Author
Topic: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation
(Read 12616 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #140 on:** October 02, 2019, 09:02:37 AM »

The key is that the bill would make it illegal to penalize said player, that is a point I missed as well.

NorthernOhioBuckeye · « **Reply #141 on:** October 02, 2019, 09:03:02 AM »

Yesterday afternoon I caught a little bit of ESPN's college football show with Joey Galloway and Dave Pollack discussing this issue. Pollack brought up a great point during the discussion. He said something to the effect that if a guy is at a smaller school and starts out the year putting up ridiculous numbers and really tearing it up, what is to stop him from leaving the team after the 4th game, taking a red shirt and entering the transfer portal to go looking for the big money.

utee94 · « **Reply #142 on:** October 02, 2019, 09:17:47 AM »

Quote from: NorthernOhioBuckeye on October 02, 2019, 09:03:02 AM

Yesterday afternoon I caught a little bit of ESPN's college football show with Joey Galloway and Dave Pollack discussing this issue. Pollack brought up a great point during the discussion. He said something to the effect that if a guy is at a smaller school and starts out the year putting up ridiculous numbers and really tearing it up, what is to stop him from leaving the team after the 4th game, taking a red shirt and entering the transfer portal to go looking for the big money.

If this spreads all the way to all universities/conferences across the nation, as I believe it likely will, then nothing in the current rules will stop that. The transfer portal could become a free agency window. That's definitely one of the fears.

But the next question is, is that a bad thing? Is there a reason for it NOT to happen, other than our long-standing desire for "honor and commitment" from players that elect to attend our own universities? Coaches have never been forced to honor their contracts/commitments, and yet we expect and desire the players to do so?

Bottom line is that college athletics are ever-changing, and this is another one in a long line of changes. Whether or not we want to live with it is a choice we all must make. Many of the rule changes in the NFL game have rendered me almost non-caring about that sport. Some of the changes in college football are leading me in that direction, too.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #143 on:** October 02, 2019, 09:44:22 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on October 02, 2019, 08:32:08 AM

Some of the athletes being discussed wouldn't even be going to school if they weren't athletes. But, that's not a benefit, I guess?

That kind of strikes me as a net negative, though with some positive stories coming out of it. Assuming we're talking about admission standards.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #144 on:** October 02, 2019, 09:48:52 AM »

https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=yahoosports&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2_xjHU5jy_asJS2utKaUc7e3AFy9HoEA8_WhOuyv0DcllArujUh5Ej_B4
https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=yahoosports&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2_xjHU5jy_asJS2utKaUc7e3AFy9HoEA8_WhOuyv0DcllArujUh5Ej_B4

In the past three years in football recruiting there have been 97 players ranked as 5-star recruits by Rivals.com. Five schools (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State and LSU) signed a combined 55 of them, leaving just 42 for the remaining 125 FBS schools. Five schools got nearly 57 percent of the best players.

The current top five teams in the weekly AP poll? No. 1. Alabama. 2. Clemson. 3. Georgia. 4. Ohio State. 5. LSU.

utee94 · « **Reply #145 on:** October 02, 2019, 10:02:45 AM »

So it's the Jimmys and the Joes?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #146 on:** October 02, 2019, 10:07:23 AM »

And coaching of course. I do see a chance for some lesser programs to become "competitive", as discussed.

Temp430 · « **Reply #147 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.

utee94 · « **Reply #148 on:** October 02, 2019, 11:02:59 AM »

Yeah I don't think the schools would allow the individual athletes to use their team logos or team names. I suspect that would implicate them in ways I think they'd rather avoid.

But there'd be nothing stopping Tua from appearing in a red jersey with white numbers, holding a football, saying his name and mentioning he's a college football QB.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #149 on:** October 02, 2019, 11:29:14 AM »

I haven't read the law, but the universities still control their own images, so this profiting from their likeness likely means two things: (1) selling themselves outside of the university, without the university's trappings; and maybe less likely, but I still think probable: (2) players unionizing to share in the profits of university sales of images/likenesses.

Will it change the landscape? Absolutely. Will it compromise the world of college athletics forever? Probably not. Will it make the world of big-time college athletics (e.g., football and men's basketball) even more slanted towards the haves? Maybe, but not necessarily. Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens show that you don't have to be a helmet to have wealthy supporters.

utee94 · « **Reply #150 on:** October 02, 2019, 11:34:02 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 02, 2019, 11:29:14 AM

I haven't read the law, but the universities still control their own images, so this profiting from their likeness likely means two things: (1) selling themselves outside of the university, without the university's trappings; and maybe less likely, but I still think probable: (2) players unionizing to share in the profits of university sales of images/likenesses.

Will it change the landscape? Absolutely. Will it compromise the world of college athletics forever? Probably not. Will it make the world of big-time college athletics (e.g., football and men's basketball) even more slanted towards the haves? Maybe, but not necessarily. Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens show that you don't have to be a helmet to have wealthy supporters.

Right now it's specifically about ensuring the universities cannot prevent 3rd parties paying individual athletes directly, for the use of their own image/likeness. So right now it's all about scenario #1.

I could potentially see your second scenario eventually coming into play, but it would require additional legislation/courtroom activity. I'm pretty sure the universities would prefer to avoid #2, which is why I think they're going to cave on #1 quickly and try to avoid sliding any further down the slippery slope. But of course, we'll see.

Riffraft · « **Reply #151 on:** October 02, 2019, 11:52:03 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on October 02, 2019, 08:31:58 AM

Honestly, not trying to be a jerk at all, but I'd suggest you go back and re-read this thread in its entirety, because we've discussed this from a few angles. And the other thread that bwar started also has some interesting nuggets.

To sum up, though, you are correct that the state of California can't dictate the NCAA rules. It can, however, control the actions of the schools within its state boundaries. This law is saying that universities within the borders of California-- UCLA, for example-- cannot deny any athlete from getting compensation from a 3rd party for using his image and likeness in endorsements, for his own profit. So although it's against NCAA rules, UCLA can't deny its own student athletes this benefit. Even if UCLA wanted to, they're in violation of California state law if they attempt to comply with the NCAA rules. So UCLA has to accept athletes that are being paid 3rd party endorsements, they are legally bound to do so.

The logical progression, then, is that either the PAC (because not all PAC members are in California), or the NCAA itself, would have to suspend a California school for violating and NCAA policy. At that point, though, the PAC or the NCAA are entering dangerous territory and exposing themselves to antitrust prosecution, among other potential problems. The NCAA can posture and bluster as much as it wants, but there's no way they actually want to end up in court against the state of California, or the Federal government.

Add to it that other states are considering similar legislation and the NCAA's footing becomes even more precarious. I really don't see how they're going to survive this if they insist on maintaining the status quo.

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?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #152 on:** October 02, 2019, 12:05:00 PM »

I used to work for a large company. "We" had to be careful, at least back when, to avoid restraint of trade issues with smaller competitors. A huge company can offer a grocery chain a "deal" on some product like say "Tide" if said company also puts "Always pads" on an end of aisle display. If you do this when some smaller operation has come out with a new sanitary pad, you might well be in for a fight with the guvmint. You can also just happen to drop your prices just as a new competitor enters the market.*

The NCAA is voluntary, but they also wield considerable power ($$$) and they could be seen to be preventing other schools from forming their own associations by for example locking up all the lucrative TV contracts ahead of time. Maybe.

What I know all of this could be summed up by saying "It's a tricky area" that makes lawyers wealthier.

*My favorite story was by the guy who started Formula 409. He was doing well enough to attract attention of a, um, large company who will remain nameless. Said large company developed it's own product and started a test market in Denver, CO. The Formula 409 guy saw this and pulled ALL of his product from the shelves in Denver. The large company had a HUGE test market result and then expended into the mountain states. The Formula 409 guy just before this dropped a two for one on his product in the mountain states. The test market expansion flopped, and the unnamed large company withdrew.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #153 on:** October 02, 2019, 12:06:36 PM »

I agree regarding the universities' motivations, but they will run into problems when they sell their own images/access to their images, which they do all the time. The picture of my star quarterback delivering a pass under pressure during the big game? I license it for sale, but since he now owns rights to it also (and I can't prevent him, through a scholarship agreement, from having that right), I'm hamstrung. I want to sell that picture, so what am I to do, except negotiate some kind of payment to him?

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

Cincydawg

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

NorthernOhioBuckeye

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

utee94

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

bayareabadger

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

Cincydawg

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

Temp430

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

utee94

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

SFBadger96

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

utee94

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

Riffraft

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

Cincydawg

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation

SFBadger96

Re: California Asembly passed bill to allow players likeness compensation