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

how about MLB?

Hidden ball trick?

This is a thorough takedown of the NCAA's arguments against the Skinner Bill. It also seems pretty well informed. Getting takes from Cfb51's resident lawyers will be interesting.

Link: https://prospect.org/article/college-athletes-should-be-able-earn-money-their-likeness

Key excerpts:

• Those familiar with the O’Bannon v. NCAA case may be hard pressed to stifle their laughter upon seeing the NCAA trot out such risible, well-refuted claims. …
• …the California bill does not prevent any other state’s colleges and universities from participating in the NCAA cartel’s collusive restrictions. Nor does it prevent California’s own schools from continuing to collude with other NCAA members to limit athlete compensation in other areas. The bill simply says that California universities cannot participate in cartel restrictions only with regard to NIL rights. In raising a Commerce Clause challenge on this issue, the NCAA would offer the absurd argument that SB206’s removal of a restraint on trade should be subordinate to a cartel’s nationwide imposition of that same restraint, a position at clear odds with the Sherman Antitrust Act.
• Any claim that the bill would “burden” interstate commerce is suspect for at least two other reasons. First, the bill does not impose additional regulations. Rather it deregulates, freeing college athletes from the economic restraints imposed upon their own identities by the NCAA, an economic cartel that has lost the last two antitrust cases it has faced. Second, the benefits to athletes are not local. Colleges and universities in California, like any other state, recruit nationally and internationally. As such, the NIL benefits would not be restricted by any state boundary. Further, any third party may compensate athletes competing for California schools in exchange for their NIL rights, not just California companies or individuals.

It's ridiculous.  It was LEGAL before this bill was passed to be paid for your likeness.  NOTHING CHANGED, at all, not one iota.

They made something already legal legal again.

This is a law making something LEGAL that has always and forever been legal.

It's legal but violates NCAA rules.  

One case you might remember would be Olympic skier Jeremy Bloom, who was also a football player at Colorado.  He was offered paid endorsements (using his own likeness for profit) by ski equipment and lifestyle brand sponsors, but the NCAA blocked him from playing collegiate football due to those endorsements.

This has always been the case, and this is exactly what the California legislation is aiming to eliminate as a power that the NCAA is allowed to wield.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=1867015

Unless universities had a contract otherwise.

And the university is not the one making it "illegal", it's the NCAA.

The universities could always allow it, but they'd get penalized, same as it is today (in 2023).

How can this possibly affect NCAA rules?  If UCLA lets their players do it, they will be declared ineligible and UCLA will be penalized.

As discussed some upthread, if the NCAA (or the PAC) bans UCLA, then they're opening themselves up to the potential for some pretty serious anti-trust enforcement.