California legalizes college athlete endorsements

[Frak]

I for one am not against players getting a bigger piece of the pie, but I don't think that this is the way to do it. This just invites too much corruption. You're going to have big donors paying players huge amounts of money for autographs and sponsorships. And then coaches are going to use those payouts as a recruiting pitch..."Every one of our starters made at least $20k last year in endorsements". If you think that competitive balance is out of whack now, it's only going to get worse. When fans realize that their teams don't have a shot to compete, interest is going to wane and the big money train is going to stop. I feel like there are better ways to give players more money, like increasing the full cost of attendance, rather than just making cheating above board.

If it were my call, I would suggest having the P5 leave the NCAA, elect a commissioner with a staff that has full subpoena, investigation and punishment powers. Enforce the rules so that everyone has a real shot at competing. Of course, that will never happen. IMO people are cutting off their nose to spite their face. The NFL thrives because of competitive balance. If that's not there, everyone except for the top teams will quit watching.

The other option is for the NFL to create a minor league system like the G-League where players can skip college if they want to, but there's really no benefit for them to do that.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Yes, I believe that was the specific intent of the law. The entire idea of college sports needs to hit the reset button. The fact that you can say "it has been policed" with a straight face is proof of this.

If people want to pay players directly while in on scholarship, good luck to them. Increasing the money involved in a system only makes it more corrupt, not less. I really have no interest in supporting a minor league team based in Ames, Iowa when I don't live there anymore.

 

[CapnCy]

I still think everyone is missing the real impact of this by thinking about what this means for actual endorsement deals vs. donors using it to legally pay players to come to their preferred school.

Yep...look for a lot of new businesses to be formed, lol

 

[Mr Janny]

I for one am not against players getting a bigger piece of the pie, but I don't think that this is the way to do it. This just invites too much corruption. You're going to have big donors paying players huge amounts of money for autographs and sponsorships. And then coaches are going to use those payouts as a recruiting pitch..."Every one of our starters made at least $20k last year in endorsements". If you think that competitive balance is out of whack now, it's only going to get worse. When fans realize that their teams don't have a shot to compete, interest is going to wane and the big money train is going to stop. I feel like there are better ways to give players more money, like increasing the full cost of attendance, rather than just making cheating above board.

If it were my call, I would suggest having the P5 leave the NCAA, elect a commissioner with a staff that has full subpoena, investigation and punishment powers. Enforce the rules so that everyone has a real shot at competing. Of course, that will never happen. IMO people are cutting off their nose to spite their face. The NFL thrives because of competitive balance. If that's not there, everyone except for the top teams will quit watching.

The other option is for the NFL to create a minor league system like the G-League where players can skip college if they want to, but there's really no benefit for them to do that.

I agree that the power 5 should break away. But as you said, that's not terribly likely at this point. Neither is the NFL forming a minor league. They'd only do it if there was a profit for them, and there's no guarantee of that. Certainly other startup football leagues have fared poorly, (USFL, XFL, AAF, NFL Europe) so what is the incentive for the NFL to risk losing money?

 

[bigsag]

We can't out bid other teams for talent now. I do not think this will hurt Iowa State at all.

Think of what kind of endorsement packages big money schools could/would put together for Brock Purdy. Many could likely put together an endorsement package that may be 4 - 5 times higher than one he could get at Iowa State. Transfer to our school and this is what you could get for additional compensation. Small dollar schools may become a farm system for bigger dollar schools.

 

[Clonefan32]

Think of what kind of endorsement packages big money schools could/would put together for Brock Purdy. Many could likely put together an endorsement package that may be 4 - 5 times higher than one he could get at Iowa State. Transfer to our school and this is what you could get for additional compensation. Small dollar schools may become a farm system for bigger dollar schools.

This all already exists.

For all this "this will create competitive imbalance" folks, take a look at this:

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals250/2019

Sure seems like the same 10 or so schools share in the elite talent as it is. I'm not sure what you are all so afraid of.

 

[simply1]

The logistics of it all are fascinating to me (assuming student athletes were able to make money from their likeness). Some examples/thoughts:

-A guy like Georges when he was here....his weekends could be spent going to random places for autograph sessions, short commercials, etc. Would he do that instead of the other things (volunteering with teammates at events, i.e. fan fest types of things), could a star like him leverage to help his buddies "i'll do it, if you also let our walk on player that's my pal get some money"
-A site like this could pay players to be on podcasts, sell products, etc. Could that "strain" relationships with ISU?
-Think of the natural conflicts of brands....i.e. Cyclone Sports Properties has a deal with Case IH, but Brock Purdy is seen on commercials for their competitor all the time, etc.
-Now coaches/athletic dept somewhat control the time of athletes for their own good (practice, academics, academic support)..how do they address when these types of outside interests impact the departments interests?
-Think of the weird recruiting back end stuff that could happen (which some have discussed) "After much consideration....I appreciate both School A and School B's coaches, system, and attitudes....but, I'll be a Cyclone and, as an ag major, am excited to roll out the new line of Sukup Moisture Defense Storage....stopping moisture like I'll stop big 12 pass rushers!"

Georges and other pro athletes give back now, why do you think they'd be ******** because of this in college? Good people will remain good people, and frankly it helps build the brand anyways.

 

[isufbcurt]

This all already exists.

For all this "this will create competitive imbalance" folks, take a look at this:

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals250/2019

Sure seems like the same 10 or so schools share in the elite talent as it is. I'm not sure what you are all so afraid of.

There are other sleeping giant schools with boosters who are ready to capitalize on this and just a hint ISU Boosters aren't one of them.

Hell just look at what the Texas schools (not Texas or A&M, but all the others) could do, there is a lot of booster money down there just waiting to handed out.

 

[Halincandenza]

Great, now ISU isn't going to be able to win a national championship...

 

[isufbcurt]

Great, now ISU isn't going to be able to win a national championship...

That's not my point. My point is we will be back to not even competing for 6-6 bowl games.

 

[Halincandenza]

That's not my point. My point is we will be back to not even competing for 6-6 bowl games.

I don't see that at all.

 

[Halincandenza]

People said giving kids scholarships was going to be the end of college athletics. There was also an equal uproar about taking the freshman rule away that forced freshman to sit out. And I am sure there was uproar about many other things. You notice there never isn't any concern with ADs, NCAA and coaches making more and more and more money. Odd.

 

[cytown]

This would not be good for a lower budget AD. This will be good for EA NCAA Football 2021 tho.

 

[Halincandenza]

This would not be good for a lower budget AD. This will be good for EA NCAA Football 2021 tho.

And when you think about it, that is all that really matters. I know CW will be happy. He can stop being mad at Obannon.

 

[aeroclone]

This would not be good for a lower budget AD. This will be good for EA NCAA Football 2021 tho.

I have already preordered, can't wait!

 

[cytown]

He can stop being mad at Obannon.

I'm still mad at NCAA 14 as all of the recruits I would create ended up at Nebraska or Missouri. Damn game cheated.

 

[abd4cy]

I could be wrong on this, but it seems like a nothing burger of a law. It was never illegal for athletes to make money on their likeness from the beginning. If they wanted to do a commercial for pay they could, but they would lose their eligibility. Same goes now. If an athlete in CA wants to get paid for a commercial, the NCAA can still rule them ineligible per NCAA rules. The NCAA has regulations just like every other entity, and if you sign on to play for a team you have to abide by those rules. Same goes with BYUs honor code, ISUs code of ethics, etc. BYU for example can rule a player ineligible for having "relations", but it is not illegal.

I personally think this was a waste of tax payer dollars, not mine, as I do not live in CA. My guess this was done to force the conversation long term. That is also why the start was pushed to 2023. If thought it would hold water today it would have gone into place in 2020.

 

[Mr Janny]

I could be wrong on this, but it seems like a bit nothing burger of a law. It was never illegal for athletes to make money on their likeness from the beginning. If they wanted to do a commercial for pay they could, but they would lose their eligibility. Same goes now. If an athlete in CA wants to get paid for a commercial, the NCAA can still rule them ineligible per NCAA rules. The NCAA has regulations just like every other entity, and if you sign on to play for a team you have to abide by those rules. Same goes with BYUs honor code, ISUs code of ethics, etc. BYU for example can rule a player ineligible for having "relations", but it is not illegal.

I personally think this was a waste of tax payer dollars, not mine, as I do not live in CA. My guess this was done to force the conversation long term. That is also why the start was pushed to 2023. If thought it would hold water today it would have gone into place in 2020.

You are not correct on this. It changes plenty. The law literally says that schools can't do what you described. The law makes it illegal for schools make them ineligible for athletic competition if they receive compensation from their name/likeness.

"A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility."

 

[3TrueFans]

I could be wrong on this, but it seems like a nothing burger of a law. It was never illegal for athletes to make money on their likeness from the beginning. If they wanted to do a commercial for pay they could, but they would lose their eligibility. Same goes now. If an athlete in CA wants to get paid for a commercial, the NCAA can still rule them ineligible per NCAA rules. The NCAA has regulations just like every other entity, and if you sign on to play for a team you have to abide by those rules. Same goes with BYUs honor code, ISUs code of ethics, etc. BYU for example can rule a player ineligible for having "relations", but it is not illegal.

I personally think this was a waste of tax payer dollars, not mine, as I do not live in CA. My guess this was done to force the conversation long term. That is also why the start was pushed to 2023. If thought it would hold water today it would have gone into place in 2020.

The law essentially says that a school, conference or other organization (the NCAA) can't prevent a student from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of them receiving money in exchange for their likeness or endorsement. That's part of it anyways.

 

[BCClone]

You don't think there are boosters with businesses out there will to drop thousands on getting good players for their team? You don't think there's a Baylor Alumni Attorney willing to pony up cash to get a player? Or a Arkansas donor who owns a car dealership who isn't willing to supply a top of the line vehicle to get a player? Hell Iowa probably has some die hard Attorney's or Doctor's willing to pay to get some kids.

Agreed. Instead of donating 500k when the AD asks for something, they just find a kid who they hire for a bad radio ad for 35/year. It will be the Olympic sports that get hurt since the big donors will be “hiring”the football and MBB players and not giving as much. With donations not being as deductible now, they can make the expense 100% tax deductible by paying them. They would actually save money then.