The NCAA is facing a point of no return, staring down a bill signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom, which will allow the payment of college athletes by the year 2023.
Now everyone is taking sides, some argue they’ll preserve the institution of collegiate athletics, while others profess to be fighting the corrupt system keeping athletes down.
As with so many things, both sides are so far on either end that neither is very bearable. What’s worse is a tremendously fantastic law is getting a little lost in the shuffle.
What is it and why is this law so essential for college sports?
Here is briefly what the law is trying to do: The Fair Pay to Play Act is giving college athletes command of their name and brand. It is allowing players to go out and get endorsement deals. If we could go back in time, Johnny Manziel or A.J. Green would never have faced consequences for selling their autographs and jerseys.
Is this good for college sports?
Of course it is. The rules around player compensation are ridiculously strict, but many violations go uncaught. If the FBI case that exposed college basketball has taught us anything, it is that players get paid.
But right now any player receiving compensation is paid only in the most deceptive ways. The new law brings these commonplace transactions into the light of day. It also gives athletes a real opportunity to build a brand.
With the law in place, the power and responsibility goes entirely to the players themselves— and the NCAA would have to butt out from their athletes’ transactions. It gives equal opportunity for each athlete to use his or her platform to go out and build a brand—and to profit.
The law has zero impact whatsoever on universities. No money comes out of tuition or TV deals. Student-athletes looking for payment off-campus will also keep colleges from needing to raise the cost of tuition.
Does this professionalize college sports? I would say we crossed that bridge when places like Ohio State started making over a billion dollars off college football.
But what about the average college student? Won’t they even feel more disadvantaged?
As someone who was both a student-athlete and a student through college, being just a student is already a drag. The student-athlete already gets advantages and perks that the regular student will never receive. This law is about leveling the playing field between student-athletes and the universities making billions off their work.
The bottom line: This is good for college sports, good for the athletes, and good for colleges. The law can save a world of sports from descending into its own muck—and would turn recruiting into an upfront process instead of an underhanded black market.
The most important thing for the NCAA is to act quickly. The faster they accept this and move on, the less lopsided this becomes for college sports. Right now, California has already moved forward with the law, as has Florida. A host of states, including Minnesota, Washington and Colorado are pushing to make a similar move.
If the NCAA drags this out, there is potential for some lopsided recruiting classes. And if the NCAA holds teams from these states out of bowl or title games, conferences could be destroyed and bowl matchups turned into jokes.
If California, Washington and Colorado all go through with this law, the title game for the PAC-12 could quickly get narrowed down to only a few schools—and that doesn’t sound like a fun race for the Rose Bowl.
Act quickly, NCAA. Don’t be dumb. The Fair Act to Play Act is a good thing.
Comments
I Have Very Mixed Feelings About This
A big part of me wants to preserve the view of the college student athlete, who earns acceptance into a school that he/she might not otherwise be admitted to – and gets full tuition (and some other niceties) taken care of. I root for Stanford, among other things, because it is closest to that ideal. I do not deny that other things go on in other places. But how can we countenance a recruiting pitch from an SEC school that says (to a player who may never see the field much), "Don’t worry, we have an unlimited number of boosters lined up to buy your autograph…..we can almost guarantee you $XX,000 per year.".That is disgusting.
If the recruiting field is not level now, it will become even more unlevel. Programs with big $$ and alumni $$ support will suck up even more players.
At the same time, many schools are profiting at the expense of the players who generate the attention…..and the $$ spent. Could there be some revenue sharing, perhaps across all of the NCAA, that might address this without encouraging the types of bad behavior that we know will become common – and that the NCAA will now wholly endorse. Could there be some arms length standards such as permitting endorsements or payment for being on a Madden game that is market tested? If you are truly marketable, fine. But no $$ just because boosters can find a way to give them to you (like $50,000 speeches to the local 4H club).
I think that this may help the players (some more than others), but may hasten the migration of eyeballs away from college sports. I do not watch much professional sports – for a reason.
As a recruited athlete, you accept a college scholarship as consideration for bringing your talents to a university. Don’t mess with that, but give these young men (maybe basketball more than football) another path to the almighty professional $$ so that they do not need to sell themselves (and their universities) out.
I was not a recruited athlete at all, but walked on as a Freshman to earn a starting role at what was a Division 3 sports school in my sport back in the day. It was an enormous allocation of time and energy, but I was proud to wear the jersey and represent my university. Sports teaches an awful lot at all levels. There were a few shared athletic scholarships to be had, but there were others more financially deserving of them than me. So I passed.
Color me a dinosaur. Let’s keep the game simple for these kids (which is what they are), and be proud that they are playing for reasons other than cold, hard cash.
I expect that I will be in a minority on this one.
By hoyaparanoia on 10.09.19 5:43pm
Agree on revenue sharing that's shared among all athletes
Saying that allowing players to be paid will have no impact seems highly doubtful to me. The big money schools will be able to use their rich donors to lure more athletes, who of course want to start making money as soon as possible. Schools without big alums will suffer. Of course, the same is true already, but this would make it even more unequal.
However, if you let all athletes get paid, but the money goes into a shared fund, you could have camaraderie among all athletes—and the smaller, more academic schools could benefit as much as the Alabamas and USCs of the world.
By worldblee on 10.10.19 3:36pm
The end of college sports in say...six years.
This is going to be a controversial topic for years. Hopefully we can discuss it civilly (but I admit the ignorance surrounding this topic is painful).
This statement reminds me of the movie Independence Day. Massive alien ships enter the atmosphere and have positioned themselves above major cities around the world and are in some sort of holding pattern. Two exotic dancers are getting off work and one of them says she intends to go party on top of one of the skyscrapers right underneath one of the ships. The other dancer says it’s a bad idea and asks her to swear not to go. The girl swears, but crosses her fingers and goes anyway. Later, we see her dancing on the roof with lots of other people. The ship opens some access hatch and a triangle apparatus reveals itself as it starts to glow blue and increase in intensity. Then we see the girls face as she realizes what’s about to happen…the ship fires a blast that goes through the building and kills everyone.
I’m at a loss for how anyone does not enivision how this law, and the others that will propagate throughout the country will bring about the end of college sports as we know it.
As Virgil is credit with saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What this law will legally allow, is for college boosters and sports agencies to pay players directly under the auspices of a "endorsement." Consider that Urban Meye (USC’s head coach in 2023) will openly let USC recruits to meet with boosters who have set up "add agencies" who will offer endorsement deals to players at USC. On recruiting trips to USC, UCLA, San Diego State, and yes, Stanford, high school students will be able to sign a short term deal, shoot a "commercial" and get paid thousands of dollars. All of them. It will be 100% legal.
The California law states that the universities can’t pay the athletes directly. So, David Shaw will be compelled to advise football boosters to funnel the money that they were going to give to the Athletic department, into companies set up to specifically pay existing and potential players. That means money that might have gone to the general scholarship fund, or the Athletic Department in general, now gets funneled directly to football players. How much do you think the Athletic Departments will lose annually? What happens when the Athletic Dept has less money? It gets worse, way worse.
There is no way the states of Alabama and Georgia and Michigan and Ohio State and Notre Dame (are they a state?) and Oregon (well, you get the picture) are going to let California get the best athletes. Before 2023, all the states that want to have successful football/basketball teams will pass laws "similar" to Californias. Only….they’ll need to one-up CA. What’s to stop Alabama from allowing the university from paying the Athletes, directly?
Fast forwarding….this law will open the flood gates for a bidding war on athletes and it will be 100% legal with the NCAA having zero power to stop it. What’s more, it’s not just football, it’s all sports. Now, Florida can go out and buy the best tennis team, the best baseball team, etc. Ask yourself, if Alabama has to choose between having women’s cross country team or having more money to pay football players for "endorsement deals" where is that money going?
Ultimately, this will end college sports for the vast majority of schools because they simply will not be able to pay enough money to have a competitive team. It will mean the extinction of nearly all scholarships in other sports as schools will have less general money to redistribute. Title IX will have to be repealed just to field a baseball team. Colleges will get rid of athletics outside of intramural affairs = no scholarships.
It will bring out the worst in people associated with the schools that will try and compete. It will create lots of legal battles as kids go on strike or holdout. This is Pandora’s box staring the law makers in the face.
That’s true. And people steal, and murders are committed. The answer isn’t to legalize those things. The answer is to force the NCAA to spend more money on investigation. To have stiffer penalties for violations.
No, it won’t do either of those things. Kids will still be paid off the books (to avoid taxes). Worse, you’re going to incentivize the solicitation of players while they are in high school. 8th graders will be getting "endorsement" deals as potential recruits. You really think that won’t get ugly?
This is based on a fallacy. If an athlete thinks they have a brand they can build, then they don’t need to go to college. If Justin Hebert’s brand is so valuable, then why doesn’t he skip college and go play football in the parking lot? NCAA has no power over kids not in college. The reason is none of these athletes have any value outside of what they acquire by virtue of wearing the jersey of a specific school. If college kids are being robbed of some money they are entitled to, then why are are they in college and surrendering it? Skip college and go get all that brand money you deserve. Let me know how that works out for you.
The fact is, and it is a fact, the money engine of college sports is a tremendous advantage for those who are born with the gifts and acquire the skills to play at the collegiate level. Thousands of kids, every year, are getting to attend college because universities across the country have leveraged the monetary value of football and football alone. No one is making any money off of any women’s sports and any men’s sports not called football (There are like four schools that have a profitable men’s basketball program.) This law, and the ones that will follow, will destroy that.
Personally, having gone to Stanford, I could easily survive in a world where Stanford had no college sports. I would get back my Saturdays. I wouldn’t need to waste time watching the Pac-12 network. I wouldn’t have to read stories about Shaw being arrogant. Truth be told, I’m fascinated to see how this all turns out, even if it means the end of Stanford sports. At least I got to see us get to several Rose Bowls. Beat USC 55-21 at USC. And punk UW on numerous occasions. If it ends tomorrow, I’ve enjoyed the run.
By Blackjoy on 10.10.19 11:55am
Wow....
….I am not alone on this one. Thanks Blackjoy for your erudite articulation of the apocalypse.
By hoyaparanoia on 10.10.19 1:23pm
Well-stated
By Jeff Tarnungus on 10.11.19 8:55am
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
People argued that free agency would destroy professional sports. It didn’t. People argued that allowing athletes to have endorsement deals would destroy the Olympics. It didn’t. Hell, once upon a time there was an argument that athletic scholarships would ruin college sports. Once again…it didn’t.
There is a long tradition of proclaiming that the sky is falling anytime there has been a movement to empower athletic labor. The sky has never fallen. But let’s say that it actually would happen this time. What does it mean that the only way that this multibillion dollar enterprise could exist is by maintaining an artificial suppression on the value of the labor that makes the entire enterprise work? That’s a question that we really need to ask ourselves.
By Omagus on 10.14.19 10:37pm
Categorically different problems.
Just because people have been wrong about predictions in the past doesn’t mean all future predictions must also be invalid. You have to look at the logic behind the predictions.
This is a fallacy. The players aren’t being suppressed. The players are voluntarily agreeing to abide by NCAA rules and regulations in exchange for benefits, including free tuition. No athlete is entitled to anything. If they think the compensation that is being offered by any given university isn’t fair, they aren’t required to accept it. And we can argue that this is what happens when a student chooses Stanford over say, UW. The kid and his family are making a value judgement and choosing the best option for them.
What I find circular in your response is that these kids have no value until they actually agree to put on a school jersey. As I stated, if you think your "brand" is worth something, don’t play college sports. Go overseas and play in Europe.
College sports makes millions of dollars because there is an entire infrastructure that creates the opportunity. No 17 year old kid has done anything to contribute to that infrastructure. Yet, they are able to leverage it to get benefits not afforded to millions of others. And let’s be honest, we’re only talking about one sport (and 1/2). Football (and the NCAA Tournament). Because none of the other college sports create any profit whatsoever. So the idea that some random men’s baseball team or women’s basketball team is being "suppressed" with regards to labor and earning potential, is a total and complete fallacy.
So what are people really complaining about? From where I sit, it’s really this notion that the football players should get paid to play college sports because it makes so much money. But that argument requires that we regard the scholarship as offal. It’s completely ignored, never mind that tuition debt is a growing problem in the US.
Yes. It is. In Europe, there are no college sports like football. The universities aren’t funded like they are in the US, there isn’t the same type of camaraderie and allegiance to one’s school as there is here. There are many in the US who would like to get rid of college sports all together. So, as a society, we do need to ask ourselves what is it that we value and want to preserve? What evils are we going to accept in exchange? Anything that involves money and zero-sum competition, is prone to cheating. You won’t eliminate that no matter what you do, at best you can try and contain it and deter the propensity. But this law isn’t about what’s doing best for the student-athletes, this is about politicians looking for votes.
The NCAA is undoubtedly corrupt. It’s unavoidable given human nature. What ever replaces it, will also be prone to corruption. So count me as someone who is going to watch with fascination and apprehension as this thing unfold.
And to be clear, I have not doubt Alabama will be playing football into the next decade, regardless of the laws passed. The question is against whom and at what cost?
By Blackjoy on 10.16.19 12:10pm