[2006alum]

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:

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...

[2006alum]

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:

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...