College sports are a form of interstate commerce. States can’tenforce their laws on other states.
against truckers engaged in interstate commerce?
In response to these types of arguments, the State of California would likely stress that (in its view) the Fair Pay to Play Act is necessary to ensure basic fairness in intercollegiate sports. The text of the bill, in fact, details reasons why the Act is arguably needed. This text draws heavily on a 2012 study titled “The $6 Billion Heist,” which was authored by National College Players Association president Ramogi Huma and Drexel University professor Ellen Staurowsky, and a 2014 study by the College Sport Research Institute, which is directed by University of South Carolina professor Richard Southall. Here are several points raised in the bill:
· As of 2011, the average annual scholarship shortfall for full scholarship FBS college football players as a result of out-of-pocket expenses was $3,825.
· As of 2011, more than 80 percent of full scholarship football and men’s basketball players lived at or below the federal poverty level.
· 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.”
· As of 2014, revenue-producing male athletes graduate at a rate of 17.5 percentage points below other male students.
· The current landscape for college sports in California adversely impacts African American students in disproportionate ways. The bill stresses that “California’s African American college athletes are overrepresented in revenue producing sports and suffer the lowest graduation rates.”
· Senators Skinner and Bradford maintain that college athletes need skilled representation since they “face repercussions for obtaining legal representation to protect their academic, physical, and financial well-being.”
I would recommend reading the entire article as it deals with this and other issues. Basically, there would be options on the table (including CA and other like minded states and schools to form their own conferences outside of the NCAA) but the best end result would be for the NCAA to get out in front of this and allow for image and likeness/endorsement deals.
The NCAA can just have a rule that you can't profit off of your own license, they are their own organization and if you want to play in the NCAA, you'll need to follow their rules.
What this does set up is an interesting lawsuit if the NCAA does eventually profit off of player likenesses, either directly or indirectly with something like an NCAA Football game getting released again.
It seems like they should be afforded the same rights as post high school kids and State Athletic Assn be prevented from denying them eligibility if they do things that involve their image and profit from it.
it says "college athletes."
I assume that it doesn't include high school athletes.
Not that I'm against kids being able to profit from their likeness. I'll be curious to see how many other states follow suit.
I find the following statement particularly interesting. "In addition, the Fair Pay to Play Act would bar the NCAA from preventing student athletes from earning compensation. And the legislation would prohibit the NCAA from banning California colleges and universities from intercollegiate sports if their athletes sign sponsorship deals."
Just curious if anyone here knows what kind of control state legislature has over NCAA compliance and regulation (probably a dumb question)? I admittedly know nothing about NCAA legislation, but wouldn't such policy need to be approved by the NCAA Board of Governors?
The bill still needs to be approved in the California house and signed by the Governor. Another key point is that it forbids California colleges from declaring athletes ineligible for receiving compensation. My non-lawyer opinion is that California holds no control over the NCAA.
At one point amateurs couldn't compete against professional without losing their amateur status with some exceptions (golf and tennis come to mind). Would the NCAA ban other schools from playing California schools due to professionals (in their mind) playing on those schools.
My opinion is California legislature should keep their zippers in appropriate position and let this topic come to an inevitable conclusion.
to make it seem like all of this is really "their idea."
force the NCAA to do what should be done anyway. But, if they call California's bluff, there's really nothing the state can do. California has no standing over the NCAA, the association could just prevent any university that follows this law from competing in their events or being in the association at all.
All that being said, the NCAA should just get with the times and get it done.
"The NCAA is also aware that if it doesn’t change amateurism rules voluntarily, it may be forced to do so by law. The Fair Pay to Play Act is just one of several legislative proposals under consideration across the country. Most notably, Congressman Mark Walker (Republican-North Carolina) and Congressman Cedric Richmond (Democrat-Louisiana) recently introduced House Resolution 1804. This resolution is titled the “Student-Athlete Equity Act” (Equity Act).
The Equity Act is currently under review by the House Ways and Means Committee. If it became law, the Equity Act would alter the U.S. Tax Code to tie the NCAA’s eligibility as a non-profit to the NCAA making a major change: permitting college athletes to sign endorsement deals and other contracts for the commercial use of names, images and likenesses. Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy has closely examined NCAA amateurism rules and has repeatedly voiced a number of concerns—particularly with respect to the fact that college athletes are always one play away from a career-ending injury."
The whole article is pretty detailed and includes the various scenarios. Basically, by making the enforcement date 2023, CA is basically giving the NCAA time to get it's house in order.