Iâm curious to see how this is implemented in CA. Other than Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, and USC Iâm wondering what schools would really benefit from this. My concern is unless their is a cap put on the income you are making it easy for the shoe/apparel companies that have already put a black eye on college sports free reign to come in and hand out endorsement deals to select prospects.
USC just became a contender for the national championship again.
I have not read the bill yet but does the residency of the athlete come into play?
History tells us that schools and athletes will find a way to abuse this. History also tells us that schools at our level will not benefit. Back in the good olâ days it was common for your star athletes to get paid during the summer to water the football field. That would be the field with the automatic sprinkler system.
This bill is not to help the athletes, it is to get Gov. Newsom publicity on a national scale, and endear him to labor unions that have wanted to organize these kids for years, and get their fingers in the NCAA pie.
It passed the legislature unanimously.
FWIW, this bill did NOT originate from the governorâs office. Passed both houses of California Assembly with NO dissenting votes, so received unanimous bipartisan support.
And FWIW part 2, the Congressman from North Carolina - Mark Walker of Greensboro - who is attempting to get similar legislation passed on the national level, is a Republican.
Interesting tidbits I did not know, especially the NC one.
Hits the nail on the head!
1 Like
California passed this bill in part because college sports are slowing dying there. The games do not draw well and they receive little media attention because the professional teams garner all the attention. California athletes tend to go to college out of state where college games are more important.
California fans and administrators think this bill will reverse the recruiting exodus and the next Zion Williamson will attend Stanford, UCLA, or Cal. (SC is already paying kids and their families.)
Other states and Congress will address Californiaâs advantage and pass similar legislation.
The money will come from the colleges indirectly. If Nike has to pay $1,000,000 when a 1 and done is on campus, that money will come out of the schoolâs allotment.
clt says after the UNC CHeat scandal, just blow it all up
FV, going to have to respectfully disagree with you somewhat. The college administrators are NOT in favor of this, as exhibited by the Pac-12âs response to SB 206.
And with one and done apparently on the way out, that wonât be applicable once players are again allowed to directly jump to the NBA from high school.
The problem with this is companies will be dictating where the kids go. Kid may WANT to go to Kentucky. Kentucky may want the kid to come play for them. But NIKE wants the kid to play at Carolina. Kid gets big endorsement contract from Nike IF he goes to Carolina.
Or even worse - say one of our recruits turns out to be a diamond worthy of endorsement. But only if he transfers to Carolina.
clt says this is already happening. Jordan brand is giving out basketball shoes to football players as recruiting perk
Exactly. In basketball, shoe companies are already driving kids to certain programs. They might also save money continuing to do it under the table as compared to paying a fair market value for an endorsement. I donât see this changing the landscape of recruiting all that much, but it could keep some kids home in CA.
What will create large changes will be when other states start adopting the same thing. We see this all the time. One state passes something that gets a a lot of press and other states want to jump on. The fact there doesnât seem to be a political divide between parties on this means that could happen blazingly fast.
On the open market, could any current 49er athlete make enough money selling their name, image or likeness to pay their cell phone bill? I suspect no more than half of Duke basketballâs starting line up in any given year could make any real money.
I donât like where this is heading, but it may be turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing. Probably the only thing that comes from this is players start showboating to drive up their personal value, and stop playing as a part of a team. In the pros that would get you benched. At most colleges coaches would have to turn their heads and live with it.
I think youâd be surprised what local companies would think of as ways to get our athletes involved in some sort of promotion or ad campaign. Wherever you have lumps of people supporting an entity, then there is value being associated with that entity. Getting a few players to show up here or be on some billboards there could add up quickly for our best players.
Where there are eyes, thereâs money to be made, and thousands of eyes are on these guys every weekend in the fall. Companies will leverage that in their marketing if it earns them a dime.
I think this opens the door to a lot of things. Where there is money there will be power and corruption. A player will definitely need a lawyer (AKA Agent) to go through the contract terms for these image deals. Most players/parents would be wise to do so when entering a contract. Then they will need an accountant to handle the finances, tax implications, etc⊠Probably prior to that or shortly after there will be marketing people that are looking out for these types of opportunities. This is new business revenue for more people than the athletes and ask yourself how many of those people care about anything but the money.