California may be one of the few states big enough to get the attention of the NCAA. When its lawmakers voted unanimously for Senate Bill 206, which lets student-athletes get paid for the use of their name, image and likeness, and when the governor signed it, a wake-up call was sent to the organization that governs collegiate sports.
That’s a good thing.
The NCAA has said the law will give California schools an advantage over those in every other state. The law also contradicts NCAA rules. The organization may, therefore, ban those schools from competition.
Fat chance.
California’s move has called the NCAA’s bluff. It will expose the ruse of the student-athlete, at least when it comes to high-profile sports such as football and basketball.
The ideal, borne of the notions that a well-rounded education includes physical fitness and that school teams can foster loyalty and school identity while providing wholesome entertainment, remains credible and worthwhile. Many schools have benefited from strong football or basketball programs.
But the NCAA and many of its member schools have let big-time college sports grow into big business on a scale never before seen, and they’ve done it on the backs of kids who absorb all the risks and few of the immediate benefits.
Schools today regularly schedule games on weeknights or at odd hours to satisfy the demands of big broadcast networks that pay big money for broadcast rights. The notion of a student-athlete needing to stay home and study on a school night now seems quaint and out of touch.
In addition to allowing schools to profit from the use of their name and likeness, college athletes, especially in football, face the real possibility of sustaining a career-ending injury without the benefit of any compensation plan.
Critics note that high-profile athletes already benefit from scholarships that provide them with tuition and other aid. But that hardly seems like a fair trade-off for an injury that might alter the course of an athlete’s life.
Given the importance it places on money, it’s unlikely the NCAA would seriously consider banning schools such as USC, UCLA, Stanford, the University of California and San Diego State. Doing so would disrupt the Pac-12 and the Mountain West Conference. It’s especially unlikely considering the New York Assembly is considering a bill similar to California’s, and that South Carolina, Maryland, Colorado and Washington are discussing various versions, as well.
The NCAA cannot afford to have 50 states pass separate laws with unique nuances and amendments, complicating what can and cannot be done. Instead, it should be forced to address the issue head-on, re-examining how it has allowed collegiate sports to evolve.
California’s new law will let student-athletes collect money for endorsements, autographs, memorabilia and anything else that contains their name or likeness. We realize this will further blur the lines between collegiate and professional sports. We realize the inequities that will result when high-profile quarterbacks cash in while the anonymous linemen, who make their success possible, receive nothing.
California’s solution isn’t perfect. It isn’t where this debate ought to end. But the NCAA only has itself to blame. This is at least a start toward exposing a system that exploits student-athletes in order to support a big, lucrative industry.