Calif. bill may test NCAA resolve

Russell Okung testified at the California Assembly on Tuesday to support a cause he understands more than most.

The former Bush High School and Oklahoma State standout — now a left tackle for the Chargers — wants to see college athletes make some money while they are in school.

And in California, that might happen sooner rather than later.

Okung testified in support of the Fair Pay to Play Act, a bill that would allow California student-athletes to make money from the use of their names, images and likenesses. Senate Bill 206 was passed by the California Assembly Higher Education committee 9-0 and next moves to the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

If the bill passes, it would throw a wrench into the NCAA’s operations and cause some chaos in California.

If other states follow suit, this kind of legislation could force major changes in college athletics.

Right now, it’s an NCAA violation for any athlete to be compensated for use of their names, images or likenesses. SB 206 wouldn’t allow schools to pay student-athletes, but it would allow those athletes to receive compensation from outside sources.

For example, an athlete could earn money by signing autographs or memorabilia or could collect checks if they were featured in a video game.

Compensating studentathletes has been an ongoing discussion for years.

With the amount of revenue athletics bring to colleges and universities, it should be.

In 2015, the NCAA started allowing schools to issue stipends to help cover some costs for student-athletes. It was a step in the right direction, but progress remains to be made when it comes to athletes being able to make money while in school.

Athletes are making millions for schools while often struggling financially on their own. It’s hard for them to find time to get parttime jobs like other students do to get by in school.

And sometimes the jobs they can find would count as NCAA violations, so they are barred from those.

In a piece he wrote for The

Players Tribune earlier this week, Okung detailed how he and several teammates were broke throughout their playing days at Oklahoma State.

He explained how creditors often target student-athletes and offer loans with high interest rates. All the while, he watched fans paying thousands of dollars to fly from game to game and for the best seats at sporting events.

“I watched our university lavish elite donors with high-end dinners, while some of my teammates were skipping meals due to lack of funds,” Okung wrote. “All of this happened while we were wearing commercial insignia on our helmets, shoes and jerseys so that big-time apparel companies could write multimillion-dollar checks to our schools; while we watched universities sell jerseys with our names on the backs — and memorabilia with our images

on it — every day; while we saw our likenesses displayed on NCAA video game posters.

“Our team was worth millions to the school and yet we often had no more than a hundred or so dollars in our bank accounts.”

Okung, who spoke in Sacramento in favor of the Fair Pay to Play bill said he and his teammates would have had better control of their financial futures if they’d been able to control the licensing of their names and images.

He hopes future generations of student-athletes will have that power.

The proposed legislation in California prohibits the NCAA from banning a university from competition if athletes are compensated. If the bill is passed by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

That gives the NCAA some time to work on its rules.

If the state of California and the NCAA don’t end up on the same page, chaos will ensue.

It’s hard to believe the NCAA would punish every school in California or ban them all from competing.

It wouldn’t be surprising to see other states try to pass similar laws.

According to the Los Angeles Times, NCAA president Mark Emmert submitted a letter last month urging the committee to postpone passage of the bill.

“When contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships,” he wrote in the letter. “As a result, it likely would have a

negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist.”

It would only be unfair if the NCAA didn’t adapt its rules to work with the Fair Pay to Play act.

The NCAA has a group of college presidents, student-athletes, commissioners from athletic conferences and athletic directors studying how a college athlete could monetize his or her name, image and likeness “in a fashion that would be consistent with the NCAA’s core values, mission and principles.”

The group is expected to issue a report in October.

In the meantime, all eyes will be on California, SB 206 and the ongoing discussion of the topic of compensating athletes.