California could lead another charge in college athlete pay with its latest proposed bill
California sparked the birth of NIL money for athletes; now the state could take it a step further

Dan Wetzel
Columnist
Thu, January 19, 2023 at 5:05 PM PST4 min read


In 2019, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay To Play Act, which prohibited the NCAA from punishing a student-athlete who profited off their name, image and likeness (NIL). With state law trumping NCAA rules, it meant any college athlete from a California school could make some money while playing.
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum in states all over the country quickly followed suit and passed their own bills. Courts upheld the legislation and NIL is now a major, if evolving, part of college athletics.
"California has been very effective at putting forth trailblazing legislation," state Assemblymember Chris Holden said. "It makes sense and then catches on around the country."
Well, California is back, this time with Holden, who serves Pasadena and spoke Thursday in front of the famed Rose Bowl, sponsoring a law that promises an even bolder change to how college sports operates.
The College Athlete Protection Act will begin working its way through committees with optimism among backers that it can find its way to Newsom's desk this fall and be signed. (A similar bill failed last year).
CAPA takes a direct shot at the NCAA's long-standing amateurism model by requiring schools to share profits from specific programs with its athletes, particularly those who graduate.

California Assemblymember Chris Holden discusses a proposed bill that aims to expand college athlete payment beyond NIL. (AP Photo/Beth Harris)
The bill requires schools to share up to 50% of revenue with athletes who compete in programs that bring in twice as much in revenue as they spend on athletic scholarships.
At many places this would include only football and men's basketball, although women's basketball, gymnastics, ice hockey, volleyball and other sports can reach that threshold at certain schools.
Current student-athletes' pay would be capped at $25,000 per year while they're in school, but colleges would be required to set aside an equally divided 50% of revenue annually to be paid out upon completion of a degree within six years. At major football programs, such as USC, that could equal about $200,000 a year per player or $800,000 for a four-year career, according to some estimates.
Part of what doomed the bill last year were concerns that by paying football and basketball players, athletic departments would lack the resources to continue to fund scholarships or even entire teams in non-profitable sports. This time, in an effort to prevent such cuts, there is a second funding option.
A school that sees an increase in revenue even a small amount can allocate 50% of the so-called "new money" to pay the athletes in those sports. This would likely result in far less money for athletes, if any at all, but it's still considered progress
It is also the way, proponents argue, that existing budgets aren't strained to the point of pulling back opportunities for others. USC and UCLA, for example, are about to enter the Big Ten Conference where millions in new money is awaiting. That increase in revenue could save those schools money under the new bill.
"Even though it won't make the athletes whole, it will represent progress for those athletes," said Ramogi Huma, a former UCLA football player and now president of the National Collegiate Players Association.
The bill also calls for a three-year ban for any athletic director who cuts teams or scholarships under these circumstances.
There are additional provisions and CAPA could be beefed up or stripped down as it goes through the legislative process.
If it were to pass, it will likely be duplicated by other states, if only out of competitiveness. After the NIL bill passed in 2019, there was a fear that California schools would enjoy a significant recruiting advantage why not go play where you can earn more than just a scholarship?
States began to match or even write more forgiving laws in an effort to outdo not just California, but states with rival programs. Others have sat it out and watched as the NCAA has been essentially powerless to stop all kinds of payments to players and recruits. Public sentiment has quickly swung against the NCAA and amateurism.
CAPA may be slightly less pronounced of an advantage. NIL opportunities anywhere can offset the graduation payment, which in and of itself is a delayed payout that may not hold the recruiting sway of an immediate deal.
That said, it is a full-throttle attack on the concept of amateurism, which the NCAA has clung to long after other international sports organizations, most notably the Olympics, have given up. This would feature schools making direct payments to players an addition to scholarships, academic awards and Pell Grants that are already allowed.
Back in 2019, many in college sports ignored the actions of the California Assembly, only to see its impact quickly sweep over football and basketball. No one should make the same mistake this time.
Precisely how this will play out isn't known, but if it passes as some expect it, college sports will be forever altered, perhaps significantly."

https://sports.yahoo.com/california-could-lead-another-charge-in-college-athlete-pay-with-its-latest-proposed-bill-010553341.html?.tsrc=364
----------

Wow, this may pave the way for widespread changes in college sports across the nation. I hadn't realized that it was California behind the NIL effort. Good on us! And good on us again for getting players paid when colleges have been profiting off the backs of "amateurs" to the tune of billions for decades.

Go get that Chicken!!!

We desperately need federal legislation.

Whatever one may think about this revenue sharing scheme we should all be able to see that you cannot simultaneously do revenue sharing to football players AND use football revenues to comply with Title 9.

The provision that only "new money" has to be paid out (at a 50% rate) to players makes this proposal farcical as does the graduation requirement. This bill is an acknowledgement that college players are professionals but in what profession is the release of your compensation contingent upon earning a college degree? The provision that the funds are distributed equally to all of a team's players is also problematic on obvious grounds.

That said, I welcome the end of "amateurism" and generally favor legislation to that effect. If players are formally professionalized they can unionize and through collective bargaining a superior competitive operating system can be imposed upon programs with a salary cap, structured player contracts including regulated free agency, and revenue sharing between programs.

I know a lot of fans hate professionalization but it could actually save student athletics in football and basketball if the sports embrace a collective bargaining agreement that preserves student athletics as a foundational element. For instance the CBA could set up a two-tier system where a player could either be purely an employee of the college/athletic department and be compensated only by their contract or they could be a student-athlete and receive a scholarship (either alone or in addition to a salary -- it's not like universities don't already have students who are also employees) with the kicker that scholarships don't count against the salary cap. This could incentivize both teams and prospective recruits who wish to obtain college degrees. A hypothetical recruit whose market value is $25,000/yr but who is interested in obtaining a Cal degree and accepts a scholarship will actually get compensated much more than $25k/yr from the cost of tuition, room and board, not to mention free access to academic tutors as well as preferred admission. Teams would be willing to "overpay" such players given the competitive benefit of keeping their compensation off the salary cap.

However, I wonder about how Title IX impacts professionalization. Do the funds spent on football and men's BB player salaries count against the male half of the equal spending split between genders mandated upon college athletic departments by federal law? If so, were additional funds to be given to football and men's basketball players, matching funds would have to be allocated to women's sports. Assuming no additional funds for that purpose become available to athletic departments, the only way they could do that is by cutting more men's scholarships from other programs. But this legislation proposed in CA has a provision barring athletic departments from cutting teams or scholarships. So what gives here?

kal kommie said:

---

As noted in the article, the provision that only "new money" has to be paid out (at a 50% rate) to players makes this proposal farcical as does the graduation requirement. This bill is an acknowledgement that college players are professionals but in what profession is the release of your compensation contingent upon earning a college degree and delayable until then? The provision that the funds are distributed equally to all of a team's players is also problematic on obvious grounds.

That said, I welcome the end of "amateurism" and generally favor legislation to that effect. If the amateur system is terminated If players are formally professionalized they can unionize and through collective bargaining a superior competitive operating system can be imposed upon programs with a salary cap, structured player contracts including regulated free agency, and revenue sharing between programs.

I know a lot of fans hate professionalization but it could actually save student athletics in football and basketball if the sport embraces a collective bargaining agreement that preserves student athletics as a foundational element in the sport. For instance the CBA could set up a two-tier system where a player could either be purely an employee of the college/athletic department and be compensated only by their contract or they could be a student-athlete and receive a scholarship (either alone or in addition to a salary -- it's not like universities don't already have students who are also employees) with the kicker that scholarships don't count against the salary cap. This could incentivize both teams and prospective recruits who wish to obtain college degrees. A hypothetical recruit whose market value is $25,000/yr but who is interested in obtaining a Cal degree and accepts a scholarship will actually get compensated much more than $25k/yr from the cost of tuition, room and board, not to mention free access to academic tutors and professional athletic trainers as well as preferred enrollment. Teams would be willing to "overpay" such players given the competitive benefit of keeping their compensation off the salary cap.

However, I wonder about how Title IX impacts professionalization. Do the funds spent on football and men's BB player salaries count against the male half of the equal spending split between genders mandated upon college athletic departments by federal law? If so, were additional funds to be given to football and men's basketball players, matching funds would have to be allocated to women's sports. Assuming no additional funds for that purpose become available to athletic departments, the only way they could do that is by cutting more men's scholarships from other programs. But this legislation proposed in CA has a provision barring athletic departments from cutting teams or scholarships. So what gives here?

---

In many ways I see this proposed legislation as a shot across the bow of college football. California was the leader in working to get NIL. Look at what happened. 30 states created laws and rules and it is now complete chaos.

Players are going to get paid. The college football leadship needs to get its head out of its *** and figure this out. There is a lot of money available. The expansion of the CFP will create additional revenues.

I think Kevin Warren was trying to get the Big 10 to consider revenue sharing with the players. He experienced resistance. Now he is with the Chicago Bears. This could get very ugly quickly if the leadership cannot come together and find a resolution. Some sort of collective bargaining and revenue sharing will likely occur. Other things like insurance, medical coverage etc need to be resolved.

There are a lot of smart people in the college football world, but few are working for the collective good of the game. Instead they are working to fill the coffers of their programs with media deals and continue to throw huge contracts at coaches.

There were a lot of people warning the NCAA about NIL. They sat on their hands. This is another warning. Get together and find a solution. It won't be good if state legislatures do the deciding.

6956bear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

As noted in the article, the provision that only "new money" has to be paid out (at a 50% rate) to players makes this proposal farcical as does the graduation requirement. This bill is an acknowledgement that college players are professionals but in what profession is the release of your compensation contingent upon earning a college degree and delayable until then? The provision that the funds are distributed equally to all of a team's players is also problematic on obvious grounds.

That said, I welcome the end of "amateurism" and generally favor legislation to that effect. If the amateur system is terminated If players are formally professionalized they can unionize and through collective bargaining a superior competitive operating system can be imposed upon programs with a salary cap, structured player contracts including regulated free agency, and revenue sharing between programs.

I know a lot of fans hate professionalization but it could actually save student athletics in football and basketball if the sport embraces a collective bargaining agreement that preserves student athletics as a foundational element in the sport. For instance the CBA could set up a two-tier system where a player could either be purely an employee of the college/athletic department and be compensated only by their contract or they could be a student-athlete and receive a scholarship (either alone or in addition to a salary -- it's not like universities don't already have students who are also employees) with the kicker that scholarships don't count against the salary cap. This could incentivize both teams and prospective recruits who wish to obtain college degrees. A hypothetical recruit whose market value is $25,000/yr but who is interested in obtaining a Cal degree and accepts a scholarship will actually get compensated much more than $25k/yr from the cost of tuition, room and board, not to mention free access to academic tutors and professional athletic trainers as well as preferred enrollment. Teams would be willing to "overpay" such players given the competitive benefit of keeping their compensation off the salary cap.

However, I wonder about how Title IX impacts professionalization. Do the funds spent on football and men's BB player salaries count against the male half of the equal spending split between genders mandated upon college athletic departments by federal law? If so, were additional funds to be given to football and men's basketball players, matching funds would have to be allocated to women's sports. Assuming no additional funds for that purpose become available to athletic departments, the only way they could do that is by cutting more men's scholarships from other programs. But this legislation proposed in CA has a provision barring athletic departments from cutting teams or scholarships. So what gives here?

---

In many ways I see this proposed legislation as a shot across the bow of college football. California was the leader in working to get NIL. Look at what happened. 30 states created laws and rules and it is now complete chaos.

Players are going to get paid. The college football leadship needs to get its head out of its *** and figure this out. There is a lot of money available. The expansion of the CFP will create additional revenues.

I think Kevin Warren was trying to get the Big 10 to consider revenue sharing with the players. He experienced resistance. Now he is with the Chicago Bears. This could get very ugly quickly if the leadership cannot come together and find a resolution. Some sort of collective bargaining and revenue sharing will likely occur. Other things like insurance, medical coverage etc need to be resolved.

There are a lot of smart people in the college football world, but few are working for the collective good of the game. Instead they are working to fill the coffers of their programs with media deals and continue to throw huge contracts at coaches.

There were a lot of people warning the NCAA about NIL. They sat on their hands. This is another warning. Get together and find a solution. It won't be good if state legislatures do the deciding.

---

Couldn't agree more. I felt this way during the BCS era with regard to the playoffs. I really wanted a playoff model that preserved the essence of the old bowl system. If the business talent within/around the sport cared about the collective good of the game they could have done a +1 after bowls had concluded (which could have expanded into a 4-team playoff). The Rose Bowl could have retained its traditional Pac champ vs Big Ten champ format and in seasons where either team is playing for a playoff berth the game organically gains additional significance.

Instead the evolution into the playoffs cannibalized the old bowl system and turned them into mere window dressing for the playoffs itself.

This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

There is an inherent fairness about NIL. Of course people should be compensated for the use of their name and likeness. Many people feel the same way about revenue sharing - of course people should be paid for the value of their labor.

But there are several mitigating factors here, namely that the revenue football players generate is used to benefit hundreds if not thousands of other student athletes. Is the football player's right to revenue sharing really greater than the right of say 4 additional athletes to get a scholarship? Take away the benefit to other students and college football truly is nothing more than professional sports. There is such a small nexus between professional football and a university's mission that without the money being used for the greater good I suspect many colleges may choose to fundamentally change their operating model. In which case some number of football players lose everything.

There's no better institution to fix what is wrong with college athletics than the California Legislature... (/s)

kal kommie said:

---

As noted in the article, the provision that only "new money" has to be paid out (at a 50% rate) to players makes this proposal farcical as does the graduation requirement. This bill is an acknowledgement that college players are professionals but in what profession is the release of your compensation contingent upon earning a college degree and delayable until then? The provision that the funds are distributed equally to all of a team's players is also problematic on obvious grounds.

That said, I welcome the end of "amateurism" and generally favor legislation to that effect. If players are formally professionalized they can unionize and through collective bargaining a superior competitive operating system can be imposed upon programs with a salary cap, structured player contracts including regulated free agency, and revenue sharing between programs.

I know a lot of fans hate professionalization but it could actually save student athletics in football and basketball if the sport embraces a collective bargaining agreement that preserves student athletics as a foundational element in the sport. For instance the CBA could set up a two-tier system where a player could either be purely an employee of the college/athletic department and be compensated only by their contract or they could be a student-athlete and receive a scholarship (either alone or in addition to a salary -- it's not like universities don't already have students who are also employees) with the kicker that scholarships don't count against the salary cap. This could incentivize both teams and prospective recruits who wish to obtain college degrees. A hypothetical recruit whose market value is $25,000/yr but who is interested in obtaining a Cal degree and accepts a scholarship will actually get compensated much more than $25k/yr from the cost of tuition, room and board, not to mention free access to academic tutors and professional athletic trainers as well as preferred enrollment. Teams would be willing to "overpay" such players given the competitive benefit of keeping their compensation off the salary cap.

However, I wonder about how Title IX impacts professionalization. Do the funds spent on football and men's BB player salaries count against the male half of the equal spending split between genders mandated upon college athletic departments by federal law? If so, were additional funds to be given to football and men's basketball players, matching funds would have to be allocated to women's sports. Assuming no additional funds for that purpose become available to athletic departments, the only way they could do that is by cutting more men's scholarships from other programs. But this legislation proposed in CA has a provision barring athletic departments from cutting teams or scholarships. So what gives here?

---

I agree with your general points and sentiments, but I don't think unionization and CBAs are possible in college. Just too many schools and FAR too many athletes (tens of thousands) that need to be included and organized across the country, many are still minors, and then they are only in college 4 years, so the membership would be constantly changing. Plus many states where football is most popular and the pay would be higher are anti-union "right to work states."

Thus, the only alternative to the current free-market free for all is for Congress to pass legislation, granting an antitrust exemption and either including the new rules, or authorizing the NCAA to create them.

bluehenbear said:

---

There's no better institution to fix what is wrong with college athletics than the California Legislature... (/s)

---

The current situation was unleashed by the current US Supreme Court. It will take an act of Congress to fix, with a bill passed by the new House.

lots of intelligent comments in this discussion

tequila4kapp said:

---

We desperately need federal legislation.

Whatever one may think about this revenue sharing scheme we should all be able to see that you cannot simultaneously do revenue sharing to football players AND use football revenues to comply with Title 9.

---

This. The propose revenue share would likely will cause schools to deemphasize revenue sports. My guess is that there would be some major legal fights on the State's authority to do this, starting with the impairment of UC Bonds. Bad legislation, that probably would not survive judicial review.

calumnus said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

As noted in the article, the provision that only "new money" has to be paid out (at a 50% rate) to players makes this proposal farcical as does the graduation requirement. This bill is an acknowledgement that college players are professionals but in what profession is the release of your compensation contingent upon earning a college degree and delayable until then? The provision that the funds are distributed equally to all of a team's players is also problematic on obvious grounds.

That said, I welcome the end of "amateurism" and generally favor legislation to that effect. If players are formally professionalized they can unionize and through collective bargaining a superior competitive operating system can be imposed upon programs with a salary cap, structured player contracts including regulated free agency, and revenue sharing between programs.

I know a lot of fans hate professionalization but it could actually save student athletics in football and basketball if the sport embraces a collective bargaining agreement that preserves student athletics as a foundational element in the sport. For instance the CBA could set up a two-tier system where a player could either be purely an employee of the college/athletic department and be compensated only by their contract or they could be a student-athlete and receive a scholarship (either alone or in addition to a salary -- it's not like universities don't already have students who are also employees) with the kicker that scholarships don't count against the salary cap. This could incentivize both teams and prospective recruits who wish to obtain college degrees. A hypothetical recruit whose market value is $25,000/yr but who is interested in obtaining a Cal degree and accepts a scholarship will actually get compensated much more than $25k/yr from the cost of tuition, room and board, not to mention free access to academic tutors and professional athletic trainers as well as preferred enrollment. Teams would be willing to "overpay" such players given the competitive benefit of keeping their compensation off the salary cap.

However, I wonder about how Title IX impacts professionalization. Do the funds spent on football and men's BB player salaries count against the male half of the equal spending split between genders mandated upon college athletic departments by federal law? If so, were additional funds to be given to football and men's basketball players, matching funds would have to be allocated to women's sports. Assuming no additional funds for that purpose become available to athletic departments, the only way they could do that is by cutting more men's scholarships from other programs. But this legislation proposed in CA has a provision barring athletic departments from cutting teams or scholarships. So what gives here?

---

I agree with your general points and sentiments, but I don't think unionization and CBAs are possible in college. Just too many schools and FAR too many athletes (tens of thousands) that need to be included and organized across the country, many are still minors, and then they are only in college 4 years, so the membership would be constantly changing. Plus many states where football is most popular and the pay would be higher are anti-union "right to work states."

Thus, the only alternative to the current free-market free for all is for Congress to pass legislation, granting an antitrust exemption and either including the new rules, or authorizing the NCAA to create them.

---

Really good comment.. I assume that Congress could override State right to work laws in this area, so that a collective bargaining agreement is possible. Whether unionization would happen is another story, and you point out some of the difficulties.. I assume any unionization would occur on the conference level to avoid some pitfalls.

Even if they limit it to New money (however defined), that still does not address T9. For example, let's say Cal's new money for FB is $5k per player (~85 scholarship members), does Cal also need to give $5k to 85 women team members to keep resources/spending somewhat equal?

Personally, skeptical of unionization as the 5* will not want to settle for what a 3* earns.