The State of California is currently considering a bill that, if signed into law, would allow for NCAA student-athletes in California to profit off their name, image, and likeness beginning in 2023. Though four years may seem a far-distant future, it means that freshman beginning in the fall of 2019 could start earning money while still playing in the NCAA as 5th-year seniors.
Since the bill would only work to the benefit of student-athletes in California, NCAA President Mark Emmert implied in a letter written to the Chairs of two State Assemblies in California that, if passed, California schools could face an NCAA championship ban. There are 23 Division I schools in California, four of which are members of the Pac-12 Conference.
Emmert declared that the proposed legislation “would make it impossible to host fair national championships,” and that it would have a negative impact on the student-athletes it is meant to help. An excerpt of the letter reads:
“We recognize all of the efforts that have been undertaken to develop this bill in the context of complex issues related to the current collegiate model that have been the subject of litigation and much national debate,” wrote Emmert to the committee chairs. “Nonetheless, when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships. As a result, it likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist.”
The bill passed in the State Senate 31-4, and is scheduled to be discussed and voted on by the Assembly’s Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee today (Tuesday, June 25th), and will be chaired by Assembly member Kansen Chu (D-San Jose).
A spokeswoman for Chu said Emmert’s letter prompted Chu to seek an amendment from Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), the bill’s author, reports USA Today. Last week, wording was added to the bill that says “it is the intent of the Legislature to monitor” the NCAA working group and “revisit this issue to implement significant findings and recommendations of the NCAA working group in furtherance of the statutory changes proposed by this act.” However, the proposed statutory changes remain the same.
Emmert has asked that the committees postpone their discussions of the bill to allow the NCAA more time to examine its own rules regarding athletes making money from their own names, images, and likenesses.
Though a similar nation-wide bill was proposed by North Carolina Representative Mark Walker earlier this year, California’s particular hang-up is that the bill would only benefit student-athletes in California, potentially giving them a financial and material advantage over amateur NCAA athletes in other states.
I know it’s been all the rage from the football and basketball people to complain about how much money the NCAA/university’s get from those athletes, but they are the only ones that when offered a scholarship it’s 100%, everything free. For some of those athletes, 250k+
Politicians in California can’t see the forest through the trees. Probably the same everywhere, but California seems to be the worst of the states.
The bill will allow athletes to profit on their likeness and market themselves. This will seriously hinder university’s ability to make money and therefore pay for ALL sports, especially the non-revenue ones.
Using USC as my example. SC is sponsored by Nike. They don’t put names on the… Read more »
Hopefully it’s voted and signed by Mr Newsom. But the NCAA lobby will fight hard because they know that any law coming from California, the 5th largest economy in the world, can influence the rest of the nation and really change the discussion.
Bobo!
You might want to stick to French politics…
you think he’s wrong or you just don’t like him? regardless…
California law isn’t “influencing a nation” in other realms, thankfully.
Time for NCAA to embrace a change in culture.
You’re saying this….on a swimming forum?
Well, that…and just about every non-revenue NCAA student-athlete (roughly 490,000 out of 500,000).
There are already avenues for non-revenue athletes to get paid if they’re good enough.
Ok’ing this bill would eventually collapse the entire system
I do wonder if that is the goal and athletes, thinking that they would get the better end of it, get excited. I have heard directly from ACLU lawyers in my family, Ivy trained, that hate college athletics and LOVE this idea bc it would undercut the idea that athletes are actually students and maybe would preclude schools from having sports at all affiliated with academics, hence no more early admission for non-academic excellence.
Disagree. I have a problem with it. I don’t make a penny from student-athletes.
How many student athletes in college are good enough to make a living in the pros? (very few) How many are good enough to make a living and not ever need another career after their sport? (even less) How many incoming student athletes believe they will go pro and deserve to get paid? (almost all – though not as many in swim)
If you can go pro, go pro. If you can make money, go make money. If you need the college experience (degree, exposure, coaching), it’s a dang good deal.
I think this makes student-athletes look like non-students, will kill a lot… Read more »
Leave it to the disconnected California politicians who have residents fleeing what was once the Golden State to focus their efforts on an outstanding collegiate programs who usually have higher graduation rates than the general student body. Pay students for competing? What’s next, agents in college? The greatest training programs for highly competitive Olympic level swimmers are at our NCAA institutions of higher learning. If tuition, fees, books, room and board, travel, medicine, medical care, coaching, mentoring, and tutoring, not to mention a great season of competitive racing is not doing the job today, then consider something else. Last time I checked, we seem to dominate the medal standings at every Summer Games. When you’re old enough and out of… Read more »
Will be a sad day in my opinion. There will no longer be a student-athlete on campus. Athletes will be the school mascot – thanked for their ability to build community by participating as something to watch, but scoffed at even more for their ability to be respected as students. At least now some student athletes are there to do something they love, maybe have a shot at the pros, but get an education that will serve them and their communities in the future.