Cali to allow college athletes to be paid

I didnt post this in sports because it's not really about a sport.

This topic has been talked about over the years and I cant say I blame the kids for wanting some of the money they earn.

"California's governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements."

"Under the law, which takes effect in 2023, students at public and private universities in the state will be allowed to sign deals with sneaker companies, soft drink makers or other advertisers and profit from their images, names or likenesses, just like the pros."

This will open up a can of worms that I'm not sure can be ignored.
Only a few athletes will get much benefit from this plan. Most likely the ones that will have a pro career anyway. Middle ground athletes might get a few bucks here and there but not a substantial amount.
Let's be honest here, this is a bill that will get superstar football and basketball players paid and maybe a few crumbs to the rest of the players.

I think the governor would have served the whole student athlete system better had he required all athletes to be paid a monthly stipend.
Not a ridiculous amount, maybe $200 a month.

Let's be clear, the NCAA makes $1 billion in revenue every year from broadcasting athletic events.
Now that's not all profit, much does go back to the schools for scholarships and other expenses.

Then the colleges themselves can make revenue from tickets and endorsements.
The university of Michigan was paid $169 million over 15 years by nike....and nike gives the students their nike equipment.

Lots of money involved.


www.cbsnews.com...

And before anyone says that the kids are paid with a free scholarship, just remember they have hours of practice every week along with their homework.

A kid with a band scholarship can play in a bar and make some money while athletes cannot have jobs.

Opinions?

I have always thought college athletes should be allowed to profit from their own names.

The one argument against it as so lame . That they are getting a free education.. what a crock.

They work their asses off for those scholarships. Nothing is free.

a reply to: Bluntone22

NCAA can easily rescind accreditation from each CA school that violates NCAA rules prohibiting pay for play. That would ultimately make CA a league unto themselves and neuter their revenue as well as their attractiveness to upper tier athletes.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I think if they cap it at something reasonable that all schools can afford, this is totally fair.

Student athletes often bust their ass between training and practice, and while they get scholarships and money for food here and there... I don't think it's a crazy idea to say that an adult whom a school is profiting off of should be entitled to some compensation so they can have some pocket change.

These schools are charging students in many cases tens of thousands a year, while receiving state funding, and money from the sports programs like tickets and merchandise sales. Giving young adults who risk the health of their bodies for the program is only fair.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

They could I suppose but if other states pass similar legislation the ncaa will have far less leverage. How the athletic conferences react is important too. If the SEC and ACC hop on board, it would put huge pressure on the ncaa.
The ncaa has become to big for its britches

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yes they should be able to get paid. I've always believed that.

I can't think of any other career that doesn't allow you to get paid while attending school.
If I'm an artist I can sell my works and make millions etc.
If I'm a good cook, I can cater a meal. If I'm a good designer I can sign on with a firm etc.

Only sports players are restricted.
In a way I've always seen sports players as the modern day gladiators, yes even the word slave comes to mind.

I was a college athlete, and I think they should be paid, not only from endorsements, but from the colleges they attend, they should get a monthly stipend. The NCAA forbids college athletes from working, so if they are from meager means, they should get something to live on. They earn these schools multi-millions of dollars. I think athletes on full scholorships should get about $250 a week as a stipend (for food, entertainment and beer), that is peanuts based on the money they generate.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Bluntone22

NCAA can easily rescind accreditation from each CA school that violates NCAA rules prohibiting pay for play. That would ultimately make CA a league unto themselves and neuter their revenue as well as their attractiveness to upper tier athletes.

The fact that the upper tir athletes can get paid in Cali will be attraction enough

Kids in the super athletic programs, such as football, are told, "If you have any academic aspirations at this University, forget them. Your job is football." Yes, they get a "scholarship" and a "free education" except that their degree is worth nothing. Professors are told not to mess with the athletes and pass them no matter what. Worse, if they do make it to the NFL, the average tenure is 3.3 years. So they better make some serious money pretty fast, because in 3 years they have no career left and no job skills and a degree they didn't really earn.

a reply to: panoz77

I agree with you but I think $250 a week is to high but that's another discussion.
Mostly because every school would need to pay the same per athlete or the richer universities would have an advantage.

Also paying every scholarship athlete would get everyone paid including the women who would basically be left out of this plan.

a reply to: panoz77

Exactly what I was thinking.

I wouldn't mind seeing state funded schools having a cap on what they can pay student athletes. These schools need to be able to compete with one another... And I don't want state funded schools start setting the precedence of paying a kid a cool million and putting that cost on kids who are going to school for engineering and never attend a game.

But giving the kids some pocket change of like you said 250 a month, or even a thousand wouldn't create a situation that would break the bank of any school with a notable sports program. Hell, raise ticket prices 10% on non students so that if someone is being entertained, they can chip in.

originally posted by: hyperlexic

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Bluntone22

NCAA can easily rescind accreditation from each CA school that violates NCAA rules prohibiting pay for play. That would ultimately make CA a league unto themselves and neuter their revenue as well as their attractiveness to upper tier athletes.

The fact that the upper tir athletes can get paid in Cali will be attraction enough

What's the point of going to a university that is banned from playing outside of the state?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: hyperlexic

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Bluntone22

NCAA can easily rescind accreditation from each CA school that violates NCAA rules prohibiting pay for play. That would ultimately make CA a league unto themselves and neuter their revenue as well as their attractiveness to upper tier athletes.

The fact that the upper tir athletes can get paid in Cali will be attraction enough

What's the point of going to a university that is banned from playing outside of the state?

Money. A pro career is never a guarantee. Say Usc offers you to come play football and get an education at USC and get an endorsement from Nike plus a weekly check but you can only play Cali teams like UCLA and Stanford and Cal .

I think athletes would be lining up to go there. The pros would still scout that league.

Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows Div I athletics in Football / Basketball and to a lesser degree Baseball are just farm systems for the pros. These students stopped being "student" athletes a long time ago.

I think the students should get paid... Any other student isn't prevented from earning money while in school even if they are receiving a scholarship, so why should athletes.

Here is Jalen Rose talking about being broke while he was on the Fab Five team at Michigan the year they won....

So does this only apply to the revenue sports like football? What about the swimmers and track & field? Let's say you go to Southern Northeast Missouri State on a wrestling scholarship. Wrestlers work out as hard as anyone, even at the smaller schools. Do they get paid by the university?

Superstars at the biggest football and maybe basketball programs in the power conferences might cash in, in the short term.

There are a lot of things wrong with college athletics. IMO this only makes the problem worse. I think the NCAA has plenty of room to improve. I don't think this fixes anything.

originally posted by: hyperlexic

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Bluntone22

NCAA can easily rescind accreditation from each CA school that violates NCAA rules prohibiting pay for play. That would ultimately make CA a league unto themselves and neuter their revenue as well as their attractiveness to upper tier athletes.

The fact that the upper tir athletes can get paid in Cali will be attraction enough

If CA is banned from the NCAA what top tier athlete will go to CA and severely hurt their chance to enter the Pros?

a reply to: yeahright

That is exactly how I feel.
Most athletic scholarships are paid for by the schools football and men's basketball programs.
Almost every other team loses money so only a few will benefit from this plan.

a reply to: hyperlexic

California sure can't get upper tier athletes now...lol

originally posted by: yeahright
So does this only apply to the revenue sports like football? What about the swimmers and track & field? Let's say you go to Southern Northeast Missouri State on a wrestling scholarship. Wrestlers work out as hard as anyone, even at the smaller schools. Do they get paid by the university?

Superstars at the biggest football and maybe basketball programs in the power conferences might cash in, in the short term.

There are a lot of things wrong with college athletics. IMO this only makes the problem worse. I think the NCAA has plenty of room to improve. I don't think this fixes anything.

Correct me if Im wrong (it happens alot) but isnt this saying that athletes can profit on their own name and nothing about the schools actually paying them?

Perfect example is Johnny Manzel (johnny football) from Texas A and M. They sold hundreds of thousands of his college jerseys with his name on it . why shouldnt he be allowed at the height of his popularity to profit off of his own name?

Get paid for autographs ? get paid for commercials?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: hyperlexic

California sure can't get upper tier athletes now...lol

probably why they want to pay them lol.