risking injury for free?
10
In the 50s and 60s I loved college sports. Players were students, few would go on to play pro ball and the team was usually drawn from schools in the area. They were truly representative of the University or College. Today the NCAA hauls in multi-millions and coaches are compensated like superstars, players are scouted from early high school and recruited from across the nation. Why? What does winning accomplish for the school when the vasty majority of the revenue remains in the Athletic Department. If the NCAA wishes to continue in their historic ways I would like to suggest that the major universities withdraw from the NCAA and form a more equal institution that represents the interests of the student-athletes, the schools and the coaches. If they do not then it may be that the states will.
4
College football head coaches are often the highest paid public employees in their state - making as much as CEOs of fairly large, profitable corporations. This makes sense because they're running large profitable corporations. It's time to pay all the employees, not just top management.
8
Do all players on a winning team will get some money or just a very few? If the running back gets the money then the linemen should get part of it. If the receiver gets the money then the quarterback should get some also. Fair pay means everyone on the team should get some. If a player gets money while his teammates get none then they will not protect him or helping him to score.
1
The NCAA was formed 104 years ago when the main objective was to define "athletic eligibility" for student-athletes.
We can all agree that no one in 1905 was thinking about the effects major media, radio, television, social media, internet, athletic clothing, fashions, on-line gambling and the like would have in college sports by generating $billions in revenue!
It took a forward-thinking state like California to shake-up an out-moded collegiate system that will undoubtedly have to either make some changes.... or risk becoming irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the commissioners will "see the light."
3
What does the NCAA do, other than run bowl games and tournaments for the top dogs, do that conferences can not do at the local level?
1
@HapinOregon
Unfortunately the Times has misled you and other readers. The NCAA is not involved in football bowl games. They do run basketball tournaments.
2
NCAA, just de-platform California colleges and universities. They don’t like your rules? Let them form their own brand. California college and university athletics have become irrelevant over the past decade anyway, at least in terms of those sports that bring in revenue. If the state of California can subsidize all the best athletes in major sports, then they can force a “playoff” or “Super Duper Bowl/Championship” with the NCAA champion. In that showdown, when the California schools start winning then change will come.
2
@skyfiber
More to the point is what will the NCAA compliant conferences and teams do when their better players start matriculating at PAC-12 schools (assuming those "scholar"-athletes can get in and stay in...) to get the endorsement money they would be denied had they stayed in the NCAA confines?
2
It's unclear why student athletes should be forced to give away their likeness so someone else can profit. The fiction that division 1 college sports are amateur in any meaningful way is long gone at most colleges. So if the players can't monetize their own likeness and names on account of preserving amateurism, the colleges and NCAA shouldn't be allowed to either.
9
@Jeff
I played 4 years in the Big Ten, full scholarship. How was I a professional? I received no spending money. Please tell me how I was a pro?
The NCAA should ban California schools from participating in any competition with the league.
3
You're not really being outfoxed when you are on the wrong side of history.
1
I'd like to see the NCAA try banning California teams. It would throw their entire money making scheme out of whack. Colleges make hundreds of million off the bodies of young athletes. It's about time they get paid. And I bet one of the big reasons the NCAA doesn't like this is that it's a huge incentive for the best collegiate athletes to all want to go to California schools. UCLA replacing Alabama?
3
@markd
It’s funny that the same people who claim that each university receives untold millions from football are the same ones who say the same universities are underfunded because Americans don’t know the value of higher education. The fact is that over 95% of schools subsidize their athletic departments. One of the exceptions is Purdue that accepts no state or university funds for athletics. That’s why it has fewer sports than Ivy League schools. But of course you will not read that because it doesn’t fit the predetermined narrative.
1
@markd, In NFL everyone gets paid! In college no one gets paid! They get famous or good first and will get paid. If only a few players get the money then that’s not fair for other players on the same team. Teammates are suppose to helping each other to win not go for the individual benefit. There will be conflict between players! I would be very worry for the star quarter back or a great running back if they don’t share the money! Lol
College athletics are a big business, one that allows athletic directors and coaches to make millions of dollars a year. It's only fair that the athletes be allowed to make money off their talents as well.
7
@sthomas1957, agreed! All players on the same team should get part of the money if someone in their team gets the money! That’s team player! Otherwise he will ended up playing by himself.
This is a good first step for the realities of intercollegiate sports regardless of what the NCAA does to push back, and if it does, I hope it hurts itself.
Former Captain of the '68 Cornell University Basketball Team, recruited out of Chicago. No main regrets about the recruitment – got a great education (real world and academic) – but there was trickery and deception and some hard knocks because of them, that's for sure.
5
Mark Emmert is a bully and an accomplished liar. I asked him a direct question in a public forum at Rice University in front 200 people and he lied effortlessly. I only wish he could have gotten his comeuppance years ago. Instead he will retire with a $1.5 million per year pension earned for taking advantage of young people. One of my sons went to college on a work/study scholarship. He earned $10 per hour working 25 hours or more per week supporting the athletic program. He got the same scholarship perks including books and meals as the athletes, but he also got paid for his time. This dichotomy is not unusual in college athletics.
15
The NCAA is a bloated, antiquated, and deeply corrupt organization that needs to be blown up and replaced with a completely new organization and business model.
Hopefully, this will be the first of many salvos lobbed at their barricades.
They need to go, this has been a long time coming.
20
@JayK. It isn't right that the athletic department disproportionately influence the curriculum of the rest of the university just because of the money it throws around. It's why our colleges perform so poorly in comparison with the rest of the world but for the foreign students who enroll.
4
This law impacts high value sports like men's college football and basketball. That's where the money is for the NCAA.
So why on earth does the times have a photograph of a women's team? Politically correct?
The NCAA doesn't really care about lower tier sports for men or women.
4
Good for California
8
I have to chime in to vehemently disagree with the commenters that think that permitting student athletes to pen endorsement deals isn't going to be tantamount to teams paying them directly.
The result of this is pretty easy to predict: alumni booster clubs at the largest schools will pool together millions of dollars and offer student players and recruits money for doing a TV commercial for the local insurance company, for coming out to the grand opening of the local restaurant and signing autographs, etc.
Not because these students have any true endorsement value, but because alumni groups are willing to pay up to recruit sought after high school players.
Just wait and see. Tens of millions of dollars will be paid to kids formerly known as students.
If you are a fan of Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, maybe this will work out because you have a rabid fan base. It'll cost you of course, as the "salaries" of the players get bid up across the country.
"We represent the University of Oregon alumni boosters and are willing to guarantee young Johnny here $5 million in endorsement contracts to join the Ducks so long as he doesn't leave for the NFL early".
It will create a de facto professional league of "student" athletes.
You all decry how TV deals corrupted college sports. Just wait and see. This isn't some kind of student-athlete stipend. This is a bidding war.
4
@Mmm And hopefully the war will blow the system up. As the price of athletes goes up, poorer schools will have to drop out and focus on academics. Even the rich schools will hate it, since much of that alumni booster money was probably earmarked as a donation to the school itself initially.
5
@Mmm , if it's a bidding war, so be it. Of course there has always been bidding wars for top high-school prospects coming into the Div 1 arena. But the athletes never got the benefits of that bidding war -- and now they will.
Next step is to stop pretending that the top university basketball and football programs are anything but a minor league for the NBA and NFL. And that means disassociating those programs from the universities.
5
@Andy I would agree that a minor league option would be great.
But keep my school out of it. I want my school team to be made up of regular students. There can be X number of pro leagues, but leave room for amateur college sports.
In other words, many colleges, students, alumni and fans want an amateur league. The question now will be how to divorce the teams that want that from the teams that want to run a pro sports team.
2
Good. The NCAA is the enforcer protecting a corrupt system that has been enormously lucrative for everyone involved except the players. There are football coaches making millions, frequently the highest paid employee in the university system, while the players who risk injury for a minuscule chance at a pro career get nothing.
If we want to keep the system of college sports, at least let the kids taking all the risks for our entertainment make some money while they can. Most will never make it to the pros, and most of those who do will not last long.
9
This is a partisan issue, and I believe conservatives are angry and progressives are celebrating. Old wealthy white men across the country are quaking that the power imbalance they’ve had over young athletes of color may be coming to an end.
4
@Jeff , except that the votes in both houses of the California legislature were unanimous -- Republicans voted for the law as well as the Democrats.
2
@Jeff
Your comment is largely on point and one of the many elephants in this house of corruption.
The power that this despicable organization has to destroy lives and or programs that have "run afoul" of their byzantine, insanely hypocritical rule book is astonishing.
The NCAA body has been shamelessly feeding at this trough for decades, so their demise can't come soon enough for me.
3
People have known for decades that the NCAA is corrupt. The financial model of selling billions in TV rights in exchange for free education of its students -- all the while keeping its student athletes away from any money, earned or otherwise -- is equivalent to that of modern day slavery.
This situation should have been settled outside California a long time ago, but just like with climate change, and how the gas and oil companies knew in the '80s their behavior was harmful, making sure to get to die with all the money seemed to be the only real concern.
NCAA ruined amateur sports a long, long time ago. Now they'll get to blame the "liberals in California" and la di da their way into insignificance.
3
I hope this leads to the eventual destruction of the NCAA, its colossal TV contracts and the obscene hypocrisy and fraud of big-time college athletics. This country will be a better place if its institutions of higher learning realize that they should have a higher purpose than hosting ESPN's game of the week on Saturday afternoon (or Thursday night, or Friday night or Saturday night or New Years Day).
15
Let's see now. If you are a talented high school athlete (in whatever sport) who has plans to play professionally after college, then clearly you want a university or college that is going to best prepare you for that job. Aside from choosing the best available coach for you to improve your skills, you want to make that transition as easy as possible.
So, all of as sudden there are these California universities (including some big names - USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, San Diego State, etc) that will allow you to not only play for them but will allow you to also be sponsored by local or even national companies and for you to be take a percentage of that sponsorship. Now, which university are you going to choose? One in California where you can earn money from your sports prowess or one in another State where you cannot?
Other States will soon figure out that California's universities will have a huge advantage in recruiting and so they, too, will pass similar such legislation. Then, won't the States with the big powerhouse football or basketball teams not pass similar legislation? Would Alabama or Ohio be happy to lose its premier football players to California? How about Kentucky with its basketball players? The answer is pretty clear, no they won't.
That's why this legislation in California has let the 'genii out of the bottle' (or whatever cliche you want to use). Sorry, NCAA, you better change very quickly or else you are going to lose complete control.
7
@MVT2216 Oh it's gonna change. Expect some whiplash in the next year or two at the most.
Good. Let the athletes fairly share the rewards of their talent and hard work instead of a bunch of coaches and mooching administrators getting rich off the kids
11
We'll see if the NCAA has guts enough to enforce its rules. I wonder.
2
@JND The NCAA rules are arbitrary and capricious, and they change only to benefit the organization. That's why this law was enacted, and why other states will soon enact similar laws.
1
Student big sport student athletes are paid. They are paid in the form of an education with a net value of about 250k, at a school, some never had the grades to attend. Special meals, special medical care, trainers, tutors! Crimes including sexual assault of fellow students, are often covered up or forgiven. We getting up in the half a million a year range here! We want to pay them more! Schools should be the last bastion of amateur athletics, not NFL and NBA B-teams. How would we equitably pay? After ten players execute perfectly and one person walks into the end zone, does the person that scored get more the the teammates that made it possible? What about other sports? Colleges and Universities are the last best places to play a range of diverse sports. How would soccer, fencing, baseball, tennis, crew and other wonderful sports be supported? Some of elite players are papered entitled brats in a system that has vetted and promoted them as early as middle-school. Now we want to pay them for their entitlement?
4
@j24 ,
You're missing several points.
One is that you assume that an athlete participating in a top-shelf college football or basketball program has the time to get that education. Would the linebacker like to get an engineering degree, knowing full well that his football career can end in an instant at any time? My guess is: absolutely! But the sports programs eat up all of the athlete's time, and an engineering program is quite rigorous (I have a bachelor of engineering degree).
Also it should be noted that in too many cases, an injury means that the athlete's scholarship is rescinded. It's called Play to Pay, and if you can't Play, they won't Pay.
So the first step is to stop pretending that they're students, and that the "value" of that education is not the same thing as its "cost" (based on list price for tuition, fees, room & board).
As for the other non-elite sports programs: somehow, those sports exist at non-Division-1 schools, without the TV money and all of that. Of course, those schools don't have athletic directors and coaches who are the highest-paid public employees in their state.
6
@j24 You completely missed the point.
1. My is a music major with a music scholarship at a large university. He earns money on his Youtube music videos without jeopardizing his music/academic scholarship in any way. Explain why any athlete shouldn't be allowed the same privilege.
2. This ruling will precisely benefit athletes in sports in which there is little or no path to a professional career.
3. This is how the NCAA treats Olympic athletes, why can't non-olympic athletes have the same rights?
4. If schools are the last-bastion of amateur athletics, then pay the coaches accordingly, say, no coach should be allowed to earn more than the highest-paid department head.
5. If schools are the last-bastion of amateur athletics, then all athletic profits should go into the school's endowment to offer academic scholarships to high achieving/underprivileged students.
5. NIL rights have nothing to do with how schools supports all the non-lucrative sports. Do a bit of research.
6. FYI, playing soccer with the NCAA is generally considered the least favorable avenue into a pro career, but I digress.
2
@j24 This is so false. NCAA already allows students in 'white' sports like Golf and tennis to get endorsements, and these athletes are already famous online. They're putting their bodies and their brain cells on the line - the work a lot harder than most of their fans.
"Entitlement" looks like a racist code word when applied to some of the hardest working people on the planet. It's not 'entitlement' to get paid to work, it's a job.
4
Should people--athletes or non-athletes--share the profits from the use of their names and images? Yes. Should colleges and universities, public or private, operate professional sport teams? Absolutely not! Scholarships for athletes being paid for endorsing shoes and video games and other products? Absolutely not! The professional football and basketball leagues need college sports, colleges do not need professional athletes.
1
@MEM Golf and tennis 'student athletes' can already get endorsements. And I believe skiing? I suppose colleges don't need professional coaches, either?
1
I wonder if this isn't the beginning of the end for college athletics. Very few college athletes warrant the type of endorsements discussed here, and the big money sports help fund the scholarships for the lesser followed sports. If the law stands, it will be interesting to see how it progresses. Does the university get a cut for providing the platform for the national exposure that leads to the endorsements? Will there be an option for an athlete to promise to eschew those deals? If yes, will some schools choose not to recruit those who do not see free tuition, room and board as enough compensation. For what percentage of college scholarship athletes is this a factor?
1
The idea of labeling some college athletes as “student athletes” for many, not all, is often a nod & a wink to the reality of their situation.
They are athletes first and foremost, with many athletes attending class rarely if not inconsistently. Sure, there are dedicated student-athletes who put as much effort into class as they do their sport, but many student-athletes are on record as complaining that their coaches often strongly encourage them to put the sport and practice before class...and should an athlete get hurt, the sports program often abandons them, and the scholarship is rescinded.
Pay them, and stop pretending college athletics are non-professional endeavors.
6
Now onto high school athletes. There are basketball players and football players at the high school level who have such extraordinary talents that could leverage new social media opportunities to make some serious cash.
3
@Ben P They already do. Tennis, golf and skiers often get endorsements in high school that weren't legal in NCAA, so the NCAA changed the rules to let them do it, and the world - mostly - didn't end.
2
@mjw My mistakes, I was thinking of prize money, not endorsements. Lots of rules! Prize money, but only to cover expenses!? Doesn't make much sense.
Fine. Pay the 'student-athletes'. But let's get rid of the athletic scholarships for those students receiving endorsement deals.
5
@Roger Can we deduct endorsement deals from the coaches' salaries too?
2
The NCAA has cashed in on student athletes for decades. Colleges and universities making millions of dollars every year from amateur sports. It’s rules are arcane at best. But the time has come. People have come to realize that this huge organization is built on the blood and sweat of non-paid student athletes. While college sports administrators are paid millions of dollars a year. It’s beyond unfair and is simply a travesty. Now the new California law will look to pay the athletes who deserve to be paid while the NCAA tries to fight the inevitable. It’s about time that college athletes are paid for their services. Period.
12
@Mike L And those athletes have cashed-in on a free education. And the NBA/NFL and to some extent MLB have used the public (and private) schools for free 'minor-leagues' talent scouting and talent developing. Let's get rid of the athletic programs, or, if we are going to make it a paying activity for the students, get rid of the scholarships.
2
@Roger
“Free education?” Look up the stories or documentaries on this issue wherein student-athletes talk about the pressure exerted on them by coaches to prioritize their sport over their academics. Including pressuring athletes to choose “easier” majors to allow for an easier path to missing classes for the benefit of the athletic program/ensuring attending more practices of the sport. And should an athlete that a coach is “hot” for, and recruited with promises of the moon and the stars above get hurt...we’ll bye bye “free education” scholarship in MANY, MANY cases.
3
Colleges and universities are non-profit institutions. And they're struggling financially. States keep cutting their education budgets. Tuition keeps rising.
At nearly all colleges and universities, the athletics program does not generate net income. Only a tiny fraction of athletics programs at a tiny fraction of colleges and universities do. Most institutions require institutional funding to balance their athletics operating budget. Athletics subsidies will continue to grow, both in real terms and as a percentage of institutional budgets.
And yet the myth persists that college athletics is a cash cow. The NCAA pulled in revenue of just over $1 billion in 2017, most of that from the men's basketball tournament. And it distributed nearly all of that revenue to its member institutions, which continue to struggle to subsidize their athletics programs, sometimes to a startling degree.
So let's stop pretending that the NCAA and its member colleges and universities are getting rich off the backs of student-athletes. They're not. The myth that they are is not a sound foundation for argument.
1
When I was an undergraduate, I was able to get a paid co-op position (aka internship) in my field of business. Had I wanted, I could have had a job being paid by the university for my skills. The fact that neither option is allowed for college athletes shows how broken the NCAA's indentured servitude model is. In my view, athletes should be allowed to major in their sport, be prepared appropriately for success in that field, and be able to earn money doing it while in college if necessary. The fact that few will become professional athletes is no different than many other fields, from art to philosophy to political science. The only difference is that the monopoly we call the NCAA clings to its power and money.
15
@Roy That's what pro minor leagues are for. Probably educational institutions should be out of the sport and entertainment industry altogether.
7
@Roger
Big college sports equals "pro minor leagues".
@Roy "That's what pro minor leagues are for."
In reading through the comments it seems as though there is a misunderstanding of what this new law does and what it doesn't do. It allows college athletes to get endorsements and to hire an agent. It does not allow colleges to pay the athletes. I don't see how this law is controversial. Yes, it might help major college programs because companies will endorse their players. But, it also has the ability to help players from other colleges and universities as well. While Nike isn't going to write a huge check for a student athelete at a smaller school, a local car dealership, restaurant, health clinic, etc., likely would pay a small amount for an endorsement. This article references Santa Clara -- Governor Newsom's school. A student athlete there could certainly benefit by making a commercial for a local restaurant.
The NCAA model has only allowed the universities to market the image of the players. The California law allows the students to also market their images. I don't see how that can be controversial.
13
2% of Div I football players go to the NFL. 1.3% make it to the NBA. Hope springs eternal, but the numbers are devastating. Too, the graduation rates of those Div I programs are in most cases terrible. Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe does articles annually on those graduation rates of the March Madness schools. So, 98% and 98.7% of those people are basically indentured servants who can go to class. Also, they suffer the injuries and when their eligibility is up they can find a job and live with the injuries. I am glad that CA has done this. These young men and women deserve payment. I think they also deserve extended medical care and 6 yr scholarships to actually assist in their ability to get a meaningful degree. There are billions of dollars made off their backs, their skills and their dedication. Share it!
54
@Jack Frederick Having gone to a Div. 1 university, I can tell you that most football and basketball players end up in classes taught by sympathetic instructors who will give them the grades they need to maintain eligibility. Many of them are functionally illiterate and couldn't pass a high school algebra test.
My point being, they are NOT getting an education.
31
@WERNER GELDSCHEISSER No, but they are getting hurt. The lack of education is one thing, but then they get to live with those injuries which last a lifetime. As a DI player you know. Does the Univ that profited from their play have any responsibility for their extended care? No! Just move'em through. I hope it was a good experience for you!
15
@Jack Frederick: Actually, this legislation could mean that talented athletes will stay in college longer because of their ability to earn income while they are learning and growing. Instead of leaving after one year (basketball) or two years (football), they might stay three or four years. That will certainly allow them to improve their physical skills as well as improve their education. Isn't that a good thing?
Yes, only a handful of students go on to professional sports. But, colleges and universities 'milk' those students for tens of millions of dollars every year, as you point out. Now, at least some of them can get some money from that process. It's a start, anyway.
10
The term "student athlete" was cynically created in the 1950s as part of a successful effort to deny workers compensation benefits to the widow of a college football player (Ray Dennison) who died of a head injury sustained while playing college football. Ever since, the N.C.A.A. has perpetuated the "student athlete" myth to prevent college athletes from sharing any of the billions of dollars generated after college sports exploded into big business. The California legislation - which will not become effective until 2023 - is long overdue.
The N.C.A.A. has been on notice since at least 2009, the year that Ed O'Bannon sued the N.C.A.A. on antitrust grounds for depriving him of his right of publicity, that significant changes were needed. The world has changed since the case of NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma was decided in 1984, where it was determined that "[T]o preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid." That argument is not likely to fall on sympathetic ears these days.
23
Last year in the Peach Bowl four of Michigan’s best players sat out, they were not injured. They were unwilling to risk injury before embarking on a pro career.
We love NCAA because it’s amateur, we prefer it to pro leagues due to the passion of the athletes.
It’s a simple transaction- you get a college education valued at hundreds of thousands in exchange for playing on the sports team.
Yes, 18 year olds are free to pursue other options.
Universities make a fortune off sports and that allows them to offer scholarships to students who can’t throw a football or dunk a basketball, students who’s only skill is being brilliant. That money also pays not just for the footballs and basketballs athlete need to play but also the super collider that physics students need.
2
@Brando Flex Read up on the cost of college athletic programs. Only very few take in more money than they spend.
For the bulk of Division 1 schools, the athletic department budget is supplemented by the Universities general fund- meaning that the non athletes are paying for the athletes. If the athletic department does make a profit you can bet the priority to spend the profit is on better facilities and not on providing scholarships for non-athletes.
If there is a directional state U near you, go to a football game sometime and more than likely there are less than 10,000 people there and the coach is still making mid 6 figures.
Division III has the only model that makes sense for the colleges, athletes pay tuition just like everyone else and so the football team ends up attracting cash paying customers.
17
@Brando Flex
Only premiere athletic programs are profitable--most are a drain on the university budget with administrators "investing" toward the time they become a cash cow that can be milked. Overwhelmingly, most never do.
Here's a crazy idea--invest in the library and research and scholarships. Let universities play teams within a bus ride distance. Like High School sports. Yes, TV is not going to want to televise those games, to which I say "Thank heaven for small favors."
20
@Brando Flex most NCAA sports are money losers at most universities.
As for an education, well, take a look at what happened at UNC. Big sports players took fake course with automatic As to retain eligibility to play. For the vast majority who didn't make it to the pros, the only education they received was how to cheat for a grade.
The NCAA did not sanction UNC.
2
The bill passed because it made sense and it is fair. No further analysis is really needed. No amount of coordinated lobbying by the NCAA would have made any difference.
Ultimately this could lead to the death of big time college athletics at all but the biggest schools. If you are the president of a mid major state school that has to get most of their athletic budget from the general university fund, secretly you are hoping for this. Other than an obsolete football stadium, you have a lot fewer headaches.
15
The useful shelf life of the NCAA has expired. They no longer are the final word with regard to school athletics. Perhaps at one time back in the 30's or 40's the NCAA did help a few students when money was not the driving issue. The football and basketball teams bring revenues in the millions to their respective schools. I would think giving a stipend to the players is not going to hurt those institutions bottom line one whit. as for endorsements it's just wrong these companies aren't donating to a fund for the players.
6
College kids should have to play against pros.
So the schools that make up the NCAA should stop playing teams from California.
If those California teams and perhaps others around the country want to have a professional basketball, football (not to mention baseball, track, gymnastics, volleyball, golf . . .) league, let them do it. Can't stop them. But I don't think college should be a professional league of free agents, endorsement deals, guaranteed contracts, etc.
But we should retain amateurism in college sports--that's the paramount interest. These are school teams made of up students.
If we have to "reform" college basketball to make it more fair to students with budding professional aspirations, then ask the NBA to let 18 year olds play in the league (they already can in the D league of course, but that is often conveniently forgotten).
In any event, a league needs consistent rules--you can't have only one group of teams paying players. Kick them out.
3
@Mmm - "But we should retain amateurism in college sports--"
Does that mean you support taking professional sports like money out of college sports? Perhaps, coaches, colleges, universities and NCAA executives should have the same pay and gate revenue of community college sports, with any excess going to charities.
4
@Mmm -- I think you misunderstand this legislation. California universities won't be paying players -- instead, it will allow student athletes to do exactly what every other non-athlete student is allowed to do -- profit from the use of their own names, images and likenesses.
Even if you consider the scholarship-for-play exchange to be fair (which I personally don't), it is ridiculous and hypocritical for the NCAA to bar players from profiting from other fair exchanges in the market -- we're talking about signing autographs, endorsing products, and even monetizing YouTube clips. Any other college student with a few thousand Instagram followers could get paid to post a photo of a product -- why can't a student athlete?
The money will not come from the universities. These students will stay exactly as amateur as they were before -- the difference being that instead of the massive sums of money they generate going into other pockets, some will make its way back to them.
I hope Congress takes up legislation to make this rule apply nationally.
38
@Derek Schmidt
Those institutions of higher learnin' are concerned that instead of 100% of Nike or Under Amour money going to them--a portion of it might start flowing to a few elite players. So to the universities way of thinking--they would in fact be paying the players.
2