ADVERTISEMENT

CA governor signs bill to allow athletes to profit from endorsements

Gotta be hard to keep yelling amateurism when coaches, university presidents and NCAA executives making millions.

The NCAA model has had years to change and is now at the mercy of the states. Which state is next?
Looking like South Carolina potentially.
 
NCAA response to CA passing bill:

NCAA statement on Gov. Newsom signing SB 206
September 30, 2019 10:44am
As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.

As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide.
 
Logical reply by NCAA. They are logical when defending themselves but illogical when trying progress and move forward. I think the real cost of the whole topic is the non revenue sports and how they are subsidized.
 
This decision to allow players to profit off of their likeness will be one of those things that people will look back and regret. If passed nationwide, you can kiss college sports goodbye...

Why now? We have evidence of a great majority of players being paid, how is a player making money over the table any different from the way things are now?
 
Agreed. I really do not think the athletes understand how much they get in real $$ (I.E. from nutritionist, housing, gear, treatment and etc...)

If schools have to pay athletes under the new state laws - some of those “luxuries” will disappear immediately as the schools run a P&L and won’t lose $$$.

We all know WBB doesn’t make money and only a small % of men’s programs do. Most of that money is from the CBS/TNT/other TV deals and not from ticket sales and etc... if this does go down - a huge shift will occur.

Maybe we will get real student athletes again vs. athletes that play school.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FrankUnderwood
All it is doing is allowing players to make money off their likeness. Endorsements. Autographs. Etc. I.e doing Paul Miller commercials.

Has nothing to do with schools paying them or Title IX. If someone actually wants to pay a woman's golfer for endorsement then God bless em, pay her.

And newsflash, itd be absolutely great for UK recruiting if we got on board with it.
 
Why now? We have evidence of a great majority of players being paid, how is a player making money over the table any different from the way things are now?

Players will go to the highest bidder. Schools will recruit by claiming that if they go to their school, they can arrange that a car dealer will pay them X amount of dollars or they can market them better than the other schools. Players will go to schools that they feel can make them the most money. College sports will be just one big advertising campaign. It will be the wild west in that money will be thrown around to buy recruits. Marketable college players will be focused more on making commercials, signing shoe deals, and making paid appearances than trying to play as a team. Players will refuse to wear uniforms because the player will be represented by a different shoe company. Recruits in high school will have so much baggage due to the endorsement deals.
 
Players will go to the highest bidder. Schools will recruit by claiming that if they go to their school, they can arrange that a car dealer will pay them X amount of dollars or they can market them better than the other schools. Players will go to schools that they feel can make them the most money. College sports will be just one big advertising campaign. It will be the wild west in that money will be thrown around to buy recruits. Marketable college players will be focused more on making commercials, signing shoe deals, and making paid appearances than trying to play as a team. Players will refuse to wear uniforms because the player will be represented by a different shoe company. Recruits in high school will have so much baggage due to the endorsement deals.
Agree... this is what Jerry Jones does in Dallas do recruit second tier guys. It has not won him a Super Bowl but guys are getting more $$$ in their pockets from the outside and it doesn’t be hurt his cap space. A win win for all involved (except that Super Bowl thing...)
 
All it is doing is allowing players to make money off their likeness. Endorsements. Autographs. Etc. I.e doing Paul Miller commercials.

Has nothing to do with schools paying them or Title IX. If someone actually wants to pay a woman's golfer for endorsement then God bless em, pay her.

And newsflash, itd be absolutely great for UK recruiting if we got on board with it.
Correct UK will benefit and it is only likeness. That being said, the “blue bloods” will create a further separation from smaller schools. Real question is will this allow schools in larger metro areas to become more competitive in the market place because they can offer more endorsements to student athletes and recruits. If this existed when Cam Newton’s dad was shopping him - I couldn’t imagine how much money Cam would have raked in. (A lot more than the 250K he got)
 
Players will go to the highest bidder. Schools will recruit by claiming that if they go to their school, they can arrange that a car dealer will pay them X amount of dollars or they can market them better than the other schools. Players will go to schools that they feel can make them the most money. College sports will be just one big advertising campaign. It will be the wild west in that money will be thrown around to buy recruits. Marketable college players will be focused more on making commercials, signing shoe deals, and making paid appearances than trying to play as a team. Players will refuse to wear uniforms because the player will be represented by a different shoe company. Recruits in high school will have so much baggage due to the endorsement deals.

All that you just mention is happening already under the table illegally. We just had the adidas trial where evidence shown adidas funneling kids to certain schools and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Nothing is going to change with the new rule heck if anything it will help us because now we can actually pay the players
 
  • Like
Reactions: CB3UK and gossie21
All that you just mention is happening already under the table illegally. We just had the adidas trial where evidence shown adidas funneling kids to certain schools and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Nothing is going to change with the new rule heck if anything it will help us because now we can actually pay the players
The only big change is that the players will have to pay taxes and the agents’ fees earlier.
 
This is also bad in that athletes will do what is best for their image instead of what is best for the team. How would lineman feel if the player they are blocking for is making a lot of money while they make none? Reports will come out showing which teams produce the most marketable athletes and get paid the most which will be a recruiting ploy. It will come down to which school has the deepest pockets when it comes down to boosters. Players will resent each other if they feel like another player is getting marketed better than they are.

Horrible situation...
 
NCAA is gonna have to work overtime inventing a bogeyman to keep more states from passing these laws. Good job California, you got something right for once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: d2atTech
This is also bad in that athletes will do what is best for their image instead of what is best for the team. How would lineman feel if the player they are blocking for is making a lot of money while they make none? Reports will come out showing which teams produce the most marketable athletes and get paid the most which will be a recruiting ploy. It will come down to which school has the deepest pockets when it comes down to boosters. Players will resent each other if they feel like another player is getting marketed better than they are.

Horrible situation...
Oooooooh...... That's a great bogeyman. Got any more?
 
Oooooooh...... That's a great bogeyman. Got any more?

Athletic departments will be setting up their own dedicated marketing departments in trying to get their athletes more exposure on TV. You thought it was bad when Coach K was all over TV, just wait until athletes are allowed to be doing their own commercials. Agents of athletes will be in coaches ears demanding that their players be used a certain way. This environment is all about the individual instead of the team concept. Do you really think Anthony Davis's agent in college would be sitting by allowing him to be used the way he was used at UK. Heck no! His agent would be demanding more touches and allowing him to shoot more threes.

Some people are more short-sided than others...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruppcat
Game changer. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If this starts to be a trend I hope Kentucky doesn’t drag its feet like it Has with medical marijuana. We will probably be the last to do this.
 
If this were to be allowed nation wide. No basketball program in the country would benefit more from this than UK would. When you've got the largest, most passionate fan base in college basketball. I mean just think about the number of tv commercials that UK players would be in demand for. And just think what they could get for an autograph session? An autograph session for a Duke or UNC player that might draw 100 fans. An autograph session for a UK player would probably draw 300 to 400 fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: d2atTech
Athletic departments will be setting up their own dedicated marketing departments in trying to get their athletes more exposure on TV. You thought it was bad when Coach K was all over TV, just wait until athletes are allowed to be doing their own commercials. Agents of athletes will be in coaches ears demanding that their players be used a certain way. This environment is all about the individual instead of the team concept. Do you really think Anthony Davis's agent in college would be sitting by allowing him to be used the way he was used at UK. Heck no! His agent would be demanding more touches and allowing him to shoot more threes.

Some people are more short-sided than others...
Your other one was better. This was more of a half-hearted effort. You can do better, and you will do better.
 
How does this effect Title 9? Does this mean that men can earn more than women on their endorsements? How does this effect the teams? Does this create animosity between players?

So many questions.
 
I know everyone agrees the athletes aren't getting fairly compensated for the huge dollars they are earning for universities and coaches. The NCAA even acknowledged this in their response. The problem is coming up with a workable solution. If it is an absolute free for all then the blue bloods with the most money and largest, most dedicated fan bases are going to totally distance themselves from the teams that can not "afford" to compete. We all know us Kentucky fans are crazy enough to go buy jerseys and such just to drive up endorsement revenue for players to help recruiting. BBN will be a powerful tool in a totally endorsement based system. It is really a very, very difficult problem to solve.

Not a total solution, but one move that would help is getting rid of the one and done rule and allowing highschool players to go straight to the NBA. This at least removes the "super high dollar" players from college. Guys like Ayton and Zion would not have had a college bidding war because they would have went straight to the NBA.
 
ADVERTISEMENT