K9Buck

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. 

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Now I'm confused.  If you feel this way, why do you not support a law like this.  It is the literal intention of the legislation: 

 

 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to monitor the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) working group created in May 2019 to examine issues relating to the use of a student’s name, image, and likeness 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.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.

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

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

 

 

Were you drunk when you started the thread 

 

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.  

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Now I'm confused.  If you feel this way, why do you not support a law like this.  It is the literal intention of the legislation: 

 

 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to monitor the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) working group created in May 2019 to examine issues relating to the use of a student’s name, image, and likeness 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.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.

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?

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

So now you're in favor of the California bill?

Where did I express opposition?

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

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

I feel like I’m in a class on how to use straw man arguments.

 

 

YoU tHiNk iT’s uNfAiR????!!??  WeLl maYbE u ShOulD MOvE to CHiNa SiNcE you WanT US to bE CoMmuNiST!!!!!212

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. 

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

You sound like a socialist. How is it capitalistic at all to prevent players from capitalizing on their likeness? This is the definition of free market you are debating against.

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

Just now, funhusker said:

Then you are scared of something that doesn't currently exist.  I'm sorry about that, nothing we can do...

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

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Yea maybe you should wait for something like that to actually happen instead of just assumimg the worse and fearmongering.

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

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

You’re nitpicking over a word, but there have been plenty of laws created that were based on fairness. Amendments too.

 

You go off topic a lot. We aren’t talking about men getting paid more than women. We’re talking about athletes being able to make any $ at all on their likeness.

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

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Have you actually read this bill?  I attached the link.

 

It states none of that.  It is a bill that promotes free market and capitalism....

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

 

edit: What if the local neighborhood association does not allow lemonade stands on the driveways of houses.  But the city makes a law that says children have the right to build money-making temporary structures on their parents property?  Is that a government takeover, aka communism?

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.  

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

So to you, allowing student athletes to be compensated for their likeness, basically changing 1 rule in the NCAA, is the equivalent to having government run health care.

 

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. 

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You keep using that word (“take over”) but I don’t think you know what it means. Preventing unfair business practices is not the same as taking the business over.

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

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Why is it ok for a private entity to interfere in private transactions but not the government? Additionally, why is government institutions (like public universities) setting up a private entity in order to regulate private transactions somehow better than the government doing it directly?

 

I get that you're trying to draw a distinction between public and private laws and regulations, but to me it's just poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe.

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

1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

 

At what point in my scenario are boosters paying players? 

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.  

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

 Second, it's contradictory for you to want the NCAA to intervene in private transactions and not the government.

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.  

6 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

My opinion: athletes should be paid. My opinion on how this should happen: the NCAA made $1.1 billion last year. With this amount of funding, it allows them to subsidize a monthly stipend for every scholarship Division 1 athlete, across every sport. These funds are distributed equally to every school and the school distributes the funds to every scholarship athlete on campus, from football to volleyball, baseball to track and everything inbetween. This helps prevent schools from setting their own levels of funding for athletes (i.e. Alabama paying their football players more than Auburn, or Nebraska paying their volleyball players more than Penn St). Then, schools set aside an equal portion of the money brought in by merchandise sales and pay this out to players on the basis of graduation; if you transfer, leave school, or go pro, you forfeit this money. 

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

9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Is that what the legislation would do? Because I thought this was about players being able to sell their likeness. I find it unlikely that schools and their boosters would give up the other sports due to this. Nor do I think schools would stop giving 85 scholarships.

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.  

20 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

This isn't about schools paying players its about players being able to use thier likeness to command compensation. If someone else can make money selling #2 Husker jerseys with the name Martinez slapped on the back, why can't Adrian Martinez? Currently because of NCAA rules.

So what do you suggest we do? Because the current system doesn't work. 

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.  

9 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

LOL.  Nobody is going to be paying for the autograph of the 3rd stringer at Morehead State and if he had an opportunity to make money, but it was banned by the NCAA, I'm sure he would just give up football and pursue the money making endeavor because he is FREAKING 3RD STRING AT MOREHEAD STATE.  If your worth the money, it will find you.  And as far as getting paid for your likeness, only a handful of athletes at each school would actually have enough status to make money anyway as a majority of the roster at most schools are just going to be made up of Joe Schmos.   

 

 

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

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

You are miscontruing this whole thing. No Trump doesn't get paid by CNN when they use his picture, but Trump has the freedom to sell his photograph for as much as he wants. He is free to slap his name on buildings to make money. Professional athletes might not get paid when their picture is on a news outlet, but they have the freedom to sell images of themselves for fair market value. At this point in time NCAA players are banned from these same freedoms everyone else gets to enjoy and that is what this law is addressing.

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.

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Does this legislation force schools to pay players or simply allows players to use their own likeness to get paid? Because there is a big difference.

Yes, there is a difference.  But once boosters start paying players, it will be just a matter of time before the schools start paying them and then the schools will want to establish salary caps to keep costs under control, as they do in professional sports.