California Law v. NCAA Policy

           California is giving the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) a headache. The state senate and assembly passed their own versions of the Fair Pay to Play Act. If the legislation passes, it still needs to have minor details between the two bodies of government worked out, would allow for college athletes to monetize their image and likeliness through a third party. This would mean that college athletes would be able or protected by California state law to hire an agent. An athlete could essentially be paid to be in local commercials or received payments for their autograph at a signing event.

            This doesn’t sit well with the NCAA and its policy of amateurism. All student-athletes are amateurs and therefore cannot receive any form of monetary payment. However, college football and basketball tend to resemble professional sports rather than a local or regional sporting event. The president of the NCAA has issued a warning that if the law passes the not-for-profit organization would ban all schools from California. UCLA, USC, Stanford, and Cal are a few of the big-name schools that would face a dilemma. Whether to follow state law or the NCAA’s policy. The state of California also has other schools that participate in division I sports such as Cal State Fullerton (Baseball) and San Diego State. This would place plenty of schools in a bind.

            The Fair Pay to Play Act, if passed, would not go into effect until January 1, 2023. However, the NCAA is prepared to challenge California’s law in court. Most likely through a federal court on the notion of interstate trade and commerce. The legal battle will be an interesting one to follow, but it might end up being settled if the NCAA changes its policies before the law goes into effect.

            One of the threats that the NCAA states it will issue is banning schools from participating in Bowl Games or playoffs. Which is a serious threat as many schools will miss out on monetary gains. One of the possible implications would be that high school prospects would opt out from joining schools in California and that high-quality coaches would not take a job as they would be barred from any NCAA championship.

            BUT! What about the students’ perspective?  The assumption that student athletes would avoid USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal because they would not be NCAA playoff eligible seems to miss a few key points. Lets not forget that the current trend among college football athletes is to sit out on bowl games as they are deemed to be too much of a high risk especially for athletes that are prospects to be drafted in the early rounds of the NFL draft. The second point is that making money tends to be a huge motivator. Mallory Pugh left UCLA’s women’s soccer program to go pro and get paid! Why do something for free when one can get paid to do it?

            This is in no way to diminish the spirit of the sport, especially in the older fan community. There is something admirable about playing a sport just to play. However, NCAA football and basketball players do not play just to play. They are amateurs by name only. I play soccer on the weekends and no one who reads this knew that. That’s amateur. I would want to see the law go into effect and be curious to see if top high school prospects actually prefer to attend the universities in California. The schools will still have athletics, granted they may turn local and regional due to being barred from the NCAA, but I am a strong believer that college sports in California will not vanish once or if the law is passed.

            A top prospect would play less games, travel shorter distances for away games, and has the opportunity to get paid. Those conditions seem to favor the student-athlete. The law would affect all student athletes in California so that would mean that tennis players, volleyball, swim, track and field, and other sports would be eligible to pursue the same economic gains without being banned or punished by the NCAA. Football and basketball players will most likely generate a higher price tag, but that’s just the free market working out right?

            The law will challenge and force the hand of other states as well as the NCAA to act and define the role and limitations of collegiate athletes. If a student-athlete opts to play for free and just accept a scholarship then great, their choice. But, that choice should not limit the options of other college athletes from pursuing their liberty and happiness.