NCAA derides California bill to allow athletes income for image/name (SB 206)

[LadyStanley]

NCAA calls California college athlete bill 'unconstitutional,' says it would create recruiting advantage
The NCAA claims that California's bill allowing athletes to get endorsement money would "erase" the distinction between college and pro sports.


NCAA claims bill would be unconstitutional (which I think is FUD as I can't think why, but maybe that's the NCAA constitution and not USA?).

And claim California would have unfair advantage for recruiting.



Not the first salvo.

Click to read more...

 

[David Dennison]

States rights!

NCAA will scream commerce clause in the courts and probably gets fast tracked to the Supreme Court. And my guess is the decision wouldn't be split along liberal/conservative lines.

It's one thing to say colleges can't pay players to play, but not being able to profit from one's own likeness is pretty crazy when you think about it.

 

[GoldOnGold]

A bill moving through the California government, SB 206, would allow college athletes to profit off of their names, images, and likenesses. Currently, this is prohibited by the NCAA, which has long been entrenched atop the amateur sports business in the US. If the bill in California becomes law, as it likely will, it could really shake up college sports.

Most of the discussion regarding this bill has been around its ramifications for basketball and football, which isn't surprising considering their larger prominence in the US and their greater dependence on college teams and the position of collegiate hockey in California compared to other sports. However, this bill could be a kind of watershed that could lead to the rest of the country to adopting similar rules, which would obviously effect college hockey players.

California State Senate Passes 'Fair Pay to Play' Bill for College Sports

California would allow college athletes to profit from endorsements under bill sent to governor

 

[gstommylee]

States rights only apply for their own state not in a different state and where it gets complicated not all of the conferences have their teams in the same state.

And where NCAA may have a case on it being unconstitutional ( commerce clause) since a college and sport player doesn't play in the same state all season long. California making NCAA be required to pay their players when part of they time they aren't even in California would be not legal per constitution. Yes the colleges in California may be required to pay the players using their likeness in state but the NCAA using their likeness in states outside of California which such law does not exist would make the law not applable

In theory the only way they can get by that constitutional issue is the players are only paid if they are playing games in the state of California and not the rest of the country.

California has no legal authority to enforce that law of the player being paid for their likeness etc being used outside the state. Yes i do see this going to court and the US supreme court ruling in favor of NCAA unless all 50 states pass the same laws.

Another thing is you can't have a state law that impacts the economy of another state per same constitutional law in this case this law would impact other state's college economics due to unfair advantage for recruiting.

Since NCAA is a multi state organization only the federal government can pass such a regulate on the college organization while a individual state can not.

 

[alko]

Finally - PCAA.

 

[gstommylee]

Only until NCAA challenges it on constitutional grounds in federal courts and the courts throw out out due to the commence clause.

NCAA is a interstate organization that covers all 50 states thus only federal government

This law will impact all other 49 state colleges on how they run their business and its economics and that's a no no federally.

 

[GoldOnGold]

Only until NCAA challenges it on constitutional grounds in federal courts and the courts throw out out due to the commence clause.

NCAA is a interstate organization that covers all 50 states thus only federal government

This law will impact all other 49 state colleges on how they run their business and its economics and that's a no no federally.

I've read some arguments that say otherwise:

Why NCAA Likely Can't Keep California Schools From Allowing Athletes To Profit From Their Names And Likenesses

 

[edog37]

the NCAA is already on untenable ground anyway. They profit exclusively from amateur athletics while having no overhead costs.

 

[gstommylee]

I've read some arguments that say otherwise:

Why NCAA Likely Can't Keep California Schools From Allowing Athletes To Profit From Their Names And Likenesses

That only talks about NCAA kicking the colleges out of the NCAA or banning them from bowl games or tournaments games. I was referring to if the law in itself is even constitutionally legal since it creates an unfair and unequal treatment between players in California and players in the rest of country. Who wants to play in for a college in those 49 other states if they can get paid in California. Then of course there is potential title nine issue as well.

 

[MikeyMike01]

I’m very strongly opposed to schools paying players a salary, but I think it’s absurd they can’t make side money with endorsements and things.

 

[LadyStanley]

Paywall.

Has anyone started that 30 day timer for us? B-)

 

[gstommylee]

It'll be interesting to see how this goes through the courts.

 

[David Dennison]

Reminder that ESPN is not a news organization and is involved in billions of dollars of TV rights deals with the NCAA. "Passionately", laugh my f***ing ass off, more like privileged ass talking too loudly into a mic. Tebow is the useful idiot for greedy people.

If it's all about tradition and school pride, how come the coaches salaries aren't capped? You know, like supporting the school by letting it keep more of the money the sports generate.

 

[LadyStanley]

Paywall

Please merge with other thread on this topic.

Law not scheduled to start until 1/1/2023.

NCAA may prohibit California teams from playing interstate opponents, or at least championships. NCAA may limit $$s athletes can get.

NCAA may put cap on NIL payments.

A lot up in the air WRT possible lawsuits and countersuits, lobbying efforts, etc.

 

[PhillyWings]

https://apnews.com/a1aacd618278414e...25&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter

Bill has been signed by the California governor.

 

[gstommylee]

now its a wait and see if NCAA takes it to court

 

[LadyStanley]

When not if I'm thinking.

California governor signed student-athlete compensation bill with LeBron James at 'The Shop'
LeBron James witnessed a momentous occasion when California governor Gavin Newsom stopped by "The Shop" to sign SB206 into law.

Yahoo's take

 

[KevFu]

It's still dumb because you have to create rules for a level playing field of 353 Division I schools, covering 88 different sports (while abiding by Title IX).

The idea that USC wouldn't line up boosters who owned businesses to sign EVERY FOOTBALL RECRUIT up to endorsement contracts so USC can basically bribe recruits into picking USC is pure madness. It's going to happen and it can't be policed. And California is saying "That's okay."

 

[gstommylee]

It's still dumb because you have to create rules for a level playing field of 353 Division I schools, covering 88 different sports (while abiding by Title IX).

The idea that USC wouldn't line up boosters who owned businesses to sign EVERY FOOTBALL RECRUIT up to endorsement contracts so USC can basically bribe recruits into picking USC is pure madness. It's going to happen and it can't be policed. And California is saying "That's okay."

And the federal courts could say that's not okay and throw the whole thing out.

 

[KevFu]

The irony of all of this is that the people in media who lambaste the NCAA for student-athletes "only" getting scholarships and not a cut of the "Billions of dollars" are working for the companies that pay the BCS conferences the billions, and played sports at the BCS schools that got those billions of dollars from the TV networks.

Jay Bilas, whom I usually agree with on most topics but this, went to Duke and works at ESPN. ESPN paid the ACC $1.9 billion dollars (1/14th of which goes to Duke) and formed a ownership deal to launch ACC Network.

 

[David Dennison]

The irony of all of this is that the people in media who lambaste the NCAA for student-athletes "only" getting scholarships and not a cut of the "Billions of dollars" are working for the companies that pay the BCS conferences the billions, and played sports at the BCS schools that got those billions of dollars from the TV networks.

Jay Bilas, whom I usually agree with on most topics but this, went to Duke and works at ESPN. ESPN paid the ACC $1.9 billion dollars (1/14th of which goes to Duke) and former a ownership deal to launch ACC Network.

Why is that ironic? ESPN is paying for TV rights, paying or not paying athletes isn't really their concern. It's the conferences and NCAAs job to figure out how to operate profitably and within the law. Bilas is a basketball commentator, his commentary is the same whether or not the players are getting paid.

 

[joelef]

The irony of all of this is that the people in media who lambaste the NCAA for student-athletes "only" getting scholarships and not a cut of the "Billions of dollars" are working for the companies that pay the BCS conferences the billions, and played sports at the BCS schools that got those billions of dollars from the TV networks.

Jay Bilas, whom I usually agree with on most topics but this, went to Duke and works at ESPN. ESPN paid the ACC $1.9 billion dollars (1/14th of which goes to Duke) and former a ownership deal to launch ACC Network.

why are the players are the only ones that have to follow puritanical amateurism? if you want true amateurism then make coaches volunteer and no sponsorships

 

[NyQuil]

I’m very strongly opposed to schools paying players a salary, but I think it’s absurd they can’t make side money with endorsements and things.

I remember a case coming up with EA Sports having "Classic" or "All-Time" college basketball teams with the likenesses of the players.

Most of the players were no longer amateurs, were long graduated and in some cases were NBA stars.

So, to continue to use their likeness despite the fact that they were not amateurs was challenged. Yes, the likenesses were of them as amateurs during that time period, but the individuals themselves no longer were.

It was an interesting case - I forget what the end result was, but you can see that the issue is only getting more attention.

 

[edog37]

I'm hoping the NCAA finally loses hard on this. Any attempt to punish these schools would be a huge anti-trust violation....

 

[gstommylee]

I remember a case coming up with EA Sports having "Classic" or "All-Time" college basketball teams with the likenesses of the players.

Most of the players were no longer amateurs, were long graduated and in some cases were NBA stars.

So, to continue to use their likeness despite the fact that they were not amateurs was challenged. Yes, the likenesses were of them as amateurs during that time period, but the individuals themselves no longer were.

It was an interesting case - I forget what the end result was, but you can see that the issue is only getting more attention.

There was a settlement i believe and EA sports no longer makes NCAA games