| NEWS BREAKING: California will allow college athletes to profit from endorsements under bill signed this morning by Gov. Gavin Newsom

BAMANEWSBOT

Thread Starter
Ivory Club
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
57,216
Reaction score
131
Points
0

"I didn't know we had so many people interested in this bill," sponsor Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D), joked at the start of her concluding marks.

The California State Assembly on Monday overwhelmingly passed a bill that would allow college athletes to more easily make money off their own name, image and likeness, beginning Jan. 1, 2023.

The vote -- initially posted as 66-0, but later shown as 72-0 with 7 not voting -- all but assures that the measure will go to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

Because the bill was amended after it had passed the State Senate, it will have to return there for a concurrence vote that could come as early as Tuesday, according to the office of Sen. Nancy Skinner, the bill's sponsor. However, the Senate approved its version of the bill by a 31-5 margin, and the bill’s basic intent remains unchanged.

If the legislation reaches Newsom’s desk, he will have 30 days to sign it or veto it. If he takes no action, the bill becomes law.

Although an NCAA panel is studying potential changes in the association’s policies regarding athletes’ names, images and likenesses, this sets up the prospect of a conflict between the NCAA’s amateurism rules and the laws of a state that has more than 20 Division I schools, including four members of the Pac-12 Conference.

Monday's vote came at the conclusion of discussion on the Assembly floor that was stunning in the context of the rest of the body's work during the day. Grinding through scores of bills that had virtually no opposition — and generally were voted on after brief comments by one sponsor — the Assembly spent more than 20 minutes on this bill. And six members rose to speak on the matter.

She went on to castigate the NCAA for a letter that association president Mark Emmert sent in June to the chairs of two Assembly committees in June in which he implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships.

"I just want to say, 'NCAA, don't threaten California. Don't threaten us'," Kamlager-Dove said. "Because we have formidable schools. We have formidable alumni. And we have formidable viewership. And we can leverage those things until 2023, when this bill takes effect. I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own name and image."

Even Jim Patterson (R-Fresno), who expressed concern about the bill's potential impact on schools in smaller markets like Fresno State, said: "I hope the NCAA will come to its senses" in its handling of athletes' name, image and likeness.

Newsom is likely to face heavy lobbying from the NCAA, the Pac-12 and university officials from public and private schools throughout the state, although pressure from all of those groups did not persuade legislators.

The legislation gained some national attention last week when Los Angeles Lakers superstar LeBron James tweeted his support, and in a re-tweet, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders did the same. A new national college-athlete advocacy group also has weighed in.

The Golden State Warriors' Draymond Green tweeted his support for the California Assembly's vote: "California!!! Extremely excited about the bill that passed tonight allowing players to be paid. Finally, we are making some progress and getting this thing right. Kids going to sleep hungry, can’t afford ANYTHING yet these Universities are profiting off those same kids. SIGN IT!!"




The NCAA had no immediate comment on Monday’s action.

But it is not difficult to see the legal dispute to which Newsom’s signature on the bill could lead.

According to a history and summary of the bill that was written last week by the staff of an Assembly committee and includes comments for and against, Stanford University’s written opposition states, in part, that the bill "is inconsistent with recent court rulings …that determined that all student-athlete benefits must be tied directly to education purposes only."

One of the rulings specifically cited by Stanford is pending with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

NCAA rules presently allow athletes to make money from their name, image or likeness, but only under a series of specific conditions, including that no reference can be made to their involvement in college sports.

Emmert had asked the Assembly committees to postpone consideration of the bill until after the NCAA completes it reviews of the name, image and likeness issue.

The NCAA panel is scheduled to make a final report to the association’s board of governors in October. The California legislative session ends Friday.

The amendments added by the Assembly include provisions designed to address potential conflicts between prospective athlete deals and school deals, such as shoe-and-apparel contracts. An athlete would not be allowed to have a deal that conflicts with a school contract, but a school contract would not be allowed to restrict an athlete from using their name, image and likeness for a commercial purpose when not engaged in official team activities.
 

TerryP

Cenosillicaphobiac
Ivory Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
41,094
Reaction score
8,824
Points
0
She went on to castigate the NCAA for a letter that association president Mark Emmert sent in June to the chairs of two Assembly committees in June in which he implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships.

"I just want to say, 'NCAA, don't threaten California. Don't threaten us'," Kamlager-Dove said.
"Because we have formidable schools
Agreed, they do. Do they have formidable athletic departments in the big three sports? No. They don't.
We have formidable alumni.
Another valid point.
And we have formidable viewership
No. You don't.

I'm all for these guys getting compensation for their likeness being used. But my god, if you're coming to the table and threatening the NCAA at least do it with something that's true. "Formidable viewership" compared to whom? The MAC? The WAC? BYU?
 

TerryP

Cenosillicaphobiac
Ivory Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
41,094
Reaction score
8,824
Points
0
@footballer, I think their heart is in the right place. Using viewer numbers as support of their threats here is about like bringing a hat pin to a gun fight.
 

BamaFan334

Verified Member
Crimson Tide Club
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
6,894
Reaction score
2,033
Points
0
@footballer, I think their heart is in the right place. Using viewer numbers as support of their threats here is about like bringing a hat pin to a gun fight.
So do you think they should get all the free stuff they get now AND get compensated on top of that?
 

Elderfalsedemigod

Not an alter...maybe an altar
Century Club
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
845
Points
0
Not a fan of California but I do hope more is done to force the NCAA hand on the rules as they apply to players' images, names etc
 

planomateo

Ivory Club
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
30,536
Reaction score
5,970
Points
0
When does California tax this income, As Soon As Possible.

They are a heavily taxed state, it's part of the reason that people and companies are leaving at a crazy rate.
 

TerryP

Cenosillicaphobiac
Ivory Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
41,094
Reaction score
8,824
Points
0
@BamaFan334, I see billboards around town with different UofSC players and season ticket packages being sold. The school is making a profit there using those players likeness on their advertisements.

I believe there needs to be a line drawn. If a player can't use his likeness to promote his families business why should the school? Or the NCAA? I'm not suggesting paying the players as a whole. I do think your stars need to be considered even if it is some trust type of set-up.

Using a person's picture does not make them any less of an amatuer nor does it make them a professional.
 

BamaFan334

Verified Member
Crimson Tide Club
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
6,894
Reaction score
2,033
Points
0
@BamaFan334, and by the way if this was allowed by the NCAA? Alabama would be a big beneficiary. Remember where the largest TV market is in the US for college football.
I happen to think a trust setup is actually the best way for everyone. That has been my suggestion as well.

Let's think for a second though. Sure, does seeing Jerry Jeudy on a billboard excite me for the season? Heck yes. Is it building my interest to buy season tickets? No, it's not. They could put you on there in an Alabama helmet and jersey and I would be just as inclined to support my team. So I see schools and the NCAA making quick work of things like that.

Each school is going to sell jerseys regardless of the number on it. We sell ours now based on the number of Natty's we have, not Jaylen Waddle or Kenyan Drake. You could put a #10 or #12 on a Georgia jersey this season and they will sell at the bookstore and shops all over the world. The players excite fans each and every year as they rotate on and off campus, but the script A, Georgia G, AU, LSU, UF etc will always sustain itself.

For video games... Each team uses the same numbers each and every year. Not one guy made #12 at Alabama famous, it was a combination of players. #38 at Ole Miss was for a guy, but it's worn each year by a leader of the team, and #18 at LSU is a lot of the same.

My next question is, what if the schools and conferences find ways around using the athletes and still find ways to line their pockets instead of the athletes? They can hire models and put visors on the helmets for these banners, billboards, gameday programs, tickets, etc. Then what if they decide to pay the players, but then turn around and make them pay for their tuition, room and board, and such? I think it opens a major can of worms. You're always going to have people make money off the backs of others, we all technically do it in one way, shape, or form whether we want to admit it or not. When you have this, you'll always have someone finding a way around it only causing more confusion and deeper issues. I think Ed O'Bannon really screwed up, big time. He also screwed a lot of people from having a lot of fun due to his own selfishness.
 

TerryP

Cenosillicaphobiac
Ivory Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
41,094
Reaction score
8,824
Points
0
@BamaFan334, and there's a good point. Selling a jersey with the number 17 on it is something people will look at and think "championships." Selling a #13 and people have another idea. But, it's not making money off of a likeness. Again, fine line to draw.
 

OldPlayer

Bama Club
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
3,045
Reaction score
1,470
Points
0
@BamaFan334, and by the way if this was allowed by the NCAA? Alabama would be a big beneficiary. Remember where the largest TV market is in the US for college football.
Alabama is NOT the largest TV market for college football. It does have the highest share of households watching. Think of it this way. You have two markets - one of five million and one of one million. In the one million market, 50% of the households watch college football. In the five million market, 20% of households watch college football. The one million market is where Alabama (markets aren't defined by state, they are defined closer to metropolitan areas) would be. The bottom line is that the five million market draws one million viewers (but only 20% of the total) while the one million market draws 500,000 viewers (but 50% of the market).
 

TerryP

Cenosillicaphobiac
Ivory Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
41,094
Reaction score
8,824
Points
0
Alabama is NOT the largest TV market for college football.
Semantics, or call it "I misspoke."

You know what I'm referring to as you've stated. The point still remains. When you have more households in one city watching football than any other in the US, that's a coup for Bama.

Ratings are something I live with on a daily basis at work, OP...too much so, in fact.
 

TerryP

Cenosillicaphobiac
Ivory Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
41,094
Reaction score
8,824
Points
0
Ralph D. Russo
@ralphDrussoAP




A little perspective on what is going on in California with its Fair Pay for Play Act.
It's a good thing for those who want college athletes to receive more compensation.
But law would go into effect in 2023.
NCAA has group currently working on ways to possibly compensate for NIL
The California law is significant as a way of increasing pressure on the NCAA to make changes. Legal challenges, political pressure and public sentiment is mounting.
But there is a good chance the NCAA will change its rules to accommodate FPTP before there is ever a standoff.
We'll get a far better idea of what the future is on California FPTP Act when the NCAA comes forward with the results of the working group on name, image and likeness either later this year or early next.
The NCAA does have a good recent history of reading the tea leaves and acting on its own before rules can be hoisted upon it.
Full cost of attendance was a good example. Before judge ruled it had to be allowed (not required) as compensation to athletes, NCAA (P5) implemented it
 

OldPlayer

Bama Club
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
3,045
Reaction score
1,470
Points
0
This is the first step in athletes "refusing" to play unless they are paid more. Fair market value comes into play where an athlete will say his/her image cannot be used at the going rate because they are above the market average. The legal teams for each school will need to include provisions on use of image in the NLI. This will also make athletes "negotiate" their value and rate while being recruited.
 

BamaFan334

Verified Member
Crimson Tide Club
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
6,894
Reaction score
2,033
Points
0
So does this mean player's names will no longer be on the back of their jerseys? College football is heading to zero identity other than what the college itself can market in the form of its logo and record. Numbers and freaking names are not going to be printing or embroidered on anything anymore is where I think this heads. It is impossible to allow this and make it fair for everyone, absolutely impossible. My fear is the whole "we gotta pass it to find out what's in it". Then you're royally effed.
 

planomateo

Ivory Club
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
30,536
Reaction score
5,970
Points
0
So does this mean player's names will no longer be on the back of their jerseys? College football is heading to zero identity other than what the college itself can market in the form of its logo and record. Numbers and freaking names are not going to be printing or embroidered on anything anymore is where I think this heads. It is impossible to allow this and make it fair for everyone, absolutely impossible. My fear is the whole "we gotta pass it to find out what's in it". Then you're royally effed.
That is my thinking, names will be removed from jerseys as a result if this moves forward.
 

Top Bottom