Rank amateurs

Pay ball, er, play ball

YOU KNEW it would only be a matter of time before this bad idea wafted its way from the state houses to the congressional halls in Washington, for federal politicians like publicity, too. When California lawmakers got their names in all the papers last year, ears perked up in the District of Columbia.

There are names to be recognized! Photo ops to be taken! TV appearances to be made!

Last year, the California Legislature voted for something called the Fair Pay to Play Act, and many lawmakers were interviewed for their thoughts. Which is payment enough for them. The legislation would allow student-athletes at colleges to be paid for the use of their names. And likenesses. And memorabilia, if they have it. And autographs, if they give them.

NB: Not one California lawmaker voted against that bill. Not one. Which goes to show that lawmakers know a winning issue when they see one, even if it’s not a winning idea.

The Sports section of this paper ran an AP story this week out of the nation’s capital. Four federal lawmakers of the Democratic variety introduced legislation that would “grant college athletes sweeping rights to compensation, including a share of the revenue generated by their sport,” and, of course, create a commission to oversee it all.

If passed, “it would change the NCAA’s ability to govern intercollegiate athletics, and the association’s model for amateurism.”

This bad idea is a bipartisan effort. The Republicans on the Commerce Committee have their own ideas, mainly about allowing the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the payments to athletes.

Uh-huh.

From the AP: “The NCAA will vote next month on legislation that will permit athletes to be compensated for their names, images and likenesses for the first time, but with some restrictions. Athletes would not be allowed to use school logos and marks in their commercial ventures; an individual’s endorsement deals could not conflict with those of his or her school; and athletes will not be permitted to enter into financial arrangements with companies that provide services or sell goods that conflict with NCAA legislation — such as gambling, alcohol or banned substances.”

Members of Congress want to go further. The bill from the Democrats would not only allow college athletes to profit from their names and images, but would allow group licensing deals. And the bill “would also require schools to share 50% of the profit from revenue generating sports such as football and basketball with the athletes after the cost of scholarships are deducted.”

Note, please, the phrase “revenue generating sports.”

Because most sports at most colleges aren’t. A big SEC or Big Ten school might rake in $100 million a year from football, basketball and, to a lesser extent, baseball. But almost all of that money is put back into the athletic departments, much of it to pay for sports that don’t take in big money. Think gymnastics, swimming and track.

If 50% of the football money goes to football players, which sports are those schools going to do without? And who will make that choice?

Here are some other questions that need to be answered before American college players become semi-pro. Or maybe wholly pro.

• Who would get paid, and how much? Only football players at certain schools? Only football and basketball players at certain schools? Just male players? Or would the money be spread out so that the Heisman-contending quarterback and the setter on the volleyball team get the same check every two weeks?

• Bigger schools would certainly pay more than smaller colleges, right? The University of Arkansas would be able to pay more than UCA. Could coaches at the larger schools offer more money to the best players? That’s something that would get those schools in a heap of trouble today. Will that become the norm tomorrow? And will we see bidding wars in the press for kids coming out of high school, the way we see for trade talks in the NBA or NFL?

• What would players do to earn their salaries? Play? Or win? In the real world, you are paid what you merit. So what about a school with a 2-10 football team and an 8-24 basketball team? Would players there be paid less? And if they won the championship the next year, would they be paid more?

• Could the players unionize? If so, could the football players strike for a bigger piece of the pie?

• Will band members and cheerleaders be eligible for payment, too?

• Will the NCAA have to create another division in the legal department to handle the Title IX lawsuits that will come from this?

THERE ARE many questions. But even those in Congress — who are all too willing to take advantage of the interest — aren’t providing many answers. We suppose most Americans aren’t opposed to the idea of paying players. But how make it fair? Not only for student-athletes on the football team, but for student-athletes on the softball team. And for the institutions themselves. Most colleges don’t have the athletic revenue of the Alabamas or Ohio States.

Some of us might be encouraged to think on this issue a bit more if/when these questions are answered. Because most Americans admire the athlete, and want him (or her) treated fairly, and compensated justly. And will often see things from the athlete’s point of view.

Until that first holdout before Saturday’s big conference game. Then all bets are off.