Outside Topic Athlete compensation is a hot button issue

Outside Topic Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Athlete compensation is a hot button issue (/thread-17795.html)

Pages: 1 2

Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Spiny_Norman - 06-24-2019

State government in Sacramento is working on a bill that would allow California collegiate athletes to receive compensation for their name, image or likeness. The NCAA is threatening to ban California schools from NCAA championship competitions if the bill passes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/06/24/ncaa-california-schools-could-banned-championships-over-bill/1542632001/

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - BobK - 06-24-2019

Casey should tell the NCAA to not do anything stupid

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - BostonCard - 06-24-2019

I am generally against paying athletes, but I completely agree that their name, image and likeness should not be used without compensating them. One option would be to put the money in a trust to be disbursed after they use up their eligibility. Another would be to simply not out-license their names, images or likenesses. I mean would it be the end of the world if I couldn't buy a Stanford McCaffrey jersey of if I played whatever NCAA equivalent of Madden if it used generic names?

BC

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Phogge - 06-24-2019

All compensation MUST be retroactive to 1964. Need an SF State jersey BC?

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Genuine Realist - 06-24-2019

(06-24-2019, 11:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I am generally against paying athletes, but I completely agree that their name, image and likeness should not be used without compensating them. One option would be to put the money in a trust to be disbursed after they use up their eligibility. Another would be to simply not out-license their names, images or likenesses. I mean would it be the end of the world if I couldn't buy a Stanford McCaffrey jersey of if I played whatever NCAA equivalent of Madden if it used generic names?

BC

I'm against payment from colleges, as it transforms the student model into a club model (like baseball) which is a terrible idea.

But payments from unaffiliated third parties, including the NBA, NFL, and MLB, as well as sponsors, endorsers, and agents? You betcha.

Will someone please explain to me the difference between NBA option money and your grandfather's trust?

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - OutsiderFan - 06-24-2019

Emmett is a clown. It's not like California schools have any control over what the legislature does. And it's not like state lawmakers are going to take threats form the NCAA well. Can you imagine the competitive advantage CA schools would have? So tired of the NCAA trying to thwart and control market forces.

It would actually be best if all the Pac-12 school states joined in. The Conference needs a competitive differentiator. What better than member school states allowing athletes to make money for their name, likeness, jersey sales?

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - jonnyss - 06-24-2019

(06-24-2019, 11:38 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Emmett is a clown. It's not like California schools have any control over what the legislature does. And it's not like state lawmakers are going to take threats form the NCAA well. Can you imagine the competitive advantage CA schools would have? So tired of the NCAA trying to thwart and control market forces.

It would actually be best if all the Pac-12 school states joined in. The Conference needs a competitive differentiator. What better than member school states allowing athletes to make money for their name, likeness, jersey sales?

that's a really good (and fun) point about competitive advantage.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Phogge - 06-24-2019

Stanford would bolt from NCAA athletics. Having students making money is not in the U's DNA. Maybe in Tech but not sports.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - 2006alum - 06-24-2019

If/when this bill passes, it will be the beginning of the end of college athletics as we know it.

When Star Quarterback at State U has a practice that conflicts with a media appearance that's contractually part of his likeness deal, who's to stop him from skipping? What happens if those contracts have provisions that reward injury prevention? Maybe he objects to being put in in the 4th quarter of a blowout, over the coach's objection. Etc. Maybe he wants to wear his endorsed gear over the team's. Not to mention how much worse school culture will be when the star athletes can literally just pay people to do everything for them.

Pro sports solve this through collective bargaining agreements that set out how athletes' off-court obligations interact with their athletic obligations, and by segregating by sport and league. Can't do that for students at universities, as they're (a) not employees and (b) the issues would vary from sport to sport and school to school, as would the lucrativeness of student-athletes' likeness deals.

This is a disaster waiting to happen in the name of progressive reform.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - OutsiderFan - 06-24-2019

(06-24-2019, 12:27 PM)2006alum Wrote: If/when this bill passes, it will be the beginning of the end of college athletics as we know it.

When Star Quarterback at State U has a practice that conflicts with a media appearance that's contractually part of his likeness deal, who's to stop him from skipping? What happens if those contracts have provisions that reward injury prevention? Maybe he objects to being put in in the 4th quarter of a blowout, over the coach's objection. Etc. Maybe he wants to wear his endorsed gear over the team's. Not to mention how much worse school culture will be when the star athletes can literally just pay people to do everything for them.

Pro sports solve this through collective bargaining agreements that set out how athletes' off-court obligations interact with their athletic obligations, and by segregating by sport and league. Can't do that for students at universities, as they're (a) not employees and (b) the issues would vary from sport to sport and school to school, as would the lucrativeness of student-athletes' likeness deals.

This is a disaster waiting to happen in the name of progressive reform.

Anything is possible. This seems too Chicken Little at the moment. Might be wise to see how it plays out before declaring the end of college sports.

The current system isn't working. The NCAA has had all kinds of time to deal with the issue, but instead has continued exploiting young adults. It wouldn't be so bad if student athletes had more control over their lives. But you tell me, how many Football players would rather not be at voluntary Summer workouts led by S&C coaches right now, who pretty much know they have no choice if they want to be in good standing with coaches when Summer practices start?

The dumbest decision the NLRB made was denying the right of college athletes to unionize. Because, we now have a situation where lawmakers are going to write laws that require certain things can and can't be done, involving scholarship athletes, but there is no organized group representing athletes to negotiate with the NCAA to figure out what are and aren't acceptable terms.

There's also the issue of revenue sports vs. non-revenue sports. The arguments for paying athletes don't vary much differently from women athletes demanding fair pay. The problem is you can't have people doing things that don't generate revenue, claiming they deserve to be compensated more.

Really all the CA legislator pushing this bill wants, is to declare the status quo isn't acceptable, so work something out that is. The idea of the NCAA and state law makers having to work things out - because athletes can't collectively bargain - does seem a bit misguided, but that's pretty much where we are because the NCAA decided it was better to keep on exploiting instead of figuring out a more equitable path forward.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - 2006alum - 06-24-2019

The only viable solution I see is to remove all college-attendance eligibility requirements from pro leagues. You do that, and anyone who wants to accept a scholarship to play in college foregoes other forms of monetary compensation or licensing. Don't like it? You can go pro at any time.

I respect where you are coming from OF, but for the vast, vast majority of athletes, universities are not exploiting them - they're running deficits to give them a free education, training, and credentialing. For literally 99% of American college athletes, they have no better alternative anywhere in the world.

I truly don't understand how people find the current system so exploitative given that almost all student athletes participate in money-losing sports, and even most of the ones who do compete in football and basketball would never get paid the equivalent of Stanford sticker tuition to play anywhere else in the world.

I bet there aren't 1000 college athletes in the country that could do better than $70k on the free market to play sports who are stuck because their pro equivalent requires some college attendance. What about the other 2 million who indisputably do better than in a free market system?

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - burger - 06-24-2019

(06-24-2019, 12:27 PM)2006alum Wrote: If/when this bill passes, it will be the beginning of the end of college athletics as we know it.

This is a disaster waiting to happen in the name of progressive reform.

The slippery slope arguments anti-payment people make are almost too ridiculous to bother responding, too. Exactly which proposals for paying NCAA athletes allow said athletes to opt out of practicing or ignore orders from coaches? Making stuff up does not help your case.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - 2006alum - 06-24-2019

(06-24-2019, 03:23 PM)burger Wrote:
(06-24-2019, 12:27 PM)2006alum Wrote: If/when this bill passes, it will be the beginning of the end of college athletics as we know it.

This is a disaster waiting to happen in the name of progressive reform.

The slippery slope arguments anti-payment people make are almost too ridiculous to bother responding, too. Exactly which proposals for paying NCAA athletes allow said athletes to opt out of practicing or ignore orders from coaches? Making stuff up does not help your case.

Well, if the athlete now has a contract with Nike that in any way conflicts with what the school wants, who wins? Under the present system, there is no other "boss" apart from the coach. Now there will be. For example, I would bet basically every multi-year deal will have incentives to forego bowl games the year players are eligible for the draft - why risk injury when you have a pending pro career that will make your licensing package all the more lucrative? That's already happening, and it was the only time I can remember people on this board trashing McCaffrey for looking out for number one over his team. Welcome to the new mantra for every marketable college athlete.

And unlike pro sports, where collective bargaining agreements (a) stipulate what kind of control athletes have over their name, likeness, and image rights; (b) sets out required responsibilities that players must fulfill to their teams and that cannot conflict with other contracts; and © set out a system of penalties and fines and a body to assess them in the event the player violates the CBA or other league rules, there will be nothing in place to govern these conflicts in college sports. They will all have to be resolved on an ad hoc basis. What about sponsorship logos on your team shirts? What if your licensing deal with Adidas prohibits you from wearing your college team's Nike apparel? What if they want you to manage injury recovery differently than how the coach does, or wants you to see their specialists instead of the university doctors? I can't see how there won't be tons of conflicts about this and no easy resolution for them, and some athletes won't have an agent or any form of representation to understand how to handle and resolve them, and the ones who do will suddenly force a coach to be scheduling meetings with his 19-year-old player's agent to resolve a disagreement.

Ultimately, the incentive for these deals will be to nab college players while they're cheap and cash in once they go pro; for that to work, there will be every incentive for counter-parties to encourage athletes to minimize injury risk and maximize off-campus exposure, and I don't see how that isn't going to conflict with teams' rules and practice policies. Indeed, I can even imagine where licensing counter-parties might threaten potential tortious interference claims against universities that try to crib their students' contracts, because without a CBA, the university really has no right to assert control over how a student would manage their relationship with their sponsors.

BTW, here's the abridged text of the bill:

Quote:SEC. 2.
Section 67456 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67456.
(a) (1) A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility.
(2) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a student of a postsecondary educational institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. . . .
© (1) A postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics shall not prevent a California student participating in intercollegiate athletics from obtaining professional representation in relation to contracts or legal matters, including, but not limited to, representation provided by athlete agents or legal representation provided by attorneys.
(2) Professional representation obtained by student athletes shall be from persons licensed by the state. Professional representation provided by athlete agents shall be by persons licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 18895) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code. Legal representation of student athletes shall be by attorneys licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(3) Athlete agents representing student athletes shall comply with the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, established in Chapter 104 (commencing with Section 7801) of Title 15 of the United States Code, in their relationships with student athletes.
(d) A scholarship from the postsecondary educational institution in which a student is enrolled that provides the student with the cost of attendance at that institution is not compensation for purposes of this section, and a scholarship shall not be revoked as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation pursuant to this section.

From what I can see, "any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness" would include rules related to practice, training methods, injury recovery, game participation, etc., if the contract in any way conflicts with the team rules.

And the bill prohibits a university from revoking a scholarship as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation, which means that if the student has an agent step in to negotiate practice rules with the coach, the coach can't can the student from the team for doing so (or, at least, the student would get to keep the scholarship anyway).

And the bill explicitly anticipates agents and lawyers representing students. If these deals get to be worth millions of dollars, you really think the agents, lawyers, and brands aren't going to start asserting control over how their player practices, trains, and participates?

My general view of legislation is that if you want to alter the status quo, you should have some basic answer to various hypothetical scenarios that seem possible under the proposed bill. But what do I know, it's not like I teach legislative drafting for a living...

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - martyup - 06-24-2019

If student athletes can get paid for their name, likeness, etc., it opens the door wide for recruiting corruption. Every 5 star high school athlete will be promised big money for their image if they commit to University X. They money will come from rich alums and will be funneled through legit companies. It will be difficult to police and will create a lack of parity in college athletics; mainly football, basketball, and baseball.

IMO --> Professional sports should be operated in a free market. College sports should not. If athletes want to be paid to play, they should go pro. If athletes want to trade a college education for playing their sport, good for them. You can't have both. Any introduction of compensation to student athletes, outside of basic living expenses and an education, will erode what makes college athletics so special.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - CowboyIndian - 06-24-2019

"forgo"

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - OutsiderFan - 06-25-2019

The sport that walks this pro-amateur fence right is hockey. Of all the largest pro leagues in North America, the NHL approach makes the most sense.

In the NHL, players are drafted if they are 18 by draft day. They can be drafted from Junior teams, National Teams, International leagues, or High School. After being drafted, these players either stay with their Junior teams (who have rights on them separate from the NHL teams who draft them), continue in their International leagues, attend college, or sign NHL contracts. Sometimes they go right to NHL, but more often play in minors if signing a pro contract right away.

Junior players are amateurs and don't get paid (at least they aren't suppose to be; sort of like college sports, with same issues).

The key thing is NHL teams get player rights when they are 18, and unlike in MLB, if a player is drafted from High School and that player wants to go to college instead of sign a pro contract, the NHL keeps that player's rights.

I don't honestly understand why it makes any sense for MLB teams to lose the rights to players they draft who go to college instead of sign pro deals. Frankly, not allowing this only hurts MLB teams, as they give players leverage they should never have at such young ages when so unproven as MLB prospects.

Why shouldn't every pro league draft players when 18 and allow them to keep their rights?

The NHL does.

MLB kind of does, but has its self-defeating rules for losing rights if player goes to college.

The NBA is pretty damn close, and there is no real reason the NBA couldn't do what the NHL does either.

The NFL not even close. The NFL will argue they need to see more development from players before drafting, but how is it the responsibility of universities to help them figure it out.

All these college sports would generate more fan interest if they had players playing on them who's rights were owned by Major League teams. That would equate to more money for college sports, with no need to pay athletes. The reality is no pro teams would want to sign players to pro contracts unless they were ready; just because they own their rights, it does not follow they will pay them no matter what. If everyone agrees college is amateur, and college athletes can sign a pro contract at any time, college athletes aren't "forced" to play for free. They play in college when not good enough to get a pro contract. The key is to allow athletes to get paid when they can. If that's the case, the proposed CA law wouldn't be needed, in theory at least.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Phogge - 06-25-2019

Hey CI, Forego was one of the top 10 thoroughbreds in racing history.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - Mick - 06-27-2019

(06-24-2019, 11:42 AM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford would bolt from NCAA athletics. Having students making money is not in the U's DNA. Maybe in Tech but not sports.

Those last six words are pretty important...

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - CTcard - 06-27-2019

Around the horn on a bunch of ideas raised in this thread ...

(06-24-2019, 10:33 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: State government in Sacramento is working on a bill that would allow California collegiate athletes to receive compensation for their name, image or likeness. The NCAA is threatening to ban California schools from NCAA championship competitions if the bill passes.

Lots of random laws get proposed every year by legislators following their own pet peeves. Does anyone know if this bill has any political legs to get anywhere?

I would imagine that if this looked like a real possibility, essentially all of the CA schools would lobby against it.

(06-24-2019, 04:46 PM)martyup Wrote: If student athletes can get paid for their name, likeness, etc., it opens the door wide for recruiting corruption. Every 5 star high school athlete will be promised big money for their image if they commit to University X. They money will come from rich alums and will be funneled through legit companies. It will be difficult to police and will create a lack of parity in college athletics; mainly football, basketball, and baseball.

This, I think, would be the main reasonable concern ... except for the fact that alums paying athletes would no longer be corruption, it would just be. I don't think it would be difficult to police because there would be no policing to do, it would be legal.
And I don't see anything in the text of the bill posted by 2006 that specifies "legit companies".

It is not that there is parity in college athletics now, but it certainly seems this would contribute substantially towards increasing that problem.

(06-25-2019, 06:45 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The sport that walks this pro-amateur fence right is hockey. Of all the largest pro leagues in North America, the NHL approach makes the most sense.

It depends upon just what kind of sense you want to make.

Hockey is rather famous in Canada for chewing up and spitting out those who don't manage to make it to the NHL. It is not entirely unlike minor league baseball with so many who spend years in the minors then are spit out with no prospects; except that at least most minor league baseball players graduate from high school. Traditionally, in Canada, the top young players go to the Major Junior Leagues - which is basically the equivalent of minor league baseball except the best players started at 15 and you are kicked out once you hit 21. [Now they are mostly not allowed in until 16.]

The influence of the NCAA and improved junior hockey in the USA has been beneficial to most kids. Going to the NHL via the NCAA is now viable, and there are better routes to playing good hockey and keeping up one's schooling. But there are still a lot of kids who suddenly figure out at 21/22 that they aren't going to play in the NHL and have no real education or belief that they are capable of doing anything else.

None of this causes much uproar, unlike the concerns about amateurism/cheating/etc. in the NCAA. I think that is largely because nobody expects minor leagues to be ethical institutions looking out for the welfare of the kids involved, which is what people expect from universities.

I think it would be better for the universities as institutions to disentangle themselves from the ethical problems surrounding big time sports, but I am not so sure that on average it would be better for most of the kids involved in the sports.

(06-24-2019, 11:42 AM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford would bolt from NCAA athletics. Having students making money is not in the U's DNA. Maybe in Tech but not sports.

I know this is a popular trope, but I tend to think it is not particularly true - with the caveat that it is not entirely clear just who the U is, and there are plenty of individuals with plenty of different opinions.

As far as I know, Stanford didn't balk at the expanded scholarship provisions, was already effectively guaranteeing scholarships for four years before that became officially possible, and in general is quite used to various folks have substantial side gigs. Stanford has a history of being concerned about the moral swamp associated with commercialism and cheating in big time athletics, but so far has never found a provision passed by the NCAA that it couldn't live with. In this case it is unclear whether paying players directly for the image and likeness would add to or diminish said swamp.

RE: Athlete compensation is a hot button issue - BobK - 06-27-2019

If the California law passes and a good chance it will then It doesn’t go into affect until 2023

The sponsors of the bill have said ncaa has no rights here

Stanford guaranteed 4 years before the Pac 12 in total did.

Agree with many that the bill opens Pandora ‘s box.