FYI
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:59 pm
I think this was interesting; as the article goes on to say this:
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has vocalized his distaste for the NCAA's model, and other state representatives could see the public's support over an issue like this and look to enact legislation. The topic has become so chic that U.S. presidential candidates have made their voices heard: Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) endorsed California's bill just last week, and Democrat Andrew Yang has gone after the NCAA's amateurism model for months. Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) is trying to bring these rights to student-athletes on a federal level in North Carolina.
Then says:
The universities don't necessarily align themselves with SB 206, but that's no matter: This is about the rights of student-athletes in the eyes of the state's government. This is about the pragmatism of a free-market society in which players could theoretically earn money from outside entities.
So, Bernie is supporting this as a Free Market legislation ..?
I doubt it.
More like he is putting his coins in every machines that will garner supporting interest in himself.
I agree with some of what is going on here. The NCAA has been taking advantage of student athletes for too long. But I don't like how this is being presented. politics interfering as a governing body over Collegiate Sports. Feels like one step closer to communism.
Someone needs to take up for these kids. But the method should be for their benefit. And I just do not trust politicians enough to believe they mean what they say, and are doing what they claim.
Right now, I have no problem with this:
Going forward, if/when the bill becomes law, schools would not directly pay their players. From a financial standpoint, it keeps the NCAA and universities' finances exactly as they stand now. Most importantly, the bill would give legal protection to all California-based student-athletes. Schools, and the NCAA, could not pull scholarships or suspend players for agreeing to endorsement deals or taking money from outside interests based on their talent and marketability.
Jersey sales, autographs, sponsorships from local business, shoe deals, whatever. If their name, image or likeness is viewed as a profit-making asset by any entity, college athletes in the state of California will have the right to be paid off their talent and marketability.
As for this statement:
"I just want to say, 'NCAA, don't threaten California. Don't threaten us,'" Democratic Sen. Sydney Kamlager-Dove said Monday, per USA Today. "Because we have formidable schools. We have formidable alumni. And we have formidable viewership. And we can leverage those things until 2023, when this bill takes effect. I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own name and image."
If California-based college athletes were able to profit off their names, images and likenesses, NCAA bylaws -- as they currently read -- would activate ineligibility for all such players and their corresponding teams. Is the NCAA going to hold firm to this? It's hard to see that happening.
With decades worth of anti-trust legal precedent potentially standing in the NCAA's way, we could have a fascinating standoff, one that should no longer be of much debate yet remains ongoing because of the NCAA's glacial pace to change. Consider this: College basketball's coaching fraternity, by a wide margin, is in favor of the sport's players having an opportunity to get paid.
California makes for the most interesting, if not perfect, trial ground. Twenty-six Division I basketball schools reside in the state, which is the most populous in our nation by a wide margin. At nearly 40 million residents, California has approximately 10 million more people than Texas, which is second in population. Four California universities are prominent Pac-12 members: UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal.
The universities don't necessarily align themselves with SB 206, but that's no matter: This is about the rights of student-athletes in the eyes of the state's government. This is about the pragmatism of a free-market society in which players could theoretically earn money from outside entities.
California has a large potential viewer radius. But they do not have a Large Market Viewer interest when it comes to College Sports. It is a Pro Sport heavy State. And unless the College Programs are winning at a high level, the potential viewer market tunes out. Simply check the televised ratings.
To further the example; merely look at the interest in holding 9 am kickoff ties for California football teams. It is purely an attempt to widen their televised viewership. Because the market is not currently there.
And with the recent swam of realignment, California hasn't profited well from all of this. Of all the Conference Channels, the Pac-12 and Mountain West conferences come in last.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rings familiar to me of the dispute that happened in the Indy Car Racing circuit back in 1996.
All of the top Team Owners were demanding something from the Indianapolis Motor Club. They were denied. So the owners decided, "We'll Show You!", and held a race called the US 500, on the same day as the Indianapolis 500.
CART officially announces the inaugural running of the U.S. 500 on December 18, 1995, at a press conference in Chicago. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway immediately released a reaction expressing its disappointment of CART in what it called a "negative impact on automobile racing."
On March 4, 1996, a total of twelve corporate sponsors were announced for the U.S. 500. In addition, telephone orders through Ticketmaster began offering tickets to the event.
On March 20, 1996, ticket sales for the event were attempted to be boosted by a "doubleheader" ticket for the U.S. 500 and the CART event at Detroit on June 9.
On April 25, 1996, it was announced that the Vanderbilt Cup would be recreated and awarded to the winner of the U.S. 500.
Despite CART's efforts to broadcast the race on network TV, ESPN was chosen in March to air the race. In addition, instead of being able to broadcast directly against the Indianapolis 500, the event had to be scheduled for 2 p.m Eastern Daylight Time, two hours after the start at Indy.
CART had attempted to lure NBC or Fox, but neither deal came through. Fox wanted to show the race in primetime, which would have flatly defeated the purpose of racing the same day as the Indy 500, and in fact would have conflicted with the broadcast of the race with that of the Coca-Cola 600 on TBS instead.
Tony George, owner of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, formed the Indy Racing League as an alternative to CART. While the Indianapolis 500 had continued to be sanctioned by the United States Auto Club since the formation of CART in 1979, CART teams and drivers represented the vast majority of the Indy field, and United States Auto Club had taken steps to ensure that the technical specifications for Indy did not preclude CART teams from participating.
In 1996, however, following his creation of the IRL, Tony George stipulated that 25 of the 33 starting positions at Indy would be reserved for the top 25 cars which ran events in his series. This move created potential scheduling conflicts with CART-sanctioned events.
Interpreting this policy as a lockout of CART teams, the CART board agreed to stage the U.S. 500 at an alternative venue on Memorial Day weekend, the traditional date for the Indianapolis 500. George, on the other hand, viewed the refusal of CART teams to compete for the remaining eight positions on the Indy grid as a walkout/boycott.
The end result, was that the Indianapolis 500 went on as scheduled, despite having the majority of its Teams & Drives enter into a competing race. The Indy went on to Sellout its tickets [as it does annually], and the viewership for the race did not drop at all.
The US 500 had a disappointing viewer base. Nearly insignificant in ratings. This standoff was very short lived, and the Tony George crowd came crawling back defeated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if the NCAA has the fortitude to let them walk. But, as far as revenue shares would go, it would only hurt the Universities involved. All while, it would open the door to programs from outside the state to take prime event participation openings, due to the absence of the California schools.
The NCAA would likely be more timid if this were the Eastern Basketball Schools threatening to walk. To some degree, even though they don;t make money off of football, if the Southern Football schools were to opt out, they would cave. That would be to the massive outcry from fan bases. The NCAA could not survive that backlash.
However; California as a whole ... most of the rest of the country probably just shrugs their shoulders. In this context, California really does not have the leverage they think they do.
.
.
.
