Fair Pay to Play Act

[zippyGT]

The ruin of our favorite sport as we know it. I can't believe some of you are on board for this. These kids get a FULL SCHOLARSHIP to play football. Could they use more stipens for food and travel? Yes! They do need more help in that department. But to pay them? They will lose all incintive to give it 100 on the field. Mark my words.

You’re not thinking far enough. What happens when the requirement to be a student is gone?

 

[BrentwoodJacket]

You’re not thinking far enough. What happens when the requirement to be a student is gone?

It is already gone at most top 25 schools.

 

[floridajacket]

Sorry for the reddit lawyering here. Real lawyers such as @18in32 can disagree or whatever.

NCAA v Miller had similar facts. The state of Nevada tried to regulate how COI hearings were conducted to protect University of Nevada. The law was struck down as an unlawful restraint on interstate commerce at the state level.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/795/1476/2596428/

For California, the contract between the NCAA and UCLA says that UCLA must not allow players to take endorsement deals. The contract says UCLA must take steps necessary to prevent players from getting endorsement deals, such as UCLA's contract with players for their scholarships. If the UCLA knows about player endorsement deals, their contract with NCAA requires reporting the deal to NCAA. The NCAA may require the player to be barred from competition. If UCLA does not bar the player, it is in breach of the contract.

There are no issues with either NCAA/UCLA or UCLA/player contracts in contract law and so the CA law could probably be struck down as restraint on interstate trade. But there is also antitrust law.

NCAA v O'Bannon is a tortured ruling which says that the NCAA cannot have restraints on compensation from schools to players below the full "cost of attendance." However, the NCAA's restraints on cash payment above "cost of attendance" is perfectly fine because the NCAA concept of "amateurism" is in fact procompetitive. The court reasoned the restraints on excess cash payments created demand for college sports which would not exist if players were paid. The procompetitive effects of amateurism even allowed the NCAA to restrict players from receiving cash from EA for their likenesses.

https://casetext.com/case/obannon-v-natl-collegiate-athletic-assn-10?ref=Sb!eZ8FDy

The case only applies so far in the 9th circuit and the SC did not grant cert. So who knows if another circuit could rule different. As it stands, the precedents in 9th circuit would strike down the CA law and allow NCAA restraints on cash compensation from any source for players' likeness, as long as compensation meets the full cost of attendance.

The dissent in O'Bannon gives reasons why I think O'Bannon was wrong. It's not clear that allowing players to receive outside compensation for their likeness would be so awful for the sport. Meanwhile, the anticompetitive effects of restricting all schools and players from outside compensation are obvious. And man, the status quo is extremely inequitable. The sums of money for TV contracts and licensing are orders of magnitude more than value given to players through scholarships, coaching, etc.

Sure, it's not a clear cut case. A court can reasonably strike down the CA law on interstate commerce grounds and not use the Sherman Antitrust Act. But also, in a sane world, the NCAA should just get its head out of its ass and allow the players to get paid. The NCAA isn't required to have these restraints in their contracts.

 

[GTCrew]

If the players get paid, then I'm pretty sure we truly will have to hang it up.

The current imbalance isnt good at all, but at least we have a chance.

If some idiot court rules for pay because the imbalance is unfair, then maybe we will get a minor league of football (and basketball) where the handful of schools with $200million budgets buy the best team they can buy and the rest of us restructure as a league of well funded club sport football (and basketball).

 

[savbandjacket]

If the players get paid, then I'm pretty sure we truly will have to hang it up.

The current imbalance isnt good at all, but at least we have a chance.

If some idiot court rules for pay because the imbalance is unfair, then maybe we will get a minor league of football (and basketball) where the handful of schools with $200million budgets buy the best team they can buy and the rest of us restructure as a league of well funded club sport football (and basketball).

That’s why I said they must institute a salary cap if they are going to do this. And cut teams back to smaller teams to spread talent around.

 

[ThomsonJacket]

That's great for the 5% of college players who will get endorsement offers etc..

 

[gtGreg768b]

That’s why I said they must institute a salary cap if they are going to do this. And cut teams back to smaller teams to spread talent around.

Will it be easier to cheat and pay players more to circumvent the salary cap once they are already being paid?

The NCAA has already been shown itself to be impotent with regard to enforcement when it comes to any revenue generating team.

 

[flushed 01]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports...-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-law-fair-pay-play-act


Im sure this has been discussed but how the hell is this going to work.

Of course Lebrons bitch ass is babbling about this.

I think this is not a good thing for college sports

 

[smokey_wasp]

That's great for the 5% of college players who will get endorsement offers etc..

Exactly. This isn't actually paying players to play. Just allowing them to make money on the free market if they are able. Only a very small number of players in the whole country would see significant earning opportunity from this, even if it went nationwide. The vast majority aren't going to be able to hire an agent or have time to set up their own business deals. They may make tens of dollars at an autograph signing or something.

 

[GTCrew]

Exactly. This isn't actually paying players to play. Just allowing them to make money on the free market if they are able. Only a very small number of players in the whole country would see significant earning opportunity from this, even if it went nationwide.

Wrong about "very small number" and what is most important is that the big schools would have their top players making millions and kids would follow that chance to the big schools.

I do expect it would be a boon for the Big 10, where Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, would be able to buy the southern athletes better than they do now.

Also Oregon and Notre Dame, and very possibly Syracuse could make a huge move up with those markets (and Nike).

 

[savbandjacket]

Exactly. This isn't actually paying players to play. Just allowing them to make money on the free market if they are able. Only a very small number of players in the whole country would see significant earning opportunity from this, even if it went nationwide. The vast majority aren't going to be able to hire an agent or have time to set up their own business deals. They may make tens of dollars at an autograph signing or something.

You’d see every starter at uga with at least some endorsement deal from some bubba ditch digging company in southwest Georgia. Companies would be free to pay whatever they wanted to steer players to certain colleges. Who cares whether the likeness is ever used for any purpose later?

 

[coit]

If the amateur institutions hold their ground , then the professional football and basketball leagues will have to go the way of baseball and invest in professional development of their athletes

This seems like the best solution to me. Let the NFL and NBA establish formal farm systems and draft kids right out of HS. Leave college sports to the amateurs.

 

[ThomsonJacket]

Wrong about "very small number" and what is most important is that the big schools would have their top players making millions and kids would follow that chance to the big schools.

I do expect it would be a boon for the Big 10, where Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, would be able to buy the southern athletes better than they do now.

Also Oregon and Notre Dame, and very possibly Syracuse could make a huge move up with those markets (and Nike).

Name 5 players on any college team of the top of your head, that aren't GT players.

Granted this would allow big money boosters to "hire/endorse* as many players as they can afford.

 

[Killick]

Name 5 players on any college team of the top of your head, that aren't GT players.

Granted this would allow big money boosters to "hire/endorse* as many players as they can afford.

Or buy their jerseys, etc. "I'll pay you, Mr 5 Star, $100,000 for every Georgia Tech mouth piece you wear in a game, and put it on display in my Real Estate Office to make sure it is a business expense."

 

[Walton]

I think the issue with this will be the locker room: some getting paid, some getting paid a ton, while others don't have money for anything outside of what Tech provides for them. I'm not sure that is manageable.

Also, it has to lead to at least a few huge contracts for young players. What is the point of a million dollar contract for a player like Lawrence and allowing him to play for Clemson? If he is that good, then wouldn't you want to take the risk of injury anyway.

If you say he is ONLY worth that money by developing and proving himself at Clemson, then you make the point that Clemson and NCAA football is providing something of value to these players.

 

[ramblinwise1]

So it sounds like an NCAA challenge to the CA law is inevitable. Fed courts could support the NCAA or open Pandora's box for pay everywhere. It seems impossible to speculate what will come out of this, but I'm not one to think the current situation is OK and doesn't need fixing. I've always been an advocate of breaking the non-compete of forcing NFL wannabees to play college ball.

I bet the NCAA approaches CA to see if they can craft some version of this that could be applied to all states via changes to NCAA rules. I believe CA delayed implementation of this for several years to get other states to join in. Lets hope that something better emerges from this but I'm all for busting up the NCAA racket.

 

[midatlantech]

So Welcome to the NFL Minor Leagues. If the NFL doesn't take control of this, then others will and eventually it will grow to a competitive league with the NFL.

Obviously it will ruin college sports as we know them. There has been major investments just made by schools who are going to be seriously at risk for paying those bills if and when the world changes. I just don't see Alabama playing in front of 90,000 people any more. Or maybe Bama will, but the next step down is going to be 20,000 fans...which may be a good thing actually.

Again, the big loser here is going to be all the secondary sports as boosters will pay direct to players and schools won't have the income they had before.

 

[GTCrew]

So Welcome to the NFL Minor Leagues. If the NFL doesn't take control of this, then others will and eventually it will grow to a competitive league with the NFL.

Obviously it will ruin college sports as we know them. There has been major investments just made by schools who are going to be seriously at risk for paying those bills if and when the world changes. I just don't see Alabama playing in front of 90,000 people any more.

I do not follow. Alabama's 90k would be in the "NFL minor league" 100% if there is such a thing. Question is who will join them? Is Vandy still down for being cannon fodder? Would the ACC all go? The academic schools might pass.

Or maybe Bama will, but the next step down is going to be 20,000 fans...which may be a good thing actually.

True. Exhibit A is the "big" empty ivy stadiums.

Again, the big loser here is going to be all the secondary sports as boosters will pay direct to players and schools won't have the income they had before.

Very interesting point. What % of donations are "seat fees" vs just a donation?

 

[Flywheel]

Yes there is. People in California will watch March Madness even if no team is in.

Evidence?

They have skin in the current game as well. This is a stupid argument you are making.

Missed the point.

YES, it is a captive market. Thats why antitrust is their argument.

Except the last BCS showed otherwise. Poor ratings led to the existence of the CFP to better distribute the competition for the title. After one bad year with the all-SEC rematch, it happened like lightning after decades of "but the students" arguments from the NCAA. The NCAA may have a lockdown on college sports for now, but college sports demonstrably doesn't have a lockdown on entertainment money.

No, they make more money off the new system.

Missed the point wildly. See above.

You arent that good at math are you? The pot will go down a miniscule amount. California will still have millions of eyeballs watching, but few or no California schools will participate and therefore California as a whole will get less pay out than those eyeballs are worth.

Whether the pot goes down is more subjective than objective at this point, so it's not a math problem.

Take a poll. I think very few of us want to see the competition get worse. Because if this goes through, there will only be a small handful of huge state schools who have any chance whatsoever.

I don't want to see it get worse either. I just don't think there's much room for it to get worse. Since the advent of the BCS, only 12 teams have won the national title, 6 of them multiple times, none of them for the first time, and they all have budgets that greatly exceed the average. Worrying about lack of competition is like being nuts about using Purelle when you only eat expired food.

I hope there's a middle ground that can be found rather than burning it all down (salary caps, limits to forms of income, a few ideas are out there). The point I'm making is that the NCAA would not be wise to dismiss this and ban Cali from postseason play. This stopped being amateur sports a long time ago. I think most would agree with me there, and one need only peruse the annual football budget for Alabama to see the proof. The sooner the NCAA recognizes that rather than sweeps it under the rug, the less likely there'll be a collegiate version of the Camp Fire with Congress involved, or a new lawsuit, or both. We'd all be losers in that scenario.

 

[GTCrew]

You need evidence to believe Californians would watch March Madness even without a California team in the game?

Okeydokie. I just hope you arent designing bridges.