What's new

Fair Pay To Play Act in California

Medford M.

Well-Known Member
The schools would be the biggest losers. Instead of the funneling money into the AD through charitable donations, boosters would pay players directly for marketing services and write it off as an operating expense in their business. The student athlete would no longer care that much about the fancy facilities since they can just rent a sweet pad with their own cash.

If I’m Phil Knight why can’t I pay every single player $100,000 per year for marketing? Why even have scholarship limits anymore? Phil Knight will pay your full cost of attendance and more for marketing services rendered. Doubt it goes that way, but interesting to speculate how a billionaire could basically just buy the best team, assuming money would be a players primary concern.
Seems like the simple solution would be to continue to bar boosters from being involved with players and recruits, including businesses that said boosters are involved in.
 

Big Jim

WTF?
Club Member
I don't think even the SEC wants to get into this kind of an arms race.

I could see the NCAA cutting the California Schools out. In the grand scheme of things college football is one product that California doesn't dominate demand for.

We have already seen the PAC12 effectively removed from the NC playoff picture multiple years.
It won’t just be California.
 

Master Blaster

Ramblin Wreck from Golden Tech
Club Member
I think CA is actually overestimating their ability here to dictate to the rest of the nation.

CA can usually overpower the rest of the nation because of their economic power. If CA sets higher pollution standards on cars, for example, the car manufacturers sell more cars in CA than anywhere else, it's too costly to build the same car with two different emissions systems, so viola, CA wins.

Right now, however, the college athletics landscape does not revolve around CA at all. If the NCAA member schools from the rest of the 49 states say, 'we're not doing it', the CA schools might be ****ed. Which would probably mean the rest of the Pac-12 would be ****ed. Awesome.
But if the California schools started allowing players to profit off of their likeness, all the top recruits in the country would go there. Even if they formed their own league separate from the NCAA, people would pay attention to it because that's where the best collegiate players would be, and where the best NFL draft prospects would be.
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
Even if the NCAA cut out the Cali Schools, do you really believe that some big swinging dick attorney isn't going to take the chance to go after the networks for profiting on the likeness of college football players? Like it or not, an easy case can be made that CFB is popular because of its stars. Disney (ESPN) and Fox are both headquartered in CA....thereby making their business (questionably) illegal.
When there is that kind of money involved the lawyers always get involved, and the NCAA and the networks will respond with their own legal teams.

It could easily be hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and well over a decade before it makes it's way through the system.

By that time we could also very well see legislative action on the federal level that renders the whole question mute. Do you think that the legislators in SEC country, B12 country, B10 country would ignore the call of their fans to protect the sport they love.

We already have anti-trust exemptions that protect the NFL and other professional sports. It isn't a stretch think that Rep Billy Bob and Sen Southerner and friends wouldn't push through a bill that protects what they see as a part of their culture. And for many voting against it means voting against State U and our boys.
 

Bill Cody

Club Member
Club Member
When there is that kind of money involved the lawyers always get involved, and the NCAA and the networks will respond with their own legal teams.

It could easily be hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and well over a decade before it makes it's way through the system.

By that time we could also very well see legislative action on the federal level that renders the whole question mute. Do you think that the legislators in SEC country, B12 country, B10 country would ignore the call of their fans to protect the sport they love.

We already have anti-trust exemptions that protect the NFL and other professional sports. It isn't a stretch think that Rep Billy Bob and Sen Southerner and friends wouldn't push through a bill that protects what they see as a part of their culture. And for many voting against it means voting against State U and our boys.
I agree with all of this. I just think it's foolish to believe that an easy fix is to cut out California Universities (as the NCAA claims they will do)....it's not as simple as removing 4 CFB teams from the equation. Whenever something like this comes up, I believe you follow the money....and the biggest pools of the money are in California. If this law is passed, some serious changes are going to come about as a result
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
I agree with all of this. I just think it's foolish to believe that an easy fix is to cut out California Universities (as the NCAA claims they will do)....it's not as simple as removing 4 CFB teams from the equation. Whenever something like this comes up, I believe you follow the money....and the biggest pools of the money are in California. If this law is passed, some serious changes are going to come about as a result
You are right except that in the case of college football the biggest pools of money are not in California. Texas and Florida both generate much more money in college football than California does. As regions the deep south and the Midwest generate significantly more money and would be very concerned about the future of the game. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Texas and Texas Tech, Oklahoma and ****braska, and many others don't want to risk upsetting the system that works for them.

If it came down to it yes they would cut California loose, they would prefer not to but for what they see as saving the sport they wouldn't hesitate.

As I posted above their ultimate solution may be to simply render the California law (and any other state that join them) as unenforceable by federal law. The interstate commerce clause easily fits the business of college football so the authority is there.
 

Bill Cody

Club Member
Club Member
You are right except that in the case of college football the biggest pools of money are not in California. Texas and Florida both generate much more money in college football than California does. As regions the deep south and the Midwest generate significantly more money and would be very concerned about the future of the game. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Texas and Texas Tech, Oklahoma and ****braska, and many others don't want to risk upsetting the system that works for them.

If it came down to it yes they would cut California loose, they would prefer not to but for what they see as saving the sport they wouldn't hesitate.

As I posted above their ultimate solution may be to simply render the California law (and any other state that join them) as unenforceable by federal law. The interstate commerce clause easily fits the business of college football so the authority is there.
The networks and their assets are worth Billions and based in CA. In the NFL, the NFLPA shares in profits (in large part the TV revenues). This law allows players to form trade associations, which could potentially directly interfere with the current structure of the TV deals. Thats where the real money is.

i.e. Players in the SEC form a trade association (not prohibited by the NCAA). Attorney finds a loophole to sue networks in CA under the CA law for the benefit of the SEC Players Trade Association for making money off of them as a group without their approval or benefit.

EDIT: The Bolded I completely agree with
 
Last edited:

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
For one thing, out of state tuition at CU is like under $40K according to the recent USNews and World Report Rankings so your $60K number is likely accurate, but for in state students the benefit is probably more like $40K/year. And there are schools that charge less than CU- for example, USF (who's ranked) has tuition less than $7K/year, so the benefit is probably under $30K/year.

For another, paying someone in services that essentially cost you nothing (and I know that the AD "pays" the school for scholarship athletes) is an easy way to artificially inflate what someone is actually being compensated. The student athlete can't go spend that "$60K" somewhere else.

This law also doesn't set up to cost the schools anything- it just enables players to make money off of their likeness.

Finally, it's a canard that this will have any meaningful impact on competitive play, or that it will reduce the field of viable national championship competitors. Since the inception of a true championship game (1998), there have been 16 different teams that have played in it. If you expand that to include the semifinal playoff games, we're still talking only 19 teams. That's out of 52 slots (2 each year for 16 years of the BCS and 4 each year for the playoff). Out of those 19 teams, 5 (VT, ****braska, Washington, Tennessee, and Michigan State) appeared only once- so 14 teams have accounted for 47 of the "slots" in either a championship game or semifinal since 1998. In other words, we're already well past the Rubicon in terms of only "a couple of dozen teams" mattering.

You'd be (rightly) furious if your employer told you that "your health insurance is a massive benefit" and paid you far less than market rate for your services, and prevented you from moonlighting elsewhere. You'd find a different job.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s way too much money in college sports, and I think I’m part of the problem. Heck, I would be supportive of taking all commercial sponsorships out of college sports entirely so that no one is seemingly “cashing in” off the sport. But college ain’t free, and a few extra dozen football players doesn’t “cost the university nothing” any more than healthcare/hospitalizations for a few extra dozen patients “costs the hospital nothing”, the buildings, land, professors, IT support, tutors, housing, electricity, student health insurance and services, etc all have a cost. And every employer calculates the actual cost of hiring a new employee, including health insurance, retirement account contributions, life/disability insurance, etc into their internal assessment of whether they can hire another employee, it ain’t just “ok I can cover that salary”.

With regards to health insurance specifically, I’ve had private insurance and I’ve had employer provided, and I would absolutely take the provision of healthcare coverage into account when deciding if a salary/job are worth it to me, because I know the cost to me personally to figure it out on my own is not something I want, and is indeed more financially costly to me, which I would have to pay, yes, out of my salary. And if I and enough others they were trying to recruit were furious about the proposed lower salary, the market would tell them it wasn’t working to get what they wanted, so the employer would either have to change their recruiting offerings or settle for lower standards. But it turns out I think it’s a fair trade, and so it’s a good deal.

So universities can either cave and pretend that the college degree costs/is valued at nothing and the football stadium and fan base are god given rights and do the complicated math to give the players what “they’re worth”, or we can say it’s a win-win situation already and make sure the football earnings “off their likeness” go to venerable efforts for the good of the university & community (and players included).

To be honest, I know very little about the economics of college football. And I only know what has been posted in this thread about the legislation being discussed. But the current arrangement really doesn’t feel like exploitation to me.
 
Last edited:

manhattanbuf

Club Member
Club Member
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s way too much money in college sports, and I think I’m part of the problem. But college ain’t free, and a few extra dozen football players doesn’t “cost the university nothing” any more than healthcare/hospitalizations for a few extra dozen patients “costs the hospital nothing”, the buildings, land, professors, IT support, tutors, housing, electricity, student health insurance and services, etc all have a cost. And every employer calculates the actual cost of hiring a new employee, including health insurance, retirement account contributions, life/disability insurance, etc into their internal assessment of whether they can hire another employee, it ain’t just “ok I can cover that salary”.

With regards to health insurance specifically, I’ve had private insurance and I’ve had employer provided, and I would absolutely take the provision of healthcare coverage into account when deciding if a salary/job are worth it to me, because I know the cost to me personally to figure it out on my own is not something I want, and is indeed more financially costly to me, which I would have to pay, yes, out of my salary. And if I and enough others they were trying to recruit were furious about the proposed lower salary, the market would tell them it wasn’t working to get what they wanted, so the employer would either have to change their recruiting offerings or settle for lower standards. But it turns out I think it’s a fair trade, and so it’s a good deal.

So universities can either cave and pretend that the college degree costs/is valued at nothing and the football stadium and fan base are god given rights and do the complicated math to give the players what “they’re worth”, or we can say it’s a win-win situation already and make sure the football earnings “off their likeness” go to venerable efforts for the good of the university & community (and players included).

To be honest, I know very little about the economics of college football. But it really doesn’t feel like exploitation to me.
It’s an economic agency deal. College athletes can’t spend tuition. They operate in a multi-billion dollar system wherein they’re unpaid actors. Their rights of mobility are severely restricted. There are very few industries that operate as college football does within a capitalist society.
 

SuperD

Club Member
Club Member
The networks and their assets are worth Billions and based in CA. In the NFL, the NFLPA shares in profits (in large part the TV revenues). This law allows players to form trade associations, which could potentially directly interfere with the current structure of the TV deals. Thats where the real money is.

i.e. Players in the SEC form a trade association (not prohibited by the NCAA). Attorney finds a loophole to sue networks in CA under the CA law for the benefit of the SEC Players Trade Association for making money off of them as a group without their approval or benefit.

EDIT: The Bolded I completely agree with
They may be headquartered in California but they are probably incorporated in Delaware.
 

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
It’s an economic agency deal. College athletes can’t spend tuition. They operate in a multi-billion dollar system wherein they’re unpaid actors. Their rights of mobility are severely restricted. There are very few industries that operate as college football does within a capitalist society.
I can’t spend the $50k my employer spends on my health insurance, but if they didn’t provide it to me, I would pay it. I trade my “right” to spend MY hard earned money when I put it into a 401k, because I know it’ll be worth far more to me down the road if I do. We make these opportunity cost trade offs all the time. I don’t get how this is different.

If we’re going to say it’s immoral to not let student athletes make money off their participation in the opportunity the university provides, they can damn well pay their own tuition then for the privilege. I’d also be ok with that, although seeing a young senior Buffalo Heart winning Phillip Lindsay in an Oxyclean ad would disappoint me.
 

manhattanbuf

Club Member
Club Member
I can’t spend the $50k my employer spends on my health insurance, but if they didn’t provide it to me, I would pay it. I trade my “right” to spend MY hard earned money when I put it into a 401k, because I know it’ll be worth far more to me down the road if I do. We make these opportunity cost trade offs all the time. I don’t get how this is different.
Student Athletes don’t get to make this decision in the current setup. Football players cannot enter the NFL until they’re 3 years out of HS. Basketball players can’t go to the NBA unless they have 1 year of separation.

Plus, your analogy is a false one. Like education is for these athletes, our 401K and Health Insurance plans are perks.

I doubt very seriously that you would work your job for only your company’s contribution to your 401K and/or health insurance.
 

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
Student Athletes don’t get to make this decision in the current setup. Football players cannot enter the NFL until they’re 3 years out of HS. Basketball players can’t go to the NBA unless they have 1 year of separation.

Plus, your analogy is a false one. Like education is for these athletes, our 401K and Health Insurance plans are perks.

I doubt very seriously that you would work your job for only your company’s contribution to your 401K and/or health insurance.
I actually agree with your first point, I think there shouldn’t be a rule about who can enter the NFL. That’s BS.

No, but if they provided comfortable/appropriate housing, health insurance, water, electricity, and training required to get the job I ACTUALLY wanted which I was not yet qualified for (see above for caveat, although I think it’s pretty rare a kid coming out of HS is NFL caliber, they should still be allowed to be a candidate if they want) above the current one, I wouldn’t consider it an unfair trade. And if they gave me additional qualifications to get a better job than I would otherwise in case I didn’t make the “next level” cut, I would consider that valuable.

And I disagree that a college education is a “perk”. It’s worth millions of dollars and supposed to be a college student’s JOB. Playing football in front of huge crowds and the opportunities that come with it is a perk.
 

skibum

Did not pee on the Alamo.
Club Member
My guess is that this might be what ultimately leads to the complete reform of the NCAA and separation of the P5 from the everyone else.
 

manhattanbuf

Club Member
Club Member
I actually agree with your first point, I think there shouldn’t be a rule about who can enter the NFL. That’s BS.

No, but if they provided my housing, health insurance, water, electricity, and training required to get the job I ACTUALLY wanted which I was not yet qualified for (see above for caveat, although I think it’s pretty rare a kid coming out of HS is NFL caliber, they should still be allowed to be a candidate if they want) above the current one, I wouldn’t consider it an unfair trade. And if they gave me additional qualifications to get a better job than I would otherwise in case I didn’t make the “next level” cut, I would consider that valuable.
I never said their perks don’t have value. I think that their contribution is greater than the economic benefits they receive from these perks.

Unless you’re an end boss CEO type, nearly every job is a stepping stone job. Just because I don’t yet occupy the same status that my bosses enjoy doesn’t mean that I’d do my current job unpaid even for life perks. I want and deserve the economic agency attached to receiving money for my services. And, like these athletes, I work for a multi-billion dollar corporation.
 

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
LOL.

Prices on the free market say differently.
Over a lifetime? If you do it right? I beg to differ. Of course you can graduate with a worthless degree. Be smart, don’t do that. I got a buddy who played for Harvard. Got a chance in the NFL because he was talented, didn’t pan out, now has a Harvard degree, the skills and confidence playing college football got him, he’s going great. So don’t go to frickin ****braska and major in communications and have your buddies cheat for you on tests.
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
Student Athletes don’t get to make this decision in the current setup. Football players cannot enter the NFL until they’re 3 years out of HS. Basketball players can’t go to the NBA unless they have 1 year of separation.

Plus, your analogy is a false one. Like education is for these athletes, our 401K and Health Insurance plans are perks.

I doubt very seriously that you would work your job for only your company’s contribution to your 401K and/or health insurance.
When players can go to the NFL or other pro leagues is not an NCAA decision, that is made by the pro leagues themselves and in the case of the NFL protected by their anti-trust exemption.
 

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
I never said their perks don’t have value. I think that their contribution is greater than the economic benefits they receive from these perks.

Unless you’re an end boss CEO type, nearly every job is a stepping stone job. Just because I don’t yet occupy the same status that my bosses enjoy doesn’t mean that I’d do my current job unpaid even for life perks. I want and deserve the economic agency attached to receiving money for my services. And, like these athletes, I work for a multi-billion dollar corporation.
I agree with everything you said except the implication that you’re entitled to directly benefit with a proportional cut of the fruits of your labor. The company gets to decide, and you can decide if the indirect benefits you receive from the fruits of your labor are worth it to you.

We might actually agree more than it seems - I think a big part of what feels like exploitation to you is the rule about NFL eligibility, which I agree is dumb. But it still doesn’t seem like exploitation to me. Maybe once I pay off my last CU loans I’ll be more sympathetic.
 

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
And current tuition levels are inflated due to federal student loans being a blank check for universities.
Yeah no kidding - and by the way this applies to a LOT of different types of schooling.

“Oh yeah don’t worry, you’ll be able to pay it off”....uh, surely there’s a ****in ceiling on what we’ll “be able to pay off”?
 

manhattanbuf

Club Member
Club Member
I agree with everything you said except the implication that you’re entitled to directly benefit with a proportional cut of the fruits of your labor. The company gets to decide, and you can decide if the indirect benefits you receive from the fruits of your labor are worth it to you.

We might actually agree more than it seems - I think a big part of what feels like exploitation to you is the rule about NFL eligibility, which I agree is dumb. But it still doesn’t seem like exploitation to me. Maybe once I pay off my last CU loans I’ll be more sympathetic.
I’m 19 years out of graduation from CU and am still paying. I had very close interactions with several players during my time in Boulder. My sympathy for them has only increased as I’ve gotten further from the college experience.
 

Ralfie

Well-Known Member
I’m 19 years out of graduation from CU and am still paying. I had very close interactions with several players during my time in Boulder. My sympathy for them has only increased as I’ve gotten further from the college experience.
Me too man, maybe we drank from the same keg of Icehouse or took the same physics class with Dr. Taylor! I’m proud those CU boys won that Nobel Prize while I was there - I’m sure I had something to do with it.

Although the same department has apparently won two more since I left so it’s possible they didn’t need me.
 

SBP

Club Member
Club Member
😂
I get it. Players should be paid. I just hate to see the end of CFB as we know it. Like it or not, there is almost no scenario where compensating players doesn’t eliminate our beloved Buffaloes from the ranks of the relevant.
 
Top