Is the media misrepresenting this? Was it ever illegal for a student athlete in California to sell his or her image and likeness? It never was. How does this change anything? Maybe it could be pogrammatic for more lawsuits vs. the ncaa but they always lose those. The NCAA would just say "well it may not be illegal, but if you allow it you'll have to form your own league", just as they've always said. It's not illegal in NYS either. It's not like they said in the ruling, unless I'm mistaken, "the NCAA is here by outlawed from prohibiting student athletes from profiting from their image and likeness in the CA.". It just says it's not "ILLEGAL" in California to do it. But it never was illegal. It is an NCAA ban. So they are saying that if the NCAA wants to lift this ban in CA., they can. That's all. Maybe someone could shed some light on this for me. It only affects a minute portion of college athletes. It's a minute portion of athletes even if you are considering only DI men's football and basketball.
Is the media misrepresenting this? Was it ever illegal for a student athlete in California to sell his or her image and likeness? It never was. How does this change anything? Maybe it could be pogrammatic for more lawsuits vs. the ncaa but they always lose those. The NCAA would just say "well it may not be illegal, but if you allow it you'll have to form your own league", just as they've always said. It's not illegal in NYS either. It's not like they said in the ruling, unless I'm mistaken, "the NCAA is here by outlawed from prohibiting student athletes from profiting from their image and likeness in the CA.". It just says it's not "ILLEGAL" in California to do it. But it never was illegal. It is an NCAA ban. So they are saying that if the NCAA wants to lift this ban in CA., they can. That's all. Maybe someone could shed some light on this for me. It only affects a minute portion of college athletes. It's a minute portion of athletes even if you are considering only DI men's football and basketball.
Actually this analysis is all wrong. The NCAA has always banned the players from using their likeness and image for their own benefit while maintaining eligible to compete in NCAA games. The NCAA along with schools have specific provisions in their bylaws and guidelines that restrict players from receiving any money related to such. If they find out that players sell their image and likeness, the NCAA usually suspends the player or revoke their eligibility. You see the name and likeness of certain players on promotions because it is done through the schools. When a player signs his scholarship papers through the school and NCAA, they agree that the school has the right to use their image for promotional purposes. Hence, you see jerseys sold by the university of past players or old film of games or anything else related to the athlete participating in a sports program. This was decided in the case Bloom v. NCAA where Bloom tried to sue the NCAA regarding his modeling, endorsement, and professional sking deals while maintaining his eligibility to play football at CU. The court ruled that he was not allowed to model or use his likeness to profit while playing a collegiate sport.
Also, this new regulation allows players to make money on top of their scholarship by selling their name and likeness to companies, i.e., endorsement deals, while maintaining their eligibility. For example, a player at USC can sign a shoe deal worth $1,000,000 and they won't lose their eligibility. Whereas, manziel signed footballs and promoted a memorabilia company for $5,000 and got suspended. The major case pertaining to likeness and image was the O'Bannon case where the court ruled in favor of the NCAA but put restrictions on what the NCAA can use the players likeness and image in. AKA using players image and likeness in video games is too far reaching and not related to school activities and simply a profit activity (taking advantage of an unrelated school activity).
Unfortunately, this won't happen in 3 years. This is great for the players in regards to opportunities to make a ton of money while playing a collegiate sport along with agents/"advisors" but the structure is not in place for this to happen. Also, this will be in court for years through litigation which is backed by federal law in favor of the NCAA. Eventually, the NCAA will concede as the public sentiment is not on their behalf, but they will fight it to the death while putting in a system to control distribution and oversight to such deals. I wouldn't be surprised if as a requirement they get a percentage of such deals as they present the open market opportunity (league where the schools play in).
On another note, they also are expanding the gambling rights in certain states and have had meetings with huge betting sites/companies where they have discussed legalizing betting in college sports for a split in revenue. Interesting stuff coming up in the next couple of years regarding the NCAA
You've misread. I said that it was never illegal. Look above and re-read the post. I said it was never illegal in the state of California for players to make money on their image and and likeness. It was always an NCAA ban. They are saying that if the NCAA wants to allow it they can. Whats the point in this? In the Bloom vs. NCAA case that you cited above, the court ruled that the NCAA is allowed to ban this type of player activity. But it was never "ILLEGAL" anywhere, how could it have been.
My question was then "is this California law stopping the NCAA from enforcing their ban?" As far as I can tell, if I'm not mistaken, it isn't. If you read it, it does not say that. They don't even have aq legal right to tell the NCAA how to run it's organization.
And this affects such a small number of athletes but would change the whole landscape of college basketball. You'd have a top tier of about 40 teams.
You've misread. I said that it was never illegal. Look above and re-read the post. I said it was never illegal in the state of California for players to make money on their image and and likeness. It was always an NCAA ban. They are saying that if the NCAA wants to allow it they can. Whats the point in this? In the Bloom vs. NCAA case that you cited above, the court ruled that the NCAA is allowed to ban this type of player activity. But it was never "ILLEGAL" anywhere, how could it have been.
My question was then "is this California law stopping the NCAA from enforcing their ban?" As far as I can tell, if I'm not mistaken, it isn't. If you read it, it does not say that. They don't even have aq legal right to tell the NCAA how to run it's organization.
And this affects such a small number of athletes but would change the whole landscape of college basketball. You'd have a top tier of about 40 teams.
Wow. Reckson, you really are a full on loony toon, aren't you?
Is it that you can't express yourself or are you so uneducated you really have no sophisticated ideas. I mean look at your posts. How did you graduate from such a fine College? Did you graduate? What was your major? Please don't say Math. You'd be a major discredit to the Iona College Math department. Logic?
Last Edit: Oct 15, 2019 23:58:18 GMT -5 by Deleted: Don't want to be falsely accused of anything
Is the media misrepresenting this? Was it ever illegal for a student athlete in California to sell his or her image and likeness? It never was. How does this change anything? Maybe it could be pogrammatic for more lawsuits vs. the ncaa but they always lose those. The NCAA would just say "well it may not be illegal, but if you allow it you'll have to form your own league", just as they've always said. It's not illegal in NYS either. It's not like they said in the ruling, unless I'm mistaken, "the NCAA is here by outlawed from prohibiting student athletes from profiting from their image and likeness in the CA.". It just says it's not "ILLEGAL" in California to do it. But it never was illegal. It is an NCAA ban. So they are saying that if the NCAA wants to lift this ban in CA., they can. That's all. Maybe someone could shed some light on this for me. It only affects a minute portion of college athletes. It's a minute portion of athletes even if you are considering only DI men's football and basketball.
Actually this analysis is all wrong. The NCAA has always banned the players from using their likeness and image for their own benefit while maintaining eligible to compete in NCAA games. The NCAA along with schools have specific provisions in their bylaws and guidelines that restrict players from receiving any money related to such. If they find out that players sell their image and likeness, the NCAA usually suspends the player or revoke their eligibility. You see the name and likeness of certain players on promotions because it is done through the schools. When a player signs his scholarship papers through the school and NCAA, they agree that the school has the right to use their image for promotional purposes. Hence, you see jerseys sold by the university of past players or old film of games or anything else related to the athlete participating in a sports program. This was decided in the case Bloom v. NCAA where Bloom tried to sue the NCAA regarding his modeling, endorsement, and professional sking deals while maintaining his eligibility to play football at CU. The court ruled that he was not allowed to model or use his likeness to profit while playing a collegiate sport.
Also, this new regulation allows players to make money on top of their scholarship by selling their name and likeness to companies, i.e., endorsement deals, while maintaining their eligibility. For example, a player at USC can sign a shoe deal worth $1,000,000 and they won't lose their eligibility. Whereas, manziel signed footballs and promoted a memorabilia company for $5,000 and got suspended. The major case pertaining to likeness and image was the O'Bannon case where the court ruled in favor of the NCAA but put restrictions on what the NCAA can use the players likeness and image in. AKA using players image and likeness in video games is too far reaching and not related to school activities and simply a profit activity (taking advantage of an unrelated school activity).
Unfortunately, this won't happen in 3 years. This is great for the players in regards to opportunities to make a ton of money while playing a collegiate sport along with agents/"advisors" but the structure is not in place for this to happen. Also, this will be in court for years through litigation which is backed by federal law in favor of the NCAA. Eventually, the NCAA will concede as the public sentiment is not on their behalf, but they will fight it to the death while putting in a system to control distribution and oversight to such deals. I wouldn't be surprised if as a requirement they get a percentage of such deals as they present the open market opportunity (league where the schools play in).
On another note, they also are expanding the gambling rights in certain states and have had meetings with huge betting sites/companies where they have discussed legalizing betting in college sports for a split in revenue. Interesting stuff coming up in the next couple of years regarding the NCAA
Do you see what I'm saying 88'. I did not say in my post that the NCAA never banned this activity. Actually I said the opposite. They always were the ones that banned it. But it was never illegal anywhere. How could it have been? That was my point. So then what was this law for? It doesn't say the NCAA can't ban the athletes from profiting from their own images or likenesses. You can do it like you always could, but then you can't participate in amateur athletic events such as NCAA competition.
You've misread. I said that it was never illegal. Look above and re-read the post. I said it was never illegal in the state of California for players to make money on their image and and likeness. It was always an NCAA ban. They are saying that if the NCAA wants to allow it they can. Whats the point in this? In the Bloom vs. NCAA case that you cited above, the court ruled that the NCAA is allowed to ban this type of player activity. But it was never "ILLEGAL" anywhere, how could it have been.
My question was then "is this California law stopping the NCAA from enforcing their ban?" As far as I can tell, if I'm not mistaken, it isn't. If you read it, it does not say that. They don't even have aq legal right to tell the NCAA how to run it's organization.
And this affects such a small number of athletes but would change the whole landscape of college basketball. You'd have a top tier of about 40 teams.
Wow. Reckson, you really are a full on loony toon, aren't you?
You've misread. I said that it was never illegal. Look above and re-read the post. I said it was never illegal in the state of California for players to make money on their image and and likeness. It was always an NCAA ban. They are saying that if the NCAA wants to allow it they can. Whats the point in this? In the Bloom vs. NCAA case that you cited above, the court ruled that the NCAA is allowed to ban this type of player activity. But it was never "ILLEGAL" anywhere, how could it have been.
My question was then "is this California law stopping the NCAA from enforcing their ban?" As far as I can tell, if I'm not mistaken, it isn't. If you read it, it does not say that. They don't even have aq legal right to tell the NCAA how to run it's organization.
And this affects such a small number of athletes but would change the whole landscape of college basketball. You'd have a top tier of about 40 teams.
So let's clarify:
First - The Fair Pay to Play act is a LEGAL right by the state to allow student athletes to be compensated while retaining their eligibility. The NCAA cannot punish them for doing so. This was a piggyback off of O'Bannon which stated that the NCAA violated the FEDERAL antitrust law to deny D1 athletes compensation for the commercial value of their names, images, and likeness. Even though O'Bannon is still in the appellate court, it pertains to the expansion of certain likeness arguments made by O'Bannon. But the court already ruled on the above violation. As such, there is legal precedent for California to enforce such a regulation at the federal level(anti-trust act) and now at the state level. If you really want to get deeper into the analysis, we could do a constitutional breakdown and demonstrate how the federal government can regulate the NCAA under a commerce clause analysis and so forth, but that might be too deep for you.
Second - You're wrong in regards to your statement that "it was never illegal in the state of California for Student-Athletes to make money on their image and likeness." If you want to play semantics - they then aren't student-athletes - A student-athlete could sell their image and likeness at any time and make money, but then they wouldn't be a student-athlete as they won't be able to compete anymore. Instead, they would be a student with no eligibility who sold their likeness and image. (We could all play this little game if you want).
Third - "Is this California law stopping the NCAA from enforcing their ban?" - Yes. If a violation of the Federal Antitrust law which was discussed above has been ruled upon like in O'Bannon, the NCAA can't turn around suspend players for being compensated for their likeness and image. This is an extension of that ruling. It is a state law now. Look up the case of NCAA v. Board of Regent also which was a ruling against the NCAA pertaining to a violation of Sherman Antitrust laws which would favor California. Also, look up NCAA v. Tarkanian which also references what the NCAA is and how constitutional protections are applied to the NCAA.Think of it this way, the federal law states that a business needs to pay a federal minimum wage of $5.00. The state can turn around and raise that wage higher than $5.00 but they can't go lower than that amount. Likewise here, there have now been three cases on the federal level which pertain to likeness and image that were ruled against the NCAA in regards to a violation of anti-trust law. Now the state has enacted an even higher standard which the NCAA can't violate.
Lastly - The landscape will change forever when this happens like you stated in a bad way in my opinion. If California is the only state that does this, why would I even go to a school in Arizona when I can hire an agent and he can negotiate deals for me (also part of the FPTP act). Another point to consider which will be at issue is the UAAA (Uniform Athlete Agent Act) and SPARTA (Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act) which seek to protect student-athletes by prohibiting agents from signing athletes to an agency contract. This is governed by the FTC at the federal level.
No legal fight here. They will change bylaws and allow all NCAA athletes to profit from name, image, and likeness.
Kind of shocked that no legal fight here, but understand why NCAA is doing this. Curious to see the protocol they put in place to keep track of everything. FYI - BIG GAME CHANGER!!!
No legal fight here. They will change bylaws and allow all NCAA athletes to profit from name, image, and likeness.
Kind of shocked that no legal fight here, but understand why NCAA is doing this. Curious to see the protocol they put in place to keep track of everything. FYI - BIG GAME CHANGER!!!
A new revenue stream and the rich will get richer.
Very glad to see that you had responded to the post as I have not posted in here in some time. (New York hoop is in the porcelain right now) A little disappointed in the tone of a few of you're sentences but a good post overall. More later as I don't have all that much time right now.
I'm asking questions here. I wasn't playing semantics; it was never illegal in California to pay college athletes, period. You say they would not be student athletes anymore (if they were paid) since they would not be allowed to compete. Yes, but that would be an NCAA ban not a legal one.
It is not illegal under federal antitrust law for the NCAA to stop schools from compensating their players as you stated. Now , if I'm wrong (which is possible), could you please provide citation? I don't think I'm wrong though because if the federal government bans the NCAA under antitrust from stopping the schools from compensating athletes why would the state even have to rule on it in the first place. THE NCAA IS STOPPING THE SCHOOLS, RIGHT NOW, FROM DOING IT. Why hasn't any executive branch (on the state or federal level) stepped in? This is what leads me to believe that what you are saying, when you say, "the NCAA can't turn around and suspend players for being compensated" is not true because they are doing it right now in all 50 states. It seems to me the executive branch of the federal government (Justice department) would have stepped in already in many, many cases, and they have not done this.
The O'Bannon case (which as you say is still tied up in appellate court) pertains to legal interpretation of already existing antitrust legislation. This is the case which will decide if government ( state or federal) can prevent the NCAA from banning compensation to players for likenesses. But that has yet to be decided. Unless I'm wrong, this California ruling just says schools can go ahead and pay players if they want with no reference, as far as I know, to antitrust law. (correct me if I'm wrong though) And I'm still asking the question, "does this ruling explicitly say the NCAA cannot sanction those schools if they do pay their players"? I don't know I have to read it.
I enjoy the discussion so lets stick with this. We'll keep it civil. I really want to understand this thing. Law is DEFINITELY not my forte but it seems to me it has to be done at the federal level. Is this state ruling purposely vague with respect to what they are requiring of the NCAA? Is it implied or is it explicit?
