It works fine for normal pro teams in the same situations, so I don't really see that being a big problem personally.
California legalizes college athlete endorsements
- Thread starter simply1
- Start date
Should be a two-way street. Wanna go pro after highschool? Then go, but no going back to college. Wanna go to college? Fine, but no going pro until graduation/eligibility is up.
Nice rant. But you didn't answer my question as to how the NCAA is a monopoly. What do they have a monopoly on? As for now anyway, the NCAA is a 501c3 non-profit organization. What good or service does the NCAA sell that can't be obtained somewhere else?
Bingo. I would argue that the NCAA route is offering these athletes fair market value, it just isn't in the form of cash compensation. Zion could have signed some endorsements and played overseas or in the NAIA or just taken the year off to train, or done a reality show on ESPN or whatever. Any of those would have paid him more cash for the year than going to Duke. He went to Duke knowing that it would be the most beneficial path to improve his game and raise his profile in preparation for a lucrative pro career. Duke provided him an opportunity to maximize the future earning potential of his likeness versus any other options.
This is the same reason most of us went the college route. You could go get a job right out of high school and been ahead from an earnings perspective for a few years, but you chose the college route because of your expectation that it would pay out better in the end.
If someone can come up with an alternative path to the NCAA that will allow these guys more earnings in the short term and set them up better as future pros, they will go there. Free market at work. Nobody has figured that model out yet.
What if the dealership wanted to buy a championship and offered $500/hour greater jobs to football players and $15/hour to you and i?
Whats the question? If it’s by the rules who cares. A popular football player is worth a lot more to the dealership.
The NCAA has a monopoly on putting college athletes regularly on national TV to the point of them making lifetime careers out of it. What other, similar org has anywhere near the pull they do? What org brings in the revenue they do? What other org is a household name with a following deep into the tens of millions across the country, even internationally?
If you're going to argue the semantics of "monopoly" versus what they actually are in practicality and reality, don't bother, because nobody (including me) cares. It does nothing against the proposal made by CA. Frankly, I don't particularly like what they're doing, but I do like that it's going to force the NCAA to change. The facade of a "student-athlete" organization they run now is soon to fall like the house of cards it truly is. I am most personally interested in what the NCAA comes back with about this issue. Fortunately for them, they have time to do so and have already committed resources to look into it.
They’ve found a very exploitable group of workers and they have no interest in stopping. It’s crazy how many people think paying them what they’re worth would ruin the sport. We know it’s definitely ruined every other sport....
There have been other suggestions elsewhere that the schools basically step in as local regulatory bodies (sharing info with the NCAA) that verifies the money brought in by athletes is still reasonable, a sort of "fair market value" for whatever services they are rendering with their NIL. That alone doesn't seem like a bad idea, and still gives NCAA at-large control over the athletes' activities, as well as gives them teeth to punish those not playing by the rules.
My thought is that any entity wanting to pay athletes has to register with the NCAA (and school), and report everything they do. Anything found out of line removes the entity of the ability to pay athletes. Any deals under the table by athletes kicks them out of the NCAA altogether, if not making the school liable/punishable as well.
There's still plenty of time to implement a proper system for these things instead of running a free-for-all that everyone's afraid of (for good reason). As part of this overhaul, it would also be a good time to revisit things such as age limits for pro drafts and needing to spend time in college in the first place...
Similarly, after high school, those wanting to play in the NFL could hire a trainer to help them prepare for a career in the NFL, and pay for it out of their own pocket for the three years that the NFL wants high school grads to wait. It would be very similar to what millions of other high school graduates do, racking up college debt to prepare themselves for a future career.
Colleges give that training away for next to nothing (plus the opportunity to get a college degree), so it wouldn't make much sense to go down the trainer route and rack up debt. In return, the college requires that someone taking their training offer not benefit monetarily from their image. It seems like a perfectly fair trade, and one that the athlete can walk away from if they don't like it. What about this requires government intervention? What about this is monopoly?
Probably the fact that your magic scenario of someone "training" for 3 years isn't reality. Name a player that's ever done that, ever. Being a pro athlete and sitting behind a desk with an Accounting degree are vastly-different things, they aren't really equatable in any meaningful way. Pro athletes have a bit more unique skills which also happen to be much more valuable monetarily.
All these supporter talks are indicating to me is that the NCAA values sports and money above what their actual, stated mission is: education. This issue does a great job of exposing that fact and making them adjust to it. For all I care, get rid of the "student" part altogether if that's what it takes -- but the rest of it is a total sham, bringing in millions of dollars off of kids who are supposedly focused on education first (at least, according to the NCAA). Their entire model is a lie. Just make the NCAA into what it wishes it really was: an official minor-league system.
Precisely...you don't care about having a logical and rational discussion about the practicality and reality surrounding this topic. You just want to throw out emotionally-charged arguments using bastardized terminology because you hate the NCAA. Thanks for clarifying.
I am not really a big fan of the NCAA. But passing unconstitutional laws and creating unnecessary government regulation is the solution. If you want to bring in the government, then abolish the NCAA and create a federal government agency to oversee college athletics. One that has full investigative and prosecutory power.
Last edited:
Well...why in the hec would a player ever do that when the present system has been giving them what they need free of charge? Nobody has done it because there has been no need to do it.
And as such, those athletes who are going on to play professional sports are getting one hec of deal. Their free training is enabling to make millions of dollars. For those who don't go on to play pro sports, they get a free college education, which is worth quite a bit of money. And again, nobody is forced to take the scholarship and the free athletic training that comes along with it.
You've literally ignored every argument I've made both for the CA law and against the premise of the NCAA purely because it doesn't match your own opinion, so how emotional does it make you?
How emotional are the people fearing some catastrophe where ISU falls to the bottom of the pit in money world? There's no proof of that anywhere. Where's the logic in thinking ISU is suddenly getting slighted under this system, as though we already weren't under the last one? Where's the rationality in thinking that having discussions about changing the current system is a bad thing? Money is a problem for athletes already, we know this and just accept it as basic fact instead, I don't know, coming up with other ideas.
There's no logical reason why a player can't get paid for using their own skills. The NCAA uses these other players skills to market their own product, and they don't provide any compensation to players whatsoever (the schools provide literally everything associated with sports, just with the NCAA lying overtop).
Meanwhile, the NCAA itself has basically zero mechanisms to deal with any existing corruption that this kind of law is precisely-intended to deal with. They also have basically zero effective regulation over the education side of things, either. Then, the one time someone tries to challenge them, they're being told to back down before even seeing what the potential results could be.
Frankly, this law isn't even hurting the NCAA. No private institution is harmed here. It doesn't even take effect for 3+ years. The NCAA still fully controls their own destiny here, let's see what they bring to the table (if anything).
What arguments have you made that could actually be debated? You said above that you don't really like the California law, but you support it because it will create "change". That is an emotional position that really can't be debated, since you summarily reject all arguments pointing out bad change, because all you want is "change".
As for the NCAA oversight mechanism you proposed, much of that has been discussed before in the previous thread. Certainly, you have to realize that any attempt by the NCAA to limit endorsement income would certainly end up in court. Fair market value, which you propose the NCAA determine, is in reality determined by what the market offers, which you are proposing to limit. The approach is circular. Having registered agents doesn't address the problem of scammers who are just in to make a quick buck, which this kind of approach is ripe for.
You are right, some of those are definitely emotional arguments. That doesn't mean you should do the same thing.
You do realize that the NCAA is a non-profit organization. They don't make profit, and by law, they can't make profit. All the money they "make" beyond expenses goes back to the members, or is paid out to other non-profit causes.
Would you agree that the services and exposure provided by the school enhance the value of an athlete's image? Should some athletes make money from the use of those non-profit resources, while (the vast majority of) others don't? Exposure enhances endorsement value, and winning enhances exposure. It takes a bunch of guys to win football games. How is it fair that only a few should benefit from endorsement deals, while the others get nothing? Yes, that's the way pro sports work, but those are for-profit organizations where (in most leagues) everybody gets a minimum salary.
I don't disagree with those things. But the California law does nothing to address that corruption or lack of effective regulation. The payments required by the law will require a whole additional level of bureaucracy to administer, which in my opinion only provides more opportunity for corruption.
Last edited:
Being afraid of change is, itself, an emotional position. This is all entirely based on speculation, we don't know if it's bad change or not. Again, this is long-term, likely non-permanent, and very likely to change. This is just the beginning of a long discussion, the last thing we should do is completely silence it. What we do now, proven repeatedly by fact, is that the current system has gaping holes that the NCAA has had no pressure to fill; one of those holes is unfair compensation. This law now provides that pressure to fill in issues. ISU in particular does not seem to benefit from the current system. The vast majority of schools aren't. We can leave it a black market and pretend it doesn't happen, but we all know that it does behind the curtain. Is that really better than opening discussion to address it?
I fail to see why endorsements have to be an unlimited space. The NCAA isn't really "determining" fair market value, they'd more or less be observing it. It can be a mobile thing, doesn't need to be static. I would view it similarly to a sort of "salary cap" like the pros would have, just that it's on an individual basis instead of a team basis. Registered agents should exactly solve the issue of scamming, and that's exactly how every other pro organization works. However, there would need to be some guidelines of how to establish legitimacy -- again, looking at existing models of similar systems should help desire such a system.
Yes, I'm aware, but most people would just call this another layer of generic bureaucracy when all of the actual toil and work is created and performed by the schools, themselves. The NCAA 'gives conferences' (poorly, in some ways), provides scheduling and negotiates TV deals through the conferences, and....what else, exactly? These are all things the schools themselves could do without the NCAA's watch. The reason the schools don't is because nobody has explored how realistic that is, as it's been too long since the NCAA was founded. Life without it is unknown to the schools. The schools are captured within the NCAA, knowing that their athletics departments would likely fold (compared to current state) without being a part of the NCAA.
Again, if you're concerned about over-bureaucracy, I don't see why you're siding with the bureaucrat involved in this. The thing is, the new law doesn't add any additional responsibilities to the NCAA at all. It simply says that schools cannot deny an athlete the ability to play sports due to receiving sports-related income. It's says basically nothing past that, and gives a future start date. It's now up to the NCAA to decide how they want to respond to this action, if at all. Maybe they'll just kick CA schools of the NCAA, who knows?
As is true with most black markets, I just don't see any reason to try to continue prohibiting an action that isn't effectively prohibited. This law gives the NCAA great opportunities to expand their power and influence over schools related to the money dealings, at which point they will largely be publicly-known. If anyone like ISU is at a disadvantage, we would at least know about it... if the NCAA takes over it all properly.
Which brings me back to my point earlier -- see what they come back with. Plenty of time between now and then, and there's no benefit in destroying all communication and ideas related to this topic. My hope (keyterm: hope) is that the NCAA uses this as a catalyst to prompt large-scale reform in many areas that need deal with, not just money -- but I totally understand how wishful that is.
This sounds like a lot of work for no benefit. You want the NCAA to be determining fair market value? Why? What's the going rate to be in a commercial? A little bit. How much does Shaq get? A lot. Because that's why companies are willing to pay. Why would the NCAA get involved in that decision?
Face it, boosters will pay top players to attend their chosen school. It'll be Adidas and KU on a massive scale.
As though it isn't already like that, just under the table instead of out in the open? Hell, if it weren't for the FBI getting involved, nobody would've known about that whole situation either.
I don't see the "massive" scale. How many 3-star nobodies do you think are gonna get paid to not play for a year or two, at least? There aren't enough 4 or definitely 5 stars around for everyone to run them on a "massive" scale. It's not like we compete for 5-stars any other time.
