Facebook Pixel

    NCAA: California’s new bill is their latest Achilles’ heel

    With the signing of California Senate Bill 206, the NCAA faces its strongest challenge yet to amateurism rules. Based on recent events confronting the same issue, it is fair to wonder how long the NCAA has until it loses traction.

    NCAA
    Photo credit: news.usc.edu

    The NCAA problem

    The NCAA does insist that they are constantly re-evaluating their rules and regulations to best benefit athletes, but they neglect to provide specifics on what is a better, more improved process than what Newsom has essentially laid out. While fearing that other states will adopt this to make an uneven playing field, the NCAA refuses to address solutions nor what could be done on a national, or even federal, level. Interestingly enough, the organization is so biased in their perspective that they are willing to make California students suffer: 

    If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image, and likeness scheme, 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. These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions.”

    That sounds like an organization that is shaken at the idea of this setting a precedent. Essentially, what Newsom did creates a template that other states can borrow to fill their respective specifics into. It will also motivate lawmakers in those states to at least get the ball rolling with some sort of legislation. Much like the NCAA suggested, this would create a variety of altered versions around the country that would effectively destroy everything the organization is trying to keep afloat. Releasing a strong statement such as the one above attempts to deliver the message that the NCAA will not tolerate any similar legislation. Simply, student-athletes are expected to continue working in their role without compensation of any kind. 

    That’s a complete pivot from their “changes are needed” line. Again, what changes? Are they seriously meeting about these changes? Why evaluate potential changes when the model works in their favor? What incentive do they have that motivates this change? 

    Related Articles