Jump to content

California Fair Pay To Play Act


PAC MAN

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, azgreg said:

There's something I don't understand about this. Was there a state or federal law in place beforehand that prevented athletes from profiting on their likeness?

 

I believe laws like that would have been ruled unconstitutional and I don't recall such laws being in existence.

It has more to do with the NCAA saying that you cannot profit off of your likeness while you are playing in college and you cannot earn endorsement deals as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Downthefield said:

Here's Stuart Mandel's take (if you can read an article from The Athletic).

Link:  https://theathletic.com/1245743/2019/09/27/mandel-california-bill-is-not-the-existential-threat-ncaa-says-it-is/

 

New York is working on a similar law and South Carolina could be next.  The governor of Kentucky appeared to support such a law as well.

If this means NCAA football video games are coming back, I'm in support 110%!

15 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

I think the all-california championship tourneys in all sports are going to be great.

(and I bet the TV networks agree)

Just imagine all the advertising dollars those Humboldt State players would be getting as D2 football players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a matter of fairness to allow a player a cut of their jersey sales as CEOs of sports apparel companies (as well as coaches and administrators) get rich off of them.

The alternative is to cap the pay of all coaches, like we do with all other public employees.  An auditor for the Washington State Department of Revenue gets a certain salary that receives modest bumps over time for cost-of-living.  $37,500 with benefits or some such pittance.

Give college coaches $130k per year, plus benefits and PERS, and force private institutions to do the same if they want to play in the conference.  Then I could tolerate players only being paid in scholarships (and being denied the right to so much as work at Starbucks in the offseason).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

I wouldn’t say it doesn’t solve anything but yes, the free market will probably show that this doesn’t move the needle much.  

OTOH, maybe showing that the NCAA is full of shit is the point.

That's where I'm at with it.  Fuck the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RogueDuck said:

I'd bet money there is way more interest in a star player from Cal or Stanford doing the advertising for that local dealership.  Then having some kid from Humbolt St do it.  

Unless he or she from the local area, I bet you’re wrong.

most people in the Bay Area couldn’t name a player on Cal or Stanford, let alone people in Humboldt which is 325 miles and a universe away.

And how much of a budget do you think a local car dealerships’ budget is exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RogueDuck said:

A backup C, even if he was a former 5*, is never seeing a dime at SC.  Maybe if that same kid signs with OSU or UO, he would make money as a Fr, but if he can't start, that money will evaporate.

Things that never existed can’t evaporate.

Why would anyone have a back-up endorse their product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

Things that never existed can’t evaporate.

Why would anyone have a back-up endorse their product?

Because in a City like Pullman, Eugene, Corvallis or SLC.  Signing a 5* kid is a big deal.  I can guarantee that kid would be celebrated right away, and land some deals.  

 

Something that no one has brought up yet though.  If a business is paying some stat RB a ton of money, what's to keep that business from influencing the games?  

If a Auburn alum owned a company that is paying the star RB at bama for his likeness, and decides to tell him, hey you know that house we gave tour family?  We need you to fumble twice this week, and slip and fall if you might score, or they are out.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were nation-wide, it would provide an inherent (and unfair) advantage to schools with big media markets, where the $$$'s would flow for advertising face-time.  This means either major metro areas (e.g., Atlanta or L.A.) or schools with a crazed fan-base deeply into their college team (e.g., Nebraska, Bama, or Penn State) -- players would gravitate to those areas even more than now because of the heavy cash expectations.  Conversely, teams from Champagne-Urbana, Piscataway, or Corvallis would suffer because players would know their media markets wouldn't provide likely big paychecks to all but the very top performers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...