N.C.A.A. Athletes Could Be Paid Under New California Law

from NYTs

It has been a bedrock principle behind college sports: Student-athletes should not be paid beyond the costs of attending a university. California threatened that standard on Monday after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to allow players to strike endorsement deals and hire agents.

The new law, which is supposed to take effect in 2023, attacks the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s long-held philosophy that college athletes should earn a degree, not money, for playing sports. That view, also under assault in several other states and on Capitol Hill, has held up even as the college sports industry swelled into a behemoth that generated at least $14 billion last year, and as athletes faced mounting demands on their bodies and schedules.

Under the California measure, thousands of student-athletes in America’s most populous state will be allowed to promote products and companies, trading on their sports renown for the first time. And although the law applies only to California, it sets up the possibility that leaders in college sports will eventually have to choose between changing the rules for athletes nationwide or barring some of America’s sports powerhouses from competition.

More here.

Posted in Education, Law and tagged , , , , .


  1. Ever since I found out about Gavin Newsome signing into law the ability for NCAA athletes to find some form of compensation, I was angry. While this will be to the major benefit for college athletes, this is something that only widens the gap between your average college student and your college athlete. College athletes get to earn their degree for free, so long as they play their sport in college. While they get to play a sport and get a free degree, most college students have to rack up a significant amount of debt stemming from student loans. The idea that they deserve to be compensated beyond being allowed to earn their degree for free, while also experiencing much more academic leniency as many coaches negotiate with professors to keep their players from being stripped of their privilege to play, is more than enough. The author makes the point that “only a fraction of college athletes turn professional, and college is the only time college athletes can profit off of their hard earned athletic successes.” The idea that a free degree is not enough baffles me. While yes, the chances of becoming professional are slim, even if you do not become a professional you will have a degree and no student debt by the time you graduate, and are free of worrying about paying off that debt for the next 10 to 20 years. Payment plus the ability to earn a degree for free is completely unfair to the majority of students who have to take out loans to earn their degree. If most of us had the opportunity to earn a degree for thriving at something, we would be happy with just that. These athletes are beginning to ask for too much and becoming greedy, because they already are able to have the opportunities all of your average college students would want. It feels as almost they are rubbing in the fact that they are considered to be better than your average college students, and that is why they do not get paid to begin with. Opening up this idea is going to make a lot of your students who do not have full scholarships or scholarships at all very angry.

  2. This topic in sports is maybe known as one of the most talked about topic, especially for NCAA and the schools who are associated with it. For years now, people have been talking about if college athletes should be paid. Many people feel very differently, some people agree and some people disagree. There’s very good arguments to both sides of this topic. The big argument that make people believe that college athletes should be paid is because of the amount of money these athletes make for their schools and for the NCAA. Some people also feel as if these players are viewed as superstars, not just every day college athletes. On the other side of the argument, people feel as if these college athletes should not be paid because they view the NCAA as high school sports but just on a bigger stage. Another big argument is how some schools who are smaller such as small private division 1 NCAA schools should not have their athletes be paid due to the lack of money that comes through the school from their sports teams.
    Personally, I feel as if athletes who are playing for schools who make a certain amount of money through the specific sport should be getting paid. For instance, athletes on college football teams such as LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. should be making money from the amount of money they make for their school from playing football. The amount of time and effort these athletes put in to represent their university’s is incredible especially when certain athletes for certain school have a full course load.
    The new law of College athletes getting paid in California has just recently passed and many people feel differently about it. With this new law, players of the NCAA that go to university in California are now legally allowed to be paid for playing. I think this is a big step into every state making a law in which their college athletes can be paid. Some states are already in the process of attempting to pass these laws. I feel as I this law could be passed for every state, but only to certain universities who make a certain amount from their sports teams.

  3. Being a sports fan for many years now, I have always been aware of the large rule book of the NCAA and the restrictions it puts on the top student athletes. A few summers ago, my basketball coach ran a summer league team for professional and amateur players. He had two Quinnipiac University players on the team and asked my family and I to take them back to campus after one of the games. We wanted to treat them to dinner since, as college kids they are probably eating at the cafeteria most of the time. However, they refused saying that it might violate some of the rules of the NCAA about players taking gifts. We were forced to take them to McDonald’s as we would not be spending, or “gifting,” too much money. I believe there are problems with the rules of the NCAA that must be addressed before we discuss paying these athletes.
    Personally, I believe the bill passed in California is both good and bad. I believe it is only right that the NCAA allows these athletes to profit off of their name and the sale of their jerseys. However, I do not believe they should receive pay or compensation just for playing for the school. While it is true that their talent brings in millions for these colleges, it is my belief that a full scholarship to the university is compensation enough. Alan Blinder’s article gives a quote from a California Senator: “People are just so aware of the fact that you’ve got a multibillion-dollar industry that — let’s set aside scholarships — basically denies compensation to the very talent, the very work that produces that revenue.” Why should we “set aside scholarships”? In no way are these athletes denied compensation when they receive a completely free education from some of the nation’s top schools. Tuition at some of these universities can reach over $70,000 a year, totaling over $250,000 over four years. That is an incredible amount of money that leaves many non-athlete students crippled by debt for years after their college days. In the article, Hayley Hodson makes the argument that for the athletes who do not enter the world of professional sports, “college is the only time they have to profit off their hard-earned athletic successes.” Is getting a free education and possibly a great job after college from going to a highly prestigious school not a result of that hard-earned athletic success?
    I believe it is only fair that these athletes are able to profit off of the use of their name, however to give them a salary for playing would be problematic. Would that be too much of a leg-up on the rest of the students at the university? How much would players for sports that aren’t as popular as basketball and football make? Would the pay be based on talent? I believe there are too many difficult questions to address about this subject. As I mentioned previously, the NCAA has many other rules and regulations that are damaging to these athletes’ lives that must be addressed. The fact that they are not allowed to be treated to dinner is absurd. I believe we need to put more emphasis on how the NCAA limits the daily lives of their players, rather than giving them compensation just for playing.

  4. I was always curious why student athletes were never paid for playing college sports. Major Universities like University of Texas, University of Alabama, and UCLA make hundreds of millions of dollars each year off these athletes through ticket sales, jerseys, and other students wanting to attend these universities due to these programs being so popular. According to the New York Times, “Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to allow players to strike endorsement deals and hire agents.The new law, which is supposed to take effect in 2023, attacks the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s long-held philosophy that college athletes should earn a degree, not money, for playing sports”. Politically, signing this bill is very smart for Newsom, the first time governor. By signing a bill, which the majority of Californians and the whole country are in favor of, Newson will certainly increase his popularity. The article continues by stating, “And although the law applies only to California, it sets up the possibility that leaders in college sports will eventually have to choose between changing the rules for athletes nationwide or barring some of America’s sports powerhouses from competition”. It will be interesting whether or not, the NCAA decides to abide by this new law in California or keep doing what it has been doing forever, allowing universities that are members of the NCAA to make as much money as possible, while the student athletes get nothing.

    Last year, Zion Williamson, a freshman sensation on the Duke basketball team, became a nationwide icon while playing at Duke. The University benefited tremendously with millions of dollars worth of tv deals, jerseys, ticket sales and free media to the University. Williamson should have been paid a portion because without him, Duke would have made significantly less. Also, what if players like Williamson, who are definite future professional athletes injure themselves while playing in the NCAA and lose millions of dollars, while never actually making any money.

    The NCAA needs to realize without student athletes, there would be no NCAA or college sports. Paying them a fraction would not hurt anyone, it would be benefiting those who keep college sports alive.

  5. When deciding to pick which article to read, this one really stood out to me. As a collegiate athlete myself, this article hit home. The ongoing issue with whether the NCAA should pay their athletes has been a long and ongoing issue. In my opinion, student athletes should be paid. They give up their time and also have to focus on school full time as well. The day to day life of a collegiate athlete is a stressful one. Whether it be the 6 AM practices to the long hours at school, college athletes have little to no time to even work. Therefore, I believe that they should be paid for what they bring to their respective schools. Not only do many of them give their time over, but many are on athletic scholarships as well. Although their schools may be paying for their education, the students, myself included do not have enough time to work, study, and play in a fair balance. To compensate, the NCAA should pay their athletes for this sacrifice they are committing to. Not only that, but the schools also use their likeness for promos and events. The athletes are seen as “property” to their schools, so they should also be compensated for that as well. If California passes this law, it will set a precedent for others to follow. The end goal is to have no restriction of a player’s likeness and freely profit how they see fit.

  6. As an athlete, I believe that all athletes should have the right to earn the money that we are worth. Athletes should be compensated because we strive daily and spend countless hours to be successful in our sport. If we have reached such a point where we are competing at a high level and approaching the professional level, why shouldn’t we get paid?

    Players can get injured during their time in college and that can cause them to lose a lot of money because if a player get injured he probably won’t go to the professional league in the future and he won’t sign any contract. Also, it makes no sense that a player is not paid but, the university invests that money in indirect benefits and, especially, the huge salary of the head coach. It is a system where pay players is illegal and the way universities have to compete for talent is to pay coaches more and more to recruit good talent.

    This creates imbalance because programs with more money will get the best coaches and the best players. In addition, the money that universities should use in players, they invest it instead in facilities and coaches. While in the professional leagues the growth of the income goes, to a large extent, to the players, while in college, programs multiply their value without paying anything to their players, who are the ones that win games and give prestige to the universities.

  7. There are many cases of student-athletes who, after their university years, sign big contracts with professional teams in their respective sports. So, if in college he already had a professional level and behaved like one, why not pay him? In certain cases, student-athletes are even more mafia-like than professional athletes. The most recent case is that of Zion Williamson, number one in the last draft. The expectation that Zion generated in college and the number of people that went to see his games during his time at Duke, was much greater than that generated by NBA players. This is a topic I like to discuss. As an athlete, I think that depending on what they generate and what is agreed between both parties, athletes should be paid by their universities. I also think they should make money, or at least have the right to try, using their name. Student-athletes spend a lot of time in their sports, representing their university and making it more prestigious, which means that more people want to study at those universities and therefore, more money for the university. Like most things in life, this is a business. Celebrities like Jay-Z, Beyonce or even Barack Obama, have been spotted watching Zion’s games. Many people think that for athletes who have full scholarships like Zion it’s enough, since the university is paying for his studies but, if we compare the amount of money that Zion has generated for Duke, it’s fair that Zion hasn’t charged a single dollar during his college stay? Therefore, I think that although not all athletes generate the same expectation or money for their investments, I think some student-athletes have raised the prestige of universities thanks to their high performance in college. This means that thanks to these people, many others have chosen to attend that specific university, generating more money for the university.

  8. There was always up in the air if college athletes should get paid for playing a sport in the NCAA. Some people say that they should, and others say that they should not, but recently, California passed a law that says that NCAA student athletes could be paid for playing a sport. The argument that people have that say they should not get paid is because they might be getting a free education already or they might have some sort of scholarship which is like getting paid but instead the school is just paying for their education. On the other side, the argument that athletes should get paid is because they bring in so much profit for the school by having a football or basketball team on campus. Those two sports are usually the most highly profited sports that D1 NCAA schools have. The California Governor states in his new law that student athletes in the state are now allowed to strike endorsement deals and hire agents. This is changing the NCAA forever

    This has been a topic that has interest me for a very long time. In my opinion, some of the top NCAA schools with prestigious programs in sports of basketball and football. The law that California passed will be in effect in the 2023-2024 school year. The reason why I think that they should also get paid, but not only in California but of all D1 NCAA, is because of the revenue that athletes bring into the institution. Athletes like Zion Williamson and Joe Burrow were basketball and football players for Duke and LSU. These athletes were the face of the schools while they were there, bringing in a crazy amount of money for the school. Now would the school make the same amount of money if either of those athletes were not there? I do not think so and this is why I think athletes like Williamson and Burrow should of got some sort Even if the money is not coming directly from the school, college athletes should be able to gain endorsement deals and or get an agent to help with these matters. By California being the first state to pass this law, it opens the eyes of the NCAA and other top sports schools in the country. Will other states consider passing the same law that California did? I think more states will pass this eventually but the sooner the better. The reason why I say this is because student athletes might take their school considerations into effect to the states that have this bill passed already. It has a recruitment advantage which is very important to the schools. In my opinion, I would want to go to a school that I get paid someway somehow, instead of another D1 school in a state where they do not have this law passed. This is a very interesting debate which make it interesting in years to come to see what schools are going to do in the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *