-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
California passes "Fair Pay to Play Act" bill, which would make it possible for college athletes to accept endorsement money
- Thread starter Neece
- Start date
That would be a lot more difficult as someone would then need to determine which non revenue sports would need to be eliminated as the football and basketball money would be used to pay athletes instead of funding other sports.
Would you like to tell the women's volleyball team they need to disband because the school needs to pay the defensive linemen?
I think endorsements might be the fairest way to have student athletes get paid. Obviously lacrosse or some shit is never going to bring in money so it doesn't make sense to pay them. But, it would be unfair if schools paid football or basketball players and not anyone else. Endorsements? The market decides and pays the best players. Hell even a Lacrosse player could get payed if they are behind a success story or some shit.
This is not the market deciding, this is still all the schools colluding together to not pay their workforce, just being slightly less assholes if those kids make money from a side gig (and think of the nerves of the NCAA to even demand that they don't do that).
I think everyone should get paid minimum wage, above that, I'm fine with letting the market decide how much does a five star QB recruit is worth for schools. I'm gonna guess the answer is slightly above a cost of a scholarship.
Big money college sports subsidize the smaller sports, the exorbitant salaries of coaching/athletic staff, and make the University a healthy profit. This isn't an either/or situation, and any school that tried to paint it as such should be rightfully raked over the coals.
Paying 100 kids $15/hr (hypothetically) isn't going to wipe out Michigan's $12 billion endowment. The football team by itself makes an estimated $125 million per year, $75 million of which is pure profit: https://www.wxyz.com/sports/michigan-the-third-most-valuable-college-football-team-in-the-country
OP
OP
Maybe he's competing for terrible take of the year, you don't know!
It depends on the school. X school may not have a good football team but they have the top girls soccer team in the country. So then that school donors would be paying girls soccer players etc or their rival donors could give endorsements to take the players away etc
There are plenty of sports that are big time but don't get shown on TV
If the school stopped colluding to suppress athletes wages, many of them will make way way more than minimum wage.
Minimum wage is just the floor it should be illegal to pay them below.
Also, being a college football player is a full time job.
Major schools would love to be able to pay top football and basketball players. Why do you think there so many recruiting violations, fake jobs for blue chip families, ect. They just can't legally afford to do it because of title 9.
Of course they are. Doesn't mean some schools won't try to weasel out of it. Plenty of work places have unpaid training, conferences and travel. Practice and meetings can become non mandatory. Good luck getting into a game if you don't go.
Title IX does not prevent schools from paying athletes. It's perfectly legal to pay them (in fact, I am unsure how it is legal to not pay them, but that's a different story).
The schools literally colluded together and said no one will play any school that pay their aesthetes.
If USC decided to start paying paying their football team tomorrow, the feds are not gonna come and arrest the AD or anything. But the NCAA will sanction them out of competition.
It's collusion to suppress wages, plain and simple, and if all the schools stopped doing it (or let's be real, be made to stop doing ti) a lot of of those athletes are gonna get paid a whole lot of money.
There's a reason why I used the term legally afford.
Major schools can pay their revenue generating players heck many try to do it secretly. That same USC you mention secretly tried to pay their top players got caught and penalized and lost a national championship because of it.
Most though can't afford to pay all their student athletes what top football players are worth. Which title 9 would require.
Title IX does not require pay equality.
Duke doesn't pay Joanne McCallie. the same salary as Coach K.
You can argue that it should, but it's not how the government and the courts interpret it.
Seriously, they just don't want to play their workforce because they're greedy assholes.
Title 9 specifically states all athlete regardless of gender have the have the same benefits.
No it wouldn't.
No, it doesn't. This is just the NCAA summary of a DoE regulation. Its silly to think it would be the same in the event the NCAA ceased being an exploitative cartel and players became employees.
Last edited:
Fuck the NCAA and their FAQs, this is the text of Title IX -
You can argue that the use here of "benefits" means equal pay, but NCAA argued in court that it isn't when women coaches sued them for equal pay. And they won.
So far, the courts haven't agreed with you, for example, the USWNT, which is most certainly an activity receiving federal financial assistance, is getting paid waaaaaaaay less than their men counterparts.
This is just an NCAA talking point, it's bullshit, it's not that they can't pay, it's that they don't want to.
Nope. It's literally that.
Student athletes should have a union. But thanks to garbage loopholes the NCAA says they aren't "employees" and therefor not required to be paid. It makes as much sense as the NCAA being classified "non-profit."
How do you feel about coaches being pads millions while professors get a fraction?
Unpaid internships, which also heavily rely on college students to fill, need to be changed as well. Too many companies take advantage of unpaid labor from college students, without even offering them jobs when they're finished.
Today maybe. But what when the top talents decide to go to Californian teams because they can make money while in college. It can cause a big shift in teams.
If the NCAA yeeted CA, but CA paid its players, you'd see a lot of top players go to CA. The programs would probably end up being more talented than Clemson instead of having the talent of Duke.
College basketball kids would flock to CA. If there's not enough for the PAC12, there's the mid-majors. You got Mark Gottfried at Northridge, he'd find a way to cheat. College baseball might as well, especially since they don't get full rides.
Uber is also fighting this, claiming drivers aren't core to their business, which is laughable.
College basketball kids would flock to CA. If there's not enough for the PAC12, there's the mid-majors. You got Mark Gottfried at Northridge, he'd find a way to cheat. College baseball might as well, especially since they don't get full rides.
Uber is also fighting this, claiming drivers aren't core to their business, which is laughable.
I agree, without the California schools, the pac-12 would have a hard time justifying a P5 exemption. I could see Oregon and Washington having the clout to land in other power 5 conferences
Maybe, But college football is driven by the likes of Clemson and the SEc the past decade.
What money are they going to make if the NCAA kicks them out (not saying they could or would), just hypothetically speaking. What kind of endorsements are you going to get if you are not playing on a new year's bowl game?
NCAA kicking them out would jumpstart the end of the NCAA. Colleges don't need the NCAA and the power 5 could easily create their own thing. They could bowl ban Californian teams I guess but you will still get plenty of exposure/endorsements without that.
Athletes already get paid big money. They get a free education, living space, food, suits, shoes...... the list goes on and on. The real problem is the sport is making millions and its only going to coaches and chairmen and not being put back into the school. So many people could go to college for free if all the money being made was put back into the school.
This could get interesting. NCAA is threatening to ban any California colleges from participating in the playoffs and I suppose other bowl games.
College Athletics is like one of those things that the less you think about how exploitative it is, the better. It's like Sumo. Sumo is horribly exploitative and tantamount to indentured servitude in 2019. Maybe there's something appealing about the spartan conditions in which young aspiring sumo train, until you hear how their seniors abuse them. Finally came to a head when a kid was literally beaten to death by his seniors in 2007.
We just need to enforce the rules we already have on the books.
Those things are not really legal, we just let companies get away with that because PrO bUsInEsS.
wasnt he specifically the highest paid employee in all of Alabama?
yup! state and overall. alabama, this is your zenith apparently. https://www.al.com/news/2018/04/nick_saban_is_countrys_highest.html
kentuckys is the ceo of the kentucky derby. of course it is.
I have no problem with a college not paying a student outside of their scholarship and any benefits that come wit it.
I also have no problem with a student-athlete profiting off of their own likeness and making money on their own. The NCAA should allow that but of course they drag their feet.
I also have no problem with a student-athlete profiting off of their own likeness and making money on their own. The NCAA should allow that but of course they drag their feet.
And then you get injured, lose your scholarship, and the school throws you aside like so much refuse. You of course can't hold a real job for spending money or pursue other cultured interests during the school year because of the time and travel commitment. Or more commonly, you squeeze through with a C- average taking joke level classes and have no real marketable skills or savings when you don't win the lottery of making it pro.
It's a dangerous form of labor with unreliable security. Like doing heavy construction work for 2-4 years before entering a lottery to keep your job, and if you get injured they just let you go.They should absolutely be paid and taken care of even if they don't go pro, and I don't even like sports. It's about treating people who are barely adults fairly and compassionately.
To be fair Nick Saban has long been an advocate for players' rights and compensation for play.But what will happen to the sanctity of college sports if they are allowed to make money on endorsements?
He just can't do anything about it under the current ruleset.
Should athletes be paid out from the athletic department on a level scale or based on the profit generated from each individual sport?
Men's football players / basketball players would make far more than Women's Lacrosse or Men's Wrestling. Now if there is a need to make up for funding that athletics typically provide, unprofitable sports may get cut, is the argument.
Profit generated per sport imo.
They can appeal to the generosity of their athletes like how they panhandle their alumni for donations.
I'd also support something more radical like an athletes union where the athletes themselves choose how to divide profit among the sports, but I doubt the collegiate sport scene is ready for seizing the means of production.
OP
OP
Do schools still strip injured athletes of their scholarships? I follow my college football team and every year there are a few that get disqualified by team doctors and prematurely end their career but they always retain their scholarship as a Medically DQed athlete that stays on scholly but doesn't count against the scholarship limit. Hell they've been giving full scholarships to high school recruits that committed but got hurt and medically DQed before they got to campus.
But I'm not sure how widespread or common this is. I'd assume most of the FBS schools do it.
I don't hate profit, I just hate it when profit isn't going to laborers.
The NCAA will have to heavily reconsider this if prime athletes start flocking to California schools and they threaten to abandon the NCAA.
If top high school athletes go to CA college and sign a NIL promotional agreement then they are ineligible to play under NCAA competition. So while that diluted talent, the the NCAA doesn't care. That said, they probably dread losing the CA TV market which might be a massive blow financially. So presumably they will challenge the constitutionality of this law.
The NCAA bringing this to court would be laughable considering the athletes have never entered a collective bargaining agreement with the NCAA, and as they are ostensibly bound by state and federal laws, not the other way around.
If the NCAA wouldn't nuke the UNC, USC, or Penn State individual sports programs after egregious violations, they aren't going to suddenly tell all of Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA to kick rocks.