“This is a potentially profound outcome.”

I’m not convinced that, on its own, California’s Fair Pay to Play Act represents an existential threat to the NCAA.  Emmert and his cohorts have played the hardass card more times than I can count and contrary to McCann’s speculation, I can see them telling California schools and the Pac-12 it’s their problem to sort out, not the NCAA’s.

But that’s one state statute in isolation.  What has the potential to represent an existential threat is if several jurisdictions, including Congress, follow suit.  There are only so many places the NCAA can say talk to the hand before it becomes impossible to sustain.

That’s why the most important part of California’s impending legislation is that it doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2023.  Can the NCAA take a hint?


Filed under Political Wankery, The NCAA

3 responses to ““This is a potentially profound outcome.”

  1. TimberRidgeDawg

    At least on the surface, it seems that athletes should be able to cash in on their likeness and name, same as any other individual.

    There would seem to be some interesting twists though.

    The stars are going to be the high demand guys and have the highest earning potential. You can usually count them on two hands. The majority of the team could just as well be playing a non revenue sport. Maybe there is opportunity for extra money for being on the roster in video games or other arenas but this seems to just open the door for those with the ability to take advantage. In that sense it is fair, but it doesn’t really address the larger question of the free labor pool.

    Another point that seems to be overlooked with the likeness issue is whether it’s really the value of the individual player as much as because of the team he is on. UGA fans buy jerseys worn by UGA players and not Clemson. Only a very select few players draw enough attention to cross team boundaries and sell nationally at the college level in the manner of pro athletes. Potentially this creates an interesting dynamic in recruiting where, everything else being equal, it makes sense for a star athlete to sign with schools with large avid fan bases and access to major media hubs to maximize earning potential on your name value. And of course you have to see the field early and play to cash in so that adds fuel to the transfer portal as well.

    I’m for letting them earn what any other individual earns but I can also see how this broadens the breech in competitive balance over time as some schools will be more capable than others in making sure that their athletes maximize their name recognition.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mayor

    Correct Senator. One state, even a big one like CA, likely isn’t enough to force the NCAA to change. Obviously Congress could. But if numerous states adopted CA’s language as a Model Act……


  3. chopdawg

    “As of 2011, the “fair market value of the labor of the average FBS football and men’s basketball player was approximately $137,357 and $289,829, respectively.”

    Still can’t understand where these wildly exotic numbers are coming from.