California Assembly passes bill allowing college athletes to be paid

[moose121]

California Assembly passes bill allowing college athletes to be paid by schools

A bill passed by the California Assembly would allow college athletes to be paid a share of revenue from their school.

www.usatoday.com

USA Today article indicating that California is moving toward paying athletes (up to $25,000 a year).
- Will this idea spread to other states, if California adopts this?
- Is it a good idea?
- If it spreads, how will it hurt/help Pitt?

Thoughts

 

[moose121]

California Assembly passes bill allowing college athletes to be paid by schools

A bill passed by the California Assembly would allow college athletes to be paid a share of revenue from their school.

www.usatoday.com

USA Today article indicating that California is moving toward paying athletes (up to $25,000 a year).
- Will this idea spread to other states, if California adopts this?
- Is it a good idea?
- If it spreads, how will it hurt/help Pitt?

Thoughts

I threw out this topic to stimulate debate among the more knowledgeable folks here on the board. I could be wrong but here is my take. I think this will be another major game changer. This is different from NIL in that it would involve direct payments to athletes by the college and not by the local car dealership etc. paying the athlete to advertise their product. It will probably further separate the haves and have nots. Once put into effect in California, competitors will be forced to follow suit. That’s what happened with NIL. Remember that California started the NIL mania. The NCAA will be forced to OK it (as they did NIL) but, as has become the trend, will not regulate it. The “haves” will be able to pay more than the “have nots”. Recruiting will then be effected. So, under this scenario, the colleges who can pay the most will get the best athletes. Is this Pay for Play finally the end of amateurism? I made a lot of assumptions here but how do you think this will play out?

 

[CrazyPaco]

There are no laws against paying college athletes in any state that I'm aware of. Only NCAA regulations against it. So I'm not sure how California passing a law that says college athletes can be paid technically changes anything. If the NCAA wasn't inconsistent, pathetic, and feckless in its enforcement of its rules, it would hit every California school participating in this with major violation probation or simply kick them out of the NCAA. LMFAO, we know that won't happen.

Athletes will be employees, they will be taxed, and unionize. It is just a nudge in the direction of institutionalized professionalization. But for the time being, for power conference schools, whether a school and its boosters launder player payments through "collectives" or other independent foundations, or pays them directly, really doesn't matter. Players are already getting paid. Getting paid directly through the school doesn't change much except probably making them direct employees and falling under whatever employee protections come from that. This may make the most difference for mid or low major athletes, but their athletic departments probably aren't generating that much (or any) revenue anyway.

 

[cruzer]

There are no laws against paying college athletes in any state that I'm aware of. Only NCAA regulations against it. So I'm not sure how California passing a law that says college athletes can be paid technically changes anything. If the NCAA wasn't inconsistent, pathetic, and feckless in its enforcement of its rules, it would hit every California school participating in this with major violation probation or simply kick them out of the NCAA. LMFAO, we know that won't happen.

Athletes will be employees, they will be taxed, and unionize. It is just a nudge in the direction of institutionalized professionalization. But for the time being, for power conference schools, whether a school and its boosters launder player payments through "collectives" or other independent foundations, or pays them directly, really doesn't matter. Players are already getting paid. Getting paid directly through the school doesn't change much except probably making them direct employees and falling under whatever employee protections come from that. This may make the most difference for mid or low major athletes, but their athletic departments probably aren't generating that much (or any) revenue anyway.

If players are going to be considered employees and taxed accordingly, does this also imply that their tuition and room and board are considered benefits and also taxable?

 

[CrazyPaco]

If players are going to be considered employees and taxed accordingly, does this also imply that their tuition and room and board are considered benefits and also taxable?

Not sure. I don't believe tuition benefits/discounts are taxable for currently employees. I could be wrong though.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Not sure. I don't believe tuition benefits/discounts are taxable for currently employees. I could be wrong though.

I think they are after a certain dollar value. But there is a loophole that if the class/classes you are taking are job related then they are not taxable at any level.

 

[pittdan77]

I think they are after a certain dollar value. But there is a loophole that if the class/classes you are taking are job related then they are not taxable at any level.

I think there would be creative ways of rolling funds into the scholarship. You would have to generate a W2 if there were some sort of requirements for work unless it's required for the scholarship. That's sort of how they get past any taxes for an athletic scholarship.

If the money did rise to a level where it would require a W2, the student would also have the ability to take deductions and perhaps qualify for a credit. Not like $25k would be a big tax hit but the extra paperwork would be a huge nuisance for both sides. Not to mention the benefit and liability implications. My guess is that everyone will try to keep it from going there.

 

[Saboteur II]

California Assembly passes bill allowing college athletes to be paid by schools

A bill passed by the California Assembly would allow college athletes to be paid a share of revenue from their school.

www.usatoday.com

USA Today article indicating that California is moving toward paying athletes (up to $25,000 a year).
- Will this idea spread to other states, if California adopts this?
- Is it a good idea?
- If it spreads, how will it hurt/help Pitt?

Thoughts

That is below the poverty line in CA

 

[cashisking884]

It’s not going to do much, because the big time schools are already paying way more than that for the big time players.

It’s not like Kirby Smart is going to run to governor Kemp and be like, “our school can’t compete with $25,000.00 unless you authorize something similar.”

 

[Pitt79]

California Assembly passes bill allowing college athletes to be paid by schools

A bill passed by the California Assembly would allow college athletes to be paid a share of revenue from their school.

www.usatoday.com

USA Today article indicating that California is moving toward paying athletes (up to $25,000 a year).
- Will this idea spread to other states, if California adopts this?
- Is it a good idea?
- If it spreads, how will it hurt/help Pitt?

Thoughts

California also has people wanting to pay $5 million in reparations to every black person in SF, where are they going to find all this money? Regular non athlete students should organize against it, and every member of the non-revenue sports teams need to file a law suit if they don't get the same paycheck.

 

[Pitt79]

If players are going to be considered employees and taxed accordingly, does this also imply that their tuition and room and board are considered benefits and also taxable?

That should all be taxed too absolutely.

 

[upj87]

That is below the poverty line in CA

so is the current zero nationwide