https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/california-governor-signs-law-allowing-college-athletes-to-be-paid-for-name-image-and-likeness-as-ncaa-protests/

This just passed in California. Similar bills are in play in NY, SC, and FL. Do we think OK would pass something like this? I can only assume Clemson is behind SC considering a bill like this. NY and FL, I can see.

I think it will certainly cause some problems for less funded schools but I'm all for it. I support it mainly for the Olympic sports (not that they will actually see any money). The rest of the world gets paid to train, why not our kids?

This will almost certainly cause the NCAA to compromise in some way and then apply the new rules uniformly across all states/schools.

This will almost certainly cause the NCAA to compromise in some way and then apply the new rules uniformly across all states/schools.

I certainly hope so, because OU and OSU would be left in the dust if not.

I certainly hope so, because OU and OSU would be left in the dust if not.

Priorities

University of Oklahoma -- Sacramento Campus

Paying college athletes has been on the table for decades. Where you really get into a dilemma is addressing the question of men & women athletes. You can't leave women athletes out because of Title IX.

We all know that football funds & underwrites many of the various university programs in the athletic programs budget; therefore the compromise with how Title IX is woven into the fracas will require a hurdle far beyond a stiff arm.

An annual appreciation stipend to athletes may be more doable.

I think it will certainly cause some problems for less funded schools but I'm all for it. I support it mainly for the Olympic sports (not that they will actually see any money). The rest of the world gets paid to train, why not our kids?
The monies will come from advertisers, agents, and entities other than the school or conference.

I think it will certainly cause some problems for less funded schools but I'm all for it. I support it mainly for the Olympic sports (not that they will actually see any money). The rest of the world gets paid to train, why not our kids?

This isnt about schools paying student athletes. Its about allowing student athletes to hire an agent and enter into sponsorship agreements with outside parties.

The monies will come from advertisers, agents, and entities other than the school or conference.

exactly... the California law just allows them to make money off their likeness and name. one of the crazy things that brought this on was UCLA Gymnast Katelyn Ohashi was told by the NCAA that she couldn't publish a book of poetry, because her name recognition came from the NCAA, and therefore she could not profit off of that... which is just dumb. other examples were a student on a swimming scholarship that had their scholarship revoked because in their spare time, they were paid to teach a class that taught children how to swim... these are the things this is about... the NCAA being just dumb in what is a violation and how kids can make money... this will allow them to be able to use their skills and their likeness and their name

There's no panacea to address all the concerns that simmer around paying college athletes.

Do they deserve to get paid. You bet they do, when you consider all the training & sacrifices involved--the universities are dependent on them. They deserve some kind of compensation...

There's no panacea to address all the concerns that simmer around paying college athletes.

Do they deserve to get paid. You bet they do, when you consider all the training & sacrifices involved--the universities are dependent on them. They deserve some kind of compensation...

heck... and if they don't, then they deserve to atleast get that education... Nebraska a few years ago had to self report a NCAA violation because a tennis player who was a math major, used is scholarship money to buy a graphing calculator that was required for class, but technically scholarship money only covers a basic calculator... and thus was a violation... and there goes the NCAA argument that they care about the student part of the student-athlete..

It's a tough subject. I think the California bill only allows for private endorsements from outside bodies--not for putting college athletes on the State's payroll. I don't think there'd be any problem with Title IX as private parties get to choose which student athletes they want to endorse.

OU will be well-positioned if this ever comes to pass as OU is a Jordan school, which is, I hear, the more sought after brand by the young'ns, so OU would be battling for recruits with Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida.

This isnt about schools paying student athletes. Its about allowing student athletes to hire an agent and enter into sponsorship agreements with outside parties.

Bingo. The California law has nothing do with schools paying players. It's just allowing them to make money off their own likeness. The fact this law has ever existed is so exploitative, but that's pretty much the NCAA for you. I hope all states pass this same law. It's the right thing to do.

It's a tough subject. I think the California bill only allows for private endorsements from outside bodies--not for putting college athletes on the State's payroll. I don't think there'd be any problem with Title IX as private parties get to choose which student athletes they want to endorse.

OU will be well-positioned if this ever comes to pass as OU is a Jordan school, which is, I hear, the more sought after brand by the young'ns, so OU would be battling for recruits with Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida.

What is a Jordan school?

What is a Jordan school?

Jordan Brand provides all the jerseys and sports attire for OU (athletes and to sell in the bookstore, campus corner, etc).

What is a Jordan school?

It is an elite department within Nike developed for the great Michael Jordan, which is best identified by the “Jumpman” logo. The Nike Schools get the Nike logo, whereas the Jordan schools get Jumpman.

This is a key advantage for OU as the young influencers are obsessed with the Logo, line up for hours to buy Jordans, etc.

If a top recruit is faced with the option of (a) accept $100k to attend a Nike school or (b) accept $100k to attend a Jordan school, she will attend the Jordan school almost every time. The Logo is that important to these kids.

While I'm not a fan of either of the senators involved, I do like this proposed regulation. It would bring some degree of order into the chaos that now exists in college sports.

https://apnews.com/article/nil-ncaa-manchin-tuberville-0f76f1065e8a6cf075a2590ab06acab0

"The Protecting Athletes, Schools, and Sports Act would establish a regulator to oversee agents and collectives, the booster-funded organizations that provide many NIL deals to college athletes. It would also establish a uniform NIL contract for athletes, create a public website to publish NIL data without revealing names of athletes and require contracts to be disclosed within 30 days.

The bill would make it illegal for states to pass laws that permit college athletes to share revenue with schools and conference that generate billions from sports such as major college football and basketball.

ASS would require schools to fund some long-term health care for their athletes. It also would regulate transfer rules, requiring athletes to complete three years of academic eligibility before being able to switch schools and immediately compete."

While I'm not a fan of either of the senators involved, I do like this proposed regulation. It would bring some degree of order into the chaos that now exists in college sports.

https://apnews.com/article/nil-ncaa-manchin-tuberville-0f76f1065e8a6cf075a2590ab06acab0

"The Protecting Athletes, Schools, and Sports Act would establish a regulator to oversee agents and collectives, the booster-funded organizations that provide many NIL deals to college athletes. It would also establish a uniform NIL contract for athletes, create a public website to publish NIL data without revealing names of athletes and require contracts to be disclosed within 30 days.

The bill would make it illegal for states to pass laws that permit college athletes to share revenue with schools and conference that generate billions from sports such as major college football and basketball.

ASS would require schools to fund some long-term health care for their athletes. It also would regulate transfer rules, requiring athletes to complete three years of academic eligibility before being able to switch schools and immediately compete."

I like it all except the transfer rules. If coaches can leave whenever so should athletes.

I have a belief that any legislation proposed with the name Tuberville on it is DOA.
Plus the restriction on revenue sharing could be a constitutional issue.

I like it all except the transfer rules. If coaches can leave whenever so should athletes.

Agreed on all of this. Heck, Tuberville himself bolted from Texas Tech after only two years, pretty hypocritical of him to shut that door to uncompensated students.

I like it all except the transfer rules. If coaches can leave whenever so should athletes.

That is not a comparable situation. Coaches are under contract and there are substantial monetary consequences when they leave. Athletes just say goodbye and that's it.

That is not a comparable situation. Coaches are under contract and there are substantial monetary consequences when they leave. Athletes just say goodbye and that's it.

That’s probably changed a bit with NIL. I’ve heard of guys getting 2-year deals.

Agreed on all of this. Heck, Tuberville himself bolted from Texas Tech after only two years, pretty hypocritical of him to shut that door to uncompensated students.

Excuse me! Uncompensated?
Since when is a free college education not compensation?
But then I have to remind myself, that especially in an age of big NIL deals and the Transfer Portal (free agency), it’s silly to really call these players “student athletes.” I know that’s not a popular thing to say in Oklahoma, but there’s more and more people willing to admit it.

Excuse me! Uncompensated?
Since when is a free college education not compensation?
But then I have to remind myself, that especially in an age of big NIL deals and the Transfer Portal (free agency), it’s silly to really call these players “student athletes.” I know that’s not a popular thing to say in Oklahoma, but there’s more and more people willing to admit it.

it was silly before. and it was always dumb that they couldn't market themselves because of some arbitrary rules, especially when it wasn't related to the sport at all. i went to school on an academic scholarship, and there was no one complaining that i while a student used my skills to earn money while in college. the example i always love to bring up was when Katelyn Ohashi (a UCLA Gymnast) wasn't allowed to publish a book of poetry while she was still in college under scholarship. if you are just saying the only thing a student athlete can earn while under scholarship is their scholarship, then you are saying they are able to sign away the entirety of their identity to a university. i'm sorry that but is completely ridiculous. now is the age of NIL as it currently is completely on the opposite side of the spectrum, yes, it is and will be for awhile, but it will correct itself to a healthier medium in the near future. but the old way was way worse than what we have now.

So if athletes start receiving pay, does this mean that like most students they'll now start paying for their meals, workout clothing, books, supply's, etc; out of their own pockets ?

So if athletes start receiving pay, does this mean that like most students they'll now start paying for their meals, workout clothing, books, supply's, etc; out of their own pockets ?
When the regular students start filling 100,000 seat stadiums and commanding a large national audience who will all pay to see them study, then I guess it will be even.

So if athletes start receiving pay, does this mean that like most students they'll now start paying for their meals, workout clothing, books, supply's, etc; out of their own pockets ?

The bigger question will be: are they employees? Meaning they can be fired, have to pay taxes, pay for their own Healthcare, etc. I feel like is revenue-sharing happens, they will be professionals, meaning all of that applies.

The bigger question will be: are they employees? Meaning they can be fired, have to pay taxes, pay for their own Healthcare, etc. I feel like is revenue-sharing happens, they will be professionals, meaning all of that applies.

Making them employees opens up a whole can of worms on the Title IX front, as schools will have to spend roughly proportionate amount of funds on paying men's and women's athletes, have roughly similar number of "employees," etc.

The NIL status quo is messy, but it's honestly the less convoluted solution to helping student athletes receive even a modicum of income for their labor.

it was silly before. and it was always dumb that they couldn't market themselves because of some arbitrary rules, especially when it wasn't related to the sport at all. i went to school on an academic scholarship, and there was no one complaining that i while a student used my skills to earn money while in college. the example i always love to bring up was when Katelyn Ohashi (a UCLA Gymnast) wasn't allowed to publish a book of poetry while she was still in college under scholarship. if you are just saying the only thing a student athlete can earn while under scholarship is their scholarship, then you are saying they are able to sign away the entirety of their identity to a university. i'm sorry that but is completely ridiculous. now is the age of NIL as it currently is completely on the opposite side of the spectrum, yes, it is and will be for awhile, but it will correct itself to a healthier medium in the near future. but the old way was way worse than what we have now.

Yeah I agree completely. It was really stupid that an athlete could get hit with an NCAA violation and have to miss games or even be kicked off a team because someone paid them to sign autographs, they sold their own jersey online, or probably a more likely scenario for women than men…got a modeling contract (see Livvy Dunne at LSU who’s raking it in and couldn’t have done so until NIL was allowed).

Though on the other hand, I also think it’s extremely ridiculous that Joe 5 star can get several million dollars in NIL deals for nothing other than signing with a school and without any proof that he can actually play at the college level. Also don’t think any athletes should be entitled to NIL money they received as a result of signing with a school if they transfer but I suppose that’s between the donor/sponsor and the athletes. I think the NIL stuff has been a great step in the right direction but it truly is the Wild West right now. We’d all be foolish to believe athletes at major schools and in major sports haven’t been getting paid by boosters for years (I know for a fact OU had several football players that were while I was there…other than the ones that got caught at big red sports and imports) but now that it’s out in the open, competition has made the sums of money go wild. That said, while I feel some better regulatory framework should be put in place to protect both the athletes and sponsors/donors, I think the free market will work itself out on this one eventually. If enough mega donors throw out massive bags to guys that fail to perform and in some cases never set foot on the field/court…I think you’ll see some of this stuff aimed at recruits dailed back in lieu of smaller deals up front with bonuses for performance (ie. Less money freshman year, more money down the road as part of that deal or maybe a new deal every year or something to that effect)

Also think it’s ridiculous that they can have similar consequences from the NCAA for being caught using marijuana in states where it’s legal or if they have a license in states where medical is legal (now the schools themselves can make and impose whatever rules they want…just don’t think the NCAA should have a hand in regulating legal activity at the state level). But that’s another story lol.

Making them employees opens up a whole can of worms on the Title IX front, as schools will have to spend roughly proportionate amount of funds on paying men's and women's athletes, have roughly similar number of "employees," etc.

The NIL status quo is messy, but it's honestly the less convoluted solution to helping student athletes receive even a modicum of income for their labor.

yep making them employees (football and let say maybe mens basketball ) kills almost all the funding for womens sports and mens not rev sports ..

The bigger question will be: are they employees? Meaning they can be fired, have to pay taxes, pay for their own Healthcare, etc. I feel like is revenue-sharing happens, they will be professionals, meaning all of that applies.

They already have to pay taxes. And, the uni pays insurance because they are involved in an activity that creates above average instances of injury, etc., for the benefit of the university. But, NIL is not pay for play, legally, and they are 1099 vendors for the NIL’s paying them. This is the same as if you were to be paid to be a spokesperson for a business. They wouldn’t hire you as an employee, but as a 1099 supplier of services.

yep making them employees (football and let say maybe mens basketball ) kills almost all the funding for womens sports and mens not rev sports ..

That’s totally dependent on how much you pay them.

That’s totally dependent on how much you pay them.



if they are employees they would very quickly form a union ...

they would be paid based largely on a % of revenue .. we know what the tv deal are for football ..

So if athletes start receiving pay, does this mean that like most students they'll now start paying for their meals, workout clothing, books, supply's, etc; out of their own pockets ?

i mean my academic scholarship also included a meal plan and had a decent amount of money for books and supplies. and i was still able to earn money outside of it. so again, why should we treat athletes any different?

NFL, etc. pay kids based on their performance at the college level. College pays based upon performance at the high school level. Education, housing and food are the minimum wage college currently pays. NIL lets colleges pay more for better talent. Colleges and Universities pay all kinds of employees all kinds of money for different jobs. This isn't really different

if they are employees they would very quickly form a union ...

they would be paid based largely on a % of revenue .. we know what the tv deal are for football ..

So?

NFL, etc. pay kids based on their performance at the college level. College pays based upon performance at the high school level. Education, housing and food are the minimum wage college currently pays. NIL lets colleges pay more for better talent. Colleges and Universities pay all kinds of employees all kinds of money for different jobs. This isn't really different

Colleges don't pay. NIL is not the college. People need to understand the difference as it stands legally today. Colleges can coordinate certain aspects, but there is currently a technical wall between them.

So?

that would not bother me in any way ..

but it is completely undeniable that it would destroy women's college sports and non rev men's college sports ..

that would not bother me in any way ..

but it is completely undeniable that it would destroy women's college sports and non rev men's college sports ..

And those are club sports in almost every other country in the world. They don't have to be official NCAA sports.

And those are club sports in almost every other country in the world. They don't have to be official NCAA sports.

How would that square with title 9 though?

How would that square with title 9 though?

Probably doesn't. I believe that the basis is on number of opportunities by gender, so, if men's non rev sports become club sports not supported by the uni, then they wouldn't have to have an equal number of women's. And, if football becomes professional with just licensing of Uni names, then maybe all women's scholarship sports go the way of club sports.

that would not bother me in any way ..

but it is completely undeniable that it would destroy women's college sports and non rev men's college sports ..

but would it? what if NCAA athletes formed a single union? looking at the 2020/2021 numbers, there were 101,090 scholarship athletes when you don't include football and mens basketball. football was 27,304 and 9510 mens basketball. i think you would find on most major program campuses, there are more non-football scholarship athletes than football. so if unions were formed that included them, i don't think it would destroy those sports, but it may make a large chunk of football tv revenue go to non-football players.

double post.

but would it? what if NCAA athletes formed a single union? looking at the 2020/2021 numbers, there were 101,090 scholarship athletes when you don't include football and mens basketball. football was 27,304 and 9510 mens basketball. i think you would find on most major program campuses, there are more non-football scholarship athletes than football. so if unions were formed that included them, i don't think it would destroy those sports, but it may make a large chunk of football tv revenue go to non-football players.

why in the world would football players want to share the revenue they generate with non rev athletes??

I will answer that for you .. they wouldn't

Colleges don't pay. NIL is not the college. People need to understand the difference as it stands legally today. Colleges can coordinate certain aspects, but there is currently a technical wall between them.

Word it however you want. They are getting paid because they engage in their activity at a specific school.

why in the world would football players want to share the revenue they generate with non rev athletes??

I will answer that for you .. they wouldn't

but if we are talking about athletes forming a union because they are employees of the school. i think they would have to do it across all sports. it would have to be a union of all scholarship athletes. because if basis for formation of the union was being an NCAA scholarship athlete, from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a football scholarship and a softball scholarship. then with that union, i don't think football players would have the majority choice and as such, it wouldn't matter if they wouldn't want to, they would be outvoted by their own union.

but if we are talking about athletes forming a union because they are employees of the school. i think they would have to do it across all sports. it would have to be a union of all scholarship athletes. because if basis for formation of the union was being an NCAA scholarship athlete, from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a football scholarship and a softball scholarship. then with that union, i don't think football players would have the majority choice and as such, it wouldn't matter if they wouldn't want to, they would be outvoted by their own union.

nope they wouldn't it would only be football players ... and once they are employees they wouldn't' be on scholarship anymore either way ..

nope they wouldn't it would only be football players ... and once they are employees they wouldn't' be on scholarship anymore either way ..

i'm pretty certain that would fall under an Academic Labor Union since they are required to be a student at the school to be a member, and thus are subject to Title IX.... so i don't think they could make it just football only, legally.

or if done nationally, their union would have to be under the NCAA in order to collectively Bargain, and the NCAA by charter must meet all Title IX requirements, and so i don't think again, could be football only.

now if there is a lawyer on here who actually knows more, please let me know where i'm wrong. but pretty sure that would be correct in these situations.

i'm pretty certain that would fall under an Academic Labor Union since they are required to be a student at the school to be a member, and thus are subject to Title IX.... so i don't think they could make it just football only, legally.

or if done nationally, their union would have to be under the NCAA in order to collectively Bargain, and the NCAA by charter must meet all Title IX requirements, and so i don't think again, could be football only.

now if there is a lawyer on here who actually knows more, please let me know where i'm wrong. but pretty sure that would be correct in these situations.

This is not how it would go at all.

This is not how it would go at all.

i mean if you can find the legal way for them to actually unionize and not violate Title IX, then feel free to explain it to us. but the Universities wouldn't be able to collectively bargain with just the football team as it would be a Title IX violation.

so you can keep saying that isn't how it would go. but you are the one who would suggest they would unionize in that scenario, even though it looks like they can't because of already in place Federal law, or if they unionize, they would have to include all scholarship athletes. But if you happen to know how they can get around that, please feel free to share and provide your information to back it up, or any information as to how what i am saying is incorrect. until then, i think this conversation is over.

Word it however you want. They are getting paid because they engage in their activity at a specific school.

That is certainly your non-legal description. Doesn't change what they are actually, who's paying them, and how they are getting paid.

Word it however you want. They are getting paid because they engage in their activity at a specific school.

That is abstracting away a lot of very critical information. The colleges pay nothing (outside of scholarships).

i mean if you can find the legal way for them to actually unionize and not violate Title IX, then feel free to explain it to us. but the Universities wouldn't be able to collectively bargain with just the football team as it would be a Title IX violation.

so you can keep saying that isn't how it would go. but you are the one who would suggest they would unionize in that scenario, even though it looks like they can't because of already in place Federal law, or if they unionize, they would have to include all scholarship athletes. But if you happen to know how they can get around that, please feel free to share and provide your information to back it up, or any information as to how what i am saying is incorrect. until then, i think this conversation is over.

when they become employees they won't be students any more ... and in fact OU football INC (or what ever you want to call it ... would likely just rent facilities from and license names and colors from the university ..

when they become employees they won't be students any more ... and in fact OU football INC (or what ever you want to call it ... would likely just rent facilities from and license names and colors from the university ..

That doesn't matter for title IX. It has to do with the athletic programs themselves being treated equally. Even if they are university employees, they are still part of the athletic program. The school would not be able to bargain with the athletes of one program differently than all other programs, so the only way universities could bargain would be if it's a singular union for all sports programs. And as we have already stated, at very few schools does football make up a majority of all athletes for all programs.

Back in reality, it's pretty clear that your scenario won't happen, as they are not employees of the school, and as we have now circled back to again, federal law would currently forbid it.

It would take a repeal of title IX for that to happen

I maintain a system man makes is a system that can be "cheated". If you want to argue if players are paid by the school, or how much, then think about how Head Coach is paid. Probably something like $1 million per year on a 3 year, State limited contract; $4 million from Big Shoe Brand; $2 million from Golden Gridiron Partners III; and $1 million, plus a pair of 3 row SUV & one 2 seat roadster from Blue Sky Auto Group. Now how is he getting paid and how much does it matter?

That doesn't matter for title IX. It has to do with the athletic programs themselves being treated equally. Even if they are university employees, they are still part of the athletic program. The school would not be able to bargain with the athletes of one program differently than all other programs, so the only way universities could bargain would be if it's a singular union for all sports programs. And as we have already stated, at very few schools does football make up a majority of all athletes for all programs.

Back in reality, it's pretty clear that your scenario won't happen, as they are not employees of the school, and as we have now circled back to again, federal law would currently forbid it.

It would take a repeal of title IX for that to happen

no as employees and not students they wouldn't be part of the athletic programs .. and title IX would not apply .. it would be an entirely new system

without federal law that is where this is headed .. and sooner rather then later ...

I predict a G league type set up if the Manchin Tuberville proposal ever becomes law.(Not that it will even be voted on). Football and basketball players are not going to stay at one school for a forced 3 years.
Interesting that these two senators claimed to have spoken with so called "stake holders" yet fail to mention any talks with players.
To speculate on an evolution to unionized employees playing collegiate football is no more than worst case speculative opinion. I for one do not see the sky falling. Nor do I see the governing body allowing non athletes to compete.

but if we are talking about athletes forming a union because they are employees of the school. i think they would have to do it across all sports. it would have to be a union of all scholarship athletes. because if basis for formation of the union was being an NCAA scholarship athlete, from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a football scholarship and a softball scholarship. then with that union, i don't think football players would have the majority choice and as such, it wouldn't matter if they wouldn't want to, they would be outvoted by their own union.

Exactly. The whole idea of collective bargaining is that it benefits all.

Exactly. The whole idea of collective bargaining is that it benefits all.

not exactly.