The Fair Pay to Play Act — a look at both sides

Senate Bill 206, better known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, is now the law of the land in the state at the center of the Pac-12 Conference.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 206, allowing college athletes in California to be compensated for the use of their name, image and likeness (i.e., marketing opportunities).

The law stands in stark, come-and-get-us-if-you-dare contrast to the NCAA’s longstanding model that treats athletes as indentured servants … sorry, as unpaid amateurs.

“It’s going to change college sports for the better by having now the interest finally of the athletes on par with the interests of the institutions,” Newsom said. “Now we’re rebalancing that power arrangement.”

Four vital reminders:

1. The law doesn’t allow athletes to be paid directly by the schools; it simply permits them to accept payments from outside businesses for marketing and promotional purposes.

2. The law does not go into effect until January 2023.

3. Similar legislation is surfacing in other state legislatures, including New York and South Carolina.

4. The NCAA has created a committee to address the vexing issue of name, image and likeness. The group, which includes Colorado athletic director Rick George, is set to make its recommendations by the end of October.

The Pac-12’s position is clear. “We’re against anything that could lead to the professionalization of college athletics,’’ commissioner Larry Scott told the Hotline recently.

“As anticipated, there are un

intended consequences of what California has contemplated that would be very harmful to California universities and student athletes.

“College sports is a national system of recruiting and competition.”

For the moment, we’re left with a state law that could disrupt college athletics eventually but also carries repercussions for the California schools in the interim.

Two in particular come to mind:

Will Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC (and all other major universities in the state) experience recruiting benefits or setbacks because of Fair Pay to Play?

Will they become havens or pariahs?

In theory, they would have the ability to dangle name, image and likeness compensation opportunities in front of recruits.

Then again, schools outside the state — and outside the Pac-12 — will undoubtedly attempt to use the law against the California schools.

If there is no resolution — if California and the NCAA find no middle

ground — the potential implications are significant:

The California schools could be banned from participating in NCAA events. (Extremely unlikely it would come to that.)

Might recruits avoid Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC for fear of entanglement in the legal fight to come?

Will universities in other states be willing to engage on the field with California teams, given the latter’s potential recruiting advantages?

If not, the four schools could have difficulty scheduling nonconference opponents in future years

in both football and basketball.

That’s already an issue for the Bears and Bruins, who are prohibited from using public funds for travel to competitions in states that are viewed as discriminatory to LGBTQ people.

(The list of banned states is 11 deep and includes Kansas, Texas and North Carolina. Games scheduled prior to the legislation’s passage are permitted.)

In response to the governor’s signature, the NCAA released a relatively tame statement — tame considering the verbal missiles launched

previously at Sacramento by president Mark Emmert:

“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.”

The Hotline has reached out in recent weeks to the athletic directors at the Pac-12’s California schools, seeking comment about the implications of Fair Pay to Play.

The response, not surprisingly, was radio silence.

Starting today, their challenges are very public and quite real.

For now, we await the NCAA committee’s recommendations.