NCAA moves to allow athletes to profit from name
Board calls for rule changes in the wake of new California law
“I understand the football player selling thousands of jerseys. ... How many athletes benefit from this and what happens to the ones who can’t?”
— Charmin Smith, UC Berkeley women’s basketball coach
A month after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a groundbreaking law allowing California college athletes to make money off their likeness, image and brand, NCAA officials on Tuesday unanimously approved a measure that calls for fewer restrictions on those athletes earning endorsement money.
But NCAA officials, meeting in Atlanta, failed to provide details, leading to questions about what happens next in an industry that generated $14 billion last year, according to U.S. Department of Education data.
Some critics of the NCAA’s decree said it still leaves the possibility of strictly limiting athletes’ earning potential.
“Here in California, we are clear that we won’t accept arbitrary limitations and look forward to the NCAA’s final action being consistent with the right all other students have to generate income from their talent and skills,” said state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, who co-authored the California bill.
The NCAA board directed its three divisions of competition to immediately consider changing rules about how ath
letes can earn money while maintaining amateur status. Officials said in a news release they want modifications implemented no later than 2021 and added that a committee studying the issue will continue its work until April.
Officials will discuss the issue at the NCAA’s annual convention in January and again at a Board of Governors meeting in April.
While Ohio State president Michael Drake, board chairman, said the NCAA “must embrace change,” it is unclear how far the governing body will go in changing the economic landscape of college sports.
UC Berkeley’s new women’s basketball coach, Charmin Smith, who as a player helped Stanford reach three Final Fours
in four years from 199397, said officials need to figure out the specifics so coaches and athletes have a path forward.
“I understand the football player selling thousands of jerseys,” said Smith, a former professional player. “But that couldn’t be me. How many athletes benefit from this and what happens to the ones who can’t?”
According to the NCAA news release, any rules will make a clear distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities. It also said officials will continue prohibiting payment to athletes for performance or participation.
What will athletes will be allowed to do?
“I don’t have the answers, but I have a lot of questions,” said Stanford women’s basketball coach Tara VanDerveer. “How can the change really be enacted so we don’t have
bad unintentional consequences?”
VanDerveer, a Hall of Fame coach who is one of the most prominent figures in women’s basketball, is worried about how the recent push to end restrictive amateurism rules will impact women.
“If it becomes an absolute free for all,” women athletes “are not going to be the winners in grabbing for cash,” she said. “Based on what is happening already, it is not a good situation for female athletes.”
VanDerveer and others fear that most of the money, including recruiting funds, will be funneled to top-tier football and men’s basketball programs.
“We need to think about how it impacts all student-athletes,” Smith said. “Women’s sports and smaller men’s sports. How does it impact Title IX if money is going elsewhere?”
Title IX is a 1972 law that
protects against sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funding.
Skinner, however, said college athletics is one of the few arenas in which women have a chance to market themselves because they have limited professional sports leagues. She said the California law will help athletes in all of the so-called “smaller sports.”
Skinner suggested a swimmer could create a summer swim camp using her or his name to promote the enterprise. But other than the biggest stars — such as Olympic champions Katie Ledecky at Stanford and Missy Franklin at Berkeley — it is difficult to imagine that a majority of athletes will find much traction from their names.
The NCAA announcement Tuesday mostly received a positive reaction nationally. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who two
weeks ago said lawmakers were “coming after” college sports officials, praised the move in a statement coauthored with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
“The NCAA Board of Governors finally recognized that change is coming, and they need to adapt their rules to catch up with the times,” the statement read. “We believe those rules must be changed to allow athletes to be compensated. We need to correct the inequities between what college coaches and the institutions make versus what the athletes receive and protect college athletes’ health and educational opportunities.”
Ohio State men’s basketball coach Chris Holtmann told reporters that most of his peers are in favor of loosening the rules on amateurism.
“We all recognize this is just a matter of time for this to get done, and some could say it’s long overdue,” Holtmann said.
However, Ramogi Huma, founder of the National College Players Association, called the NCAA action “another attempt at stalling on this issue.”
The vote Tuesday was a reaction to the California Fair Pay to Play act signed by Newsom on Sept. 30. The law, expected to take effect in 2023, was considered the first major step to threaten the way the NCAA runs its business.
Ellen Staurowsky, a Drexel University professor of sports management, said the changes will help all college athletes.
“The system that has exploited college football players and men’s basketball is also the system that has not treated women fairly and equally,” she said.