These bills seem to all be based on use of the athletes name, publicity etc.
Just wonder if that actually helps GT because of being in Atl. Does it help schools located in big metro areas over the more rural located schools? I don't know, just wonder.
Good point. I like the California law. The hypocrisy of NCAA regulations and enforcement simply supports the status quo. Top revenue producers are protected while those that might threaten them are punished. So, I had started arguing for paying athletes their market price to play. But, that would have hurt schools that are not flush with cash. It would have likely divided schools into more divisions based on their ability and willingness to pay.
With this law the schools don’t have to come up with the money. The only revenue loss to the school might be some payment for selling a jersey number or athletes might get a little cash from the NCAA for video game images. But, they can make a commercial, sell an autograph, get employment to represent a company or product, including shoe/apparel companies.
This will give an advantage to big, high profile programs. But, it will also give some advantage to programs in large media markets. It should also be a plus for schools with connections to large companies willing to spend some cash on using college athletes for promotion. The big issue will be if players sue for revenue sharing on media contracts, a suit the players would likely win.
This will change college athletics. But, we should have some advantages being in Atlanta and with our corporate connections. We have to be prepared to use these advantages.