Tigers react to Fair Pay to Play Act
The biggest story in college sports this week isn’t unfolding on the field or the court. The state of California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act on Monday, which allows college athletes to be paid for the use of their name, likeness and image.
That means players would receive compensation for things like autographs, sales of their jerseys, promotions that use their image, etc. This is in direct competition with the NCAA’s concept of amateurism. Basically, any player receiving such money at this point in time would risk their eligibility with an NCAA school. The NCAA has come out in opposition to the bill, with Mark Emmert stating that it is a threat to the college sports model.
The bill, signed by California governor Gavin Newsom, would not go into effect until 2023. That means the only players in college now who could potentially benefit from it in any way are currently redshirting. But Florida state representative Kione McGhee filed a similar bill which would go into effect on January 1, 2020 if approved.
Here is the statement put out by the NCAA on Monday morning:
As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.
We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.
As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide.
We talked to Missouri players and coaches about the issue on Tuesday at media availability. There was no such opposition from the student-athletes.
“That’s great,” senior return man Richaud Floyd said. “I believe players should make some money for their images. I’m not opposed to it at all.”
“I think it’s cool,” senior offensive lineman Yasir Durant said. “Players put in that work and get advertised and stuff like that he should be able to get benefits from it.”
The argument for players is that they work the equivalent of a full-time job to play a sport in college. They do receive compensation in the form of a scholarship as well as cost-of-living stipends approved in the last few years. But while the schools are making millions of dollars based on what they do on the field and using the players to advertise the product, it is currently against NCAA rules for the players to benefit from that promotion.
“I’m not gonna talk too far into it, but as college athletes I feel like we’re deserving of it,” senior cornerback DeMarkus Acy said. “The workload we put in week in and week out, I definitely feel like we deserve it.”
Mizzou head coach Barry Odom said he spent a little bit of time reading up on the issue on Monday night.
"There’s a number of ways to look at it," Odom said. "I don’t have enough information yet and haven't had the time to wrap my mind around how that will change, if it will change, the current structure of what we have and have had for a long time."
Some who have argued against the motion say that it will widen the gap between the rich and the poor in college football, reducing competitive balance. Others worry about legislating how the money is paid and illegal benefits supplementing the known payments, leading to rampant cheating.
"There’s always some downside with things," Floyd said. "The NCAA just has to control it, keep the cheating and stuff like that to a minimum, but still give the players the best chance to get their image out there and build their brands."
The issue is far from settled. The NCAA and some administrators at individual schools have discussed not playing against teams from California if the bill was passed. The fight figures to last at least months and possibly years. But the ball has started rolling and players across the country are paying attention.
"I’m sure there will be meaningful discussions upcoming with that. I’m excited and anxious to be a part of it," Odom said. "It’s going to take a lot of time. It’s going to take a lot of folks getting together to figure out how we’re going to proceed with this."