California just passed a law that allows college athletes to get paid
- Thread starter froropmkr72
- Start date
As with so many things that get passed in California, it is half baked. More "aspirational legislation". Makes a great sound bite for the political leadership, though. You know; fairness, motherhood and apple pie (the flag in this old phrase has been replaced in the CA legislature by what ever is current & politically correct; in this case, fairness). Just pass lots of laws and let the details get worked out in the court system (where most of the legislators came from and will return to). And this will be a long & complicated court case.
If you are going to pay the kids, thereby making this a job, how do you then account for the value of the education, room & board, tutoring, etc.? Remember, that is something the IRS will weigh in on in the absence of any federal legislation. Incomes can be state mandated, but the federal tax on the income is outside the scope of state law, and once you go down the college athlete "compensation for work" path you open up the previously non-taxable aspects of athlete compensation to potential taxation. If you think that there was any advance coordination what so ever between the state of CA and the federal government you are dreaming...and that includes coordination with CA's federal legislators, who seem to be actively trying to ignore the issue when the press asks.
One obvious potential solution is to "gross up" the pay to the kid so he/she can afford to pay taxes as well as room, board, tuition, tutoring, etc., out of the six figure income that would require. Sure, that would be a massive cost to the athletic department, but on the other hand they then get to charge the athletes for a lot of things. Nobody will want this solution, but absent cooperation from the IRS or federal legislation, it looks to me as though it may be the default solution.
Another option is for congress to pass a law that overrules/neuters the CA law. Or that exempts the current education-related expenses from being considered taxable income. But that is something that congress would have to pass and then either get the president at the time to sign or have enough votes to override a veto. I just can't see any of that happening at the federal level, so once again we are back to the IRS having to interpret how the half baked CA law has altered the landscape.
And bear in mind that a court case to determine whether the CA law is legal would have no standing to weigh in on any of the federal taxation questions.
This is a story that has many pages yet to be written...
If you are going to pay the kids, thereby making this a job, how do you then account for the value of the education, room & board, tutoring, etc.? Remember, that is something the IRS will weigh in on in the absence of any federal legislation. Incomes can be state mandated, but the federal tax on the income is outside the scope of state law, and once you go down the college athlete "compensation for work" path you open up the previously non-taxable aspects of athlete compensation to potential taxation. If you think that there was any advance coordination what so ever between the state of CA and the federal government you are dreaming...and that includes coordination with CA's federal legislators, who seem to be actively trying to ignore the issue when the press asks.
One obvious potential solution is to "gross up" the pay to the kid so he/she can afford to pay taxes as well as room, board, tuition, tutoring, etc., out of the six figure income that would require. Sure, that would be a massive cost to the athletic department, but on the other hand they then get to charge the athletes for a lot of things. Nobody will want this solution, but absent cooperation from the IRS or federal legislation, it looks to me as though it may be the default solution.
Another option is for congress to pass a law that overrules/neuters the CA law. Or that exempts the current education-related expenses from being considered taxable income. But that is something that congress would have to pass and then either get the president at the time to sign or have enough votes to override a veto. I just can't see any of that happening at the federal level, so once again we are back to the IRS having to interpret how the half baked CA law has altered the landscape.
And bear in mind that a court case to determine whether the CA law is legal would have no standing to weigh in on any of the federal taxation questions.
This is a story that has many pages yet to be written...
Last edited:
Is this legislation retroactive to account for all the previously paid athletes working out of California, cue up the Pete Carrol-John Wooden-USC BB coaching fraternity footage.
Not sure there would be a commerce clause argument . Other states could enact the same rule with no interstate commerce impact. Commerce clause usually comes into play where a taxation scheme would create a potential burden on interstate commercei greater than would be the case on in state transactions
I don't think it's as simple as players not changing anything they do and getting paid a little bit of walking-around money for the same. If that's all it was, I'd agree that it shouldn't be a big deal, but it seems rife with the potential for abuse.
Why can't a well-heeled alum pay all players on Cal's team $20k (or $100k) for appearing in a billboard or for signing some autographs? In that event, which kid without a lot of money would choose any other school out of state over Cal?
One might say that's a ridiculous hypo, but who decides what's reasonable? Is Mark Emmert going to get into the business of determining what a reasonable fee is for allowing the use of one's likeness, and why wouldn't, e.g., even the opportunity to make 10 grand be a big deal in some recruiting situations?
People who are rich don't get rich by lighting their money on fire.
Sure, but that's not the point ... even if, e.g., it simply was known that endorsement opportunities that would be available to these California players but not others, there could be a significant impact on recruiting. There could be all kinds of other potential situations, too. There could be, e.g., whispers (or actual promises) by whales to pay big for endorsements for the players on those teams, or recruits just seeing it happen in a few cases.
Imagine the same change but it being UW instead of California schools. You wouldn't give a damn if UW could suddenly have its alumni come up with sham endorsements, autograph signings, and other crap to pay players while WSU and other schools couldn't? Come on, man. I've seen how much you hate those bastards. You know that would be insane.
I'm not anything close to a whale, but if I thought I could actually make a direct impact on getting stud players to come to my school with a few grand (pooled with some others who feel the same), I'd give it some real consideration. Imagine what real whales might do. What kind of college kid, especially one from a poor household, is going to choose WSU, paying $0, over Cal (or Stanford, USC, UCLA, etc.), where he might make $10k, $100k, or whatever this turns out to be?
As for the donor side, why would anyone give a million bucks to go toward some kind of facility that might indirectly benefit recruiting at some point but they wouldn't incur an expense of a fraction of that to directly get stud players in their program, which probably would have even more of an impact on the field? It could have other benefits for that donor, too, both for the donor's ego and maybe even for whatever business was being endorsed.
bidding war, some schools more equal than others-corruption legalized.
I wouldn't be surprised if SJW/leftists decided to destroy college sports as its one of the last things around that unites people and is generally a wholesome form of recreation.
I wouldn't be surprised if SJW/leftists decided to destroy college sports as its one of the last things around that unites people and is generally a wholesome form of recreation.
They get married don't they?
Rich people were paying the UW players in the middle of a 10-18 streak in the mid 1950s.
The lazy entitled UW players rebelled against the coach and got him fired. Coach retaliated by snitching about the payments and soon after ran for Lt Governor (and won)
Do the guys who ride the pine get paid the same as core starters and playmakers?
Is it revenue sharing (ie getting a percentage of proceeds) or an arbitrary salary?
Is it revenue sharing (ie getting a percentage of proceeds) or an arbitrary salary?
Depends upon the contract they sign with their agent. I have to crack up at repeating the talking heads explanation of this. Did you ever think we'd talking about this?
There are other states that have similar legislation locked and loaded. South Carolina I believe is one. I for one, hope it blows the NCAA up. I've lost interest in college football as a whole, a little bit more each year since the BCS nonsense started. It was the purest version of itself when the goal was win your conference, go to the Big bowl game tied into your conference. As soon as that ended, IT ended in my opinion.
That’s the way I see it also. I did see a UW take saying to act quickly and keep up so they don't lose a competitive advantage
Some may say the dogs have had this advantage for decades
I don't think any other state legislature and governor is corrupt enough to pass this, however New York and Illinois might be slimey enough.
Its going to get tied up in the courts but while it does California will be banned if they pursue this.
NCAA is all about billions in television revenue.
Its going to get tied up in the courts but while it does California will be banned if they pursue this.
NCAA is all about billions in television revenue.
I think it would. You have the opportunity for boosters with companies to “sponsor” events with player appearances then the player should get paid for their services as they are the ones drawing in the crowd/money
Look at a guy like Jim Harbaugh already taking advantage of a loophole in the off campus practice BS and using it as an excuse to give his team a trip to Europe paid for by boosters. You don’t think that’s used on recruiting trips? This is a can of worms and the rules on this are going to get bent to the extreme. Further advantage to the big money, big market schools.
They’re allowed to make money from their image and likeness. So, pretty much guys like Minshew.
How about a team photo? How many USC boosters would pay $500/year to display a team photo in their business with the proceeds being split evenly between the players?
This is a good, quick summary of the issue.
At first glance, permitting athletes to make money on the side using their likeness and position on an NCAA team seems fine. It's just being fair, right? There was a long article (NOT an editorial) in the LA Times sports section this morning, where the naive author went on and on about how this would not change the college athletics landscape.
Right, and prohibition had nothing at all to do with the rise of organized crime, did it?
If we legalize athletes being paid for the fame that comes from being on a particular team, what will be the cause and effect relationships that will result? Several seem pretty obvious to anyone who has been around the block a few times:
1.) Recruiting. Big name schools will recruit on the basis of the big, direct payday that a kid can expect if he comes to their school and does well. Smaller name schools will be far more frozen out of talent than they already are at present.
2.) On campus. Does anybody think that giving a kid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (and have no doubt, a starting Kentucky hoops player or a star USC running back will be able to pull down that kind of money tomorrow, so long as he spends enough time shmoozing appropriately) is a good idea?
3.) Quid Pro Quo. What does a star player owe to the car dealer who is paying him $100K to regularly appear at events having to do with his string of dealerships? What if that benefactor does significant sports betting? Or the kid who is a starter, but not a star, and could effect a game? Doesn't take long to see where that path leads. And if a Phil Knight/Oregon or Boone Pickens/Ok State happens to exist, to massively fund direct payments to recruits & players? With no limits?
4.) Competitiveness. Measure this one however you like. Competitiveness of small schools in a league when direct compensation from supporters has become a major factor in attracting talent. Competitiveness between leagues. Competitiveness in attracting TV and other media deals for a school or league when the perception exists that certain schools have unlimited pockets and others have a small purse.
5.) Finally, when there are no rules and it is simply a checkbook war, corruption will flourish. It always has in that sort of environment and it always will.
All this in the name of what the naive consider to be "fairness".
Last edited:
Athletics challenge a lot of the deconstructionist narratives.
good point, athletics are for the most part merit/performance based, snowflake garbage doesn't work when challenging 18-22 year old men to give their best effort in a physical manner, it unites people of all races across all social strata. Im sure leftists hate all of that.
its not a safe bet that the Pac 12 will be against this idea of paying players.....think of Oregone and Uw.....they live in rich areas with rich fans and would probably agree to this pay for play boondoggle because it will virtually eliminate competition from smaller schools......lets face it , IMO these schools already are cheating in little ways and just wait til they can be public about it....
NCAA better step in ....if they don't step in, college sports is fried.....afterall, for the Oregones and the Uw's and the USC's and the Duke's and the NorthCarolina's to be great, they need the little schools to beat up on...but the little schools will eventually just hang it up....
think of the Yankees......the Yankees need weak teams so they themselves can be winners....
NCAA better step in ....if they don't step in, college sports is fried.....afterall, for the Oregones and the Uw's and the USC's and the Duke's and the NorthCarolina's to be great, they need the little schools to beat up on...but the little schools will eventually just hang it up....
think of the Yankees......the Yankees need weak teams so they themselves can be winners....
Do you know how big a chuckle I got out of the “leftist” statement? What you are advocating is SOCIALISM. You are ok with a “leftist” idea as long as it benefits your agenda.
Yes, the rich will get richer. Their will be even more inequity in college football that exists. Agents will start marketing the kids at 17. Without a doubt it will change college football, and maybe the savior is the Canadians football league that becomes the nfls minor league system.
amateur athletics is not "socialism" , that's really twisted logic. You don't pay high school athletes to play, its purely amateur-the spirit of competing for your school and community, love of the game-that's not "socialism".
Destroying amateur athletics by turning it into corporate sponsored club teams or minor leagues is not pure economics. Its simply destroying amateur collegiate athletics which is what this does. The ideology behind this, ie) Gavin Newsom and his ilk is where the leftist cultural goals come into play.
Destroying amateur athletics by turning it into corporate sponsored club teams or minor leagues is not pure economics. Its simply destroying amateur collegiate athletics which is what this does. The ideology behind this, ie) Gavin Newsom and his ilk is where the leftist cultural goals come into play.
If we were talking about high school football I would agree with you 100%. But since we are talking about collegiate athletics maybe we can speak to that. For amateur athletics Horse teeth, Leach, Saban, Chipster sure get paid a lot of money.
What business endeavor do you know where competitors share revenue so the least revenue entity can stay in business? Professional sports such as the NFL are the only ones I can think of. BTW, here part of the definition of socialism-"should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Seems like the text book definition of the NCAA and NFL.
Make no mistake, college football is big business. To hide behind the high school model is a bit naive. Do I like the new law? Nope. Do I believe t will lead to a super conference of 24 teams or so and my team gets left out? Yep. Do I think kids will line up to go to USC, UCLA, Bama, Clemson (maybe)? Yep.
Do I think NCAA football will survive? Yep. Are you going to really stop watching WSU football if they are in a second tier conference?
I hope all of those things happen. Everyone in college athletics would be better off it this happened sooner rather than later.
Hawk...I am simply pointing out you disjointed political view and the humor within. I don't support it, but it is progress, and maybe progress I don't like and I think is shortsighted. I don't like A.I. for example. I think long term so many jobs will be lost because of it. But I don't see anyone throwing up a yellow or red flag and say "slow down, look at the LONG TERM ramifications.
I may be the only one who doesn't buy off Amazon and I live in Amazon territory and I personally benefit from them being in the same city I work. I don't go online to buy my cloths. But I get I am swimming upstream.
In terms of what happens, college football will survive, just in what form.
And yes college football is big business. Ever hear of Jerry Pettibone? He was Oregon State's coach back in the mid 90's. He graduated his kids at a higher rate than even Stanford graduated their kids. He was at 94%, and do you think that kept him from getting fired? so we can pretend it isn't a business all we want, but it is.
Do you think the california legislature and governor are doing this because they are capitalists?
Last edited:
Agreed. To me, all of this is clear. It's not a parade of horribles ... these are obvious potential impacts. There are other impacts we aren't even thinking of. One just off the top of my head is reduced general athletics donations relative to payments to athletes in revenue sports. This wouldn't hurt the NCAA, who everyone reviles, but instead would hurt the universities and participants in non-revenue sports.
Not trying to get personal here, but I think some of those arguing against this are either purposefully ignoring these issues or being extremely myopic in their consideration of the issues.
Not sure who that is directed at, but if it is me, not sure why that is relevant. Are you? do you believe in free market, unfettered market economy? I wasn't the one who made the political calculation criticizing the "leftists" when they made changes that fundamentally you clearly believe in. No more or less.
Of course that is a no. But not sure what that has to do with you being a capitalist except when it comes to football then the free market principles be damned. Again, why is what they did "leftist". There motives might not be capitalistic, but the end result is.
Last edited:
Similar threads
