NCAA Basketball: Additional states must follow California’s lead

The controversial debate over potential compensation for student-athletes in NCAA basketball and other sports is reaching an all-time high.

One of the most pressing issues facing NCAA basketball is whether or not players should have the ability to earn income, beyond their scholarships and other stipends. That topic has reached a fevered pitch, due to lawmakers in California this week passing the Fair Pay to Play Act, a bill that would make it illegal for schools in that state to strip student-athletes of their scholarships, or their eligibility, if they generate money from their own name, image or likeness.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom now has to decide if he will sign this legislation, which would not become effective until 2023, into law. Naturally, the NCAA opposes the bill, saying in a statement that it is “harmful and, we believe, unconstitutional.” The NCAA adds that the Fair Pay to Play Act “would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions. These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions.”

In all fairness, the NCAA did reveal in mid-May that it has formed a working group to examine the name, image and likeness issue. Then again, the NCAA often creates these so-called working groups, committees and panels, which isn’t going far enough.

Simply put, it’s long overdue that student-athletes, whether competing in hoops, football or any other sport, should have the option to earn endorsement income. Colleges and universities directly paying their players are, from my perspective, not necessarily appropriate. These student-athletes do receive scholarships that are extremely valuable, although if they want to produce supplemental name, image or likeness funds on the side, they must obtain that right.

It’s true that college basketball players, for example, are not professionals. You can’t argue against that. However, what they do on the court benefits their schools, their coaches, television networks and others – to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars. The same applies to football.

The Fair Pay to Play Act enables these student-athletes to find other revenue streams in a free-market economy, while not placing any additional financial burdens on their college or university to compensate them above their scholarship. The possible negative impact that this bill could place on California schools cannot go unnoticed, and there clearly are consequences if Newsom signs it into law.

Yet if California serves as a trailblazer, despite the ramifications, then perhaps other states will soon follow its lead. If a collection of states allows student-athletes to secure endorsement money, then that may spark actual change by the NCAA in the future, rather than merely developing working groups that issue reports.

Sure, a level playing field is imperative for collegiate athletics, and this California legislation could alter that landscape, at least initially. But for student-athletes to ultimately get what they deserve, actions will have to speak louder than words.