»
Topic: "Pay to Play" is an inaccurate title for that law . . .
Replies: 7   Last Post: Oct 3, 2019 12:17 PM by: Carlsbad®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 7  

"Pay to Play" is an inaccurate title for that law . . .


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 9:52 AM
 

. . . and that is precisely why anyone telling you that this is not a slippery slope is dead wrong.

In short, the law has nothing to do with "paying to play," - player "compensation," etc. Rather, it is an attempt to bar the NCAA and it's members from certain contractual agreements - i.e. that they are not allowed to limit eligibility based on players' profit from image and likeness. For the record, I think the NCAA should find a way to protect the sport from professionalization whilst still allowing players to use their image/likeness rights. That said, I also don't think contract rights of the NCAA and it's members is the state of CA's business.

But in any event, this has nothing at all to do with compensation by the school in the vein of something like employment, AND YET, The Peoples' Republic of North Kor- [ahem] I mean, California, has named the law as if it did. And why? Precisely b/c they are angling, like so many others, to have this be the first domino in an actual pay for play scheme later on.


A typical form of cheating used to be no-show jobs

[1]
Posted: Oct 3, 2019 10:11 AM
 

for players given by boosters.

If the CA policy were enacted, it would basically let the bagman come out in the open.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Well, actually I see what you mean . . .


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 10:21 AM
 

And I agree. I'm not really for the law right now, b/c I don't think anyone (CA, the NCAA, etc), has given serious thought about how to properly discern and regulate in a way that would avoid being overbroad without being ineffective, and so yes, what you say would happen would indeed happen. CA and the media and many fans just want to pass laws now and ask questions later. In theory, I'd like to allow NIL rights without prohibiting *all* forms of NIL rights exercise. But it needs to be thought through first, not just rushed in to.


correction . . .


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 10:30 AM
 

I was redundant there -- what I mean to say was that in theory, I'd like to allow NIL rights without allowing (if possible), the floodgates of fraud open.


Really, the government named something wrong?

[1]
Posted: Oct 3, 2019 10:25 AM
 

"Patriot Act"
"No Child Left Behind"
"Affordable Care Act"
...

Funny.


Re: "Pay to Play" is an inaccurate title for that law . . .


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 10:31 AM
 

You make really good points. It isn't "Pay for Play" just yet - at least from the University's perspective. It also for contractual agreements for the players to advertise. At least that's how I understand the bill.


Re: "Pay to Play" is an inaccurate title for that law . . .


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 12:15 PM
 

Incredibly slippery slope. You’ll see a race to the bottom scenario between states to offer the best competitive legal advantage to their in state schools. Easy to envision big $$$ boosters pooling funds to “buy” players up and down the roster. You could have a billionaire booster at Stanford offer a qb like DJU $1m a yr for his NIL and to go to Pali Alto, put it in a disclosed K to the University, all above board and legal. Should be great for college football and bball! ??


Re: "Pay to Play" is an inaccurate title for that law . . .


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 12:17 PM
 

Funny thing is that they are already paid a fortune to play.

2020 white level member

Replies: 7  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: (2) 2020 Season Tickets section UH row Q 33/35 for $1,200 per seat. (2) 2020 Season Tickets secti...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
502 people have read this post