California, Florida sign law to allow college athletes to get paid

[Sec14Gator]

Even if you turn out to not be very good? A guy like Justin Williams never contributes anything of value to his team--certainly nothing even remotely close to his recruiting projection--but gets paid while he's at a great University for 5 years, and hypothetically walks away with multiple degrees despite bringing nothing to the table? To me, that's insane.

And the reality is there are more "Justin Williams's" on the team than "Tim Tebow's/Percy Harvin's".

This is exactly right. And maybe this is the slippery slope you and DoubleDad are foreseeing, but right now the payments would not be even. Justin Williams may get some booster promise early, but after that it would thin out compared to a guy like Tebow who produces. Ironically, due to the size of our state, combined with our football passion, Florida could stand to be the largest beneficiary if it went along. While Bama boosters might do a lot of fake payments to players, ultimately, the GDP of that state simply can't match the true marketing value (plus boosters) in Florida. Texas would come close.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Once we begin paying football players, the non-revenue women's sports will demand pay as well labeling the NCAA a sexist organization.

They won't have to demand anything. Title IX pretty much ensures they'll get paid from jump street should paying college players ever come to pass. Ultimately, even non-revenue male athletes will get paid or the schools will dump the sport.

 

[soflagator]

This is exactly right. And maybe this is the slippery slope you and DoubleDad are foreseeing, but right now the payments would not be even. Justin Williams may get some booster promise early, but after that it would thin out compared to a guy like Tebow who produces. Ironically, due to the size of our state, combined with our football passion, Florida could stand to be the largest beneficiary if it went along. While Bama boosters might do a lot of fake payments to players, ultimately, the GDP of that state simply can't match the true marketing value (plus boosters) in Florida. Texas would come close.

But that's the issue. Any time you have an obvious slippery slope visible before you even make the change, it should tell you that it's a bad idea. It's been a week since the Houston QB decided he'd shut it down and people are still talking about it because it's so egregious. When in reality, all it really is is a player taking major advantage of a loophole that we created.

But what would prevent a team that is all set but needs a QB from making a huge offer to "Tebow" and luring him away in his Jr. year?

All of this can be filed under the same "It's not fair for the players because____" book. We just keep tinkering and tinkering until before long, not shockingly, it's a disaster. It could be likened to the NFL's adjustments on what is deemed a "catch". It's to the point now that commentators openly admit they have no idea what's a catch and what's not. That should be an alarming wake up call, and it's all because of like 2-3 fluke plays/calls. The more we try to fix, based on an acute situation or small number of examples, the whole thing goes up in smoke.

 

[ufgator812]

So I have a question. Say I have a company and I'm hiring. What is a realistic starting salary for an employee without a college degree in today's job market?

Depends on the job, but you’d certainly have to weigh it out with insurance and all that comes with the employment of others.... as low as you can go and still get a decent employee...

 

[UFHealthGator]

I don't like this law because it will essentially end college football as we know it. Rich teams already have an insane advantage, but to add this means 3-4 teams will buy their way to CFP every year.

But...I know every one likes to throw the Socialist word here because this law was passed by heathen liberals in California, but if you take your partisan glasses off, this is the exact opposite of "socialist" and the very definition of capitalism. Let them get paid their fair market value and the market will speak if they are worthy of getting paid. Currently all they are is free labor with tiny benefits being their scholarship, and keeping compensation to these players illegal essentially is the Government withholding fair wages.

 

[T REX]

Where will the money come from to pay the 2nd tier non-revenue producing sports?

Question - Is this really paying the players or is it more of a "let them earn money off of their likeness and popularity?" type of thing?
I didn't see any mention of colleges actually having to pay athletes... but I may have missed it.

You'd be giving a lot of power to nike/adidas/etc and the backroom dealings would be just like basketball. Companies would control players and where they go. This is bad for college athletics.

 

[GatorJB]

I don't like this law because it will essentially end college football as we know it. Rich teams already have an insane advantage, but to add this means 3-4 teams will buy their way to CFP every year.

But...I know every one likes to throw the Socialist word here because this law was passed by heathen liberals in California, but if you take your partisan glasses off, this is the exact opposite of "socialist" and the very definition of capitalism. Let them get paid their fair market value and the market will speak if they are worthy of getting paid. Currently all they are is free labor with tiny benefits being their scholarship, and keeping compensation to these players illegal essentially is the Government withholding fair wages.

Free college tuition, housing, utilities, food clothes, and health care (plus additional perks and stipends) are not tiny benefits. Money may not be rolling in the bank during their 3-5 years in college, but they are still making a living during that time while investing in their future by earning a degree. The value when it's all said and done probably averages the student about $45,000 a year depending on the school. How many out of high school jobs with no college pay that?

This new law may not end college football, but it could ruin it due to reasons already mentioned.

 

[5-Star Finger]

It is only the highlighted portion that is in the California law. There is not a salary component. You don't actually disagree with the California law based on this post.

Couple of things here, I'm responding to the implications of hiring agents and the guy who posted nonsense - not the whole of the law itself. I haven't read it. I'm betting you didn't either.

Here's the key clause: "A post-secondary 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."

Guess who uses a student's name and likeness - television broadcasts. While they can't sign contracts that void team contracts it appears teams can't sign contracts that prevent students from individually negotiating the use of their likeness. I'm obviously not a contract lawyer, but that is **** language if I've ever seen it.

This was the grounds for the end of the NCAA Football series of video games. Even though their names were not even used.

 

[soflagator]

Free college tuition, housing, utilities, food clothes, and health care (plus additional perks and stipends) are not tiny benefits. Money may not be rolling in the bank during their 3-5 years in college, but they are still making a living during that time while investing in their future by earning a degree. The value when it's all said and done probably averages the student about $45,000 a year depending on the school. How many out of high school jobs with no college pay that?

This new law may not end college football, but it could ruin it due to reasons already mentioned.

The benefits also include a nationally televised stage on which they can showcase their talent and attract future employers who will pay them millions. So if they make that money, should they not owe a portion back to the school that afforded them the opportunity in the first place?

 

[MJMGator]

So, who’s gonna schedule Commifornia teams now?

Will Commifornia athletes that are getting paid for their likeness be able to participate in NCAA sponsored events? By definition, their status as amateurs would be gone.

Also, how many recruits that think they’ll be college stars will now want to go to Commifornia to be able to sign endorsement deals while in college?

At least they’ve got a couple of years to sort this out before it goes into effect.

 

[williston_gator]

Florida is next and likely sooner than later.

 

[EyeDocGator]

Recruiters will soon offer players guaranteed endorsement contracts. Players will have agents. I have no interest in watching minor league football. I won't have any interest in this.

I used to love the Olympics. Since the athletes are now all pros I've lost interest and haven't watched an Olympics in 20 years. It looks like I only have four more seasons of college football before that becomes unwatchable. I sure hope we get a natty soon while it still sort of means something.

 

[EyeDocGator]

Looks like the Dems don't even have to win an election to destroy the country. Rather depressing.

 

[williston_gator]

@slmandel: The NCAA/conferences are trying to manipulate the public into believing that athletes profiting from use of their NIL is the same thing as being paid by their schools to play sports. They. Are. Not. The. Same.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Florida is next and likely sooner than later.

Florida schools are two damn cheap even to pay half the stipends they are allowed to give kids and wont put money into their programs to keep them above CUSA level.

Who do you imagine TV pushing this in Florida?

 

[gingerlover]

Anytime an agent involved it’s bad news. If this has to go distribute a percentage yearly equally across all athletes. That’s what one of the New York ones was pushing. 13% of revenue spread equally.

 

[stephenPE]

Again, I don't care where you fall on the politics, it is just ironic how the different sides have lined up on seemingly the "wrong" or "opposite" side from the rest of their positions.

I saw the irony from the get go. Pointed it out in the chat.

 

[78]

It was inevitable. TV contracts are in the billions, coaching salaries are angling for eight figures. How can anyone expect the athletes to pretend like it's 1969? The fake purity put to rest for good.

Kudos to those California capitalists. I knew they'd come around.

 

[Sec14Gator]

But that's the issue. Any time you have an obvious slippery slope visible before you even make the change, it should tell you that it's a bad idea. It's been a week since the Houston QB decided he'd shut it down and people are still talking about it because it's so egregious. When in reality, all it really is is a player taking major advantage of a loophole that we created.

You’re usually more nuanced than this. I think your passion for college football is blocking your typically more objective view. A slippery slope is not cause to avoid doing the right thing; it is cause to do it right and adjust on the future as much as possible. Also, with guys already skipping bowl games, some sitting out even if needed (see Grier year one, as part of redshirt decisions), and transfers always existing, I don’t see this ruining all of college football except the most ardent get off my lawners. It will favor urban area schools though, like USC, Miami, and, oddly, ND due to the NY connection. I’m not in favor of that result.

Guess who uses a student's name and likeness - television broadcasts. While they can't sign contracts that void team contracts it appears teams can't sign contracts that prevent students from individually negotiating the use of their likeness. I'm obviously not a contract lawyer, but that is **** language if I've ever seen it.

This was the grounds for the end of the NCAA Football series of video games. Even though their names were not even used.

I think, but haven’t looked it back up, that game broadcasts are under a separate rule/law where the players agreed to being on TV as part of scholarship or agreement to be on the team. The video game went beyond that implied or explicit permission distinct from the TV broadcast.

 

[78]

Law's pissed because he knows we'll pay minimum wage.