California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs into law Fair Pay to Play Act

[Fido]

One of the current core tenets of the NCAA's identity and business model will be illegal in the state of California starting in 2023.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law the Fair Pay to Play Act, which says colleges in California cannot punish their athletes for collecting endorsement money.
...
The law, which is scheduled to go into effect in January 2023, does not require schools to pay athletes directly as employees. Instead, it makes it illegal for schools to prevent an athlete from earning money by selling the rights to his or her name, image or likeness to outside bidders.

The law also allows for college athletes to hire a licensed agent to represent them. The bill was amended several times, including a recent provision that prevents athletes from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their team's sponsors. For example, a basketball player could not wear Nike products during team events if he or she plays for a school that is sponsored by Under Armour.

Current NCAA rules do not allow players to accept any compensation related to their status as a college athlete from outside sources.
...
NCAA board of governors chair Michael Drake told ESPN that the NCAA wants to "evolve" and "modernize" its approach to name, image and likeness rights, but fears that California's bill has the potential to blur an important distinction between professional leagues and amateur college sports.
...
The NCAA assembled a group of university presidents, athletic directors and conference commissioners earlier this year to examine ways it might update its current policies. That group is expected to report its findings to the board of governors at some point in October. Drake, who spoke to ESPN before Newsom signed the bill, said the NCAA preferred that California give the association time to adjust its rules to avoid a situation where schools in different states are operating with different rules.
...
The Fair Pay To Play Act breaks new ground by guaranteeing college athletes a chance to earn cash in an open-market system. Skinner says the law creates a variety of opportunities for athletes who want to take advantage of it. Star players may be able to make money from apparel contracts, autograph signings and television commercial appearances. Less prominent athletes, she said, could benefit from things like being able to advertise their connection to their university team while teaching lessons to youth athletes or collect revenue from selling advertisements on social media accounts.
=====================================================================================
It will be interesting to see how BYU reacts in this changing environment and if the changes extend to other parts of the school that impact the sports program.

[byufan4ever]

I think I'm okay with this. The colleges don't pay them but they can make endorsement deals or sell autographs. Now what exactly does this mean?

an athlete earning money by selling the rights to his or her name, image or likeness to outside bidders

I imagine that there could be lots of grey area and interpretation as to exactly what is allowed and what is not. Especially if you get boosters involved who are the bidders for this "likeness stuff."

[hawkwing]

I have a feeling this will end badly.

And I also feel that 99% of college athletes vastly overrate their own individual value, just as they vastly overrate how difficult their life and school work are compared to others.

[KingCoug]

I have a feeling this will end badly.

And I also feel that 99% of college athletes vastly overrate their own individual value, just as they vastly overrate how difficult their life and school work are compared to others.

Agreed. This is a huge can of worms.

And chances are, if they're in a position to make money off their name or likeness, they're on scholarship and getting a college degree for free. That's good enough.

Some free life advice:

If you find yourself agreeing with Gavin Newsom, there's about a 90% chance you're on the wrong track.

[YNot]

I have a feeling this will end badly.

And I also feel that 99% of college athletes vastly overrate their own individual value, just as they vastly overrate how difficult their life and school work are compared to others.

EA Sports alone would probably make it worth everyone's while.

[hawkwing]

I have a feeling this will end badly.

And I also feel that 99% of college athletes vastly overrate their own individual value, just as they vastly overrate how difficult their life and school work are compared to others.

EA Sports alone would probably make it worth everyone's while.

I have a feeling that there are a lot of athletes out there who think that their likeness alone is worth 6 figures or more just from EA Sports NCAA games, when in reality it's probably more like a few hundred bucks. The game may make millions and millions, but they are also very expensive to make and there are an awful lot of football players out there to spread the royalty amount around.

[Fido]

When EA Sports was going to have to pay the players to use their likeness in their video games they killed it off instead (haven't released a new version since 2013) since it would drive the price up so high nobody could afford it. And it was no small money-maker: "During the trial of the O’Bannon case in June 2014, EA Sports executive Joel Linzner testified that the NCAA football game had been doing about $80 million a year in revenue on the sale of roughly 2 million units." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2 ... 704876002/

The part I'm not sure of is if the school is going to have to share proceeds from jersey sales with the player--can you imagine how this could divide the locker room since there is only a couple players whose jerseys would really sell well and everyone else gets nothing? And are they going to have to include marketing packages like jersey sales for the player as part of the recruiting pitches? I'm not sure how this is going to play out.

[hawkwing]

When EA Sports was going to have to pay the players to use their likeness in their video games they killed it off instead (haven't released a new version since 2013) since it would drive the price up so high nobody could afford it. And it was no small money-maker: "During the trial of the O’Bannon case in June 2014, EA Sports executive Joel Linzner testified that the NCAA football game had been doing about $80 million a year in revenue on the sale of roughly 2 million units." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2 ... 704876002/

The part I'm not sure of is if the school is going to have to share proceeds from jersey sales with the player--can you imagine how this could divide the locker room since there is only a couple players whose jerseys would really sell well and everyone else gets nothing? And are they going to have to include marketing packages like jersey sales for the player as part of the recruiting pitches? I'm not sure how this is going to play out.

I envision in the case of jersey sales that universities would only sale jersey numbers that no one is using. Perhaps they would reserve a number going forward, like 12 is no longer available to any player, but is for the fan as the "12th man" and that would be all they sell. Certainly easier than trying to figure out who is deserving of what.

[mormonrasta]

I love it.

The reality is that you have to pay to play to be elite in either football or basketball under the current system. This won't change the dynamic unless the Ivy Leagues really wanted to get good at sports again.

As long as athletes are going to class, I don't care how much they make outside of the classroom.

[hawkwing]

One of the issues that comes up for me is this.

Currently state run schools are dumping tens of millions of dollars a year into subsidizing college athletics. If schools are going to be paying players the state subsidies must stop. If a school can't afford to run their own athletic department then shouldn't be getting even more money to pay players.