Bay Area bill helped NCAA see the light

The Kentucky Derby system of compensating college athletic stars is on its way out.

That’s the system where the horse wins the big race, the TV people make a fortune, the sponsors make tons, the race officials and horse’s owners and trainers and jockey all cash in big, and the horse gets all the oats he can eat.

The NCAA announced

Wednesday that it is working on rule changes to allow college athletes to be paid for endorsements and other business deals.

It was cute the way the NCAA announced its plans to establish a new and much looser code regarding a player’s ability to earn income from their name, image and likeness. In a news release, the organization patted itself on the back for a move that is part of “our efforts to enhance support for college athletes . ... The board’s action is the latest step by the Association to support college athletes and modernize its rules.”

That’s like a bank robber praising himself for devising a progressive plan to spend time in prison after he found himself surrounded in the bank by 20 armed cops.

This is where we pause to say “You’re welcome” to American college athletes. By “we,” I mean Californians, Bay Area folks, and particularly those among us who have an affection for Berkeleystyle progressive politics.

This movement, which the NCAA is trying to slow by pretending to speed it up, began here. Or at least got its first major push here. State Sens. Nancy Skinner (DBerkeley) and Steven Bradford (DGardena) were coauthors last year of SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act.

This law allows California college athletes to cash in on their fame through endorsements and other business deals. Other states quickly passed similar laws.

As Skinner’s Wednesday news release noted, “California launched a tidal wave, with more than two dozen states joining the cause to give student athletes their NIL rights.”

Proactive: California, launching the tidal wave.

Reactive: Other states, grabbing surfboards.

Really reactive: The NCAA, grabbing snorkels while pretending the tidal wave was its idea.

Toward the end of the NCAA’s selfcongratulatory news release, it is mentioned that the NCAA will be begging (my word, not theirs) help from Congress to set limits on athletes cashing in.

There is a lot to be negotiated. What’s fair for the schools and the athletes? Where’s the balance? The star athletes would prefer a complete freemarket system, but the NCAA and the schools it represents want guardrails, controls and limits galore on what athletes can earn.

Despite all the obstacles ahead in finding a middle ground, Wednesday’s announcement represents progress, and major rethinking on the NCAA’s part.

The NCAA, after all, is not pure evil. College sports needs a governing body. The problem is that the NCAA is a business, run by businesspeople, and the rule in business is that if you’ve got a sweet deal for yourself, you hang onto it. The sweeter the deal, the tighter you grip it.

Any money that winds up in the pockets of star athletes, through endorsements or deals, is money vacuumed out of the pockets of executives, sponsors and the schools.

Who gives up money and power willingly?

These are uneasy times for the NCAA. Its ability to force top basketball players to play college ball for at least one year is being undercut. Overseas pro leagues, and now a new NBA development program for elite high school grads, are giving top kids an alternative to that year of playing college ball for free.

The NCAA’s goose isn’t cooked, but it is marinating.