NCAA threatens to boot the whole state of California if bill becomes law

[Townie72]

State Schools are private organizations?

I see the point. I'll have to ask my lawyer buddy who literally scoffed at the idea. He also had comments about the ignorance and gullibility of the American public and its never ending susceptability to manipulation by politicians.
There are limits to what Governments are allowed to do when it comes to contracts.

 

[Hoo's That]

State Schools are private organizations?

I see the point. I'll have to ask my lawyer buddy who literally scoffed at the idea. He also had comments about the ignorance and gullibility of the American public and its never ending susceptability to manipulation by politicians.
There are limits to what Governments are allowed to do when it comes to contracts.

The NCAA is the private organization. The State of California, by enacting this law, is telling the NCAA that they can't punish any players or schools for allowing the players to receive money for endorsements or use of their likeness, etc. They way it could be argued by the NCAA - By being members, the schools have entered into a contract with the NCAA that they won't allow the payments and the State is interfering with that contract by saying that the players can get money. This type of state action was barred in 1819 by the Supreme Court's decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward., based on the contracts clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1), "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ..." Daniel Webster, an alum, represented Dartmouth.

The law should be thrown out on its face, without arguments or briefs.

 

[NKR1978]

I see the point. I'll have to ask my lawyer buddy who literally scoffed at the idea. He also had comments about the ignorance and gullibility of the American public and its never ending susceptability to manipulation by politicians.
There are limits to what Governments are allowed to do when it comes to contracts.

Governments can decide that terms of a contract are unconscionable. The notion of forever giving away rights to your name and likeness for activities performed in college is pretty unconscionable to me, and I think that could hold up muster.

And as pointed out, the state would certainly have the right to dictate that its university system not deny students the right to make money off of their own name and likeness.

Perhaps the NCAA can win...but then what are the consequences? Are UCLA and Cal kicked out of the NCAA? Does the Pac 12 just lose two of its biggest schools?

What happens when other states force the issue and state that their state university systems can't deny the right to its students to make money off their name and likeness? The NCAA is out of its mind if it isn't nervous.

 

[djcon57]

the pros have this business model and already have the same issue of haves vs havents.. this will take it from 40 teams with a mild shot to about 10..

You believe 40 teams RIGHT NOW have a shot at a title? I don’t even think 40 diff teams have been in elite bowls games in the past 10 years

 

[Townie72]

The NCAA is the private organization. The State of California, by enacting this law, is telling the NCAA that they can't punish any players or schools for allowing the players to receive money for endorsements or use of their likeness, etc. They way it could be argued by the NCAA - By being members, the schools have entered into a contract with the NCAA that they won't allow the payments and the State is interfering with that contract by saying that the players can get money. This type of action was barred in 1819 by the Supreme Court's decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Daniel Webster, an alum, represented Dartmouth.

Thanks.

That sounds like my friend's point.

Schools aren't about to leave the NCAA so their athletes can get this money.

And they probably recognize this opens up yet another Pandora's Box with unintended consequences all over the place.

 

[NKR1978]

What I don't get is the argument that it's all happening now!
There are drugs(real drugs) on the streets so just make them all legal!

I'm ok with that.

But making it so people can make money and pay taxes on that money isn't quite the same as cyrstal meth.

 

[Townie72]

Government's can decide that terms of a contract are unconscionable. The notion of forever giving away rights to your name and likeness for activities performed in college is pretty unconscionable to me, and I think that could hold up muster.

And as pointed out, the state would certainly have the right to dictate that its university system not deny students the right to make money off of their own name and likeness.

Perhaps the NCAA can win...but then what are the consequences? Are UCLA and Cal kicked out of the NCAA? Does the Pac 12 just lose two of its biggest schools?

What happens when other states force the issue and state that their state university systems can't deny the right to its students to make money off their name and likeness? The NCAA is out of its mind if it isn't nervous.

Why should the NCAA care?

Sounds like it would be a boon to them. More lawyers, more staff members required to supervise this. Sounds like a bureaucrats dream.

I mean other thinking its a wrong-headed thing that it's members abhor because they know it will be nearly impossible to control and police. They've been trying for years to insulate these programs from outside / booster involvement. This will be heading in the other direction at warp speed. (You may have read about Nike and its games in the recent past. This would be like that, except on steroids.)

I can imagine what'll happen at schools like Louisville with a huge fan base and a desire to raise it's visibility and reputation for anything but Academics.

And does anyone actually believe that this can be fenced off to the Revenue sports?

First of all, I can make any sport "profitable" or "non Profitable" based on internal accounting. But beyond that if you don't think that the women will get the same benefit and eventually the same money, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[NKR1978]

Why should the NCAA care?

Sounds like it would be a boon to them. More lawyers, more staff members required to supervise this. Sounds like a bureaucrats dream.

I mean other thinking its a wrong-headed thing that it's members abhor because they know it will be nearly impossible to control and police. They've been trying for years to insulate these programs from outside / booster involvement. This will be heading in the other direction at warp speed. (You may have read about Nike and its games in the recent past. This would be like that, except on steroids.)

I can imagine what'll happen at schools like Louisville with a huge fan base and a desire to raise it's visibility and reputation for anything but Academics.

And does anyone actually believe that this can be fenced off to the Revenue sports?

First of all, I can make any sport "profitable" or "non Profitable" based on internal accounting. But beyond that if you don't think that the women will get the same benefit and eventually the same money, you haven't been paying attention.

The NCAA would care if the state universities in Texas, Florida, South Carolina, California, Alabama and Georgia are banned from NCAA competition and play anyway because the TV contracts are more important. There's no way ESPN, Fox and CBS would allow the NCAA to fully ban major schools from important states.

Why on would this be fenced off to revenue sports? A lot of Olympic athletes who become very marketable every four years also happen to be NCAA athletes. They now would have the right to make money off themselves. Hometown heroes who go on to play a big time sport could do autograph sessions or make appearances at their local Dairy Queen for $50 and a free milkshake without having to worry about NCAA eligibility. There have been UConn women's players over the years that would have been extremely well compensated for their name and likeness. Rebecca Lobo might have been one of the highest paid players in the country in 1995 if she were allowed to profit off her celebrity.

 

[RandomGuy]

The NCAA is the private organization. The State of California, by enacting this law, is telling the NCAA that they can't punish any players or schools for allowing the players to receive money for endorsements or use of their likeness, etc. They way it could be argued by the NCAA - By being members, the schools have entered into a contract with the NCAA that they won't allow the payments and the State is interfering with that contract by saying that the players can get money. This type of state action was barred in 1819 by the Supreme Court's decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward., based on the contracts clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1), "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ..." Daniel Webster, an alum, represented Dartmouth.

The law should be thrown out on its face, without arguments or briefs.

Interesting. Judge Wilken recently ruled that the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws. Would that change things?(illegal contract) Assuming that ruling stands?

FWIW. That ruling did say the ncaa was in violation, but stopped just short of paying players. Instead, it allowed additional educational compensation to players. (NCAA model did not pass legal muster)
Have a music class? Here's a grand piano. Music appreciation? Here's a $20000 stereo. Business class? Here's a biz...(ohh wait) Another can of worms, but you get the idea.

Judge rules NCAA can't cap athlete compensation 'related to education,' neither side happy with decision

The NCAA lost a ruling in a student-athlete compensation on Friday night, but the judge's decision was limited

www.google.com

 

[Scooch]

I think anyone who thinks this an open and shut case is delusional. Particularly anyone who suggests that the NCAA isn't concerned.

 

[Moontan]

They'd still be a student and students are subject to the Title IX laws. They need to not be a student in order to "have a higher stipend" than other athletes.

How can a school provide stipends to cover the total cost of attendance when the people in question are not students?

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[HtownOrange]

Interesting. Judge Wilken recently ruled that the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws. Would that change things?(illegal contract) Assuming that ruling stands?

FWIW. That ruling did say the ncaa was in violation, but stopped just short of paying players. Instead, it allowed additional educational compensation to players. (NCAA model did not pass legal muster)
Have a music class? Here's a grand piano. Music appreciation? Here's a $20000 stereo. Business class? Here's a biz...(ohh wait) Another can of worms, but you get the idea.

Judge rules NCAA can't cap athlete compensation 'related to education,' neither side happy with decision

The NCAA lost a ruling in a student-athlete compensation on Friday night, but the judge's decision was limited

www.google.com

Title IX disagrees.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I'm ok with that.

But making it so people can make money and pay taxes on that money isn't quite the same as cyrstal meth.

Plus athletes make money off their image in just about every market. We're not talking about legalizing something that is illegal in most other places.

 

[Townie72]

I think anyone who thinks this an open and shut case is delusional. Particularly anyone who suggests that the NCAA isn't concerned.

Oh, they definitely ought to be concerned. Anytime politicians are involved in anything, whoever might be affected ought to be very concerned. And this is a politician from California.

As we all should know, politicians are driven by press coverage, voter sentiment and graft. Actually fixing a problem is low on their priority list.

A guaranteed Townie prediction is that anythong politicians come up with will make things worse. They'll declare victory and throw a gigantic bag of crap over the fence for the NCAA and the schools to manage.

People don't appear to like or trust the NCAA. But Ill take them every time over the fools, theives and knaves in the US Congress or any state legisl

 

[NKR1978]

Oh, they definitely ought to be concerned. Anytime politicians are involved in anything, whoever might be affected ought to be very concerned. And this is a politician from California.

As we all should know, politicians are driven by press coverage, voter sentiment and graft. Actually fixing a problem is low on their priority list.

A guaranteed Townie prediction is that anythong politicians come up with will make things worse. They'll declare victory and throw a gigantic bag of crap over the fence for the NCAA and the schools to manage.

People don't appear to like or trust the NCAA. But Ill take them every time over the fools, theives and knaves in the US Congress or any state legisl

All California did was to allow athletes to have the same rights as any other student. There's really nothing for the NCAA to do or clean up. The NCAA is just whining because they and their members wont get their cut.

The NCAA has lost the trust of the people through its own actions. It's up there with the IOC and FIFA as the three most corrupt organizations in sports. It's comical to see the non-profit with its president making over $1m a year and flying private jets for meetings and conferences complain about the athletes getting a bigger piece of the pie. The NCAA doesn't care about amateurism or integrity, it cares about maximizing profits for itself and its member institutions. And that's fine, but they've dragged their feet too long and now they're going to have a solution forced down their throats .

 

[maxxyz]

How can a school provide stipends to cover the total cost of attendance when the people in question are not students?

It wouldn't be a stipend, it would be a paycheck as they would be an employee, not a student. I was trying to get that point across by putting "higher stipend" in parenthesis. Sorry for being confusing.

 

[RandomGuy]

Title IX disagrees.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Examining the Broader Fallout After the Historic Grant-in-Aid Cap Ruling Against the NCAA

Taking a look at the potential legal fallout from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s historic ruling and what it would mean for subjects such as Title IX, tax law, immigration law and sports betting law.

www.google.com

 

[TheCusian]

Oh, they definitely ought to be concerned. Anytime politicians are involved in anything, whoever might be affected ought to be very concerned. And this is a politician from California.

As we all should know, politicians are driven by press coverage, voter sentiment and graft. Actually fixing a problem is low on their priority list.

A guaranteed Townie prediction is that anythong politicians come up with will make things worse. They'll declare victory and throw a gigantic bag of crap over the fence for the NCAA and the schools to manage.

People don't appear to like or trust the NCAA. But Ill take them every time over the fools, theives and knaves in the US Congress or any state legisl

Reading through the lines of your distaste for government and you bring up.. some.. ok - no, it's just a distaste for government

 

[NKR1978]

 

[RandomGuy]

SEC and ACC... Get ready.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I've thought that schools should offer a major in Athletics. Seems silly to me that we make kids pretend that they are students. Some are, and those should totally take advantage of the opportunities they get. Some aren't, and the lengths that schools go to keep them eligible tarnishes the academic integrity of the school.

I mean, my wife was a music major. SU didn't make her pretend to be an academic major while she played trumpet in the symphonic band.

Many schools do, including most of our State colleges here in NYS. That's where gym teachers come from.

 

[Townie72]

Reading through the lines of your distaste for government and you bring up.. some.. ok - no, it's just a distaste for government

I'm not alone.

Pew Survey: 17% trust Government to do the right thing some or all of the time.

Gallop Poll: 11% trust Congress to do the right thing.

This is going to be a fiasco. Grandstanding politicians and legal struggles. Let's hope the NCAA prevails. They are the lesser of two evils in this.

 

[Crusty]

Governments can decide that terms of a contract are unconscionable. The notion of forever giving away rights to your name and likeness for activities performed in college is pretty unconscionable to me, and I think that could hold up muster.

And as pointed out, the state would certainly have the right to dictate that its university system not deny students the right to make money off of their own name and likeness.

Perhaps the NCAA can win...but then what are the consequences? Are UCLA and Cal kicked out of the NCAA? Does the Pac 12 just lose two of its biggest schools?

What happens when other states force the issue and state that their state university systems can't deny the right to its students to make money off their name and likeness? The NCAA is out of its mind if it isn't nervous.

Contracts are voided all the time on the basis of the doctrine of public policy. Not in the public interest etc.

 

[Crusty]

Other than NYS and SC have any other states introduced legislation similar to California's?
Edit: Add Florida