One Step Closer To The Death Of Amateurism - California Passes A Bill With ZERO 'No' Votes To Allow College Athletes To Make Money On Endorsements In 2023

[Source] – Skinner, who was elected to the State Senate three years ago, produced a bill that would allow college athletes in California to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness — be they basketball stars signing their own marketing deals or water polo players advertising offers of swim lessons.

The Fair Pay to Play Act, which Skinner wrote with Steven Bradford, a fellow Democrat in the State Senate, cleared the State Assembly on Monday by a vote of 72-0, with support from civil rights advocates and free-market proponents, including some Republicans. A version of the bill had already cleared the Senate

Once the chambers work out any differences, which is expected to be a formality, the legislation will be headed for one more significant hurdle — Gov. Gavin Newsom will have 30 days to sign it.

Goddamn I never thought I’d see the day. We’re getting closer to common sense and finally going to force the NCAA’s hand. Here’s the thing. They either have to adapt or lose California teams. You think they want to do that?

I’m not going to sit here and pretend like I’m an expert in California legislation, but passing with 0 votes is pretty damn good. Naturally though, it’s leading to the NCAA being pissed, because the NCAA has no idea how to do anything smart.

The measure, S.B. 206, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2023, and it has provoked the expected opposition from the N.C.A.A., the University of California and California State University systems and prominent private colleges like Stanford and the University of Southern California.

Scott and other leaders in college sports — including the N.C.A.A. president, Mark Emmert, in a letter to California legislators this summer — paint a doomsday scenario for the state’s athletic teams if the bill becomes law. They say that colleges in California could be prohibited from competing for N.C.A.A. championships because they would have an unfair recruiting advantage — being able to lure athletes with the possibility of cashing in on anything from jersey sales to sponsorship deals.

Here’s a solution for Mark Emmert – and this one is free. Maybe, just MAYBE, you let everyone that plays college athletics make money off of their name, likeness and image and then it’ll be even across the board. Crazy, I know. I’m just a blogger and not in charge of the NCAA, but I am smarter than you when it comes to this, mostly because of common sense.

I’ve said it a million times. The school paying players in scholarships is fine from the school. That’s their payment. However, let players make money off of name, likeness and image. If Two Keys in Lexington wants to pay Ashton Hagans $10,000 to put his face on a billboard, that’s what the market dictates.

In reality, it won’t change things from a recruiting standpoint. The big boys will still get the best talent. Take a look at the college football and basketball recruiting pages. It’s not like these 5-star guys are going to Tulane or Long Beach State. They are going to Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Duke, etc. That will still be the case.

As for if you’re worried about donors with deep pockets just outbidding people for recruits? Yeah, that’s called recruiting today. And guess what – the majority of these guys are businessmen. If they get screwed because a top recruit doesn’t work out, they aren’t going to continue to toss around a ridiculous amount of money. They’ll pick and choose who to go after.

Also why do we pretend to care if someone gets paid? This is the only thing in the world that we legit argue whether or not there should be more compensation. I don’t know, maybe get really good at basketball or football, go back in time, and then play college ball and make some money. There’s some sort of fake outrage that we get thinking college sports is pure (it’s not, it’s a business) and that they shouldn’t make money. It’s ridiculous.

Sidenote: I do love this argument from the NCAA

The bill could produce other complications, according to its opponents.

What if a quarterback reaches a marketing agreement with a casino? Or a basketball star has a deal to promote a marijuana dispensary when cannabinoids are on the N.C.A.A.’s list of banned substances? What about international students, whose F-1 visas largely restrict them from off-campus employment?

Oh, no. Casino and weed? The horror! Two things that are about to be legal nation-wide.