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.

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?

RJ Hampton Going Pro Basketball May Change College Basketball

RJ hampton turning pro instead of playing college basketball

On Tuesday, the number 5 ranked college basketball recruit in the ESPN Top 100 RJ Hampton, shocked the college sports world when he announced that he would forego college to play professionally in Australia. He made the announcement on ESPN’s Get Up. Hampton will play professionally with the National Basketball League’s (NBL) New Zealand Breakers.

Immediately after Hampton’s announcement, the sports world was abuzz about what this will mean for the NCAA and college basketball. The NCAA, the schools, the conferences, and coaches are facing criticism for the current college sports model where they make billions of dollars while the players are limited to a cost-of-attendance scholarship.

The Current College Sports Model

The current college sports model can be summed up in one word – UNFAIR. The NCAA governs college sports. The NCAA makes rules that it’s member schools follow. The bedrock of those rules is the principle of amateurism. College sports are regarded as amateur sports that the players only engage in for their love the game. Thus, college athletes do not receive any payment but may receive a scholarship. Meanwhile, the NCAA, the schools, the conferences, the coaches, and sports administrators make billions of dollars off of college athlete labor. Does this really seem fair?

No, it is not fair. More and more people are acknowledging the unfairness of the current college sports model particularly in regards to D1 men’s basketball and football. The issue has been litigated in court in several cases. Recently state and federal lawmakers have proposed legislation challenging the college sports model. The bills propose allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. Due to the progress of these proposed bills, the NCAA has created a working group to address the issue. Now, whether Hampton realizes it or not, his decision poses another challenge to the current college sports model. Hampton’s decision could have a detrimental effect on college basketball especially if future top recruits follow in his footsteps.

Will RJ Hampton’s Decision Detrimentally Effect College Basketball

Hampton is the only one of the five top recruits to decide not to play college basketball. From a college basketball fan entertainment perspective his absence is not likely to have a profound effect this upcoming season. College basketball will still be the same product that it has been and fans will surely tune in. However, Hampton’s decision could have an effect on college basketball down the road. This is especially true when considered with the mounting challenges that college sports is rightfully facing.

As the NCAA addresses the proposed legislation and continues to fight in court, the college sports model is also being challenged directly. Specifically, the NBA’s G-Leauge new program presents a competitive problem for college basketball. Last fall, the G-League announced that it would allow elite athletes who are 18 years old to enter the G-League and receive a select contract valued at $125,000.

Furthermore, the NCAA may soon be threatened by a start-up basketball league that seeks to pay its players and give them scholarships. That league is the Historical Basketball League (HBL). Projected to start in 2020, the HBL plans to give it’s players an option where they are not forced to choose between pay and education. These new options and the example set by Hampton may encourage future top recruits to take a non-traditional route to the NBA. If this happens, college basketball may be in for a real change.

Change is Inevitable to the Current College Sports Model

RJ Hampton is not the first player to opt out of college for a professional overseas league. However, his decision is still a big deal. Hampton is a top 5 recruit who chose to “buck the system” and pursue his NBA dream another way. Hampton echoes the sentiment that so many others are thinking. That sentiment is that athletes can always go back to college. However, athletes only have a finite amount of time to make money off their athleticism. Why should athletes be forced to spend that time playing in college for drastically under their fair market value? The answer is they should not.

Hampton’s decision and reasoning has the potential to have a domino effect. Others are likely to follow suit, especially if Hampton makes it to the NBA. Hampton will get paid to play professionally and prepare for the NBA. It is a really attractive option for similarly situated prospects. Given this realization, the NCAA will eventually have to make a change. Hampton’s decision may be even more incentive for the NCAA’s working group to do the right thing and allow college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. One thing is for sure, the current college sports model is going to have to change if it wants to retain elite talent.

Follow Kassandra Ramsey on Twitter @Court_2_Court

NCAA May Be Forced to Pay Players For Their Name, Image, Likeness

College Athletes NCAA Name image Likeness

The NCAA is finally acknowledging the push to allow college athletes to receive pay from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Both federal and state lawmakers have introduced bills seeking to allow college athletes to profit from their NIL. On May 14, the NCAA shocked college sports fans when they announced their creation of a working group to “examine issues being highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation related to student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness.”

With this announcement, the NCAA acknowledged the growing support for allowing college athletes’ to profit from their NIL. Some of the efforts have made quite a bit of progress. However, will the NCAA’s acknowledgment of this issue actually lead to real change that benefits college athletes? Will the NCAA finally do the right thing and allow college athletes to finally receive some of the benefits that their skills provide to so many coaches and college sports administrators?

College Athletes Give up the Right Profit From NIL When They Agree to Play

One may wonder why such legislation is even necessary. It would seem that people would automatically receive compensation for the use of their name, image, or likeness. However, that is not the case for college athletes. College athletes are prohibited from profiting from the use of their name, image, or likeness. Those who violate the rules risk losing their eligibility. College athletes have been suspended something as simple as signing an autograph. In 2013, Johnny Manziel was suspended for doing just that.

The ability of college athletes to profit from their NIL was addressed in federal court in O’bannon v. NCAA. While the case made some progress for college athletes, it did not result in blanket allowance of NIL compensation. Both federal and state lawmakers around the country have acknowledged the injustice of precluding college athletes from such compensation while the NCAA and its member schools generate billions of dollars each year from college sports.

Will the NCAA’s Working Group Result in NIL Compensation

Will the NCAA’s working group result in NIL compensation for college athletes? Initially, it would seem that the NCAA will do what it always does. That is, find a way to avoid allowing college athletes to receive any compensation in the name of maintaining its farce of “amateurism.” Afterall in the press release, the NCAA stated that the working group would be focused on “maintain[ing] the clear demarcation between professional and college sports.”

Allowing college athletes to profit from their NIL would certainly blur that line. College athletes would be able to sign endorsement deals similar to professional athletes. However, it is hard to imagine that it would blur the line any more than the billion-dollar broadcasting deal the NCAA has with CBS Sports and Tuner, a division of Time Warner already has. It clearly benefits the NCAA and college sports administrators for things to remain as they are. However, the creation of the working group signals that fact that the NCAA realizes that it needs to act before it is forced to act. The NCAA could be forced to act soon.

California Legislation Could Really Become Law: NCAA Athletes Pay

About a week after the NCAA made its announcement, the Fair Pay to Play Act in California took a giant leap forward. The California Senate voted 31-4 to pass the bill.

The bill is headed to the state Assembly for further consideration. The bill seeks to allow college athletes to hire agents and profit from their NIL by 2023. The Fair Pay for Play Act will make it illegal for California colleges to punish college athletes for receiving compensation for their name, image, and likeness. If this Act makes it through the state Assembly, the NCAA would be forced to change its rules, at least for colleges in California.

The Federal Legislation Could Affect the NCAA’s Non-profit Status

In March, Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina introduced the Student-Athlete Equity Act. If signed into law, the act will make the NCAA’s status as a non-profit contingent on the NCAA allowing college athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. It is about time the NCAA be forced to actually do something to warrant still being considered a non-profit. The Act is currently under review by the House Ways and Means Committee. If this bill becomes law, the NCAA will have to change its rules for colleges nationwide.

The NCAA may Enact Change Given the Progress of the Proposed Legislation

Considering the progress of the Fair Pay for Play Act and the Student-Athlete Equity Act, the NCAA may actually feel forced to revise its rules. In an effort to avoid being told what to do, the NCAA may revise their rules to allow college athletes to receive some compensation. Furthermore, 2020 democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang believes that is time to pay college athletes. He plans to make the issue apart of his campaign. Here again, a politician is taking a stance against the NCAA’s exploitive system. The issue of paying college athletes is going to continue to grow. With that realization, the NCAA may actually revise its rules in order to maintain its control.

Follow Kassandra Ramsey on Twitter @Court_2_Court

Dabo Swinney’s $93M Contract Proves College Athletes Can Be Paid

Dabo Swinney $93M contract There's enough money to pay the players

The myth that there is not enough money to pay the college athletes has been debunked once again! Last week, Clemson University made its football coach, Dabo Swinney, the highest paid coach in college football. The record-breaking contract will pay Swinney $93 million dollars over the next ten years. That is an average of $9.3 million dollars a year. Swinney’s deal beats Nick Saban’s contract with The University of Alabama that pays him $74 million over eight years. It also beats Jimbo Fisher’s contract with Texas A&M that pays him $75 million dollars over ten years.

Just under them is Jim Harbaugh (Michigan), Gus Malzhan (Auburn), and Kirby Smart (Georgia) each averaging $7 million per year. Even with these impressive salaries, people still argue that there is not enough money to pay college athletes. When coaches salaries and television deals for college football and basketball are considered, it is hard to fathom how people can continue to make this argument.

Why do People Still Buy The “Not Enough Money Argument?”

People continue to buy into that argument because they listen to words of coaches like Dabo Swinney. Swinney denounced paying college athletes in a statement where he alluded that doing so would give college athletes a sense of entitlement.

“We try to teach our guys, use football to create the opportunities, take advantage of the platform and the brand and the marketing you have available to you. But as far as paying players, professionalizing college athletics, that’s where you lose me. I’ll go do something else, because there’s enough entitlement in this world as it is.”

In reality, the only people that seem to be entitled is the coaches and the NCAA. They seem to be entitled to having young predominantly black talent perform their talents for essentially free. These athletes do this while receiving a scholarship and being precluded from receiving any other unsanctioned benefit.

While a scholarship is valuable, it pails in comparison to the benefits the coaches, college sports administrators, and NCAA receive. However, that is the paradox of the NCAA’s purported mission and the current college athletics system. Dabo Swinney’s stance on paying college athletes and his new contract is the ultimate demonstration of that paradox.

The Paradox of the Dabo Swinney Contract and the NCAA’s Mission

The NCAA purports to provide college athletes with an opportunity to participate in athletics while pursuing a college degree. The NCAA also purports to keep college athletics distinct from professional athletics. One reason that the NCAA does this is to protect college athletes from exploitation.

In reality, the NCAA has only maintained that distinction in regards to compensation of the labor force. The NCAA has made sure that college athletes do not receive any compensation remotely resembling that of a professional athlete. The NCAA even goes so far as to strip college athletes of their publicity rights preventing them from using their name, image, and likeness, as a condition of participation. Thereby ensuring that college athletes will not receive endorsement opportunities similar to those granted to professional athletes.

However, the NCAA has failed in maintaining a distinction between professional and college athletics in every other way. This evidenced by Swinney’s and other coaches’ contracts and the million dollar television deals. It appears that the NCAA only truly cares about making sure that college athletics is not professionalized to the benefit of the athletes. In reality, the NCAA’s mission and the allowance of contracts like Dabo Swinney’s is really a bit of a paradox. It is a paradox in the fact that the NCAA claims to protect college athletes from exploitation while at the same time allowing their talents to exploited by college sports officials who make millions of dollars from the athletes’ labor.

Perhaps Swinney Would Leave if College Athletes Were Paid

In his statement, Swinney stated that if college sports were professionalized that he would “go do something else.” What he failed to acknowledge is that college sports in already professionalized to his benefit as can be seen in his contract. Perhaps Swinney would go do something else if he was forced to share some of the wealth and coaching college football was no longer a $93 million dollar cash cow. One thing is for sure, there is definitely enough money to pay college athletes.

The NCAA Fights Congressional Bill to Pay College Athletes

Congressional Bill Student-Athlete Equity Act name likeness

On March 14, 2019, Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina introduced the Student-Athlete Equity Act. The Act purports to amend the tax code so that amateur sports organizations such as the NCAA can no longer strip student-athletes of their publicity rights. Publicity rights are a person’s right to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. Currently, college athletes are required to relinquish control of those rights when they agree to engage in a collegiate sport.

TireBuyer.com

If signed into law, the Student-Athlete Equity Act would return those basic rights to college athletes. Doing so would go a long way in the pay-for-play debate. Opponents of paying college athletes argue that there simply is not enough money. They further contend that paying college athletes would bankrupt the schools. Opponents also argue that such payments could lead to issues with Title IX compliance.

With these concerns, it would seem that allowing college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness would be a no brainer. This simple modification would move the needle forward in creating a more equitable college athletics system. However, the problem lies in the fact that the NCAA does not sincerely wish to create a more equitable system. They demonstrated this in their response to the Student-Athlete Equity Act.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

The NCAA’s Response to the Student-Athlete Equity Act

In the response, the NCAA further affirmed its true purpose; protecting amateurism. The NCAA reaffirmed its contention that in order to protect amateurism, college athletes must not receive any benefit that is “untethered to education.” The NCAA called the bill unnecessary. The organization further argued that the bill “may only benefit a small number of student-athletes and cause unintended consequences and negatively impact opportunities for all other college athletes.” This assumption was a major leap. How does the NCAA know who will benefit from the legislation? The answer is that they do not know. The NCAA’s fear is that it may actually benefit college athletes and expose amateurism for the farce that is.

The Bill Could and Most Likely Will Benefit the Majority of College Athletes

Restoring the publicity rights of college athletes would be moneumental in remedying the injustices in the college athletics system. It could finally give college athletes a viable stake in the billion dollar industry their labor propels. College athletes would be able to garner endorsement deals from companies like Nike, Adidas, or Gatorade. Additionally, college athletes would be able to garner endorsement deals with local businesses in the towns their schools are located.

Many areas where colleges are located are regarded as “college towns.” Almost everyone in the town feels a kinship towards the school and its teams. Accordingly, it is highly likely that local businesses would offer endorsement deals as well. These types of opportunities would go a long way to help every college athlete. Local companies may even offer endorsements to lesser-known college athletes. Specifically, those that attend local Division II and Division III colleges. Those schools tend to have a strong local presence and connection with the local community.

With the plethora of possible opportunities, it difficult to understand why an organization that claims to work for the college athlete’s best interest would be so against it. Especially, when allowing college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness would not cost the schools nor NCAA any extra money. Furthermore, it does not present any Title IX issues. It would seem that the NCAA would view the Act as a positive and as an opportunity to teach college athletes important life skills.

The NCAA Should View the Act and a Positive and as a Teaching Opportunity

The NCAA and its member institutions could introduce college athletes to a whole new world. The world of financial empowerment. With endorsement opportunities, the NCAA and the schools could teach college athletes about contracts and how to negotiate. They could teach college athletes about financial planning and how to invest. In short, the NCAA could teach college athletes life skills to help them best use their endorsement money and the future earnings from their highly valued degrees.

Together with the earnings from their endorsements, the earnings from their degrees, and their financial literacy training, college athletes would be in a position to truly experience upward mobility and build wealth. Implementing these sorts of initiatives would go a long way to push the NCAA’s student-athlete welfare agenda. Will this ever happen? Probably not, because the NCAA’s primary concern is preserving amateurism.