Fair Pay to Play Act Signed into Law in CA

[RollTide_HTTR]

I am not sure if they meet the criteria or not, I'd have to look into that. But let's assume that they do. Who is going to pay them? And if they aren't getting paid, do they walk out, organize, etc...? I mean look at what's going on with the US Women's Soccer team, but the truth is the money just isn't there. So logically what probably ends up happenings is you lose those things, or at least lose what you get is a much more modest offering.

If they walk out because people won't give them endorsements (I'll be shocked if this happens significantly) then let them walk out. Especially cheerleaders.

Cheerleading and bands are not the revenue generators here and they aren't joining those groups with the expectation of that being their future job where they will make millions of dollars.

 

[B1GTide]

Is cheerleading for the college football team relevant to college football? Of course it is, it's part of the landscape.

People who somehow miss the big picture, what all actually goes into the spectacle are either ignorance or callused. This is about college sports, this is about college football, this is about gameday. This is about the band, the cheerleaders, the entire thing. That's what makes up college sports. Anyone who thinks this is just about the handful of players on the field don't get what's really going on.

You can take those handful of players and replace them with another group of players and nothing changes. You remove all the markings of college football though, you take away the bands, the cheerleaders, the school, the student section, all of what. What you have left isn't really very meaningful.

I get it though, there are people that don't want to preserve that. But that is what is at stake. You gonna have unpaid cheerleaders cheering for paid professionals? That's ethical? You gonna have an unpaid band playing for paid professionals? You gonna have people donate their time and money to help support people already getting paid? College sports are bigger than the players, if we make it all about the players, if that's all we see or care about it will be to the detriment of everything else.

The truth is the players are one of the most interchangeable parts. Look at Alabama football, they lose their players at an alarmingly high rate, and yet they keep finding new ones to replace them.

There will be time to wax nostalgic over all of the things lost due to this change after they are actually lost.

 

[B1GTide]

I once did a superficial look (just looking at publicly released expenditures) at what an Alabama football player received per annum and the total including tuition, room, board, books, [physiological, psychological and mental training], football skill development, etc. The total was ~$200,000-250,000 per player. That's not counting all of the intangible benefits they receive while in school and afterward.

Hey, and I really like pecan pie. Yum. Neither has anything to do with the discussion.

 

[KrAzY3]

There will be time to wax nostalgic over all of the things lost due to this change after they are actually lost.

Or you can just not do the thing that causes you to lose them in the first place. I vote for that. Let's not ruin college football, how's that for an idea?

I said the playoffs would devalue the bowl games before it happened. I guess that was an invalid argument at the time, but it was a warning that what would happen, would in fact actually happen.

Cheerleading and bands are not the revenue generators here

The players aren't either. Look at semi-pro football. Their worth, even in a unsustainable league tops out under 100K. They're not what's special about college sports.

 

[81usaf92]

This is kind of the point though, that the amateur and pro model are incompatible. You can't form a functional hybrid. ?

The problem is the NCAA is a hybrid.

 

[B1GTide]

Or you can just not do the thing that causes you to lose them in the first place. I vote for that. Let's not ruin college football, how's that for an idea?.

I am not opposed to it so long as they have another option. I do not support abandoning them just because they want to receive what they should be allowed to receive.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

The players aren't either. Look at semi-pro football. Their worth, even in a unsustainable league tops out under 100K. They're not what's special about college sports.

If they have no worth then why are y'all worried. No one will pay them if they have no value

 

[81usaf92]

The players aren't either. Look at semi-pro football. Their worth, even in a unsustainable league tops out under 100K. They're not what's special about college sports.

Seeing Trent Richardson hobble for 2 yards just to have one last shot at the NFL is a lot different than Tua throwing for 400 yards just to get a shot at the draft. People like players that matter, not ones that are going to be practice squanders at best.

The gate to the NFL is narrow, and that is the problem. If a semi pro league ever was allowed access to 18 year olds then college football could go back to its pre 80's distinction of a true amateur sport. Right now college football is just a promotional company to the NFL, effectively making them a semi pro league.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Wonder how / if this will affect guys like Daniel Moore who make lots of cash off of images of others without paying them a dime.

 

[CajunCrimson]

What if a Tua jersey sells to someone living in California (via Amazon, etc) -- does Tua get a cut? Or does he have to reside there?

 

[BamaInBham]

There is no sport without the players, so isn't something to protect the interests of the players also protecting the interests of the sport? Remember, collegiate sports existed before the NCAA came up with these rules. It has existed through many generations of changes to their rules. It will survive these changes.

I'm not saying to ignore the players in the least, what I am saying is to recognize the other interests - this rarely happens. It's certainly true that the sport does not exist without the players, but neither does it exist without the universities, nor does it exist without the fans. And college football as we know it today does not exist without the historical and cultural context that has been provided by those 3 entities. I'm just saying, let us recognize them all, not just the players. The universities are in authority and thus have more responsibility, but they are not primarily villains. And they have provided the platform on which the sport is played even if often, at least in the early days, without intent (Dr. Denny a notable exception).

Sure it is likely to exist after further changes, but will it be in a form that many care about. Maybe but the direction in which it seems to be headed is dangerous. IMO, it is important to realize the true nature of the parties involved and their contributions to the sport. It is not all about the players, it is not all about the schools, it is not all about the fans. It is about them all. Many are wanting to ignore that and act like the players have been abused and trampled while the universities suck "billions and billions" of dollars from what is rightfully theirs as they play in front of unfeeling, self absorbed fans who care nothing about them. That is often the national narrative. It's misleading. Certainly, some of the unflattering characterizations of players, universities and fans are true to varying extents but when we talk about the positives or negatives let's remember all parties. Hopefully, we'll focus on the positives and work on the negatives as they relate to all.

 

[KrAzY3]

The problem is the NCAA is a hybrid.

There are two clear things to differentiate. The professionals and the amateurs, and the status is actually quite clear. Many of the amateurs in the NCAA then go on to become professionals, while still part of the NCAA. That's not a hybrid model though, because the amateurs are the participants and the professionals are not. That draws a clear line between the two, and that's how amateur sports always worked. Heck, my high school coach got paid and I didn't.

Now, if this was all about neutering the NCAA a bit, I could get on board with it. But the problem is California's law is only going to go away if it gets struck down in court or repealed. Otherwise it's law and that's that. It doesn't actually do any harm to the NCAA for the record. It doesn't nothing to strip them of revenue! It's an attack on amateurism, but the NCAA themselves? There's nothing in that law that deprives them of revenue!

I'd actually be more supportive of a law which just said X amount of NCAA revenue has to go into a retirement fund for college athletes. That, I'd be much more in favor of actually.

I do not support abandoning them just because they want to receive what they should be allowed to receive.

What does that even mean? Abandoning who?

I was all up in that AAFL thread, trying to explain to people who simply didn't get the economics of the situation that pro football money isn't mana from heaven. I told everyone that it wasn't going to work, I said there wasn't enough revenue there, I tried explaining the intrinsic value of those athletes was less than a lot of people realized. But, a lot of people disagreed with me, but they went bellyup in a hurry. Like pretty much everyone who tried. Before you throw your flag and say off topic, this is to what they are worth, what the actual value of a semi-pro level athlete is worth. In this case, it seems to be something less than $90,000.

As someone else alluded to, total compensation (Title IX complaint number is around 90, but we all know that the actual number has to be higher when you factor in donations and the like) is probably in the 200K range. So, they are being deprived in the process of having more money spent on them than many of them are worth as professionals.

This is where things go sideways. If you remove all the college perks, and just give them their , 70K, 80K they are actually worth.... most lose out! Most have less! What people are arguing for here it not to give them what they are due, it's to let them double dip. To say yes, you can continue to be taxpayer subsidized. Yes you can get donations. But you also should get paid as a professional in addition to that. That's a ridiculous and unsustainable system. Endorsements might seem somehow like less intrusive than college paying players outright but it's the other way around. Endorsements are the most chaotic thing that can be introduced.

As I said all along I'm pro-athlete and I have always taken that position. I've the one who has spent hours here defending QBs and kickers. Arguing for stipends. Arguing against adding more games, arguing for staying 4 quarters and cheering for them. I want what's best for the athletes, but we are literally discussing ways of killing the golden goose here.

If they have no worth then why are y'all worried. No one will pay them if they have no value

I've already explained it several different ways. First off, I'm not worried players are going to make money. That's not the concern. I'm worried because this literally, by definitions destroys the amateur model of college athletics. For the record, billions of dollars are donated or otherwise used to subsidize college athletes! They are getting more than they can get anywhere else, that is until they succeed in killing this model. I want them to all be rich and successful, but college is just the first step in that process.

The other part of that is they will be paid because they are participants on college athletics. That is until that system is undermined in which case their value in that regard will plummet as well. But, there will be a period in which what ever golden eggs lay inside the golden goose can be plundered.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

So, question to Krazy and BamaInBham what's your solution? Because the status quo clearly isn't going to cut it

 

[BamaInBham]

Hey, and I really like pecan pie. Yum. Neither has anything to do with the discussion.

Sure it does. Did you even read what I was responding to? What the players receive was a primary part of the discussion.

 

[B1GTide]

So, question to Krazy and BamaInBham what's your solution? Because the status quo clearly isn't going to cut it

That is what I was hoping this thread would become. Let's talk about how this might work, because it is going to happen. Congress is going to make it happen. So how can it work - and saying that it can't work is not an acceptable answer because that is unknowable.

 

[cuda.1973]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports...e-federal-legislation-paying-college-athletes

Looks like Congress is going to decide

Well, that is certainly encouraging.....................</sarcasm>

"There are a lot of people who are trying to get a piece of the athlete who do not have their best interest in mind and are out for nefarious means," said Gonzalez, who was an All-Big Ten receiver at Ohio State before playing in the NFL for five years. "You can imagine a world where, if there were no guardrails in place, that it could get out of hand pretty quickly. That's the lane you're trying to carve. How do you do this to provide necessary and deserved benefits while not inviting a bigger problem alongside it?"

This guy understands what the needs are, as well as the obvious pitfalls. So, maybe it has a chance. Wouldn't bet on it. Too many lawyers will get involved.

Over and out.............

 

[B1GTide]

Sure it does. Did you even read what I was responding to? What the players receive was a primary part of the discussion.

It is a sidebar meant to distract from the discussion. It has nothing to do with players being paid for endorsements.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

These players are currently getting nothing, so would likely be willing to consider something which gives them something while also helping their teammates. They would have a hand in writing the rules. Young people are altruistic, so far more likely to consider something like this than us old folks.

I think a more accurate term is "we don't think they're getting enough", not "getting nothing". Because they are getting something. There are just more and more people who are beginning to say "it's not enough". I'm looking at it from a consumer standpoint. I have zero problem with college athletes fighting to get what they think they deserve. I really don't have one problem with it. If I'm in their shoes I KNOW I would want to be able to show up at a local retail sports shop and get paid for signing autographs for three hours, or signing an endorsement deal with a local dealership or national company. But I'm not them and for the most part, enjoy college football in its current form. If they can make this work and keep a quality product on the field worth me giving up the time and resources I normally do for it. Then I won't bat an eye and will continue watching.

But, if this turns into what I think it will. I will more than likely find something else to do and/or watch.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Well, at least we are going to find out if all this worrying was worth it since its happening regardless.

 

[81usaf92]

There are two clear things to differentiate. The professionals and the amateurs, and the status is actually quite clear.

.

Yes but the NCAA plays whatever sides benefits its own pockets on that distinction. It only cries foul when the players get money that they can't.

Many of the amateurs in the NCAA then go on to become professionals, while still part of the NCAA. That's not a hybrid model though, because the amateurs are the participants and the professionals are not. That draws a clear line between the two, and that's how amateur sports always worked. Heck, my high school coach got paid and I didn't.

.

I think you are seeing how things "Should" be and not "HOW THEY ACTUALLY ARE". Much of the NCAA's problems in this debate are their fault. Allowing Nike, Reeses, Papa Johns, Under Armor, and etc run leagues, high school all star games allows for a lot of endorsement and handshake deals. Heck allowing sports agents run high schools is a bit shady while we are on the subject. Point is that the NCAA has allowed the wolves into the hen house, and they have no control over it in its current form. It took an FBI probe just to give some control back to them.

Now, if this was all about neutering the NCAA a bit, I could get on board with it.



.

Many of us who are against you on this, are just for some sorta compromise that would keep both the atheltes compensation and the NCAA in check. But we keep being told that it would ruin college football, and college is bigger than players

But the problem is California's law is only going to go away if it gets struck down in court or repealed. Otherwise it's law and that's that.



.

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]​

I think Congress will ultimately decide, or the NCAA starts to negoiate.

It doesn't actually do any harm to the NCAA for the record.



.

Yes it does. It prevents them from having a voice in the pay for play debate, and forces universities to become franchises that dont need the NCAA to compete. What is probably going to happen is that the P5 breaks away and rules itself without the NCAA. Such a change would require agreements from the bigger schools, would require a PA, and would require a comissioner. It would effectively end the NCAA.

It's an attack on amateurism




.

The attack on amatuerism is giving the power to the NCAA.


​