NCAA Protests California Bill Enabling College Athletes to Benefit from Amendments

California would allow college athletes to earn money by using their names, images and likenesses under a bill passed Wednesday by the state legislature and directed to the Governor Gavin Newsom.

The legislation has drawn national attention, with athletes such as NBA stars, LeBron James and Draymond Green, praising California's potential to give college athletes a share of the gain that they're helping to be created for their universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) approved Senate Bill 206, at the end of a 39-0 vote. The Assembly passed law 73-0 on Monday.

But the NCAA vigorously rejected the bill, saying it could potentially kill amateur athletics if it became law. The NCAA sent Newsom Wednesday a letter describing the law as unconstitutional and harmful.

"If the bill goes into effect and the 58 NCAA schools in California are forced to allow a system of unrestricted name, image and likeness, that would wipe out the crucial distinction between athletics. university and professional and would give these schools an unfair advantage in recruitment. that they are ultimately unable to compete in NCAA competitions, "says the letter.

NCAA President Mark Emmert and 21 other members of the board of governors of the organization signed the letter. Emmert sent a letter to state legislators in June, warning him of the dire consequences of its adoption.

Skinner dismissed the NCAA's warnings and said in a statement Wednesday that lawyers have concluded that his bill is actually constitutional.

"The NCAA has repeatedly lost antitrust cases in the country's courts," Skinner said. "As a result, threats are their main weapon."

NCAA rules prohibit athletes from being compensated for the use of their names, images or similarities. The bill would not allow schools to directly pay athletes, but would allow students to receive compensation from outside sources – for example, a video game company or for signing autographs or memorabilia.

Lawmakers in favor of the bill have given examples of other situations in which college athletes are unable to earn money for their services, which, in their opinion, simply does not seem to be just: a university swimmer prevented from teaching swimming lessons, a volleyball player unable to set up a summer camp or a baseball player who can not promote an autobiographical book.

"Forget shoe offers and video games, NCAA athletes can not earn a bit of money during the summer by coaching sports for kids, can not promote their social media, do not may not wear sportswear, can not accept groceries or assistance with rental or equipment, "said MP Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin). "When a line in the sand is imposed obsessively, excessively and even absurdly, it is usually a sign that it does not belong to that." situation."

The bill was passed by the legislature despite the June letter from NCAA President Emmert. Emmert urged lawmakers to delay decision-making after a group of college presidents, conference stewards, sport directors and athletes investigated whether such a financial arrangement could exist ". a way that would be consistent with the values, mission and fundamentals of the NCAA. " This report is expected next month.

Emmert's letter said:[W]In contrast to current NCAA rules, the bill threatens to significantly alter the principles of intercollegiate athletics and to create local differences that would make it impossible to organize fair national championships. As a result, this would likely have a negative impact on the student-athletes for whom it is intended. "

The bill for Newsom would ban the NCAA from banning a university competition if its athletes were compensated as of January 1, 2023. Proponents of the bill argued that the delay in implementation gave the NCAA time to make changes to its rules and California's room for maneuver. introduce future legislation if changes are needed to ensure that schools are not penalized.

The bill prohibits athletes from signing approval contracts that conflict with their team's contract. SB 206 does not apply to community college athletes.

"Our parents and our creator gave us our name, our image and our likeness," said Ramogi Huma, a former football player at UCLA, executive director of the National Collegiate Players Assn., Which advocates academic sports reforms. "It's dehumanizing for the NCAA to demand full possession of player identity as a prerequisite for the practice of college sport. Players are people who are not owned by the university. This is particularly shocking given that the majority of California athletes and players are minorities and women. "

The Pac-12 Conference referred to its previous statement on the bill asking the Legislative Assembly to delay action until an NCAA task force completes its study of the issue this fall .

At a hearing before a committee earlier this year, Andy Fee, Long Beach State Sports Director, warned of "many potential and unforeseen consequences" if the bill became law. law.

"I fear the possibility of a possible scenario of expulsion from California schools for deliberately breaking the rules of the NCAA," said Fee. "If California schools were expelled, the student-athletes that the bill is meant to help would be negatively affected."