It says all NEW revenue goes to the players, including future medical expenses if I read the link correctly. I read that to mean that it doesn't bite into the current REVENUE, and the hit to athletic departments is more downstream. Some schools will not be affected at all unless they get a bigger TV contract?

Revenue seems a bad or unfair choice, especially with added travel and other costs. If a school decides to start a new sport, revenue and profit are different.

The law allows schools to deduct cost of the scholarship from REVENUE, but that's far from the total expenditure on the athlete (tutors, books, nutrition)

Please don't interpret this as an negative vote - just a typical California poorly written law.

in State X refuse to play schools in California?

money between mens and womens scholarship athletes. It looks like it will be distributed evenly among all of them as well.

...be careful what you wish for; you might just get it! The 50/50 split could backfire on Cali. Once they pass a law to pay athletes a stipend, the rest of the nation will too. The problem arises when 50 states have 50 different laws, and some states my not distribute the paychecks in such an equal manner. If there is no uniform way of paying athletes, some schools will pay more to lure in better players in the revenue sports. Then anything goes! If the athletes are now paid employees, why not just let them be players on the sports that produce revenue for the university and not force them to go to class and work towards a degree? An even better way to get better players! Further, since they aren't technically "students" anymore but employees, you won't have to worry about a player staying academically eligible nor deal with those pesky entrance requirements. And you won't have to worry about applying for a 5th year. What does it even mean to be a 5th year senior anymore when you aren't even a student? I am sure the university paycheck and NIL money will be pretty good, so if you don't go pro, just stay where you are. You aren't a student anymore. I imagine such "contracts" will be year to year, so, since you aren't a student, the university can toss you out when the season is over. Now, I follow admit that this scenario is pretty ludicrous but I could see some of it happening in some way. Maybe I've had too many chemo meds, but college sports are going to look very different in 10 years (or less!).

Is essentially the euro club football setup, which would be perfect...

For a minor league.

But has no place relating to college athletics.

With every step forward, I think more and more that the ivy league has it right with their "no scholarships" mantra, where sports are played for enjoyment and school spirit.

...that there athletes will no longer be students at all, but merely employees who have nothing to do with what a university is for. How far does this go? Does it become ludicrous where players are traded or have their "contract" sold for cash and a player to be named later? I'm sure the networks have an idea of what they want and are flexing their muscles directing conference "realignment" (the Pac-10 is clearly not part of it). And we are definately seeing what people like Saban want. As to the end game? Good question, but I am sure I will have lost interest long beforehand.

following the NFL model of revenue splitting and collective bargaining. Too many moving parts.

Saban has gotten exactly (or almost exactly) the kind of system he wants. Force players out that he no longer wants, dip into the a wide open transfer portal to be able to poach another team's star player, pay players, etc. But when someone beats him at his own game, he can't stand it and suddenly wants sort of control or limits to it. This all started when lucrative TV contracts were signed, injects large amounts of money into universities. Then the universities did not want to share that cash with anyone, including the athletes whose NIL they were using to make even more money. On top of the 3rd party NIL money, they are going to pay players. If they had fairly compensated the players for using their NIL out of univeristy coffers rather than an unregulated 3rd party fund, things would likely be different. But ESPN will certainly be happy as will the sports book folks.

in exchange for players getting paid and NIL being a thing of the past?

Would he give up on his roster management? Guarantee 4 years of a scholarship without being able to run guys off? Be willing to have transfers have to sit out a year? Share revenue with other (lower tier) programs?

NFL owners have to give up a decent amount of stuff in order to maintain order in their system, otherwise teams like Green Bay, Jacksonville, etc. would go bankrupt.

Accounting for body positivity and all.

way around that is to have the media companies pay players directly.

I'm also curious what an expected payout would look like. The contemplated money comes after deducting the value of the scholarship; so after doing that and dividing the money among all athletes, I'm not sure how much it would be per athlete.

Even though players wouldn't be getting official "game checks" I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of pro-rated tax levied on visiting teams.

I'd love to see the rationale that they'd use in court to show why revenue generated by one group of athletes should be funneled off to another completely unrelated group. That would be like paying the administrative staff from revenues generated directly from the professors and research departments; that money should come from the school's portion of the pie, not the players.

It's not predictable due to title 9, it's predictable due to politics.

If you are going to do that, then why not spread it among all student extra curricular performance activities? Theater? Orchestra? Band? Glee Club?

What's the rationale for spreading wealth to some, but not others?

to the athletes would be if the athletes kept the lion's share of all the revenue. They likely wouldn't "deserve" much more than about 45% on their own, so if they got 90% to split among all athletes that would somewhat even things out.

That said, I'm sure that the schools wouldn't find that very fair.

if it ever becomes law.

where the university bonds are not just general obligations, but are secured by the university’s athletic revenues. There are contracts with bondholders securing repayment, and those contracts would be impaired.

the idea that a business owner can't pay his staff because he has other bills to pay won't fly.

I can't decide to not pay my assistant because I have to pay my rent, in other words.

The logical reply would be that the money needs to come from the school's end of the deal; if that means they need to cut some bloated staff, so be it.

trying to negotiate with lawmakers to stem the tide instead of getting out in front of things and leading and coming up with meaningful solutions. Greedy pricks.

Perhaps Jack and Jenkins can pen another article.

That's the perfect way for Jack-n-Jenks to ensure ND will have a good postseason option filled with revenue opportunities and brand protection.