K9Buck

Where did I say that I have a "problem" with it?

I don't pretend to have the answers. I believe it's a very convoluted matter, as evidenced by this thread. I think it's safe to say that this will be settled in a courtroom.

Nowhere did I say that I'm opposed to it.

Nope. Potentially, it could be beneficial for athletes that produce revenue and detrimental to those who don't. The California legislature probably doesn't understand this.

Yes, the California legislature views student-athletes as exploited victims and I agree with them. What will they do if women's sports is no longer funded because all of the available revenue is going to male, revenue athletes? Are they going to say it's "unfair" and pass more laws?

Where did I express opposition?

Let them get paid as much as they can. I'm all for it.

As I suspected, you are a far-left socialist that believes government should run everything under the sun to make it "fair". You probably work in government or education.

I've repeatedly stated my SUPPORT for letting players be paid as much as they can get.

I'm not "scared" of anything. I'm simply speculating as to how college athletics may change.

Perhaps. What you call "fear mongering" I call conjecture.

You keep bringing up "fairness", hence my responses. You sound like a socialist.

Universities do seemingly have a monopoly on athletics. I agree with "deregulating" it, but I'm skeptical that the California legislature will stop at that and may want to continue to determine how collegiate sports should be administered and who should get paid and how much, etc. I may very well be wrong.

You said "preventing unfair business practices" as opposed to illegal or unconstitutional business practices. In other words, if you think that it's "unfair" that a male soccer player gets paid more than a female soccer player, it's ok for the government to step in, take over and determine what is "fair". Sorry, but I don't ascribe to statist political and economic ideology such as communism, fascism and socialism.

You mean like taking over healthcare because the existing, private system is "unfair"?

Membership to the NCAA is voluntary just like membership here in this forum is voluntary. Should the state of California take this over too?

The topic is players being legally able to be paid for their likeness and where NCAA athletics goes from there. Your scenario seems to ignore this point.

In any event, I suspect that the court system will ultimately be the deciding arbiter in all of this.

The NCAA is a governing body in which membership is VOLUNTARY. Additionally, the NCAA is beholden to the universities, who pay their salaries and expenses. The NCAA is a PRIVATE entity wherein the government of California is not.

So they should receive a stipend in addition to whatever boosters want to pay them, correct?

Like I said in my OP, I'm not Nostradamus so I can't tell you what's going to happen. But once players start getting paid, I think we can anticipate the tradition of play-for-scholarship to end and play-for-pay to begin. It's certainly possible that one outcome would be that non-revenue athletes will no longer be able to leech off of revenue-producing players to pay their scholarship. I presume the California legislature doesn't intend for such an outcome, but economics would seem to force such an eventuality. Of course, they may want to enact more legislation in order to manage who gets what. Pretty soon, California will be running the NCAA.

Well, I think it can be argued that the current system is entrenched in a century of tradition rather than entrenched in a system that is free and fair. On second thought, I think the California legislature is right to blow up the system. Talented kids should be compensated for their true value. A 5-star QB recruit will sign for big money. At the other end of the spectrum, kids that were getting an annual $50K may, instead, end up with much less compensation. Money that was previously spent on non-revenue sport scholarships will go to the most sought after football/basketball players and non-revenue athletes will have to pay for their own college education.

Let the players be paid and let the market decide. Eliminate scholarships and just let the players play football for a few years until they go pro. Non-productive players can be cut just like the NFL can cut players. It's free and fair for all.

High school recruits would be signing contracts with boosters to promote their product provided they attend their school.

I was responding to the poster who demonstrated how media outlets profit off of the images of college football players. The implication was that they should be paid, which opens up a whole new legal avenue of arguments and freedom of the press, etc.