|
 |
New York Times
Paying College Athletes: Answers to Key Questions on New Law
California is challenging the N.C.A.A.’s business model built on amateur athletes. Here’s what that means.
By Alan Blinder
Sept. 30, 2019
California’s governor signed a bill that will allow students playing
college sports to strike endorsement deals and hire agents, challenging
the National Collegiate Athletic Association on a system that has been
in place for decades and generates billions of dollars for universities.
Here are answers to some questions surrounding California’s move and its repercussions.
What will the law do?
The law will allow student-athletes throughout California to be
compensated for the use of their name, image or likeness, and it will
also allow them to hire agents. Unless modified (more on that later),
it is scheduled to take effect in 2023.
The law says that universities, athletic conferences and the N.C.A.A.
cannot punish students for reaching such deals by stripping them of
scholarships or keeping them from playing.
There are some caveats, though. Students won’t be allowed to make deals
that “conflict with a provision of the athlete’s team contract.” For
example, athletes cannot cut a deal to wear a certain company’s gear
during a game if their university has an exclusive contract with
another company.
How is this different from current N.C.A.A. rules?
The N.C.A.A.’s Division I manual contains a labyrinth of guidelines.
But Article 12, which governs amateurism and athletic eligibility, is
about to become especially important in California.
Part of that article forbids student-athletes from accepting
compensation in exchange for allowing “his or her name or picture to
advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a
commercial product or service of any kind.”
The bylaws forbid sponsorships, but also activities like taking cash for autographs or monetizing social media channels.
The N.C.A.A. also has a “general rule” (with some exceptions) that
players cannot participate in a college sport if they have agreed “to
be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her
athletics ability or reputation in that sport.”
Both provisions conflict with California’s approach.
Will student-athletes be penalized? What about their universities?
They could be.
If neither California nor the N.C.A.A. changes course, student-athletes
with agents or endorsement contracts will be in violation of the
association’s rules. Normally, that would leave them ineligible to play.
In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, the N.C.A.A.’s Board of
Governors said California schools might gain “an unfair recruiting
advantage” because of the law, and they would eventually be barred from
N.C.A.A. competition.
Colleges and universities could face substantial fines — “potentially
in the millions of dollars,” according to a legislative analysis — for
N.C.A.A. violations, and the financial losses would be even steeper if
universities lose eligibility for their teams to compete.
It is not clear, though, whether the N.C.A.A. could legally enforce any
fines. California officials have said they do not believe the N.C.A.A.
could punish colleges or athletes for complying with a state law.
In a statement on Monday, the N.C.A.A. said it would “consider next steps in California.”
Is California crazy?
California is betting that the N.C.A.A. will back down before the law
takes effect in January 2023. Given the threats of litigation, fines
and competition restrictions, that’s a risky proposition, but state
officials contend that the N.C.A.A. and its members across the country
simply cannot afford to ban or penalize California’s colleges and
universities.
“This is one of the biggest media markets on planet Earth,” Newsom said
in an interview with The New York Times. “Media cannot afford not to
have California at scale being participatory in the tournaments. They
know that, we know that, it’s a threat. I don’t necessarily take it to
heart.”
How are people reacting?
Less than two hours after the governor’s decision became public, the
N.C.A.A. said the law was already “creating confusion for current and
future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not
just in California.” The N.C.A.A., which could bring a lawsuit to
challenge the California statute, said its members would continue to
weigh changes to their rules.
The Pac-12 Conference, which counts four California universities among
its members, warned that the law would “lead to the professionalization
of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this
professionalism.”
But current and former athletes welcomed the law.
LeBron James, the Los Angeles Lakers player who hosted Newsom for the
bill signing, said the measure would “change the lives for countless
athletes who deserve it!”
The executive director of the National College Players Association,
Ramogi Huma, said the law marked “the beginning of the end” of a system
that he said made second-class citizens of student-athletes.
“Players everywhere deserve equal rights,” Huma, who played football at
the University of California, Los Angeles, said in a statement. “The
N.C.A.A. will get on board or be plunged into irrelevance. Either way,
players win and fans will continue enjoying college sports.”
Chip Kelly, the football coach at U.C.L.A., also said Monday that he
supported the law and thought it was “the right thing to do.”
“It doesn’t cost the universities, it doesn’t cost the N.C.A.A.,” said Kelly, who described the measure as “progress.”
Is this happening in other states?
No state has gone as far as California — so far.
But the N.C.A.A. is facing pressure, in varying amounts, from the
public, Congress and a rising number of statehouses. Just in the last
few weeks, South Carolina legislators said they intended to introduce a
bill like the one in California.
And a state senator from Brooklyn has filed legislation that in some
ways mirrors the California measure. But the New York proposal takes
another step: It would compel colleges to pay 15 percent of the money
earned from sports ticket sales to student-athletes.
What’s next?
The time before the law takes effect gives the N.C.A.A. or another
party (and plenty might be interested) time to go to court. The
N.C.A.A. told the governor in September that it believed the measure to
be “unconstitutional,” signaling that it could bring a legal challenge
connected to the Constitution’s commerce clause.
But there is a twist: By the end of October, N.C.A.A. leaders expect to
receive a committee’s recommendations for changes. The California law
explicitly declares that the Legislature intends to “revisit this issue
to implement significant findings and recommendations” from that group.
So it is entirely possible for California to amend its law before 2023,
perhaps avoiding a legal battle with the N.C.A.A. or some of the
state’s universities.
|
|
|
|
