"Fair Pay to Play" advances in California Senate…

[PlainsUte]

California is trying to re-write NCAA rules from the leglislature.

California Fair Pay to Play

Hat tip to Jon Wilner of the Mercury News for the alert.

Since this allows pay for “endorsements” it could be a big boon to schools in major metro areas, such as LA and San Francisco, where the market value of an endorsement is higher than for, say, Boise or Pullman, and also where there might be big boosters who are willing to pay players for “endorsements” that are not normally paid that much but the booster wants to bribe an athelete to come to their school.

[gUrthBrooks]

It’s bull s**t IMO. Those same athletes can try to earn endorsements in the free market. Go ahead. Do it. As a taxpayer helping support local gov’t and universities, I see the assets of the university such as the stadium and network deals benefiting the school and the taxpayer I’m not interested in splitting the endorsements and how do you do that equally among high profile and less profile athletes…think title IX and women’s sports.

Take those same athletes and have their parents try to create and pay for the same competitive situation outside of the university experience. Have them pay with their after tax dollars for elite coaching, trainers, meal plans, weight room facilities, training facilities, video review, etc. the expense would be monumental.

[utefansince79]

Hell if an essentially free college education isn’t fair then what the hell is? 

 

 

[gUrthBrooks]

And free coaching from 40 + years of experience, and food, and board, and trainers, and tutors, and travel to other cities and on and on.

[PlainsUte]

Not sure what you’re saying, this is allowing them to get endorsement deals in the free market, with no direct additional cost to the Universities.   Athletic donations might go down from businesses as they might be inclined to spend that money on endorsement deals with star players rather than making a big ad deal or donation to the athletic department, so it could hurt the average Joe/Jill athlete in that way.

As I mentioned, I think it would profoundly change the recruiting landscape.   Now recruiting of top players might include lining up car dealers or whoever to promise to do endorsement deals if the star player goes to the school.  More advantages for USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington and the like in big ad markets where local endorsements are worth more (the sponsoring Senator is from Berkeley), and also for schools like Oregon with connections to shoe money.

[UtMtBiker]

Doesn’t sound like you read the proposed legistlation.  It wouldn’t cost a University a dime. It allows the players to obtain indorsements in the “free market”. Exactly the opposite of your argument.  Doesn’t require a school to give money to athletes at all.  

Why do you support and inequity for atheles and other students?  How many business students have started a business while in school?  How many art students aren’t allowed to sell thier art while taking classes from professors “with 40+ years experiance” while on schalorship.  You are away that other students recieve scholorships too aren’t you?  

So why do you have a problem with athletes using thier talent to make money like any other athalete?  It sounds like you just don’t want to see your team loose and think that teams in LA will get all the talent.  

There really isn’t a reasonable argument to behind the “they are already getting free school” line of thinking.  

[Author]

Posts