California Passes Bill that Forces Universities to Pay Athletes for Likeness

Honestly, I think this would be a godsend for Nebraska. There is no doubt one of the few pulls to NU is the rabid fan base, its a place where you get to be a celebrity the entire 4 years you are here if you are good enough, which also means its a place where you can cash in on that celebrity if legal.  We lost our place among the college elite in the recruiting game and don't have much to draw from to bring it back.. The southern schools have all the intangible advantages that, when the NCAA forces and "even" field cause the northern schools in low population areas to struggle. This would be a huge boost to what NU could offer as an "intangible" all while playing within the NCAA's perceived fairness rules. 

 
EFuJlfeXkAEKnPu


 
California can make whoever laws they want.  The Universities are still a member of the NCAA and therefore, the University and the players still need to abide by their rules to be eligible to play.

The NCAA does not need to abide by California law.

 
Does Nebraska need to pass a law?  Seems like we can just wait until 2023 when the CA schools are still part of the NCAA and aren't sanctioned.  At that point our athletes can start selling $10,000 autographed photos and get our recruiting boosted up.  Maybe the university needs to change some rules but I doubt there are state laws about what amateur athletes can or can't do.

 
The last thing I want is for Nike, Adidas, and even UA to be deciding where to send the best players. Even though we would probably benefit from being a flagship Adidas school it would create an unfair advantage for certain schools and hurt the college sports landscape long term, imo.

 
More states now looking at the Fair Pay to Play Act.  Florida, Pennsylvania, and both Carolinas are looking at similar laws.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't seen this addressed, how will it affect collegiate sports other than those mens basketball and football programs that operate in the black? 

 
QMany said:
I haven't seen this addressed, how will it affect collegiate sports other than those mens basketball and football programs that operate in the black? 
Click to expand...


The way I understand the California bill, it's not the school paying the athletes, it's that athletes are allowed to profit from their name and likeness being used.  So you could see it more in the advertising space and in something like EA sports games (if they ever come back).   As for the sports that don't operate in the black, you could still have something like a member of the golf team advertising for a local course and able to get paid that way or a soccer player advertising a local soccer store.   A baseball player being at a restaurant for an autograph signing etc.   In all these cases, per California in 2023, they can all get paid for this.

Think back to the Jeremy Bloom case with Colorado.  He could have continued to receive his endorsements from skiing and played football without it being a problem. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure if and when the ncaa starts allowing athletes to make money off their likeness there will be growing pains but it doesn't sound like an impossible thing to monitor and regulate. Set ncaa sanctioned events where they can make money like fan meet and greets and if the local used car dealership wants to have the star qb in a commercial have them submit how much he gets paid to the ncaa and have a cap. Sure there will be a bunch of money under the table but thats already happening at most big time programs. 

This is a better way than having schools that dont make money of sports which is most have to pay the athletes themselves.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top