re: NCAA will allow athletes to be compensated per CNBC

quote:

---

The boosters aren’t going to stop donating to the schools.

---

I didn’t say they were, but they also aren’t going to double the amount they are spending on athletics (whether they give it to the players or the schools) just because the rule changed. I will concede that “legit” (meaning not fueled by boosters trying to buy players) endorsement/advertising money is probably new revenue.

quote:

---

How big/small is irrelevant.

---

It is relevant when you make statements like this:

quote:

---

The main reason these states are passing this is the potential tax revenue, of which they’ve been getting nothing in their eyes. They don’t really give a shite about the players.

---

quote:

---

The amount is not relevant when discussing why the states are passing these laws. It’s not to protect the players, it’s to get the tax revenue they feel they’re missing out on.

---

So you’re implying that California decided to take on the NCAA over a few hundred thousand dollars (maybe) in tax revenue?

quote:

---

I'm guessing the ultimate goal is to eventually have the NCAA stripped of it's exempt status.

---

What exempt status?

Pro sports have been given an exemption or partial exemption to the Sherman Act. The NCAA and schools have been running a criminal racket for decades, some states are being nice... by introducing legislation to tell them to get with the times. No legislation is really needed though, the States could easily just start indicting NCAA and school officials under current law.

Basically, lawmakers are quietly telling them to stop.

The NCAA/schools do not have exemption to the Sherman Act because they actually claim they are just student activities and they are not employees. If they ask for some type of exemption, its basically admitting they are employees, and than they have to pay all of them.... and they would still be able to gain money from third parties.

There is just nothing terribly complex about any of this... all they have to do is comply with existing law i.e. get the hell out of the way.

Personally, I don't think pro sports should be given a free bye... but that is a political issue more than corruption, but its a fine line.

quote:

---

What exempt status?

---

The NCAA is still a tax exempt entity.

quote:

---

There is just nothing terribly complex about any of this... all they have to do is comply with existing law i.e. get the hell out of the way.

---

The implications are extremely complicated. The NCAA has chosen to retain their exempt status, for now, by allowing players to be paid for their likeness IF they attend school in a state where the law has passed.

Here's a link where some of the complications are discussed: LINK

However, I think this is a step in the direction of the NCAA losing it's exempt status altogether, which is what I think the legislators really want.

You're being emotional, its not personally. The schools are operating a corruption scam, what you are trying to do is say its alright to have a scam as long as your entertainment isn't effected. The irony of educational institutions claiming they trying to educate young people at the same time... shaking down the people they claim they are helping for a buck.

None of this is defensible, its illegal under current law - the schools have gotten a free pass till now... the gig is up.

They'll have to adjust or roll over and die - beats going to prison.

quote:

---

Well, so this will end amature sports. They might as well start another professional league. Just like the pro teams they will play from their back pockets and not for their school or state. Is why I never cared for professional sports. They should now have to pay for their scollarships.This will kill all football for me.

---

Division I college football programs have been professional sports organizations ever since the advent of boosters, the fans have just chose to maintain the facade that it is a amateur sport.

If a private company or individual want to hire and pay a softball player more than a football player that could very well be the case under the new proposals. Remember this is not the schools paying the athletes its allowing them to receive compensation for their work, marketing abilities or services.

quote:

---

I'm implying they took on a billion dollar a year industry believing they could get a chunk of it. Ruling that players get paid is how they get that ball rolling, and it's even a bit of extra change along the way.

---

They are already getting a chunk of it.. a much larger chunk than whatever additional tax revenue this brings. LSU’s athletic department brings in almost $150 million top-line per year. They pay $26.5 million in coaching salaries (taxable). Home football games create an insane amount of state and local tax revenue due to merchandise, concessions, bars/restaurants/hotels, etc.

I have seen nothing to indicate that California, or any of the other states which have introduced “fair pay to play” bills, are doing it for tax revenue. I think California passed their bill because they felt it was popular, politically. Most (if not all) other states with similar bills in the legislature are just worried about their athletic programs declining because they can’t compete.

I just don’t think saying tax revenue is the “main reason”, “they’ve been getting nothing in their eyes”, and “they don’t give a shite about the players” is accurate. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary then I’d be interested to see it.