California Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes To Profit (npr.org) 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: In a move that puts California on a collision course with the NCAA, Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill effectively allowing college athletes in the state to earn compensation for the use of their likeness, sign endorsement deals and hire agents to represent them. The governor signed the measure in a segment released Monday by Uninterrupted, a sports programming company co-founded by LeBron James. Newsom proclaimed the move as "the beginning of a national movement -- one that transcends geographic and partisan lines."
California is the first state to pass such a law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. That marks a significant shift from the current policies enforced by the NCAA, collegiate sports' national governing body, which generally renders student-athletes ineligible to accept compensation for "the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind." And the NCAA Board of Governors pushed back hard against the bill at the time of its passage in the Legislature, saying that it would leave the playing field for universities of different sizes radically uneven. "Collegiate student athletes put everything on the line -- their physical health, future career prospects and years of their lives to compete. Colleges reap billions from these student athletes' sacrifices and success but, in the same breath, block them from earning a single dollar," Newsom said in a statement. "That's a bankrupt model -- one that puts institutions ahead of the students they are supposed to serve. It needs to be disrupted."
In response, a 22-member panel composed mostly of university presidents and athletic directors said in a letter: "Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports."
California is the first state to pass such a law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. That marks a significant shift from the current policies enforced by the NCAA, collegiate sports' national governing body, which generally renders student-athletes ineligible to accept compensation for "the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind." And the NCAA Board of Governors pushed back hard against the bill at the time of its passage in the Legislature, saying that it would leave the playing field for universities of different sizes radically uneven. "Collegiate student athletes put everything on the line -- their physical health, future career prospects and years of their lives to compete. Colleges reap billions from these student athletes' sacrifices and success but, in the same breath, block them from earning a single dollar," Newsom said in a statement. "That's a bankrupt model -- one that puts institutions ahead of the students they are supposed to serve. It needs to be disrupted."
In response, a 22-member panel composed mostly of university presidents and athletic directors said in a letter: "Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports."
Something is off (Score:3, Insightful)
"Slashdot, news for (now rich) athletes."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to say... this has zero tech or nerd component to it at all.
Slashdot - News... Sorry were you waiting for something else?
Re: (Score:2)
It affects ESPN and therefore ESPN+, which is a new streaming service.
NCAA has always been opposed to such a law... but now they're stuck between abandoning California or creating a new payment plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I have the goddam T-shirt.
Not making that up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bye bye Olympics!
We're not going to be eligible anymore.
Re:Something is off (Score:5, Informative)
you _do_realize that we have professional athletes in the Olympics...
Re: (Score:2)
I did not, but I consider myself informed. When did that start? No, I won't search for it. ;)
Check out the 1992 basketball Dream Team (Score:5, Informative)
> When did that start? No, I won't search for it. ;)
Gradually from the 1970s to the 1990s. The Soviet Union had been using professionals for a long time, claiming that they weren't, and other countries got tired of it.
1992 was the first Olympics that officially allowed professional basketball players. The US fielded:
Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls
John Stockton and Karl Malone of the Utah Jazz
Magic Johnson of the Los Angeles Lakers
Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics
Patrick Ewing of the New York Knicks
Chris Mullin of the Golden State Warriors
David Robinson of the San Antonio Spurs
Charles Barkley of the Philadelphia 76ers
They beat their opponents by an average of 44 points while looking like they were trying about as hard as the Harlem Globetrotters.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to get NBA players to play in the Summer Olympics than get the NHL to be without people in Winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1992 was the first time the NBA offered to send its stars. IOC/USOC didn't ban pros, the pro leagues of the USA did.
Re: (Score:2)
1992 was the first time the NBA offered to send its stars. IOC/USOC didn't ban pros, the pro leagues of the USA did.
Uh, no. Why even bother posting if you are not even going to check first? The NBA wanted its players to be in the Olympics much farther back and never stood in the way. It was the IOC's amateurism policy which was dropped in 1992 that caused the biggest change. They experimented with relaxing that policy in 1988 and allowed pro tennis players then but almost no other sports. Given the success of tennis's rating that year, they expanded that policy (or lack of policy) to all sports by 1992.
Also, if you
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they ended up forfeiting the Gold Medal match because they sat down after four fouls/Yellow Cards... nobody wanted to risk being Red Carded for a fifth.
Red Cards in Olympic play are typically deadly... see what they mean in soccer/football.
Re: (Score:2)
It was in the 1990s, I think. At least that's when I first remember hearing the news reports about the NBA putting together their "dream team" of pros to take the gold in basketball. It could have actually happened earlier and I'm just too young to remember. But pros were definitely allowed in the olympics by then.
Re: Something is off (Score:2)
I consider myself informed
In that case...
Re: (Score:3)
you _do_realize that we have professional athletes in the Olympics...
The original ban on "professionals" was not specifically designed to exclude only paid athletes. Rather it was meant to exclude anyone who had ever worked for wages.
The Olympic Games were for gentlemen, not working class scum.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro NHL players have played in the Winter Olympics before, causing a shutdown of the NHL for a few mid season weeks. The NBA "Dream Team" had special cups at McDonalds in 1996.
So it's legal to pay pro athletes in the Olympics... Kerri Strug has had a Coca-Cola deal since she was a kid, back when we were on the same "tire swing" as first graders. Simone Biles has a similar with Coca-Cola deal now.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact check.. that was 1992.
Re: (Score:2)
To be perfectly fair, I don't give a hoot about the Olympics. But, I thank you for the correction and the update.
Sports Nerds (Score:2)
Re: Sports Nerds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get much nerdier than a furry.
Most of slashdot just chases ewoks around science fiction conventions, and then pretend to hate furries when the ewoks turn them down.
Re: (Score:2)
"Slashdot, news for (now rich) athletes."
I dunno . . . Colleges and University will field eSport teams . . . ?
A good way to milk their Alumni even more.
Ivy League football teams cannot take it on with other Big Football schools because they usually lack the brawn. But in eSports, they might have a chance of winning, which would encourage Alumni to attend . . . and make some donations.
Good ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people not getting paid in college athletics are the athletes. Be nice to see this go a little more above board instead of being under the table crap.
Re:Good ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time I checked, student athletes get paid handsomely, it's just in the form of scholarships that cover their tuition, fees, room, board, etc. Unlike the majority of students, who had to work their asses off to go through college and/or take out student loans.
To be clear, I don't think *anyone* (including gaming companies) should be able to use a student's name and likeness to make a profit. But the solution isn't to further entangle educational interests and corporate interests.
Re:Good ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The SOLUTION is to just dump college athletics and focus on EDUCATION
Too much time and money is wasted on athletics, when simply encouraging ALL students to perform some sustainable level of activity would provide better outcomes
Re: (Score:2)
This. Or ensure that all student athletes can compete academically with the rest of the student population (allowing for the bell curve, etc and so forth), and keep any athletics on the intramurals level.
One of my jobs at a non-university college in the same town as a university each fall term was to create a special course shell in our LMS and accounts for around 100 students who couldn't go through the normal application/registration/enrollment process so they could complete some remedial "are you ready
Sports brings in tons of money $194 million at A&a (Score:2)
> Too much time and money is wasted on athletics
College sports brings in a ton of money. For example, Texas A&M brought in $194,388,450 for the 2014-2015 year (that's the first result I found in Google).
It's also free marketing for the school.
Re:Sports brings in tons of money $194 million at (Score:2)
During my time at Syracuse, college football was barely profitable, while basketball was making money and giving up points in exchange for points in 2002-2003 which got them the NCAA Championship.
Re:Sports brings in tons of money $194 million at (Score:2)
Find out what they spend it on. Athletic programs are not cheap. The coaches are probably the highest paid employees/teachers.
The net profit is significant (Score:2)
Obviously some of the revenue is used to operate the program. There is a significant net profit after paying for all sports. Something in the neighborhood of $50 million if memory serves. That's after football revenue pays for the less popular sports, and particularly women's sports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OH I disagree, I'd MUCH rather watch college football than NFL pro football.
There's more heart to it, and people care more I think, especially if you went to school.
I prefer college BB over pro too, although I admit of late, I really only watch mostly during March Madness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good ? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a use of the word handsomely that is new to me.
Seeing as the schools have revenues in the 10s to 100s of millions and that doesn't include alumni support
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re:Good ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, student athletes get paid handsomely...
If a student-athlete becomes a paraplegic as a result of playing (or has any serious permanent injury), he gets nothing, not even workers comp.
it's just in the form of scholarships that cover their tuition, fees, room, board, etc.
And graduate in what? In Physical education? Art? Ethnic studies? Face it. If they get into a college they were not supposed to get into because of the bad grades they had in high school. It's highly unlikely they'll do super well in College (especially now that they also have a concurrent physically exhausting full-time job with a strict schedule of practices and games).
At the very least, if they made money for their school but couldn't get into a professional league, the school should give them free tuition and free room and board once they've finished their athletic career with them.
But let's be honest here, those schools are not running a charity. They are in it to make money. Can we agree to that at least?
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I checked, student athletes get paid handsomely...
If a student-athlete becomes a paraplegic as a result of playing (or has any serious permanent injury), he gets nothing, not even workers comp.
So the phrase student-athlete comes from a court case where the wife of a player named Ray Dennison [deadspin.com] who had died playing football was suing for death benefits that would have been due to her husband had he been a full time employee with workers comp. The NCAA claimed that the player couldn't be an employee even though he was a main participate in an activity from which the school derived money and he "received" compensation. So the player couldn't be an athlete as that's an occupation. But clearly the pl
Re: (Score:2)
And graduate in what? In Physical education? Art? Ethnic studies?
Oregon ducks QB Justin Herbert is studying biology, not an easy field, and "Herbert was named first-team CoSIDA Academic All-American with a 4.08 grade-point average in biology" in 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
Oregon ducks QB Justin Herbert is studying biology, not an easy field, and "Herbert was named first-team CoSIDA Academic All-American with a 4.08 grade-point average in biology" in 2017.
Yes, Justin Herbert is an outlier. In fact, this entire list of athletes are outliers. https://pac-12.com/article/201... [pac-12.com]
That doesn't make what I said any less true.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone receives an *academic* scholarship, they have no restrictions on holding down a job as well. In particular, they can earn money to support themselves and others when school is not in session.
Re: (Score:2)
> scholarships that cover their tuition, fees, room,
> board, etc.
Even with the epidemic tuition inflation, that's a pittance compared to the money that the NCAA brings in. I couldn't find the numbers for football, but CBS pays them the better part of a billion every year for the TV rights to basketball:
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
And that's just for the broadcast rights, no video games, tickets, luxury boxes, stadium naming rights, merchandise, or anything else included. And that's also for bas
Re: (Score:2)
Football, yes, baseball, no.
College baseball is mostly amateur, because they have the minor leagues for the serious prospects.
My town has a football stadium that holds over 50,000 with tickets costing $56 (GA), a basketball arena that holds over 12,000 with tickets starting at $49 for important games, and a baseball field with seating for 4000. And tickets that start at $6. Or $3 some days. But actually so few tickets are sold that they announce at the start of the game that GA ticket holders are welcome to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Good ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even within the football teams it's not fair. The quarterback,receivers, and running backs will get all the money because they get all the stats and make the big plays, while the lineman, kickers, etc who protect the quarterback get nothing. If you want to pay athletes, all players on the team should get the same amount, because no team ever wins because of just one player.
Re: (Score:2)
Even within the football teams it's not fair. The quarterback,receivers, and running backs will get all the money because they get all the stats and make the big plays,
If they want to try negotiating that, have at it. I suspect the star players will decide they want an individual, not team, contract. I'm not sure how you talk them into a collective agreement.
I'm not aware of any professional team sport which negotiates team-wide contracts so clearly those involved don't seem to want them.
Re: (Score:2)
They will probably not be negotiating anything, it will be the State Department of Education negotiating with the State Legislature, and they might very well prefer team contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
They will probably not be negotiating anything, it will be the State Department of Education negotiating with the State Legislature, and they might very well prefer team contracts.
Unfortunate that all the actual people involved (teams, players, colleges, alumni, fans) don't get a say.
Re: Good ? (Score:2)
Uh, those all do get paid....
Re: (Score:2)
... is a non starter. Title IX would mean the women's Bocce Ball team players would need to be paid the same as the top football players. Any deviation would end up with a shitload of lawsuits.
And what are you going to do to stop that from happening? Write a letter to the court reminding them of your opinion?
It may be that in the end the overlap of the laws requires them to pool some part of the money and distribute it equitably. Your feelies will smart something fierce, but I doubt they'll ask you.
Title IX is already law, and isn't going away. If the law on letting the schools keep all the money changes, whatever the implications of Title IX are is simply what will happen. And the sky won't fal
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to really enjoy this sarcasm shtick with the "aww, your widdle feewies" thing, I've noticed. You should feel bad for looking so stupid and having your whole online persona analyzed and dismissed as dreary and boring by anyone who reads more than one of your vomit-posts.
Anyway, I won't do anything to stop it happening, where did I say I would? Your strawman aside, I don't need to do anything anyway because college athletes aren't paid so all is well with Title IX.
Not good (Score:2)
The only people not getting paid in college athletics are the athletes.
Exactly - the whole point of college or university athletics is that it is performed by students who are supposed to be studying for a degree i.e. it is amateur athletics. Otherwise, there is no need for them to be at a university and they should go straight into being a professional. If they make the cut they'll easily earn enough money to go back to university afterwards to complete a degree if they want to.
Re: Good ? (Score:2)
non-academic activities (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was slumming around Harvard Square (doing some consulting on East Coast and wanted to see MIT), and I saw a likely target, then found a way to ask him:
Me: Is there some sort of school around here?
Target: Well, Yeah, MIT!
Me: Huh, EM Ay Tee, what does that stand for?
Target: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Me: Oh, is that kinda like DeVry
Target: *grumbles*
Me: So, how does they football team do?
Target: They do not have a football team
Me: Well, not much of a school then, is it?
So, yeah I'm a freaking trol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: non-academic activities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was slumming around Harvard Square (doing some consulting on East Coast and wanted to see MIT),
You must have gone to Havahad because you clearly can't read a map. MIT is at the other end of Mass Ave.
Target: They do not have a football team
I beg your pardon! Yes we do. It just stinks. And the 2.70 robot competition gets way more attendance. For that matter, so does crew and fencing.
Pete, SM '87
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no... I like to park and walk around, so I dropped my car off in a parking spot on the MIT campus, walked around for a while, then headed towards activity, which led me to Harvard Square, which I must tell you is about as generic and architecturally barren as any spot in America. Sure, there was a lot of money behind it, but it looked like about every re-designed college/commercial interface in the country. At least Princeton has attempted to keep some vestiges of local flavor.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded "funny"?
Not limited to state schools, by the way. My private university was just then phasing out a special "Commerce Department" that only existed to give athletes a kind of low-level business degree, but geared to their level. Many of the athletes were legitimate student-athletes who were majoring in real subjects, but the school believed they could not compete without some sheltering for some "true" jocks.
The belief turned out to be true. Without the Commerce Department the school was
Re: (Score:2)
Exploitation (Score:3)
This is the stuff that matters component. By the way does the NCAA require athletes to take financial discipline and life management courses? I could easily see athletes being exploited by this stuff, for example signing 10 year contracts with athletes so they can pay them much less than they would normally get after becoming an NFL or NBA star.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know if the athletes can sue the schools for all of the brain damage they received whilst being "educated"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Exploitation (Score:2)
I could easily see athletes being exploited by this...
I wish I could say that's the sound of the world's tiniest violin you hear... but it's actually just the faint sound of me rolling a booger between my fingertips...
Generally California is run by lunatics... (Score:3)
... but this move interests me and I want to see how it turns out. Not that I follow college sports in depth, but market forces are rather perverted in higher education as it stands, and this will either clarify things while improving the fortunes of the athletes in question.... or turn into a ridiculous farce. But I'm watching either way!
What do you base that assertion on? (Score:2, Insightful)
This pattern generally repeats itself. Even Texas, if you take out oil, it doing terribly. Meanwhile New York does great.
As near as I can tell left wing policies, which are strongly regulated markets, solid safety nets, well funded education systems and anti-crime laws that focus on root causes,
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: What do you base that assertion on? (Score:2)
*Oklahoma's another story entirely; it's the "Retarded Kid Brother" version of Texas.
Again, what do you base that on? (Score:4)
Well run doesn't mean "Lots of short term profits" it means a long term plan for the prosperity of your people and their children and their grandchildren.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of scholarship athletes are good enough to earn full or partial scholarships, but not good enough to attract a sponsor - they are not headed for the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc. How does this law change help those athletes?
Question? (Score:2)
There's a significant difference. And, if it prevents the NCAA from enforcing its rules, they just need to kick all Cali schools out of sanctioned sports - the law will get changed back in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
if it prevents the NCAA from enforcing its rules, they just need to kick all Cali schools out of sanctioned sports - the law will get changed back in a hurry.
They likely can't. NCAA is a non-profit charity. They're not legally in a position to stamp their feet and take a principled stance on a political issue. They can lobby against the law, since it is directly related to their legit non-profit work, but they can't engage in political activity, or try to punish a State over its politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Where this is leading (Score:5, Interesting)
My friends and I have often discussed where this (inevitable) trend of paying college athletes will lead.
My guess is that we'll eventually wind up with a small number of Division I teams that will drop all pretense of the "student-athlete" myth, and will instead become semi-pro teams competing for the best players by offering the highest salaries and endorsement packages. Outside of that circle of teams, no school will be able to recruit, so most universities will drop football and basketball altogether.
I don't consider that a bad thing, as college athletics bizarrely distorts the academic mission of most schools. But it will be a very different educational world twenty years from now.
Re: Where this is leading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Distorts to such a degree that it was the backdoor used by the admissions cheaters in the recent scandals.
Re: (Score:2)
That is where my thoughts go also, but this will have a huge cost. Unfortunately, mens basketball and football bring in the most of the funds for sports. At the same time, colleges carry sports that are a drain on the college and also are obligated if to have both male and female team. These of course are funded by.... the basketball and football teams. If most colleges will be dropping their programs, and thus the revenue streams for all other sports, then college sports in general will be changing.
I d
Re: (Score:2)
Solving the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Was the problem that star athletes have to wait to leave college before they are rich? If that's the problem, than this law addresses it just fine.
Is the issue that student athletes who will never go into the NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB have trouble making ends meet while enjoying a full- or partial-scholarship? If that's the problem, this law does nothing more then help a very few star athletes cash-in on their skills a few years earlier.
The real problem is the non-star scholarship athlete, typically the first in their family to go to college, who can't afford to do anything while in college because their scholarship requirements (academic and athletic) make them unable to secure employment for "pizza and beer" money. I propose that the real solution would be for colleges and universities to be able to pay scholarship athletes small cash stipends, say $2K/month or less.
Most scholarship athletes are given quarter-million dollar educations at no cost to themselves - something that many students wind up trying to pay off over ten+ years after graduation. It is a bit insulting and galling to pretend that opportunity is "worthless".
Re: (Score:2)
Most scholarship athletes are given quarter-million dollar educations at no cost to themselves - something that many students wind up trying to pay off over ten+ years after graduation. It is a bit insulting and galling to pretend that opportunity is "worthless".
It is worthless https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to be a pro then go pro (Score:2)
I don't quite understand the problem. If a college basketball player is good enough to get offers for product endorsements then go get an agent, make a deal, and go for a pro team. Well, not necessarily in that order. The endorsement deal will likely require that the person be playing at the time.
If you believe you are good enough to get paid for playing basketball then go to a pro team. Or maybe a demonstration team like the Globetrotters. After you've made your money then go to college, get your BA i
Re: (Score:2)
Only a couple players in NBA history have been good enough to go pro out of high school. No high schools can compete with the coaching and competition level at a top collegiate program, much like college professors are going to be able to teach you better than your high school math teacher and your fellow students will push you a bit more than the scrubs you dominated in the streets or against crosstown rivals. A year or two in a good program will make you a better player and raise your profile - scouts won
Gotta get em started somehow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the path to making millions, blowing it all on grills, tattoos, stripper clubs, cars & mansions.
A wasted life. Could have gone into politics instead.
Do athletic scholarships perpetuate poverty? (Score:2)
Great! (Score:2)
So now scholarships can go to kids that actually want to go to school to, you know, learn stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Why this is good (Score:2)
Promoting your college football team members to get seats in the bleachers is just fine and the players are compensated with scholarships. However, the universities take this too far. A friend of mine played college football and his likeness was sold to EA for their college football video game. My friend got squat. He also did not have any say in the matter beyond quitting the football team and leaving college.
College athletics is a mess... (Score:2)
Few, if any colleges actually make money off of their athletic programs. Sure, some people donate, and there are sponsors, but they plow endliess amounts of money into the stadiums and into subsidizing the athletes. WTF? Meanwhile, in most schools, the athletes only pretend to be students.
College athletes should be treated no differently from any other students. No subsidies, no special facilities, no special "pretend" classes. If professional sports teams want some sort of "starter" league for young athlet
So they can tax them (Score:2)
Clearly, the People's Democratic Republic of California wants the tax revenue. The least they could do is be honest about their goals.
Biggest problem here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
Pretty regularly, here on /., I see people talking about the HIGH cost of going to college these days, what with student loan repayments and such...
And now, we come to a bunch of kids who've gotten around that problem. No student loans for them! Graduate from college free and clear!
And so, /. now argues that it is fundamentally wrong that these kids can go to college without having to pay fo
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, CA's universities lose standing with the NCAA - no more Bowl games, no more games with out-of-state teams, no more revenue from the televising of their games....
And the reality is that tv revenue from football helps subsidize countless women's sports - without that source of revenue, who will pay to sponsor the women's and other less popular men's sports?
Re: (Score:2)
Especially a prison full of black large ex-athletes. ;)
Why do they have to be black athletes? Ignoring your attempt to inject race into the discussion, why would a college-educated ex-athlete bein prison?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They get quarter-million dollar scholarships in exchange for participating in college sports - that the athletes don't value it doesn't make it worthless.
Re: *students* (Score:2)
(That doesn't quite read right...)