I saw it referenced that the AA will say this is imposing on a private entity, which was ruled in their favor in the Tarkanian case.
That seems a pretty shoddy ruling because many of these universities are land-grant universities of the state and not private entities. You can argue the law doesn't have to apply to private universities, but to someplace like UCLA? UC? Pretty sure the California legislature has jurisdiction over that.
That makes sense in the Tarkanian context of whether the NCAA could issue a suspension, but describing athletes profiting off their likenesses as an “imposition on the NCAA” seems like a reach. Nothing is really (or at least directly) being imposed upon them.
And it isn't like it is requiring these schools to pay the students, but that the students can market and get paid for their likeness. Juan Jennings would be able to do commercials, etc.
Referenced here - https://theathletic.com/1255043/201...in-california-what-now-for-college-athletics/ And the Supreme Court has already decided the NCAA is a private entity - so good luck overturning that From the article - Two things are going to happen next. The first is that the NCAA will surely challenge this legislation in court, where it will make the case that it’s unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws. Based on the NCAA’s track record, I like its chances to win that argument.
I don't think the issue is that California is imposing on the NCAA. I think the issue is that the NCAA is imposing on California universities. So Cali universities who don't want to break the law have to either leave the NCAA, or challenge that the state doesn't have standing to impose these laws on the university. This has nothing to do with the NCAA, other than can it survive if schools are forced to leave due to its bylaws.
FTR - I am 100% for letting the player be paid for their likeness. If Jimmy Haslam wants to slap Harrison Bailey's face on a Pilot billboard ever 50 miles and pay him for it, I don't care. If Jim Bob's Auto Repair wants to give Jennings money to do local commercials, let him have that option. This is 100% about people wanting control and not wanting Congress to question tax-exempt status.
The law would be OK, it just might force all of California's schools to leave the NCAA. I just don't see how you can claim being part of a private organization could restrict what a basically government business (in this case, land grant universities) can and cannot do.
What, at it's root, is the difference between that and saying the same people can't hire a basketball coach? Same principle is going to apply, IMO.
I hadn’t realized that the Act explicitly makes it illegal for schools to deny athletes opportunities to profit from their likenesses. Framed that way, the NCAA’s argument that it restricts their rights to enforce their own bylaws does carry more weight.
The difference is the NCAA isn't saying you can't hire a cheater, liar, player payer, whatever. They're saying you can't do that AND remain in the NCAA.
Any school could have left the AA and hired Tarkanian at any point, no questions asked. It's the same thing.
The difference is that California can then make the schools leave the NCAA because they have to adhere to a state law that they have to allow players to market their license.
Any school could a have done that. They choose not to because it is more lucrative to be in the NCAA with an approved coach, than to not be in the NCAA with whomever they want. But that's a schools decision, based on market analysis. Not a law. Which is what Cali passed.
