Michigan Wolverines: How California law impacts the Wolverines

A new California law would allow their college football and basketball players to profit off of their name, image, and likeness. Here’s how it will impact the Michigan Wolverines.

In the latest attempt to circumvent NCAA rules that largely prevent college football and basketball athletes from earning money, the California legislature passed a law on Wednesday which would allow athletes to get paid for the use of their name, image, and likeness. Senate Bill 206 passed both the California Senate and House unanimously, and it now sits on the Governor’s desk for signature. It’s also something that could impact the Michigan Wolverines.

The bill, which would take effect on January 1, 2023, would only impact universities in the Golden State, but could have severe repercussions for the rest of the nation should it become law, and withstand expected legal challenges.

How would it impact the Wolverines?

Very simply put, it will impact everyone the same.

Around the time of the vote for the bill, the NCAA sent a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom vehemently urging him to reject the proposal.

“If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme,” The letter stated. “It 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.”

Essentially, the bill would not allow colleges to pay their players directly; however, the student-athletes would be able to capitalize on other marketing opportunities such as shoe deals, video games, and signing autographs: all activities currently illegal under the NCAA rules.

As the letter stated, the NCAA’s stance is that if the bill becomes a law, California college athletics would no longer be able to participate in regular NCAA games, especially postseason matches. The concern is that the bill would incentivize players to flock to USC, UCLA, and other California schools so they can make substantial money while playing college sports. California colleges would effectively become powerhouses, and games against them would no longer be fair competitions.

“Federal law that could pre-empt the California law”

A legal opinion is often helpful when it comes to new legislation that could affect Michigan sports. Therefore, we turn to Alan Helmkamp from the Helmkamp, Ellis, Abraham & Engerer law firm located in Livonia, Michigan.

“With implementation of compensation delayed until January 1, 2023, there’s plenty of time for opponents of the bill to challenge it through litigation and perhaps urge Congress to get involved. Federal law that could pre-empt the California law, perhaps on inter-state commerce grounds, could short circuit this initiative. There’s enough history of various endorsement scandals for use as ammunition,” Alan said in an email. “A case can certainly be made that college athletes should receive some compensation- perhaps through uniform stipends where schools in one state don’t enjoy an unfair advantage in drawing players lured by big bucks through endorsement deals, only to find themselves eliminated from championship competition because of NCAA rules. This is a very complicated policy and legal discussion that undoubtedly will play out in unexpected ways in the next few years.”

As the attorney stated, even though the law could be passed and signed by the Governor, many challenges remain. For instance, the bill could face years of appeals from the NCAA and other interested parties.

Does anyone really need this bill?

Very complicated question.

As each year passes, more and more lawsuits are brought before judges in different jurisdictions which are ultimately reshaping college athletics. In 2015, the NCAA passed a rule that allows colleges to pay their athletes a certain amount of money per term for expenses not covered under the athlete’s scholarship. The amount is based on food, travel, and other factors which, as John U. Bacon writes in his new book Overtime: Jim Harbaugh and the Michigan Wolverines at the crossroads of College Football, is around $2,400 for Michigan football players.

Somehow, the SEC got ahold of special calculator which estimated the stipend at over $5,000.

On the other end of the argument are the college kids themselves. In a recent poll by College Pulse, eight out of ten college students said they felt the NCAA is taking advantage of their athletes. Additionally, “[m]ore than half (53%) of college students favor allowing universities to pay athletes a salary, while 46% oppose the idea.”

Furthermore, several politicians have supported paying college athletes, including Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang whose website states, “The NCAA should accept the reality that certain of its sports have become entertainment properties and the athletes should be compensated accordingly. This is particularly true for Division I Men’s Football and Men’s Basketball.”

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders showed his support for the legislation last week. Sanders retweeted NBA star LeBron James’ statement regarding the California Bill SB 206 and he commented “College athletes are workers. Pay them.”

Tim Tebow is one of only a few former college football athletes who are opposed to SB 206.

“I know we live in a selfish culture where it’s all about us, but we’re just adding and piling it on to that where it changes what’s special about college football and we turn it into the NFL where who has the most money that’s where you go,” Tebow said. “That’s why people are more passionate about college sports than they are about the NFL. That’s why the stadiums are bigger in college than the NFL because it’s about your team, about your university, about where my family wanted to go, about where my grandfather had a dream of seeing Florida win an SEC championship and you’re taking that away so young kids can earn a dollar. And that’s not where I feel like college football needs to go.”

His opinion was not well received.

@DezBryant

"You trippin Tim Tebow"

@Darrenrovell

"When Tim Tebow made his famous “I promise” speech, he wasn’t wearing Gators Nike gear, he was wearing a T-shirt with the future logo of his business arm, XV Enterprises. Makes what he said today seem hypocritical."

@DickieV (Dick Vitale)

"Hey I respect the right of @TimTebow & his opin about whether college athletes should get paid but Tim get real this is 2019 & everyone is making cash off the kids that perform . Time has come for them to do what the Cal. bill proposes"

Would this have impacted the Fab Five scandal?

Not likely, as Chris Webber allegedly received over $200,000 as a “loan” which is not covered under the name, image, or likeness aspect of the bill. Webber only admitted taking and repaying about $38,000. However, it makes you wonder if Webber could have profited off signing autographs, etc., would he have accepted the money from Ed Martin? If Webber had been able to receive compensation, then there would not have been any need for a “loan.”

With the college sports news flooded with scandal after scandal, this bill could eliminate wide-sweeping fraud we saw in the recent college basketball indictments.

After all, outside of football and basketball, college athletes can get paid. In the 2016 Olympics, University of Texas swimmer, Joseph Schooling was paid $740,000 for his gold medal win, and there is no standing rule against paying – what the NCAA likes to call – an athlete from a “non-revenue” sport.

In the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang, the NCAA set up a website with a frequently asked questions portion. One of the questions asked if “college athletes accept prize money at the Olympics?”

“College athletes who are representing their country may accept prize money from their country’s Olympics governing body (in the United States, that would be the United States Olympic Committee),” the website stated. “There is no limit to the award money that the governing body can provide for the Olympics.”

The rules remain muddled and it seems the NCAA wants to keep it that way but as Jon Solomon from CBS Sports writes, you can go pro in one sport and play college in another.

“In the NCAA’s confusing world of amateurism, you can be deemed an amateur in one sport while clearly a professional in another,” Jon wrote. “A pro athlete paid in one sport can simultaneously play college athletics in a different sport and receive a scholarship. It doesn’t happen much, but the sport most frequently impacted is a college football player who also participates in minor league baseball.”

Jon provided Kyle Parker and Russell Wilson as examples. Parker was Clemson’s quarterback even after receiving a “$1.4 million signing bonus from the Colorado Rockies.” Wilson had a similar contract with a much smaller $200,000 signing bonus, also for the Rockies.

Kyler Murray’s contract with the Oakland A’s is the most recent example, although, he, like Wilson, had to forfeit the money once he declared for the draft.

What we can all agree on

Given the tremendous support for SB 206 and other legislative efforts, it is also worth noting that a chunk of the college sports fanbase has been asking for years for EA Sports to bring back its NCAA Football video game. With this law, at least we can have a 58 team California-specific gaming experience.

It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out, but perhaps we will be able to watch our college heroes resist “one and done” and turn pro, as they won’t have such a financial reason to leave school so soon. For sure we haven’t heard the last of this controversial debate.