On Monday, California Senate Bill 206, “SB-206” or the “Fair Pay to Play Act”, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The bill will allow collegiate student-athletes in the state of California to profit from the use of their names, images, and likenesses, in opposition to the amateurism policies of the NCAA. SB-206 would also prohibit the NCAA, as well as its member schools and conferences, from taking any punitive action, such as participation bans or scholarship penalties, against a California institution which allows its student-athletes to take advantage of these newfound rights, as well as the student-athletes themselves. The bill would essentially compel California institutions to follow state law by breaking NCAA rules.
While SB-206 still does not allow institutions to directly pay student-athletes, the student-athletes may now profit off of their names, images, and likenesses through individual business or through a third party. Among the previously prohibited activities now permitted by SB-206 are the signing of endorsement contracts, paid autograph signings, paid coaching positions, and personal marketing opportunities. In the negotiation of endorsement contracts, student-athletes will be permitted to use representation, including athletic agents, licensed by the state of California. California schools may also return to licensing the names, images, and likenesses of their student-athletes, such as for the use of video games, with those student-athletes now sharing in the profits.
Among the NCAA’s arguments against the bill is that the advantage now given to institutions in California upsets the “essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports”, as those institutions and student-athletes now have a unique advantage over every other state in the country that is likely to influence recruiting. While the bill does not allow the NCAA to take punitive action, the state cannot prevent the NCAA from breaking away from California as a whole. The NCAA may not be able to prevent California institutions from play, but they do have the right to dismiss those schools and have already levied that threat against California lawmakers.
So how does all of this impact hockey? As of right now, it doesn’t. There are no NCAA teams – Division I, II, or III – in the state of California. Thus, the added benefit to California student-athletes wouldn’t affect the landscape of college hockey, nor would the NCAA dismissing any California schools. However, SB-206 is just the beginning. Many states have already submitted or are at least considering similar bills regarding the publicity rights of college athletes. Those states include New York and Colorado, which house major Division I hockey programs like Denver, Colorado College, Colgate, Cornell, and Clarkson. The movement to allow student-athletes the right to profit from their name, image, and likeness – a policy that costs the NCAA and the individual schools nothing – is likely to catch on and there will be a widespread impact on hockey at the developmental level.
Among the reasons why the NCAA currently considers the CHL to be a “pro” league, making its members ineligible for collegiate competition, is that they already allow their players to sign endorsement deals and profit from their names, images, and likenesses in other ways. However, Canada is so saturated with junior hockey, including pro teams, that the opportunities for CHL players to find substantial money-making uses for their publicity rights are few and far between. If states begin to follow in California’s footsteps, or if the NCAA itself was to adopt the policy, it would further raise the stakes of the competition between the junior level and college level for hockey’s best young prospects. College players would be allowed to make money off of their success and fame and would likely have more opportunities and more money available to them in the United States. There’s also the possibility that changes to the NCAA policies on publicity right could cause them to re-evaluate their stance on the CHL’s amateur status, possibly allowing former junior athletes to jump to the college ranks. In either scenario, the CHL stands to lose even more participants to the college game if a more modern treatment of amateurism is embraced. There are a number of possible outcomes impacting the game of hockey that could emerge from the further growth of the policies proposed by California.
SB-206 will become operative on January 1, 2023. It is expected to face legal challenge before then, as well as possible federal and NCAA legislative changes that could potentially render the decision moot. In the meantime, with the bill now being signed, the discussion is likely to begin in any states that haven’t already taken steps toward legislation of their own. In all likelihood, it won’t belong before a prominent college hockey state follows suit with changes to student-athlete publicity rights and the conversation will become front and center at many levels of the game.
I wonder if CHL players playing in the states would also fall under this law if their states passed the bill. Could definitely be more guys who commit to those teams rather than holding out to get to one of the bigger junior cities.
JD, judging by this description, it appears that it will apply only to NCAA sports, and only a micro-handful of the top-level athletes would even have a sniff at some of the free money. Most of the others will probably get stiffed, as there is only so much to spread around. Since the CHL already allows for this, having Oregon & Washington pass similar stuff probably wouldn’t have much effect on them.
The second college kids get paid you can say goodbye to every other sport outside of basketball & football. No other sports generate revenue. And all female sports will go extinct.
Except that this isn’t what that is… Did you even read the article? Players can get paid to coach/sign autographs/endorsements.
Perhaps inadvertently, you bring up a great point. How will Title IX laws be applied to this?
and so goes ameteur sports and what it stands for!
I’d (almost) love to make a political comment about this, but… this is NOT Political Hack Rumors, but rather Pro Hockey Rumors. We can keep each other entertained (or aggravated) by discussing The Coolest Game on Earth.
Newsom is such a fucking idiot can we impeach him already?
Thank you mac, case closed.
Considering that most hockey players are anonymous on campus, I doubt there’s much money to be made for them. And the top tier kids usually leave for the pros after one college season anyway.
As for the CA. bill itself, I’d love for the NCAA to boot the CA. based teams out of their conferences. That CA.teams would be begging for that law to be overturned.
Well said, @Gbear! Motion seconded! How bad is it when we have to root *for* the NCAA in any context, though?
(Sorry, Gerald, couldn’t resist!)
No problemo , Can’t wait for the biscuit to drop on season. Go ! Black Hawks, and second the motion this is Hockey Rumors not a place to deal with political comments they’re are other avenues for that not here.. before I put my foot in mouth on that subject will be on here and Cap Friendly, and Rotoworld monitoring hockey news, I LOVE HOCKEY !!!!
This is awful college kids shouldn’t be getting paid. It’s now gonna be harder for other schools to get top recruits bc they can’t offer them the perks that CA schools have? BS
i like the idea of a team selling jersies with names on the back and the players getting money from that, (because it is their names after all) but that’s where it should end. so what if the college makes money off of sports, it’s not like these kids are being opressed. its called “amateur” sports for a reason.
They aren’t getting paid. They are freed up to have opportunities to be paid by signing autographs, coaching, endorsements, etc.
What do CA, CO, and NY have in common? They are all BIG democratic states that are heavily pro-union. Anytime you hear “fairness” look to see a democrat looking for votes. This law basically is a union law. Allowing all student athletes to profit off of their name. I believe the athlete should profit when a school is selling jesey’s with the kids name, or NCAA licensed video games with the kids in it. But some of the other provisions basically make these kids pro athletes. In addition they are getting a free ride to some of the best schools in the country. You mean they have to work for it? They have to go to practice? You mean the trade is a free education for OTJ training and publicity in hopes of a professional career? Most college student have internships. Many are not paid. Many lead to jobs. This is a slippery slope. What’s next? All internships must be paid or must guarantee employment at the end?
Small schools that in many cases support sports such as hockey, field hockey, lacrosse and various women’s sports could be hurt by this. Kids will opt to go to schools in states where they make money or opt for jr hockey if they can’t play in CO or NY. In addition some schools may just drop sports to avoid NCAA rules violations which can be harsh. Kids in almost all sports have the option to go pro or college. Baseball has the minor leagues. Basketball can play in Europe. Hockey has Jr hockey. So what is this really about? Football. Football keeps kids in school 2 years with nowhere else to go. So CA is screwing schools for the sake of football. Many schools that support hockey don’t even have a football team or it is D3 at best.
Let’s not gloss over the fact that this has been happening under-the-table for many years now. Agents and school benefactors have been shuffling lunch bags full of cash to top recruits for their services. This decision merely opens up top universities for legal corruption.
NCAA makes billions and pays the people who make them that money NOTHING. Kind of hard not to be on the side of the athlete. Would a look behind the curtain show the NCAA to be as corrupt as FIFA or the IOC?
Ya I always find it amusing when people want to side with the NCAA on this. Like the article says, there’s basically no downside for the schools that this would fall under. What’s wrong with having broke kids make money lol?
Caveat on this post in regards to information presented per my understanding: Division 2 hockey is huge in California. However it is played on a club level (not school sponsored and thus treated like a school club like a debate club).
I see the NCAA countering in one of two ways. Look for the NCAA to either amend Title IX to allow every state to do this, or enough states follow suit which forces the NCAA to do this; or look for the NCAA to ban all California teams from tournament play.