As is often the case, California has become a trendsetter, this time in how colleges treat their athletes, specifically whether they allow them to make money as athletes.
The just passed “Fair Pay to Play” (FPTP) law, which was fought vociferously by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and criticized by colleges and coaches across the nation while it was under debate in the legislature, is now sparking imitators. Even the NCAA is rewriting its rules.
The law passed unanimously in the both chambers of the California legislature and was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on HBO’s TV show The Shop.
It was also written to go into effect in 2023, with the obvious intention of giving the NCAA time to accommodate it rather than challenge it in court. NCAA board Chairman Michael Drake threw in the towel with a statement that his organization was willing to “embrace change,” but without announcing any details.
The new law allows college athletes to make money from endorsements and from the marketing of their images.
Even though the NCAA, a non-governmental athletic association that governs most college athletics in the country, has announced it is rewriting its rules, other states are taking the cue from the Golden State and are not waiting to see what the NCAA comes up with. They are jumping ahead with laws that incorporate much of the FPTP.
The explanation is simple: college sports is a fiercely competitive activity where colleges fall over themselves offering benefits for young athletes to sign up for their programs. The idea of allowing athletes to profit gives a grab bag of powerful goodies college athletic departments can offer to potential recruits.
The new law obviously targets the NCAA with its language, which forbids athletic associations and conferences from preventing athletes from profiting from NIL, which stands for name, image or likeness. Under its provisions young athletes can hire agents to represent them to do such things as do brand endorsements.
The law does not allow schools to pay athletes actually salaries, nor does it allow athletes to have sponsorships at odds with their colleges’ sponsorships.
The law addresses what many feel is an inequity: that while colleges make millions off athletics, the athletes don’t share in the largesse.
The new law will add a new factor for high school graduates to consider as they ponder colleges: such as which ones offer the best endorsement opportunities.
Some college athletes have said that if the law had existed when they were deciding where to play that they would have, in some cases, chosen a California school.
It may be that other states are considering following California’s lead because they see the opportunity of young college athletes obtaining endorsements from companies like Nike or Adidas.
States considering a version of FPTP include Florida and New York. In Illinois, legislator Chris Welch told the Washington Post: “My goal is to get FPTP passed into law so that we’re on a level playing field with California going into the recruiting season.”
The Post story noted that the states now considering FPTP laws have more than average numbers of Division I Football Bowl Subdivision programs.
