Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Question of the day
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Question of the day

Monday, Sep 30, 2019

* AP

Defying the NCAA, California’s governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements — a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.

Under the law, which takes effect in 2023, students at public and private universities in the state will be allowed to sign deals with sneaker companies, soft drink makers or other advertisers and profit from their images, names or likenesses, just like the pros. […]

The new law applies to all sports, though the big money to be made is in football and basketball. It bars schools from kicking athletes off the team if they get paid. It does not apply to community colleges and prohibits athletes from accepting endorsement deals that conflict with their schools’ existing contracts.

The NCAA, which had asked Newsom to veto the bill, responded by saying it will consider its “next steps” while also moving forward with “efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.”

Rep. Chris Welch filed a similar bill today.

* The Question: Should Illinois pass a similar law to California’s? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…


bike tracks

- Posted by Rich Miller        

89 Comments
  1. - DuPage Saint - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:25 am:

    I voted yes. Anything that might help U of I
    In fact they should make the law only apply to U of I


  2. - Blue Dog Dem - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:27 am:

    Voted yes. This will speed up the process of eliminating grade school, high school and college sports.


  3. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:28 am:

    Yes. These kids risk lifelong injuries so the college can benefit. Maybe let them get a little taste too.


  4. - Anyone Remember - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:29 am:

    ” … and prohibits athletes from accepting endorsement deals that conflict with their schools’ existing contracts.” And the “3 blind mice” of Indianapolis will extend all existing contracts, rather than enter into new contracts.
    Further, they’ll be modified so the companies cannot pay anything to the athletes.


  5. - Montrose - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:30 am:

    Yup. The schools and the NCAA have been profiting off the talents of these athletes for too long. A few big states passing laws like California’s will force the NCAA to stop dragging its feet and figure out a way to do right by these kids.


  6. - Steve - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:32 am:

    I voted no. The athletes are already compensated by tuition.


  7. - lakeside - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:34 am:

    Voted yes. I guess I would prefer that the college athletes do college at college, but if the NCAA can profit off deals that involve them, so should they.

    Just on the face of it - being forced to let someone else profit off your image and likeness is just so obviously unfair. EA makes a video game that uses your name and face, and the NCAA gets the money? Bonkers.


  8. - OneMan - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:36 am:

    Lets see how the California law plays out in the courts, suffice to say if only in California can players make that money, it will be a huge recruting advantage.


  9. - Colin O'Scopy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:37 am:

    This is the first step in stopping the pretense that universities aren’t making massive revenue off of the student athletes. College athletes, particularly football and basketball are already “professional” athletes. They just aren’t being paid.


  10. - Colin O'Scopy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:38 am:

    Adding, I voted yes.


  11. - NIref - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:41 am:

    No, this invites companies and athletic depts to lean on administrators and instructors to ensure eligibility for SA’s. Having been improperly contacted by a school’s AD after we filed for an SA to be suspended for academic misconduct, these issues are already rampant, we don’t need more of this. Get athletics out of universities, which are academic institutions first.


  12. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:42 am:

    I need to see if the NCAA will disqualify universities from national championships or postseason tournaments sanctioned by the NCAA

    The football bowls, outside the playoff bowls, can and probably will dictate how they envision qualifying, and I can’t see this bill or the California law stopping the Illini from playing in a postseason bowl. Lovie Smith is already preventing the Illini from playing in a bowl but I digress…

    Looking at the SEC Network, ND’s NBC television deal, the B1G Network, even the Longhorn Network for UT-Austin, there needs to be a better way than having student-athletes unable to get an egg salad sandwich while playing a video game using their likeness.


  13. - Stevie Dan - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:42 am:

    “I voted no. The athletes are already compensated by tuition.”

    So are the kids who score perfect SATs. But the schools don’t make billions in revenue off them.


  14. - Annon3 - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:44 am:

    Yes, the money involved in big time revenue sports is obscene and the value of the scholarship is de minimis in comparison.


  15. - Steve - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:46 am:

    - Stevie Dan -

    The free tuition and living expenses really do count as compensation in the eyes of the law.


  16. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:50 am:

    ===living expenses===

    Oh, that’s what their called.

    Coaches and athletes alike talk about student-athlete going to bed hungry because food can’t be had after a certain time and in between practice/games and studying, getting all that “free” food is impossible under NCAA rules.

    The antiquated NCAA rules of student life, let alone the monies earned off the students is causing the backlash.


  17. - JS Mill - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:50 am:

    Yes. The amount of money flowing to schools and the NCAA and obscene coaching salaries are so disproportionate to the scholarship dollars that change is needed.


  18. - Earnest - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:52 am:

    I voted ‘yes’, less on the particulars and more on the fact that college athletes who serve as revenue generators deserve appropriate compensation. Another solution would be to let them unionize and negotiate.


  19. - thunderspirit - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:57 am:

    I voted yes.

    NCAA colleges have been making big money off their “student-athletes” for many years. Tuition and living expenses don’t begin to compensate these players for what they generate, and what they surrender in the name of “amateur” sports.


  20. - Shemp - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 11:58 am:

    Pandora’s box. I can’t even begin to imagine the laundry list of unintended consequences.


  21. - Cheryl44 - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:00 pm:

    Yes. They’re employees, they should be paid.


  22. - Nick - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:02 pm:

    At an absolute minimum, and I do mean absolute, they should have a right to profits generated from their likeness.


  23. - Stevie Dan - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:07 pm:

    - Steve -

    I agree free room and board are sufficient under the law. But that doesn’t make it right.


  24. - Froganon - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:20 pm:

    Yes to paying college athletes and double yes to Earnst @ 11:52. The current system is too flawed and unfair to continue.


  25. - NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:25 pm:

    No vote. The only students who are in big money sports are the football and basketball players. Those are team sports, not individual competitions. How do you value any one students worth. The fact is that the school establishes and supports the team. I don’t see any pictures of starving athletes. If students don’t like it then try out for the pro leagues right out of high school. Otherwise, accept the scholarship and deal.


  26. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:25 pm:

    There will be severe unintended consequences from California’s new law, chief among them unequal treatment. Only one or two star athletes are going to get endorsement deals, providing cash to a handful of students that used to go to the school’s athletic program.

    Top teams fly to games in chartered jets now. They have nutritionists, trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, and facilities that are state of the art. That costs the school a lot of money and every athlete benefits from these, from the lowest tier sport bench-warmer to the All-American. Thousands of NCAA students currently benefit and participate because the schools make this money and spread it around.

    If you limit that, or re-direct to a few superstar athletes, you end up harming many other college athletes that will never be famous.


  27. - InsertNameHere - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:27 pm:

    Absolutely. The NCAA has gotten away with this corruption for far too long.


  28. - Blue Dog Dem - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:28 pm:

    I voted a second time and voted no. I enjoy the current compensation system where the players, their families, their handlers are paid under the table. This insures that the wealthy,high profile programs remain as such.


  29. - Illinois Refugee - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:33 pm:

    Voted “no” I would hate to see state income tax rates become a part of the recruitment process. The no tax states would get all of the best players.


  30. - George - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:42 pm:

    I voted yes. The real question is why are sports such a big part of our educational system? Why do students at Chicago State pay $155 a semester to fund their sports teams? Why do students at EIU pay $156? NEIU had the good sense to drop their athletics programs many years ago. Let big time football and basketball be professional. All other sports would be like Division III.


  31. - Tim - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:46 pm:

    Voted no. They are already compensated with their scholarships. It’s not the fault of the university that the athletes don’t take advantage of it. Hard no.


  32. - Pick a Name - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:48 pm:

    Depends on the school, if it is a blue blood, the NCAA will look the other way. If it is Cal State Poly or UC Davis, the NCAA will punish them severely.


  33. - Been There - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:51 pm:

    I voted no. But not because I don’t think they should be compensated. I just don’t like they would be receiving money from outside their “employer”. They should come up with some plan to compensate every athlete on the team the same. But paid directly by the school. It would probably take a change to federal law also(Title X?? or whatever it is).


  34. - Candy Dogood - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:52 pm:

    This seems like the kind of rule that was implemented by a group of folks that wanted to make sure only students from rich families got to compete in their activities that was exacerbated by bureaucracies that don’t like the idea of sharing any amount of the wealth they’re earning off of the labor of others. Both are pretty deep seeded traditions in the United States.

    I voted yes. It’s work. The idea that they’re getting tuition for free is great — but not all of them are, and it’s still work. Even if they are getting tuition for free, I think we all know that academics often takes a back seat especially at more competitive programs.


  35. - Anon but Social Knows me - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:53 pm:

    So wait, it’s totally cool with those who voted yes for athletes, but PhD students have to work for free for their professors? At what point does this stop? This is school. While schools profit from NCAA programs, the money is poured back into those programs (salaries of ego coach hires, stadiums in places where they don’t have pro sports, etc.)… Meanwhile, PhD students are forced to teach classes, work as lab assistants and deliver food to their profs - for (GASP) free. It’s college. Everyone knows what they sign on for.


  36. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:58 pm:

    Yes, because the fundamental problem is that amateurism is whatever the NCAA says amateurism is at any particular moment. The NCAA does not enforce it equally.


  37. - Responsa - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:59 pm:

    The point of college for amateur status budding athletes has always been that they can further hone their craft as their bodies mature, while hopefully also being educated to help them survive and prosper in their many years of post-athlete life. NCAA needs to remember who they are and why they exist. Voted No.


  38. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:01 pm:

    ===So wait, it’s totally cool with those who voted yes for athletes, but PhD students have to work for free for their professors?===

    That’s not the question, but… lol

    ===While schools profit from NCAA programs, the money is poured back into those programs===

    Two points;

    PhD students ain’t generating the profits athletes of football or basketball are.

    The programs are profiting, some to 9-digit revenues before expenses, but if you’re not going to the Final Four or a bowl or part of a Power 5 conference, (less ND, BYU, or an Independent), those profits make possible the university to grow. Even 100 PhD candidates aren’t going to match a 5-star QB with Heisman aspirations.

    Such is life.

    Which is this..

    ===Meanwhile, PhD students are forced to teach classes, work as lab assistants and deliver food to their profs - for (GASP) free. It’s college. Everyone knows what they sign on for.===

    When a 4-Star undergrad shooting guard decides to go for his/her PhD, I’m sure they’ll do all those things. That’s how it goes.


  39. - NoGifts - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:09 pm:

    PhD students should be able to make money from their likenesses too. :)


  40. - Bogey Golfer - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:10 pm:

    Voted no. This only applies to the elite mens basketball and football athletes. When companies endorse and pay athletes inswimming, golf and volleyball will this be equitable.
    Side note: Does this mean golf equipment companies pay collegiates to use their products?


  41. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:11 pm:

    - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 12:25 pm:

    =Thousands of NCAA students currently benefit and participate because the schools make this money and spread it around.=

    But do they really?

    https://www.insider.com/lsu-spent-28-million-on-a-locker-room-and-students-arent-happy


  42. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:15 pm:

    ===Does this mean golf equipment companies pay collegiates to use their products?===

    If the coach is a PGA Professional, other compensation has been part of that for quite some time.

    To your question, I think brands like Ping, Taylor Made, Cobra/Puma have been very visible in completing golf complexes/practice studios at the top tier programs or where alum tour pros get their sponsors to “help”


  43. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:18 pm:

    LSU with that SEC money, they haven’t done much to help with the “Sports Only” windfalls.

    Alabama has made a point to point out athletic success is allowing considerable growth to the campus and infrastructure is probably the yang to LSU’s ying.


  44. - Moe Berg - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:19 pm:

    We’re mainly talking about Division 1 college basketball and football.

    Football, most especially, takes a terrible toll on the minds and bodies of those who play it. Even those who don’t make it to the pros contend with a lifetime of injury and pain. We know this now and we didn’t know it when this debate about endorsements/pay started 20+ years ago.

    Also, to be blunt, big time college football and basketball is another way in which black people are exploited in our society. They do all the work, and its the mostly white coaches, university administrators and NCAA leadership that reaps the benefits. (Yes, I know there are white players and they should benefit financially, too. But it’s even more important for athletes of color, many who come from terribly impoverished circumstances.)

    I see this in social justice terms. Redress is long overdue and “tuition” is nothing compared to the revenue the athletes generate.


  45. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:22 pm:

    Soo…, did you even read that article? Letting players make their own endor$ement deals isn’t going to fix the library at LSU, just as students’ tuition wasn’t used to build the new locker room.

    But somewhere in Baton Rouge is a reserve player on the swim team who not only gets a scholarship to attend LSU, but gets her meals, travel and training taken care of because Men’s Football earns enough cash to take care of all sports.

    Letting premier athletes siphon it off the top hurts the athletes in the so-called “non-revenue” sports.


  46. - 100 miles west - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:28 pm:

    Pay them, the kids who work in the library get paid. Also, where are these unpaid PhD students working for free? When I worked for professors in grad school I got a tuition waiver and a stipend.


  47. - Timmeh - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:30 pm:

    Yes. Some of these athletes should be making millions a year. There’s no reason to force athletes into 1-4 years of college when they’re young and already have a career. It doesn’t make sense for their lifestyle. Treat the athletes like paid employees and give them tuition wavers to sweeten the deal if you really care about their education.


  48. - Timmeh - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:35 pm:

    ==I don’t see any pictures of starving athletes.==

    Look harder then.

    https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2014/4/7/5591774/shabazz-napier-uconn-basketball-hungry-nights


  49. - Angry Chicagoan - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:37 pm:

    Yes. I’d prefer it if college sports weren’t such a big business and the NCAA weren’t so intent on making it even bigger and therefore this legal change wasn’t needed. But it is what it is, and someone needs to make the NCAA and major universities honest about what they have on their hands.


  50. - IL4Life - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 1:58 pm:

    Yes. The law doesn’t even ask the NCAA to pay the athletes (which is what should happen in a free market), it just asks them to allow the players to use their own names and likeness to make money. It also allows the players to get agents and representation.

    I wouldn’t stop here. The Democratic majority should pass a resolution encouraging Illinois “student-athletes” to unionize.

    Related is this statement: “Students who perform services at a private college or university related to their studies will be held to be primarily students with a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.” Is this the rationale behind the NCAA’s position? Absolutely. Did the NCAA say this? Nope. It was Trump’s NLRB in a decision last week to prohibit graduate students at private schools from unionizing. The NCAA and the Trump administration both want us to act like a young adult can be either a student of a university or a worker of a university, but not both — even though they are not mutually exclusive. It is a systemic problem perpetuated by the corrupt, plutocratic elite.

    Crony capitalism is the worst form of capitalism; corporate democracy is the worst form of democracy. And right now we have both.


  51. - Name Withheld - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:12 pm:

    I voted yes - I think we need a law, not “like” but similar-to California.

    Instead of allowing students to get agents, I’d like a profit-sharing arrangement between the the school and and the athletes - where each athlete gets a percentage of the profit. If the student is on a scholarship - perhaps a portion of that money could be repaid back to the school out of the student’s share.


  52. - Nova - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:20 pm:

    I voted no, and agree with everything 47th Ward said. There will be unintended consequences. If anything I would like to see a stricter definition of student athlete not allowing any endorsements or deals for college players.


  53. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:27 pm:

    =Alabama has made a point to=

    Please add the following:

    1) On April 19, 2013, the University of Tennessee dedicated its new $45 million Anderson Training Center, a 145,000-square-foot home for its football team with a two-story weight room, hydrotherapy room, amphitheater-style team meeting room and a public entrance featuring a waterwall and museum commemorating Volunteers football history.
    (U of T’s Revenue for the whole athletic department was $106 million in 2014)

    2) In 2017 Clemson’s spent $55 million on a football complex with an aspect school officials tout will be the first of its kind: a “players’ village” entertainment wing with attractions more commonly seen in arcades and theme parks than on college campuses. (Clemson reported $112.6 million in revenue in 2018)

    Point being it would kindof help if the various college boards would stop green lighting 40%-50% of the Athletic Department budget in one swoop.

    But hey Half of the top colleges Athletic Departments (including U of I) aren’t profitable. And they use the fact they’re in the red push boosters to write more checks as well as an excuse to institute fees on students as an additional revenue source.


  54. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:31 pm:

    ===Please add the following:===

    No. No thanks.

    The building program that the University of Alabama has done over the past years is greater than the athletic department or football.

    Good try to co-op my point, but no.


  55. - Glengarry - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:33 pm:

    Pay them. The NCAA is old and outdated.


  56. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:35 pm:

    Cite;

    tiny.cc/onwodz


  57. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:39 pm:

    ===if the various college boards would stop green lighting 40%-50% of the Athletic Department budget in one swoop===

    How much is 50% of zero? Without television revenue, naming rights, apparel contracts, etc., there would be no college sports for boards to approve. The overwhelming majority of money in college athletics comes from sources outside of the university. In other words, that money can’t be spent on other university purposes.

    Now we can argue that Nike, Addidas, Under Armour etc. should care about all of the students at whichever University they sponsor, but they don’t. They care about athletes, and more precisely, star athletes who wear their gear on TV.

    Make college athletics less competitive and you’ll see lower television revenue. Then you’ll see the hockey team gets dropped, or the gymnastics program, or volleyball or some other “non-revenue” sport. What happens to those athletes? Who pays for their scholarship then?

    The NCAA is able to pay for championship tournaments in all of its sports from revenue earned by its Men’s Basketball championship tournament (March MadnessTM). I agree that it’s madness, but allowing college athletes to become free agents is worse than the status quo.

    One simple alternative is to ban the commercial use of any player’s likeness.


  58. - Amalia - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:58 pm:

    what the NCAA has to do is to further refine the rules about money that athletes can make in outside jobs. they have done some of that but they need to do more. stunt money like this bill is divisive to a team. One guy (cause you know it will be guys) gets something and the other 70 something on the football team do not. the compensation that football, and basketball (both male and female) players get is not just tuition. it is room and board, training table, clothing (see suits and ties on football, they get that in addition to athletic clothing), medical, academic counseling, internships that other students do not get. Most other athletes get less. for example, one team of women I know gets scholarships but they have to be divided so there are not full scholarships like on football. And they are big winners. Maybe there should be pay for performance? Get into a national championship game or win national titles? get something. look at a university where women’s teams do those things while men’s do not. what about compensation for success?


  59. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 2:59 pm:

    Just noticed this:

    “It’s not the fault of the university that the athletes don’t take advantage of it. Hard no.”

    Tim, I can tell you’ve never played a college sport.

    For anyone voting No because you think student-athletes are fairly compensated in just tuition and room/broad, or are afraid of unintended consequences. Then you’ve fail to recognize the fact these students are actually putting in more time as an athletes in order to maintain a scholarship.

    Any competitive school, be it NCAA or NAIA, has off-season programs like structured group training’s, weightlifting, captains practices etc etc that are conducted outside of the official time allotted by the NCAA per week. These programs are as “voluntary” as showing up for work, as in they’re not.


  60. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:05 pm:

    “One simple alternative is to ban the commercial use of any player’s likeness”

    I see you’re taking the nothing approach in all or nothing

    Students-athletes are the product and it’s their labor schools make money off of. You ban that the commercial use of that “there would be no college sports for boards to approve.”


  61. - SAP - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:09 pm:

    Yes. I do not understand how the NCAA can profit off of a person’s image but the person cannot. The myth of the student athlete is way past outdated.


  62. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:09 pm:

    ===I see you’re taking the nothing approach in all or nothing===

    It’s reasonable. The universities and conferences can use the likeness, no video games, t-shirts, etc.

    The networks and TV deals generate the lion’s share. So, ban it all.

    ===Students-athletes are the product and it’s their labor schools make money off of. You ban that the commercial use of that “there would be no college sports for boards to approve.”===

    Yeah… to that.

    Playing college athletics isn’t a right.

    Playing college athletics is a privilege.


  63. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:09 pm:

    I see you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    We can do this all day. I’ve got the time.


  64. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:18 pm:

    =Good try to co-op my point, but no.=

    You cited one school as yang, I pointed to three as yin. How is that complementary dualism when the more than half of the of the top schools in the country dont act like Bama

    Cite
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/?arc404=true&utm_term=.16b0d826bc61


  65. - Soo... - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:25 pm:

    =I see you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good.=

    Oh, I’m cool with banning commercial use of any player’s likeness.

    But I think your enemy in that would be the NCAA and virtually anyone with a vested interest in college athletics.


  66. - Annonin' - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:26 pm:

    Voted yes should end college sports as we know it which for most schools will be a blessing. The NFL, NBA, MLB can form their own U21 or U18 to develop talent and students can create club teams on campus


  67. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:29 pm:

    Soo, maybe it would help if you read the AP story to which Rich linked. Then maybe we’d be talking about the same thing.

    Interesting fact, the NCAA reported revenues of $1.1 billion last year. There are 500,000 collegiate athletes. If you divide up the whole pie and split it evenly among the athletes, they’d each get $2200. That’s not even enough to buy books.


  68. - Nova - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:29 pm:

    Also agree with OW, playing college athletics is not a right. It is a privilege that very few are afforded at the D1 level. Universities can still run top level athletic programs without the monetization of anyone’s name or image. And the Nikes and Adidas can survive without promoting individual college athletes. Just make it illegal.


  69. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:30 pm:

    ===when the more than half of the of the top schools in the country dont act like Bama===

    It’s within any institution’s right.

    If Alabama or other schools, like the one not in that other half, see the monies one way, you don’t have to go there.

    College athletics pay for so many things at institutions and for the towns that host them.

    If an athlete wants to go to a school that appreciates the student body like an Alabama, they can go there.

    Again, athletics is a privilege, not a right.


  70. - njt - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:41 pm:

    ===There will be severe unintended consequences from California’s new law, chief among them unequal treatment.===

    47th, if you haven’t been to a D1 campus, this ship has long since sailed.


  71. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:47 pm:

    I am fortunate to be on a Division 1 campus pretty frequently as a matter of fact. One possible unintended co sequence is the elimination of some non-revenue sports as I’ve outlined above.

    Did you come here to add to the discussion or just to offer your conclusion that the system is beyond repair? I ask because some of us are trying to have a discussion about this and Illinois legislators have already introduced a bill. Yet no one knows what the impact will be, which seems like something that should be considered before rushing blindly after California.


  72. - njt - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 3:55 pm:

    ===One possible unintended co sequence is the elimination of some non-revenue sports as I’ve outlined above.===

    This is already happening, see wrestling and other sports. Can you help me understand how paying football and basketball players will contribute more to this?

    People already know what the impacts are. Athletes are currently paid. Newton, Bush, the Ball brothers’, etc… The top tier football and basketball programs already generate and have the means to support their athletes outside of the NCAA constraints (see boosters).

    As can be seen at those programs, all other sports continue to participate. The pie has been and continues to expand to immense size. Nick Saban earns north of $10 million in combined salary and benefits. I full heartily believe that institutions will be able to continue to support many sports while finding a more equitable way to distribute revenues among those who generate the benefits.


  73. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:02 pm:

    === Can you help me understand how paying football and basketball players will contribute more to this?===

    By diverting revenue away from athletic departments to individual athletes.


  74. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:11 pm:

    ===Saban earns north of $10 million in combined salary and benefits. I full heartily believe that institutions will be able to continue to support many sports while finding a more equitable way to distribute revenue===

    Maybe you should spend a little time on a campus. Who do you think pays Saban’s salary? Do you think those boosters will instead donate to the school if they drop Athletics?

    The dollars that go into college sports largely come from sources outside of the university. They are dollars that can’t be used for non-athletic purposes. Why is that so hard for so many people to understand?


  75. - MG85 - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:12 pm:

    I voted yes. It is time to stop pretending that collegiate sports exists to further promote academics or the academic experience.

    It is a multi-billion dollar business and the question is who will get what? Right now, it is the Universities, the coaches, and the media that covers these sports.

    For a very, very select few, this is an opportunity to herald them into professional sports. For many, it is a continuation of physical harm that will remain with them for the rest of their lives.

    These are also not kids. They are adults. They can enter into contracts. It is high time they be allowed to do so for compensation.

    Yes, better players should get more money. More lucrative sports should yield more money. Even further, these adults should be allowed to organize a union to further their interests.

    Case in point: Nick Saban will make $7.5 million dollars this year. His best athletes will have $30,000.00 paid to them in tuition, fees, and books.

    How is it acceptable that the immediate supervisor (not even the CEO) should make 250 times what his immediate employees make?

    The question is rhetorical, it doesn’t make sense. So let’s quit pretending college sports is any different than any other business because it isn’t. The only difference is we are stealing wages better from the employees.


  76. - njt - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:14 pm:

    ===By diverting revenue away from athletic departments to individual athletes.===

    Are institutions not allowed to divert revenue from coaches? Booster programs? Stadium upgrades?

    Why is it currently fair for the labor of one group to subsidize the activities of another?

    In 2018, UIUC football and men’s basketball accounted for over 97% of all athletic department revenue. As currently constructed, those athletes subsidize everything, from coaches salaries to other non-revenue generating sports. In most cases, none of those athletes will earn a dollar from their labor, but others will benefit from it.


  77. - njt - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:17 pm:

    ===Who do you think pays Saban’s salary?===

    Who do you think paid Cam Newton?

    ===They are dollars that can’t be used for non-athletic purposes.===

    As defined by who? Again, how is that an equitable distribution of labor and income?


  78. - Chuck - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:18 pm:

    For those of you who think that scholarships are sufficient compensation for the students, know that the Commissioner of the Pac 10 makes $5.4 million per year. Not the school coach, not the school AD, the league commissioner.

    Pay. The. Players.


  79. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:21 pm:

    ===In 2018, UIUC football and men’s basketball accounted for over 97% of all athletic department revenue. As currently constructed, those athletes subsidize everything, from coaches salaries to other non-revenue generating sports. In most cases, none of those athletes will earn a dollar from their labor, but others will benefit from it.===

    That’s central to the point I am making, that allowing some athletes to take from this pot for themselves, it diminishes the ability of the Athletics department to find the non-revenue generating sports.

    And in the fundraising world, certain donations are restricted to the donor’s explicit wishes, so no, if a booster wants to contribute big time cash so the school can hire a top coach, the University can’t spend it instead on something else.


  80. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:21 pm:

    ===Nick Saban earns north of $10 million===

    Still underpaid.

    Current coaches with multiple national championships

    Saban - 6
    Swinney -2

    That’s the list.

    Dabo is 4 behind Saban.

    As - 47th Ward - made clear, it’s the boosters paying.


  81. - Friend of the Program - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:23 pm:

    === By diverting revenue away from athletic departments to individual athletes.===

    How much do we think these athletes are going to make off of their own likeness? Based on info seen in the FBI investigation even the highest level recruits are being valued in the low 6 figures. why not let a shoe company pay these kids in the open for a year before they go pro and do so anyway. Nike would never pull it’s apparel deal with Duke because it wanted to pay Zion for a year. Also, how does letting this small number of athletes benefit from their likeness affect the TV revenue in college sports? These athletic departments will be just fine if we let kids make money off of jersey sales.


  82. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:24 pm:

    Cam Newton? Now you’re just trolling.


  83. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:24 pm:

    ===Who do you think paid Cam Newton?===

    Auburn? Auburn gave a scholarship.

    The Reggie Bush example is better, thanks.


  84. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:28 pm:

    A few years ago when I was in New Orleans I got into a very long argument with somebody on this topic. I actually didn’t really care all that much, but the other person (who totally opposed it) could just not stop.

    If you’ve already commented, time to move along.


  85. - Enviro - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 4:34 pm:

    College students don’t have time to make endorsements if they are active in college sports. They must use their time studying and practicing their sport. College students who active in sports need to have time to sleep and enjoy their college years.


  86. - Anonish - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 5:01 pm:

    I voted yes.
    If their name is on a jersey then they should get a cut.
    I would suggest that the money can go into their campus meal account or into an trust for once they leave school. College students aren’t exactly geniuses when it comes to managing their money.


  87. - MG85 - Monday, Sep 30, 19 @ 7:26 pm:

    ==College students aren’t exactly geniuses when it comes to managing their money.== Most Americans aren’t either, that doesn’t mean we hold their money hostage until they graduate college.


  88. - Lynn S. - Tuesday, Oct 1, 19 @ 1:34 am:

    Voted yes.

    As part of my job, I am at the university athletic department at least 2-3 times a week.

    Football players in particular put in 40 or more hours per week, plus classes and homework. Off-season and summer practices are about as “voluntary” as paying your income taxes on April 15. (In other words, if the kids don’t show up, they get yanked off the team and lose everything.)

    NCAA doesn’t want to pay athletes because it would reduce the NCAA’s profit.

    I’ll just end by saying that the current system is, at best, exploiting the kids. The adults are (banned word) making sure that they get a piece of the NCAA gravy train.


  89. - DoingHumanThings - Tuesday, Oct 1, 19 @ 2:26 pm:

    I see this as a situation where the “rich get richer” personally. Sure, the handful of top athletes at U of I and Northwestern…maybe NIU…would get endorsement deals, but this will do nothing for the vast majority of athletes at EIU, SIU or WIU.

    I don’t disagree that players need more control over what they are able to do, and I’m no fan of the NCAA, but I don’t know that giving large amounts of money to a handful of top players is going to do much.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed for a week
* Weekly COVID-19 update: The trend is not our friend
* Rate Pritzker's three new TV ads
* Question of the day
* Tinfoil hats crushed in Kane County
* Another year, another federal "strike force" for Chicago
* Kind of odd
* Unclear on the concept
* Open thread
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Pritzker campaign manager Quentin Fulks to take over Sen. Warnock's re-election bid, replaced here by Mike Ollen
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller