What California’s Fair Play to Pay Act means for South Carolina, Colorado legislation

California Fair Play to Pay Act Colorado and South Carolina NCAA

Governor Gavin Newsom broke the internet this morning when a video of him signing the Fair Pay to Play Act into law was released. The Fair Pay to Play Act was one of the hottest issues of the summer. It led everyone to debate if college athletes should be paid above a cost-of-attendance scholarship. The debate is no longer, at least for college athletes in California. Governor Newsom sat with LeBron James on his hit show The Shop and signed the bill into law.

King James was an ardent supporter of the bill. The Fair Pay to Play Act will give college athletes in California the ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) and the ability to sign with an agent. Governor Newsom ignored the NCAA’s threat to prohibit colleges in California from participating in post-season championships and signed the bill into law. What will this mean for college athletes in California in 2023 when the bill is set to take effect?

The Fair Pay to Play Act

The Fair Pay to Play Act seeks to accomplish two goals for college athletes attending four-year colleges in California. One goal is to allow them to sign with agents. Pursuant to the bill, the agents must be licensed with the state. The agents must also be fully compliant with the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act. The second goal is to give college athletes in California the ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness.

Under the Act, colleges will be prohibited from upholding any rule that prevents college athletes from receiving compensation for their NIL. Any compensation that is earned will not affect the athletes’ scholarships. Furthermore, the NCAA will not be able to keep college athletes from participating in collegiate sports simply because they receive NIL compensation. The NCAA also will not be able to ban a school from participation because its athletes receive NIL compensation.

However, college athletes do not have a blanket rule to enter into a contract without any consideration for their team’s pre-existing contracts. If an athlete enters into a contract, the athlete must inform the school. If the athlete’s contract conflicts with the team’s contract, the athlete will not be able to enter into that contract. However, the team contract will not prevent an athlete from receiving NIL compensation when the athlete is not engaged in official team business. The Act does not apply to prospective college athletes. The Fair Pay to Play Act will only apply to four-year colleges. However, the California legislature intends to create a community college NIL working group to study the California Community College Athletic Association’s rules.

Podcast Discussion About the Name, Image, and Likeness Bills

How will the Fair Pay to Play Act Effect Colleges in other States?

During his appearance on The Shop, Governor Newsom stated that “the [Fair Pay to Play Act] will initiate dozens of other states to introduce similar legislation.” Governor Newsom could not be more right. Before he signed the Fair Pay to Play Act into law other states had already followed suit. For example, New York state senator Kevin Parker introduced the New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act. The New York bill is very similar to the Fair Pay to Play Act, but goes a bit further.

New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act

The New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act also seeks to give college athletes the right to profit from their NIL without losing their scholarship or collegiate eligibility. The bill prohibits New York colleges from upholding any rule that prevents college athletes from receiving NIL compensation. The bill also prohibits the NCAA from banning an athlete from collegiate participation due to NIL compensation. Likewise, the bill prohibits the NCAA from banning colleges whose athletes receive NIL compensation.

Like the Fair Pay to Play Act, college athletes in New York would not have the blanket ability to enter a contract without consideration of their team’s pre-existing contracts. The athletes will be required to inform their school of any contract they enter into. They would not be allowed to enter a contract that conflicts with the team’s contracts. However, a team contract will not prevent an athlete from receiving NIL compensation when the athlete is not engaged in official team business.

The New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act also gives college athletes the ability to sign with agents. The agents must be properly registered and compliant with federal laws. The bill also exempts community colleges and calls for a working group to be created to address the NIL issue for community colleges. The bill also does not apply to prospective college athletes. The New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act is very similar to the Fair Pay to Play Act. However, the New York bill takes college athlete compensation a couple of steps further.

The New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act Seeks to go the Extra Mile

The New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act seeks to go the extra mile by requiring that each college establish a fund for injured athletes. With this provision, athletes who suffer a career-ending injury in a practice or game will qualify for the fund. The athletes would receive the money upon graduation. The amount of compensation would be determined by each school. Perhaps most notably, the bill goes further by requiring that each college share 15 percent of its revenue from ticket sales with the athletes. These are major differences because it requires the schools to make direct payments to the athletes. Hopefully, California has broken the ice so that these additions to college athlete compensation can become law.

Colorado and South Carolina Also Have Plans to Follow Suit

Lawmakers in South Carolina and Colorado have already announced their intentions to follow suit. They both plan to submit legislation similar to the Fair Pay to Play Act in their upcoming legislative sessions. South Carolina State senator Marlon Kimpson and representative Justin Bamberg plan to introduce the bill. The bill will require the biggest colleges in South Carolina to pay $5,000 a year stipends to athletes in profitable sports like football and basketball. The bill will also seek to allow college athletes to receive compensation from sponsorships and autograph signings.

The Colorado legislation was introduced last session by state senators Owen Hill and Jeff Bridges. However, it was too late in the session when it was introduced. The senators plan to re-introduce the bill in the next legislative session. The Colorado bill will also require direct payment to college athletes from schools. Former college athlete Jeremy Bloom is a supporter of the Colorado legislation.

Whether the NCAA likes it or not, NIL Payments are Coming

Governor Newsom did not back down to the NCAA. From the looks of things, other states are not going to either. Whether the NCAA likes it or not, NIL compensation is coming. As Maverick Carter pointed out on The Shop, America is a capitalistic society. College athletes should have the same rights to participate in this capitalistic society like every other student. The Fair Pay to Play Act and other similar legislation seek to give college athletes that right. In light of Governor Newsom’s decision, it will be interesting to see what the NCAA’s NIL working group proposes. The working group is expected to share its findings and decision soon.

California Senate Bill 206 Fair Pay to Play Act Would be a Major Benefit to Impoverished Athletes

California Senate Bill 206 Fair Play Act NCAA Athletes

California is currently the hotbed for the pay-for-play debate in college sports. This is due to the Fair Pay to Play Act that is currently before the California state legislature. Two California state senators have taken action against the injustices that plague the current college sports system. Those senators are Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford. Senators Skinner and Bradford introduced the Fair Pay to Play Act in hopes of creating a more equitable system for college athletes and particular NCAA athletes in California. The bill seeks to give those college athletes the ability to profit from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The athletes would also be able to sign with agents. The Fair Pay to Play Act has the potential to completely change the landscape of college athletics and the NCAA.

The Current Landscape of College Athletics

Currently, college athletes are not permitted to profit from their NIL for athletically related activities. Despite the NCAA’s best efforts to steer everyone away from this fact, college sports are a billion-dollar industry. Everyone gets rich except the players. Conferences and college sports officials garner billion-dollar television broadcasting deals. Coaches, athletic directors, and conference commissioners negotiate million-dollar salaries. Meanwhile, the athletes are limited to a cost-of-attendance scholarship and are prohibited from profiting from their name, image, and likeness. If an athlete seeks to make such a profit, the athlete will be deemed ineligible for competition by the NCAA. How is this fair? The answer is that it is not fair. The Fair Pay to Play Act seeks to remedy that injustice.

On Monday, the California State Assembly unanimously passed the bill 72-0. The bill will now go back to the State Senate for another vote. The bill was amended after it was originally passed in the State Senate. If the bill is passed again in the State Senate, it will go to Governor Gavin Newsome’s desk.

Governor Newsome should sign the bill into law because the Fair Pay to Play Act has the ability to create a more equitable system for college athletes in California. If signed into law, the bill will greatly benefit all college athletes attending school in California. However, the bill could have a profound effect on black college athletes; particularly those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Fair Pay to Play Act could create an entirely new revenue stream for such athletes by allowing them to acquire a better quality of life not dependent on making it in professional sports.

The Make-up of the Labor Force that Drives the Billion-Dollar Industry

The two sports that generate the bulk of the revenue in college athletics are Division I Football and Division I Men’s basketball. An overwhelming majority of the athletes participating in those sports are African American. In 2018, roughly 48 percent of Division I football players were African American. In 2018, roughly 56 percent of Division I Men’s basketball players were African-American. Even in Division I Women’s basketball, 47 percent of the participants were African-American. Many of these players come from disadvantaged backgrounds and some live in poverty.

Roughly 86 percent of African-American college athletes come from families that live below the poverty line. Generally, many college athletes live at or below the federal poverty line. The National College Players Association conducted a study that compared the room and board portion of each school’s full athletic scholarship to the 2011 federal poverty line.  The study found that 85 percent of on-campus athletes and 86 percent of off-campus athletes lived below the federal poverty line. It is true that college athletes are now given cost-of-attendance stipends. However, in many cases, the cost-of-attendance stipend is not enough for athletes to take care of themselves and their families.

The Cost-of-Attendance Stipend is Simply not Enough

In January 2015, the Power 5 conferences voted to allow college athletes to receive cost-of-attendance stipends. Each school calculates the amount of their cost-of-attendance stipend by considering variables like transportation, tuition and fees, books, and personal expenses. Many college athletes use these stipends to support themselves and their families. For example, Deion Hair-Griffin played receiver for North Texas. He received approximately $3,136 as his cost-of-attendance stipend, which he used to help his mother. His mother sacrificed her food and struggled to pay bills so that her son could play football. Once Deion received the stipend he was able to alleviate some of his mother’s financial stress.

Similarly, Van Smith who played football at Clemson used part of his $388 monthly stipend to cover part of his younger brother’s high school football expenses. Myles Gaskins, who played football for the University of Washington, argued that the stipends are still not enough. Gaskins pointed out that the stipend amount would lead athletes to live below the poverty line due to the high rent cost in Seattle. The stipends have been beneficial to college athletes. However, it is still not enough. This is especially true for college athletes who come from poverty. The implementation of the Fair Pay to Play Act and cost-of-attendance stipends will vastly improve the lives of impoverished college athletes in California.

While the Benefit may not be the Same for all Athletes, all Athletes Stand to Benefit

Opponents of the Fair Pay to Play Act argue that the outcome of the bill will not be successful because it will not benefit all athletes. They argue that the bill will only prove beneficial to the highly sought after elite athletes. However, it is very likely that lower-profile athletes will benefit from this bill as well. Simply having the opportunity to garner an endorsement deal is a benefit. This benefit can go a long way for athletes who come from poverty. Let’s consider the perspective of two former college athletes on the issue of how beneficial the Fair Pay to Play Act will be to college athletes.

Former College Athletes Perspective on the Fair Pay to Play Act

Greg Camarillo is a former Stanford University football player who supports the bill. Mr. Camarillo stated that he is not sure that the bill would have benefited him because he was not a high profile athlete in college. However, he acknowledged the possibility of local businesses giving lower-profile athletes endorsement deals. Mr. Camarillo stated that in his view endorsements are the most realistic way for college athletes to receive payment because most schools cannot afford to pay athletes. He also stated that colleges should not have the power to take away college athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness.

Travis Johnson is a California native and former Florida State football player. He believes that finding a way to pay college athletes is long overdue. Mr. Johnson recalled instances where athletes did not have enough money to buy groceries or to travel home for the holidays. He acknowledged that an extra $1,000 per month would go a long way. Mr. Johnson suggested that when a company is interested in endorsing the star linebacker, the company offer some type of deal to each player on the line. That way, even the lower-profile players will have an opportunity to benefit from the Fair Pay to Play Act. This bill could lead to the creation of such a system.

With the Fair Pay to Play Act, College Athletes will not Feel so Pressured to Turn Pro and Degree Completion will Likely Increase

Many college athletes leave school early for the pros because they are desperate to change their social-economic status. While some may wish to remain in college, they feel that they cannot afford to. The Fair Pay to Play Act has the ability to alleviate that stress by creating an avenue for college athletes to garner extra income. Furthermore, the Fair Pay to Play Act will provide financial opportunities for athletes who do not make it to the pros.

Approximately 4 percent of college basketball players were selected in the 2018 NBA draft and approximately 4 percent of college football were selected in the 2018 NFL draft. This means that only a small fraction of college athletes are given the opportunity to receive the true value of their athletic worth. Due to the NCAA’s rules, most college athletes miss their opportunity to take advantage of their skills when they are the most marketable. This simply is not right. The Fair Pay to Play Act can change this by giving all college athletes the ability to profit from their athletic abilities during their prime years in college. 

Opening the door for college athletes to sign endorsement deals, receive compensation from jersey sales and signed memorabilia, and to receive guidance from an agent while in college would dramatically improve the lives of college athletes, especially those who come from poverty. It would essentially create an avenue where college athletes can use their athleticism to build wealth while pursuing their education. Thus, equipping impoverished college athletes with the two most pertinent things needed to get out poverty – money, and education.  Therefore, the Fair Pay to Play Act should be signed into law if and when it reaches Governor Newsome’s desk.

Utah vs USC on a Friday Night is Another Pac-12 Conference Bad Idea

Pac-12 9am games Larry Scott Commissioner

Utah vs USC Starts at 9:00pm EST

Utah Utes logo

Sitting at No.10 overall, Utah eyes its first college football playoff birth. It’s a great time to be a Utah fan. Their upcoming matchup is the Pac-12 South game of the year. Utah vs USC. No. 10 Utes vs the now-competitive Trojans. If Utah continues to win, they’ll surely rise up the ranks. But, Pac-12 scheduling set this game for Friday night. Will this night game hurt their national exposure? In a line of poor ideas and bad commissioning from Larry Scott, Utah’s late matchup harms both Utah and the Pac-12. The conference outsources it’s scheduling to a company in Colorado. Then the Pac-12 brass, school presidents, and athletic directors approve it.

The Problem with Night Games

Keep in mind, night games are not inherently a problem. Especially for east coast teams and viewers. But, on a Friday night, Pac-12 games can be extremely bothersome. For example, the Utah vs USC game starts at 6:00pm on the west coast. That’s not too bad. For those who get off work at 5:00, they can make it home by the first whistle.

However, that same time is 9:00pm for east coast viewers. It’s not rocket science to figure out why that is a bad idea. Because college football games last an average of 3 1/2 hours, they have to stay up past midnight to see how it ends. 12:30am, at the end of a workweek, to watch a Pac-12 rivalry game. Honestly, how many non-conference fans would commit to that for Pac-12 games? It undermines national exposure for the Pac-12 conference.

Even Chris Peterson agrees with this sentiment.

“It hurts us tremendously in terms of national exposure. No one wants to watch our game on the East Coast that late, and we all know it,”

Chris Petersen, 2017

Late games just get less eyes. From fans, from scouts and from the press. For a contending team like Utah, they need all the eyes they can get. But, because of Larry Scott and his ideas, he’s holding back the Pac-12. Again.

We Discuss the Friday Night games more on Pac-12 Apostles Podcast

Listen on any Podcast Platform: Anchor // Spotify // Apple Podcasts // PocketCasts // Google Play // Stitcher // RadioPublic

Why Does Larry Scott Want Late Games?

“The reason we play almost a third of our games at night is that was a way to unlock significant value from television in our last negations,” Scott said. “ESPN and Fox placed a high value on us giving them a little more flexibility and being willing to play more night games.”

Larry Scott

“We essentially extend their day,” Scott said. “We give them a whole other window of high-quality, highly rated games. … Playing more night games than we did in the past unlocked the kind of value our schools were looking for.”

Larry Scott

To Larry Scott, the exclusivity of the late-night games are worth the pain. With more flexibility to play later, he claims to obtain “high value”. However, perhaps it is just a complete lack of leverage. Recall that Larry Scott deliberately put a wedge between major networks and the Pac-12. Betting on the Pac-12 Network to hit it big didn’t happen. Because every other power five conference has contracts with these networks, it leaves the Pac-12 to pick up the scraps. So, instead of putting the lower-ranked teams in the Friday night lights, Larry Scott and the Pac-12 schedulers put Utah.

For goodness sake, the Utah vs USC game deserves to get national exposure. The Utes deserve that. Does anyone think Roll Tide fans would stand for this? Of course not. If Larry Scott wants a Pac-12 program to make it to the college playoffs, he has to put steps in place for them to get there. Playing on Saturday, during the day, when everyone can view them, is best practice. But, then again, it’s unclear if Larry Scott actually knows what’s best for the Pac-12.

Alston v. NCAA: Judge Rules for Plaintiffs But NCAA Keeps Amateurism

Alston v.NCAA ruling on student athletes educational benefits

On March 8, 2019, amid the March Madness excitement, the highly anticipated ruling in the Alston v. NCAA case was released. In what appeared to be a victory for the plaintiffs, the NCAA still managed to come out essentially unscathed. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the NCAA was, unfortunately, able to retain a substantial amount of discretion over student-athlete compensation. Even though the plaintiffs won, the NCAA did not exactly lose.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

In the 104 page ruling, the court willingly acknowledged the disparity between what student-athletes receive in comparison to what coaches, the NCAA, and other college sports administration officials receive. However, that acknowledgment was not enough to make the court fully strip or severely limit the NCAA’s authority over student-athlete compensation that is unrelated to education. Thus, proving the courts’ and the general public’s inclination to refuse to acknowledge that there really is nothing “amateur” about college sports.

Alston v. NCAA Summary

Last fall, Judge Claudia Wilken presided over the Alston v. NCAA case. Judge Wilken also presided over the Obannon v. NCAA trial. In Alston, the plaintiffs included several current and former student-athletes. The defendants included the NCAA and eleven of its conferences that participate in FBS Football and Division I Basketball.

The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the NCAA and its’ member institutions practice of capping grants-in-aid at the cost-of-attendance based on federal antitrust laws. Contrarily, the defendants contended that the rules were necessary because they served several procompetitive purposes permissible under federal antitrust laws. However, only two procompetitive purposes were discussed at trial.

The Procompetitive Purposes Discussed at Trial

The first procompetitive purpose discussed at trial was that the rules were necessary to protect and promote amateurism and retain consumer interest in college athletics. Specifically, defendants argued that fans only engage in college sports because it is distinct from professional sports and that distinction is predicated on the fact that college athletes do not receive payment.

The second procompetitive purpose discussed at trial was that the rules were necessary to promote student-athlete integration into the greater college campus. Specifically, defendants argued that if student-athletes were paid above a cost-of-attendance scholarship other students would essentially become jealous and harbor resentment. The plaintiffs offered three alternatives to the current system. The court accepted a modified version of one of them.

The Alston Ruling

Judge Wilken ruled that the NCAA can no longer “limit compensation benefits related to education.” The ruling also mandated that the NCAA allow conferences to create their own rules and policies for scholarships. Essentially, the ruling will allow student-athletes to potentially receive a scholarship valued at greater than a “full ride” to college.

TireBuyer.com

Additionally, the NCAA will not be allowed to limit benefits related to education that is not included in the cost-of-attendance. Those benefits include items such as computers and musical instruments. In sum, the NCAA is no longer allowed to limit education-related benefits for student-athletes. This part of the ruling is essentially a win for the Plaintiffs. However, the ruling is not a total loss for the NCAA.

The Small, Yet Major Victory for the NCAA

The court found value in the defendants’ argument that the rules were necessary to serve the procompetitive purpose of keeping college sports distinct from professional sports. The defendants did not provide a clear definition of amateurism. However, the court reasoned that the distinction lied in the fact that college athletes are not paid unlimited sums unrelated to education.

With that, the court allowed the NCAA to maintain its ability to limit non-education related benefits for student-athletes. The NCAA is even permitted to define what “related to education” means. Thus, giving undue value to the NCAA’s farce of amateurism and the mythical distinction between college and professional sports.


Why do People Ignore the Other Similarities Between College and Professional Sports?

In response to the Alston ruling, the NCAA’s chief legal officer Donald Remy released a statement. Mr. Remy stated, “the decision acknowledges that the popularity of college sports stems in part from the fact that these athletes are indeed students who must not be paid unlimited cash sums unrelated to education.” This statement re-enforces the NCAA’s argument that rules limiting payment to college athletes are necessary to serve the procompetitive purpose of keeping college sports distinct from professional sports. However, is college sports really distinct from professional sports?

College Sports is not Very Distinct from Professional Sports

Aside from college athletes not being paid like professional athletes, there is no real distinction. For example, Division I college football and basketball garner very similar media deals that professional football and basketball garner. The March Madness tournament generates a billion dollars in revenue for the NCAA. Likewise, the NBA playoffs and Finals generates billions of dollars for the NBA. College football generates billions of dollars for the schools and the conferences. Professional football generates billions of dollars for the NFL and team owners. The coaches make millions in college sports, just as the coaches make millions in professional sports.

Given all of those similarities between college and professional sports, how can anyone claim that Division I college sports are largely distinct from professional sports? Why is payment unrelated to education the crux of the distinction between college and professional sports? Division I college sports resembles professional sports in almost every other way. However, the NCAA is still allowed to claim a distinction based on lack of payment to the athletes who propel the industry. Why are the courts and the public so willing to ignore the other similarities and give deference to a distinction that is largely predicated only on lack of payment?

The NFL can’t stop Colin Kaepernick from winning off the field

Colin Kaepernick Nike Commercial

The NFL has not been able to beat him or shake him. Yet they won’t allow him to join them. Former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, has somehow managed to maintain his relevance at the beginning of each NFL season despite not being on an NFL roster. And he did it again — with a little help from Nike — when it was announced that his commercial with Nike won the Emmy for outstanding commercial at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards.

Last September, Nike launched the celebration of the 30th Anniversary of their “Just Do It” slogan with Colin Kaepernick as the face of the ad campaign. Nike, the official sponsor of the NFL, and Kaepernick released a very inspiring commercial as a part of the ad campaign. In the commercial, Kaepernick charges everyone to “believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything”.  

That is exactly what Kaepernick did. The former San Francisco 49ers quarterback sacrificed everything when he began kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality. As a result of his protest, he lost his job as he has yet to sign with another NFL team. Last year, the commercial sent the sports community into a frenzy. There were those who supported the commercial and praised Nike for acknowledging Kaepernick’s courage. There were those who were vehemently against it and burned their Nike products to show their disgust.

However, the majority of people clearly loved the commercial as it won the award. It is Nike’s first time winning an Emmy since 2002. The commercial is certainly a deserving recipient of the award. Nike and Kaepernick surely inspired many with the commercial. Kaepernick is the embodiment of standing up for your beliefs even it means sacrificing everything else. Colin Kaepernick has got another major win in the midst of the NFL season despite not being on an NFL roster. 

Time for the NFLPA to Address the NFL Zero-Tolerance Drug Policy

Donald Trump vs Bubba Wallace, NFL Problems

The NFL and NFLPA are negotiating the future of the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. Initial reports described the parties’ meetings as “productive,” leading some to believe than an agreement could be reached sooner than expected. But the NFLPA’s release of a “Work Stoppage Guide” suggests a different message:

It’s clear a number of issues remain. However, how the NFL wields its discretionary power is one topic that cannot be ignored.

The NFL’s “Zero Tolerance” Policy

The NFL suspended New York Giants’ wide receiver Golden Tate for the first four games of the 2019 NFL Season for taking a banned substance. Tate’s appeal was denied due to the NFL’s zero-tolerance policy. The NFL refuses to take into account how a substance is ingested, or other mitigating factors that could play a role in a player receiving a positive test. The NFL Policy on Performance Enhancing Substances states:

If there are no deviations in the collection process or testing, a player has no chance of success on appeal. As a result, despite the fact the substance’s presence was the result of treatment relating to fertility planning, Tate’s appeal was doomed from the outset. In the case of Dallas Cowboys defensive end Robert Quinn, the NFL admitted that it did believe he intentionally took a banned substance; nonetheless, the league suspended him for two games.

Accidental ingestion is a futile defense, but the one most cited in appeal. Tennessee Titans’ left tackle Taylor Lewan is currently appealing a four-game suspension for testing positive for a banned substance and took a polygraph test to show he didn’t knowingly take the substance. But, like Tate, Lewan’s appeal will prove nothing other than the fact the NFL’s standard for punishment must be addressed.

The NFLPA Must Demand Change

The NFL Policy on Performance Enhancing Substances is based upon a mutual agreement reached between the NFL and NFLPA. The only way to effect change is by mandating that it be addressed during discussions surrounding the CBA. The NFL’s decision to reinstate Josh Gordon shows that the NFL can be forgiving in punishment. Furthermore, the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy requires a factual investigation addressing the totality of circumstances before a decision is made.

Players could seek legal action to recoup salary lost due to suspensions resulting from factors outside their control. UFC’s Yoel Romero received an award of $27 million and vindicated himself of wrongdoing stemming from a failed drug test that ended up being the result of a tainted supplement. But in an NFL player’s case, a lawsuit would not solve the underlying issue.

With the NFL moving towards sports betting, the league must protect the integrity of its game. However, that shouldn’t come at the detriment of the players. Additionally, with other sports leagues adopting CBD as a tool for pain relief, the league is likely to lessen its stance on the drug in the near future. But the NFLPA can’t stop there in its efforts to seek reform and a fair decision-making process from the league.

Follow Alan Wilmot on Twitter and Instagram @alanwilmotlaw

Don’t Let the Jay-Z and NFL Partnership Co-opt Kaepernick’s Movement

Jay-Z and NFL Partnership RocNation

What a week it has been for the NFL and hip-hop mogul Jay-Z. Last Tuesday, it was leaked that the newly minted billionaire entered into a partnership with the NFL. The following day, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Jay-Z held a press conference at the Roc Nation New York office to formally announce their partnership.

Roc Nation will now serve as the NFL’s official Live Music Entertainment Strategists. As a part of the partnership, Roc Nation and the NFL has committed to nurturing and strengthening the community through music and the NFL’s Inspire Change initiative. Upon the initial announcement and after the press conference, the sports and hip-hop community went into a frenzy. Critics immediately began calling Jay-Z a sell-out, leading to days of debate about Jay-Z’s handling of the deal. Here we are yet again focusing on the wrong issue in regards to Colin Kaepernick’s protest.

Every season, Kaepernick’s message and general-purpose gets co-opted by something. In 2016-2017 it was overtaken by those who wanted to make his protest about the United States flag and military and use it for political capital. Last year, it was the rift between Eric Reid, Malcolm Jenkins, and the Players Coalition. This year it is Jay-Z’s partnership with the NFL. While Jay-Z may deserve some criticism, calling him a sellout is going a bit far. People should not rush to judge this partnership, let’s see how it plays out. There is likely to be a lot of good that comes out it. Most importantly, people should not allow Kaepernick’s message to get lost in the noise over this partnership.

Colin Kaepernick’s Sacrifice

Three years ago, Colin Kaepernick began protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. Kaepernick began his protest in the wake of the brutal deaths of Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, and countless others who lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement. Kaepernick stated clearly that his protest was about police brutality. However, many viewed his protest as disrespectful to the United States flag and military. As a result, the country became very divided on the issue. Kaepernick was subsequently blackballed from the league. Kaepernick still does not have a job with the NFL.

Why Some Are Calling Jay-Z a Sellout for Entering into the Partnership

As a result of Kaepernick’s protest and some other issues, the NFL’s image has been suffering. The NFL is fighting concussion cases in court. The league continuously has to address its poor and inconsistent handling of domestic violence cases. Perhaps the thorniest thorn in the NFL’s side is Colin Kaepernick. Although the NFL settled the collusion grievance with Kaepernick, the NFL still cannot shake the effects of his protest. Players are still kneeling, which angers a certain demographic of the NFL’s fan base. Countless artists turned down the invitation to perform during the Super Bowl half-time show in solidarity with Kaepernick. One of those artists was Jay-Z.

Jay-Z was one of the Loudest Critics of the NFL

Jay-Z has been one of the most vocal critics of the NFL for their blackballing of Colin Kaepernick. He wore a Kaepernick jersey on Saturday Night Live in 2017. Last summer, Jay-Z famously criticized the NFL in the Carters hit single ApeShit. Jay-Z stated, “I said no the Super Bowl, You need me, I don’t need you. Every night we in the end zone, Tell the NFL we in stadiums too.”  Jay-Z also reportedly encouraged other artists to “say no” to the Super Bowl. It is for these reasons that some have called Jay-Z is a sellout for creating this partnership. It is for these reasons that many were baffled by the partnership and wondered how it came to be.

Labeling Jay-Z a Sellout is Going a bit Far and the Debate Runs of the Risk of Co-Opting Kaepernick’s Movement

While Jay-Z may deserve some criticism for this deal, labeling him as a sell-out is going a bit far. He has done a lot for the black community. Jay-Z has been a major proponent of criminal justice reform. He created a platform for the Trayvon Martin docu-series. Jay-Z tried to help Kalief Browder, a teen who was incarcerated in Rikers Island for three years after being wrongfully accused of robbery. Browder spent a great amount of his imprisonment in solitary confinement. He ultimately committed suicide after he was released. Jay-Z made sure everyone knew his story. He has demonstrated a commitment to social justice and criminal justice reform. Jay-Z should have to answer questions about the deal, particularly what changed his mind about working with the NFL. However, labeling him as a sell-out is going a bit far.

It is true that Jay-Z should have handled the optics surrounding the announcement of the partnership better. He certainly should have found a better way to answer the question about if he would kneel. He should not have said that “we are past kneeling.” Doing that only fed into the narrative that the NFL wants to create. That narrative is that players should be past kneeling. Look we have this deal with Jay-Z to promote social justice, so there is no need to kneel. However, that view is wrong and should be dismissed.

Police brutality is still an issue. There is certainly still a reason to kneel for any player who chooses to protest in that way. Jay-Z also stated in the press conference that he supports any protest that is effective. There is no question that Kaepernick’s kneeling has been effective. It certainly has. However, the media did not focus on that. Again taking the focus from why Kaepernick kneeled in the first place. Focusing on Jay-Z’s words has allowed the message of the movement to be co-opted yet again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upTgCskHvi0

Let’s Refocus on the Issues Kaepernick Gave his Career for

Focusing on whether Jay-Z is a sellout is giving the NFL what they want. Instead of talking about police brutality and other issues that plague minority communities, everyone is debating if Jay-Z is a sell-out. These are the wrong questions to focus on. The focus should be on police brutality and what this partnership is going to do to combat the issue. This partnership should be held to a high standard. The partnership must produce tangible outcomes for the betterment of dealing with police brutality and other social causes. In the end, that is what Jay-Z stated he wants with this partnership to do in the press conference.

Jay-Z had to know that this deal was going to be met with the exact criticism that it has received. With that knowledge, it is likely that he is working towards something greater that has yet to reveal itself. Perhaps his greater plan could be in the reports that he may acquire an ownership interest in an NFL team. Having minority ownership could go a long way in the NFL. If that happens, perhaps Jay-Z could help Kaepernick get on a team.

At the very least, Jay-Z could bring a perspective to NFL ownership that has never been there. He could tell them that it is not tolerable to refer to NFL players as inmates. Perhaps as an owner Jay-Z can help make sure that the next player who takes a stand like Kaepernick does not lose his career for it. Let’s not rush to judgment. Let’s see how this partnership plays out.

NCAA Changes Agent Rule Hours After Rich Paul’s Op-Ed was Released (UPDATE)

Rich Paul Rule Overturned NCAA Agent Rule

If anyone ever doubted the influence of LeBron James and his team, that doubt should be put to rest. Yesterday the NCAA announced that they were removing the controversial bachelor’s degree requirement from their agent certification requirements. This announcement came just hours after Rich Paul, LeBron James’ longtime friend and agent, released an op-Ed in the Athletic criticizing the bachelor’s degree requirement. If that is not a demonstration of insurmountable influence, then what is? 

The NCAA’s Agent Certification Process did not Last a Week Before it saw Sweeping Change

Last week, the NCAA revealed their new agent certification process. The certification process is for agents who wish to represent college basketball players looking to test the NBA Draft waters while maintaining collegiate eligibility. When the NCAA revealed that completion of a bachelor’s degree was one of the requirements, the sports world went into a criticizing frenzy. King James led the charge, dubbing the rule the “Rich Paul” rule, as he saw it as a snub at the success of Paul. 

Rich Paul has Evolved into a Super Agent

Paul has experienced unprecedented success as an NBA agent. Moreover, he disrupted college basketball when he represented Darius Bazley. Bazley was a top high school basketball recruit. However, he opted out of playing for Syracuse to workout on his own. During this time he interned for New Balance. As a part of the internship, Paul helped Bazely receive $1 million guaranteed and a shoe deal. Bazley has the potential to earn up to $14 million on the deal and was drafted in the first round of the 2019 NBA draft.

Bazley’s New Balance deal speaks to Paul’s abilities. More impressive is that Paul has done all of this without a bachelor’s degree. The NCAA’s initial rule was seen as a slight at the success of Paul. It was also viewed as yet another barrier to future agents like Rich Paul, limiting abilities to break into the sports agent business.

With Pressure from James, Paul, and Others in the Sports Industry the NCAA had no Choice but Give In

Many in the sports industry called the rule out for what it was. It was an attempt to keep those at the top of the sports industry in power. There would be no real challenges to the power structure. The Rich Paul rule would have disproportionately negatively affected minorities and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds. 

As Paul mentioned in his op-Ed, the rule as it was would have ultimately prohibited those who do not have the resources, opportunity, or desire to get a four-year degree from entering the agent business. From all of the criticism and pressure, the NCAA was forced to get rid of the bachelor’s degree requirement.

If this is not a testament to LeBron James’ and Rich Paul’s influence, the what is? 

The Melvin Gordon Holdout is One with Little Leverage

Melvin Gordon Holdout Chargers

Where have you heard this before? The NFL has a star running back sitting out training camp until he gets paid. In fact, two prominent running backs are holding out: Ezekiel Elliott of the Dallas Cowboys and Melvin Gordon of the Los Angeles Chargers. After a close review of situations, it’s clear that in the case of the Melvin Gordon holdout, he has little to no leverage.

Melvin Gordon is a Great NFL Running Back

Before getting to Melvin Gordon’s holdout, let’s talk numbers. Important to note is that Gordon had his best season in 2018, a performance earning him the number 34 spot on the NFL’s annual Top 100 list. In just 12 games, Melvin Gordon rushed for 885 yards, 5.1 yards-per-carry, and 10 touchdowns. Of note, this was his first season with a yards-per-carry above 3.9. In addition, he racked up 50 receptions for 490 yards and 4 more touchdowns.

14 touchdowns are nothing to dismiss, especially considering how the first-round back started his career. After missing the pay-dirt in his rookie season, Gordon amassed 38 touchdowns in his next three seasons. For many (Gordon himself included), it’s difficult to ignore that production.

Melvin Gordon Chargers Holdout

Efficiency wise, Gordon was also the highest-graded running back against stacked boxes, per PFF. PFF also ranked him 3rd overall for running backs in 2018 and 11th in PFF’s wins above replacement. Additionally, Melvin Gordon posted a staggering number of top efficiency stats on Player Profiler. His plus-34.6 (No.4 ) Production Premium, 34-percent (No. 5) Dominator Rating, 79 (No. 6) Evaded Tackles, 35.1-percent (No. 5) Juke Rate and 2.07 (No. 3) Yards Created Per Carry are elite.

As a player, Gordon has the ability to run inside, outside and is an effective receiver. He was good to great in most areas of production and efficiency in 2018. By most measures of production and efficiency in 2018, Gordon was at the top. It makes sense he would try and renegotiate his contract. He feels elite and wants to be paid as such.

Running Backs are Devalued. Sorry Melvin Gordon Holdout

Unfortunately for Melvin Gordon, he is a running back in the NFL. While running backs are the most important position in fantasy football, they aren’t as valuable to actual football teams. Let’s dissect this (If you would like to continue learning more about running back devaluation and replaceability, read in-depth analysis from PFF, Josh Hermsmeyer, JJ Zachariason, and Ben Baldwin).

Running Backs are Replaceable

Before injury in 2018, Todd Gurley was playing at another level. He had all the production to qualify his elite talent. Gurley was the bell-cow back that everyone loves, rushing for 98 yards and 1.25 rushing touchdowns per game in his first 12 games. Adding to that, Gurley had 3.83 receptions per game for 39.5 yards and 0.33 receiving touchdowns in that span. He was, by all means, an excellent form of offensive production before his injury slowed him down in December.

With that said, C.J. Anderson (a backup running back CUT by the Panthers after Week 9) replaced the injured Gurley and also played on an elite level. Prior to exploding with the Rams, Anderson had just 24 carries for 104 yards and 1 reception in 9 games with the Panthers. In his first three games with the Rams, Anderson rushed for 422 yards and 4 touchdowns.

A similar situation occurred in Kansas City. After Kareem Hunt was cut by the Kansas City Chiefs, Damien Williams produced at a level similar to Hunt. Neither the Rams nor the Chiefs offenses halted. In fact, the Chiefs made it to the AFC Championship and the Rams made it to the Super Bowl.

As PFF’s Steve Palazzolo and Sam Monson point out, running backs are highly dependent on surrounding talent, offensive line, game script and offensive scheme. Unlike throwing in a backup quarterback, throwing a backup running back into a high-octane offense is almost seamless. After all, the Chargers had 4 wins and 0 losses without Melvin Gordon in 2018.

The Chargers have Two Quality Backup Running Backs

Austin Ekeler

Alongside Melvin Gordon, Austin Ekeler was an excellent complementary back. They were quite the one-two punch in 2018. Ekeler, while not as efficient or productive as Gordon, still posted a plus-25.9 (No 8) Production Premium, 4.9 (No. 8) True Yards Per Carry, 6.6 (No. 4) Yards Per Touch and a 9.4-percent (No. 1) Breakaway Run Rate. Ekeler, though he began his career undrafted, made a name for himself in the Chargers backfield. Because of both his talent and the replaceability of running backs, Austin Gayle believes that Ekeler can replace Gordon’s production in the case of a holdout. 

Justin Jackson – Razzle Dazzle

Behind Ekeler, the Chargers also have sophomore running back Justin Jackson. 

Aside from having a tremendous College Profile, Jackson also has that ‘razzle dazzle’.

“He’s a creative runner,” backfield mate Austin Ekeler said. “He’s a unique runner. There aren’t many people I’ve seen, in general, that run like he does. Like I tell him, he’s got that razzle-dazzle, some hocus-pocus [laughs] — I make up all these different things. That’s how he runs, and that’s how I’d describe his runs because you really don’t know what he’s going to do.”

Austin Ekeler

Running Back Decline, Injury Risk and the Melvin Gordon Holdout

The Age of Decline

According to both Pro Football Reference and Mike Taglier of Fantasy Pros, the average age of running back decline is at 28 years of age. Well, Melvin Gordon is entering his age-26 season. He’s only two years away from  If he holds out in 2019, he’s only one year away from the dreaded age-28 season. Why pay up for a running back just before his decline?

Injury Risk

Everyone would agree that football is a vicious sport. After all, the average NFL career only lasts 3.3 years. But, out of every position in football, none is riskier than running back. Running backs have the shortest careers, averaging only 2.57 years in the NFL. Due to the nature of the position and the number of regular collisions, it makes sense. This is another reason why many NFL teams avoid paying large contracts to aging running backs. 

Moreover, Melvin Gordon is not a picture of perfect health.

Melvin Gordon Injury Report

Gordon also accrued 1,079 touches in his four-year career. Because of injury risk and inevitable decline, it’s often easier for teams to just draft another running back than pay the current producer.

Teams Don’t Stop Everything for Running Backs

“I don’t find that happening any time soon. If his own team isn’t going to pay him, I don’t think there are other teams out there who will pay him what he’s looking for,” Quinn said. “I don’t see many teams knocking down the door to offer long-term extensions to running backs anymore.”

Brady Quinn

According to Over the Cap, teams spend just 3.33-percent of their overall cap towards running backs. That doesn’t mean that they spend 3.33-percent for their best running back, but all running backs combined. As noted in the paragraphs above, the running back position is replaceable in production and a constant flow of talent entering the draft. Teams opt to run their back to the ground and then just get another. Or, many teams like the New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles deploy a committee of specialist running backs at value. 

Another reason that running backs don’t earn as much money is that the running back position is analytically worth less than other positions. Without getting too much into it, passing is simply more efficient and valuable than rushing. That’s why a 5-yard rush is considered good, while a 5-yard pass isn’t. To paraphrase a common analytical stance, the running back position is closer to punter in value than it is to quarterback. Instead of running backs setting up the pass, there’s more evidence that the pass sets up the run. Establishing the run has become more of a trope than a definitive. Because of this, analytics has popularized the phrase “running backs don’t matter.” While this is hyperbole, the statistical impact a running back has on a football field is smaller than many think.

If you want to read about this, read these articles by Josh Hermsmeyer, JJ Zachariason, or Ben Baldwin.

For A Passing League, The NFL Still Doesn’t Pass Enough

Even Ezekiel Elliott isn’t worth the money according to Josh Hermsmeyer of FiveThirtyEight. And behind Saquon Barkley, Ezekiel Elliott is regarded as the second-best running back in the league. So if Zeke doesn’t deserve it, then Gordon’s value also takes a hit. 

Fans, Quarterback and a Franchise Tag

Unfortunately for Melvin Gordon, he doesn’t have the fans and team completely behind him. In a fan poll on Bolts From the Blue, about 70-percent of respondents would rather trade Gordon away, while 8-percent voted to let Gordon sit out without pay. The fans certainly don’t have his back.

Also painful for Gordon is that Philip Rivers came out and said the Chargers would be fine without Gordon. Ouch.

Last, the Chargers hold the best cards in the case of a holdout. Let’s say that the Melvin Gordon holdout leads to him sitting the entire 2019 season. If he does this, he is subject to fines ($40,000 for each day of training camp) and loss of game checks. But worst of all, he doesn’t accrue his fifth-year with the Chargers and he is still under contract for 2020. Essentially, Gordon would just push his 5th-year option forward a year. So he gets another year older without anything changing. Then, if he accrues that fifth season by playing all or part of the 2020 season, the Chargers can just franchise tag him for 2021. They have all the leverage.

Conclusion

Us at the Unafraid Show are all for players getting paid. We’ve written extensively about it. See the articles below.

https://unafraidshow.com/ussf-uswnt-makes-more-than-usmnt/
https://unafraidshow.com/why-is-paying-college-athletes-viewed-so-negatively-by-some-fans/
https://unafraidshow.com/nba-superstars-underpaid/

However, this article is about leverage and Melvin Gordon simply doesn’t have as much leverage as he thinks he does with this holdout. That’s because running backs are in a horrible cycle for sports. Draft them, run them to the ground and then dump them. Teams don’t need to pay up for them. Are there running backs that are more talented than others? Completely. Can an elite running back give a team an edge over other teams in different situations? Of course.

But, with the amount of talent available for drafts, teams can draft a player and own his rights for his five, best years. If running backs want to get paid, they need to change the NFL CBA. Instead of four-year contracts with a fifth-year option, perhaps it would benefit running backs more if they were drafted to two-year contracts with a third-year option. That would allow running backs to earn second contracts before their best years are behind them. So, instead of holding out for pay for himself, Melvin Gordon holdout should be advocating for change for the players yet to enter the draft.