California to allow college athletes to profit from endorsements

UsualName

UsualName

This is a big deal and barring the federal government doesn’t step in, in any number of ways, if other states don’t follow the college sports world will revolve around California.

Any high school kid would rather get paid than not. It’s a game changer.

I actually think there should be caps on this. Not in total amount but in the amount you can disburse to a college athlete any given year. For example, if you get a $1 million endorsement then you can only get paid $100k over ten years or so.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/payda...t/story?id=65508541&__twitter_impression=true
 
CaptainObvious said:
As it should be. Colleges have been making hundreds of millions off these athletes, the athlete should get their share of the pie, and I'll add, with zero restrictions.
More...

I’m a little apprehensive about the not having restrictions part. These institutions receive federal moneys and are subject to title IX, they are after all supposed to be institutions of higher learning, not sports franchises.
 
It can be regulated the right way. For example, if a RB for USC is going to be the next top 10 draft pick and he wants to do a signing event of his jersey and charge a fee for his appearance, then he should be able to do that. That is not against the purpose of the sports program or his "education".

However letting them sign full endorsements is not right for that level of athletics. there can be clear lines drawn.
Most people don't realize these athletes don't get full rides. Even if they get money for tuition they still have to eat, live and buy books and most struggle which is why the infractions creep in. They work 12 hours a day with school and practice with spare change in their pocket while the school rakes in millions selling their jersey.
 
There are a lot of different layers to this:
1) The NCAA is built on amateur athletics, and I don't see them changing that. I think they'll fight this hard.
2) The state of California has no jurisdiction over the NCAA outside of state lines. The NCAA could remove CA colleges from their organization or force them to forfeit events in which they play ineligible players, regardless of what their state law says.
3) The money from football & men's basketball provides funding for all of the other sports within a school's athletic department. If we went to pay-for-play in these sports, it would be impossible to fund non-revenue sports and comply with title IX requirements.
4) If this happens, 99% of revenue will go to football & men's basketball players. I can't imagine that going over well on the basis of gender equality.

IMO, Student athletes should be given a better cost of living stipend during semesters in which they aren't allowed to work. They should also be allowed to make money off of their likeness (within reason) while they compete, but the money should be put into a trust until they graduate. That way they have the ability to make money off of their likeness, but they also preserve their amateur status prior to graduating.
 
LS1Z28 said:
There are a lot of different layers to this:
1) The NCAA is built on amateur athletics, and I don't see them changing that. I think they'll fight this hard.
2) The state of California has no jurisdiction over the NCAA outside of state lines. The NCAA could remove CA colleges from their organization or force them to forfeit events in which they play ineligible players, regardless of what their state law says.
3) The money from football & men's basketball provides funding for all of the other sports within a school's athletic department. If we went to pay-for-play in these sports, it would be impossible to fund non-revenue sports and comply with title IX requirements.
4) If this happens, 99% of revenue will go to football & men's basketball players. I can't imagine that going over well on the basis of gender equality.

IMO, Student athletes should be given a better cost of living stipend during semesters in which they aren't allowed to work. They should also be allowed to make money off of their likeness (within reason) while they compete, but the money should be put into a trust until they graduate. That way they have the ability to make money off of their likeness, but they also preserve their amateur status prior to graduating.
More...

To 2) only: California could form a college league with the best amateur talent in America. They have 56 colleges and universities and like 14 Division 1s.
 
UsualName said:
To 2) only: California could form a college league with the best amateur talent in America. They have 56 colleges and universities and like 14 Division 1s.
More...
That would be wild. They'll have to get in-state schools on board though. Cal, USC, & Stanford have all come out in opposition to this bill. I don't think they would want to leave the NCAA unless they didn't have a choice in the matter.
 
UsualName said:
I’m a little apprehensive about the not having restrictions part. These institutions receive federal moneys and are subject to title IX, they are after all supposed to be institutions of higher learning, not sports franchises.
More...
Had you posted this in the sports section I would refrain from a political response, but since we are in the gutter, here goes.:D These institutions haven't been "institutions of higher learning" for several decades. They are indoctrination centers. Beyond that, they have little concern for these athletes longer term, just as they have no real sense of responsibility for the students they scam into purchasing worthless degrees. It's all about the dolla' for the college administrations, why should it be different for the athletes?
 
UsualName said:
To 2) only: California could form a college league with the best amateur talent in America. They have 56 colleges and universities and like 14 Division 1s.
More...

I imagine other areas, like the SEC, would jump on board as well. This is like weed legalization. It's happening and so why not get it over with and move on? Why waste money and time on an obsolete model? The amount of money being made off them is so vast that it is an obvious injustice to deny them a fair share. They don't see the need for limits on what they pay coaches or administrators. Why do athletes require one? Particularly one they had no say in setting. It's just another way of trying to retain a broken system by giving up a bit to retain control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top