Author
Topic: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation
(Read 12483 times)

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #154 on:** October 02, 2019, 12:07:58 PM »

Ok... So we're all arguing about the law now. Might be a good time to post the law. Since you know the googles makes it pretty easy to find it...

Quote

SEC. 2.
Section 67456 is added to the Education Code, to read:

67456.
(a) (1) A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility.
(2) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a student of a postsecondary educational institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
(b) A postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics shall not provide a prospective student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness.
(c) (1) A postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics shall not prevent a California student participating in intercollegiate athletics from obtaining professional representation in relation to contracts or legal matters, including, but not limited to, representation provided by athlete agents or legal representation provided by attorneys.
(2) Professional representation obtained by student athletes shall be from persons licensed by the state. Professional representation provided by athlete agents shall be by persons licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 18895) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code. Legal representation of student athletes shall be by attorneys licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(3) Athlete agents representing student athletes shall comply with the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, established in Chapter 104 (commencing with Section 7801) of Title 15 of the United States Code, in their relationships with student athletes.
(d) A scholarship from the postsecondary educational institution in which a student is enrolled that provides the student with the cost of attendance at that institution is not compensation for purposes of this section, and a scholarship shall not be revoked as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation pursuant to this section.
(e) (1) A student athlete shall not enter into a contract providing compensation to the athlete for use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness if a provision of the contract is in conflict with a provision of the athlete’s team contract.
(2) A student athlete who enters into a contract providing compensation to the athlete for use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness shall disclose the contract to an official of the institution, to be designated by the institution.
(3) An institution asserting a conflict described in paragraph (1) shall disclose to the athlete or the athlete’s legal representation the relevant contractual provisions that are in conflict.
(f) A team contract of a postsecondary educational institution’s athletic program shall not prevent a student athlete from using the athlete’s name, image, or likeness for a commercial purpose when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities. It is the intent of the Legislature that this prohibition shall apply only to contracts entered into, modified, or renewed on or after the enactment of this section.
(g) For purposes of this section, “postsecondary educational institution” means any campus of the University of California or the California State University, an independent institution of higher education, as defined in Section 66010, or a private postsecondary educational institution, as defined in Section 94858.
(h) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2023.

In bold are the portions I think might not stand up in court. I think this basically is trying to regulate the NCAA, which would likely fail. It explicitly bars the NCAA from enforcing their own rules, and explicitly bars the NCAA from expelling California athletic programs from NCAA-sanctioned competition over their inability to comply with NCAA rules after this bill passes.

I think someone earlier posted Miller v NCAA, which was adjudicated on very similar grounds. It was a Nevada law that put a bunch of requirements on the NCAA as it relates to due process when taking enforcement actions, and barred the NCAA from expelling Nevada colleges and universities from NCAA competition. It was struck down easily, and a good portion of it [from reading the decision] was based on interstate commerce precedent.

The italicized portion likely affects what we're talking about regarding actually referencing the team or appearing in team uniform, etc. I.e. the team itself can say via a team contract that any use of likeness rights cannot use the university's name or official logos, uniform, etc. I would expect that this will be the case, if for no other reason that the university itself makes a great deal of money based on licensing, and to allow a loophole where people are using the university name/logo without the university getting a cut goes around that.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #155 on:** October 02, 2019, 12:14:40 PM »

Quote from: Riffraft on October 02, 2019, 11:52:03 AM

Trying to figure out the anti-trust violations in this. The NCAA doesn't require a school to be part of it for the school to have a football team. There are a number of college football organizations. If the NCAA kicks you out there is nothing to prevent you from forming your own football organization. There is no restrain of trade, the schools are free to get their own TV contracts, etc.

There has been talk for years about the upper level schools going out of their own separate from the NCAA for a number of years. If they did what can the NCAA do to stop them?

This is not the analysis used for antitrust violations. Instead:
(1) Define the market: in this case, the market for college athletes' services is a pretty easy market to see;
(2) Determine market share: the NCAA has the overwhelming share;
(3) Determine the litigant's market power (for markets that have more contested market shares, this analysis often turns on the litigant's ability take action that significantly impacts market pricing): with the overwhelming share of the market, the NCAA wields massive market power;
(4) Is the litigant using its (the NCAA's overwhelming) market power in anti-competitive ways, i.e., restricting competition for those college athletes' services? The argument in favor of giving more to the athletes says yes.

Where the NCAA fights its fight is primarily directed at defining the market (1). The NCAA says there is no college athletes' services market if there is no amateur college athletics--that amateurism is what makes the market. This argument has generally not gone well for the NCAA.

The NCAA also says that its restrictions are to the benefit of all college athletes (4), providing benefits to them that, without its set of rules to set an even playing field across college athletics, would not be available. You could call this the goose with the golden eggs theory.

Also, upon reading that text, it looks like the law is designed to establish a players' union to negotiate with the NCAA and member institutions over the player contracts.

FearlessF · « **Reply #156 on:** October 02, 2019, 02:36:37 PM »

CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany opposes the California bill that would prevent schools from penalizing athletes for capitalizing on their names, images and likenesses, saying college sports are "an educational arrangement."

"To me, the outer limit is the cost of college," Delany said during his remarks at Big Ten men's basketball media day. "Once we're beyond the cost of college, we're in pay-for-play and it's a totally different game."

Delany, who will retire at the end of year before Minnesota Vikings executive Kevin Warren takes over as commissioner on Jan. 1, 2020, said each level of competitive sports has its own guidelines and he's content with the current rules in college sports because "we're not the minor leagues."

"The student who plays athletics in the Big Ten is in school to receive an education first," Delany said. "There's an amazing opportunity to get a world-class education here and it's an amazing opportunity to compete in a great conference with great recognition."

rolltidefan · « **Reply #157 on:** October 02, 2019, 02:58:37 PM »

Quote from: Temp430 on October 02, 2019, 10:07:56 AM

I don't think colleges and universities should pay scholarship athletes for being athletes. But I guess I'm fine with a scholarship athlete taking a night job flipping pizzas or modeling his face. Any images of the athlete should not include school logos, unis, etc. unless the school gets a royalty as is the current case with t-shirts, caps, etc.

they can already do the pizza flipping, technically. realistically, the time demands don't really allow it, but that's not against the ncaa rules. but the pay must be comparable for the work done. can't get $50/hr flipping dough.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #158 on:** October 02, 2019, 03:31:05 PM »

An interesting case came up last year with UCF kicker Donald De La Haye.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/7/13/17565672/donald-de-la-haye-youtube-ncaa-deestroying

He was a YouTuber who had enough followers to monetize his YouTube channel, which included things that were sports/football related as well as things that were not sports-related at all.

Initially the NCAA ruled that he could satisfy the requirements by removing ads from his sports-related videos. But then it looks like they decided instead that he would have to remove ads from his YouTube channel (which ostensibly was seen as being tied to his likeness as a scholarship athlete) and that if he wanted to monetize videos, they would have to be on another YouTube channel that didn't reference his athletics.

Essentially the ruling was that you can have a job, even a made-up job like YouTuber, but if that job derives its popularity from your athletic reputation, you can't make any money from it.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #159 on:** October 02, 2019, 04:31:35 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on October 02, 2019, 06:59:14 AM

But, the Governor of California claims that the athletes "put their lives on the line* and get nothing".

* He thinks athletes are forced to fight in Afghanistan too, apparently.

that is my biggest beef with the proponents of this bill. (for clarity, i'm not necessarily against it, but i'm cautious because it's going to have unintended consequences)

but they often frame it like the kids are "slaves" or "going to bed hungry" (those are 2 direct qoutes from prominent people in favor of the bill), and that's just disingenuous at best and more likely outright slanderous fabrications. these kids get treated very well. room and board, good meals whenever they want, clothing, tutors, school supplies (which aren't cheap at all), etc. should they get more... maybe, i don't know. but they aren't being mistreated and abused either.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #160 on:** October 02, 2019, 05:29:31 PM »

That is true: the players are treated much better than the average student in many ways. BUT--and it's a fair point--they also help generate a ton of revenue for the universities they play for; revenue that goes particularly to coaches and administrators (in very large sums), but not to them, the players. Also, their collegiate experience is fundamentally different than the average student, largely due to the demands of their sport.

Players in football really are risking their bodies for the scholarship/the university's athletic budget. Not usually in a life-or-death way, but in a very likely to accelerate your body's deterioration way, up to and including CTI.

This issue is more complex than either side wants it to be--and the financials of different sports and even different schools participating in the same sports makes it even harder to unwind in an even-handed way.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #161 on:** October 02, 2019, 05:43:08 PM »

Nobody* is forcing 50,000 kids to play college football. The kids do it because they want to.

And now we're talking unions? WTF.

* The NFL forces them to a degree. About 200 per year, I guess.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #162 on:** October 02, 2019, 06:55:04 PM »

You and I largely agree on this issue, but "forcing them to" isn't the antitrust analysis. The question is anti-competitive wielding of market power. There's no doubt that the NCAA has market power. The question is whether it's anti-competitive. That is how the antitrust laws work.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #163 on:** October 03, 2019, 10:56:36 AM »

utee94 · « **Reply #164 on:** October 03, 2019, 11:14:03 AM »

utee94 · « **Reply #165 on:** October 30, 2019, 07:47:57 AM »

As most of us predicted, the NCAA is reacting in order to head this off at the pass and move in the direction they'd prefer. They're officially looking into allowing players to profit off their likeness/image/name/etc.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses

But I expect the NCAA will want to put restrictions on it, and even if those restrictions seems "reasonable" I'm not certain that all of the lawmakers will be satisfied. If not, I'd expect them to continue to push the legislation.

Target date for the three NCAA divisions to come up with their rules regarding this, is January 2021.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #166 on:** October 30, 2019, 07:48:41 AM »

Interesting happenings.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #167 on:** October 30, 2019, 01:50:22 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on October 02, 2019, 02:36:37 PM

CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany opposes the California bill that would prevent schools from penalizing athletes for capitalizing on their names, images and likenesses, saying college sports are "an educational arrangement."

"To me, the outer limit is the cost of college," Delany said during his remarks at Big Ten men's basketball media day. "Once we're beyond the cost of college, we're in pay-for-play and it's a totally different game."

Delany, who will retire at the end of year before Minnesota Vikings executive Kevin Warren takes over as commissioner on Jan. 1, 2020, said each level of competitive sports has its own guidelines and he's content with the current rules in college sports because "we're not the minor leagues."

"The student who plays athletics in the Big Ten is in school to receive an education first," Delany said. "There's an amazing opportunity to get a world-class education here and it's an amazing opportunity to compete in a great conference with great recognition."

I roll my eyes at Jim and the education stuff, but he is less of a snake than Emmert.

But yeah, my school brought in $86 mil on rights and licensing and Jim earns $4 mil a year, with a $20 million bonus a few years back, for overseeing this educational endeavor.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

betarhoalphadelta

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

SFBadger96

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

FearlessF

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

rolltidefan

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

betarhoalphadelta

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

rolltidefan

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

SFBadger96

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

847badgerfan

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

SFBadger96

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

betarhoalphadelta

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

utee94

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

utee94

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

Cincydawg

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

bayareabadger

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation