Field not level: Scott Martelle on NCAA and California

The NCAA is in the news again, and it’s not even March or bowl season. What’s going on? A new law in California gives student athletes the right to be paid for the use of their names and images, and the NCAA is strongly opposed to it. Veteran journalist and LA Times editorial writer Scott Martelle has a few things to say about the controversy in this October 2019 column.

Scott Martelle, "NCAA's response to California: Don't stop our exploitation"

 

1. Martelle makes it clear from the very beginning that he opposes the NCAA’s objection to California’s new law allowing college athletes to earn money from marketing their names and images. What is the NCAA’s objection, and why does Martelle find it ridiculous? Summarize the debate. Is Martelle’s argument persuasive? Why or why not?
   
2. Martelle’s stance in this essay is a little, well, snarky, and maybe more than a little. For example, he says that the feathers of the “mighty” NCAA “need to be ruffled. And ruffled some more.” How effective is his snarky attitude? Would his argument have been more effective if he had made the same points but left out the attitude? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning.
3. Although Martelle uses a few direct quotes from NCAA statements, he is primarily summarizing the NCAA’s position. How well does Martelle satisfy the requirements of a good summary as detailed in Chapter 2 of your textbook? How did you arrive at your conclusion? Point to specific examples from Martelle’s essay and explain your reasoning.
4. Where do you stand on the issue of income opportunities for college athletes? Do you think California’s new law is a step in the right direction? Do you think the NCAA acts in student athletes’ best interests? Does California’s “unfair recruiting advantage” pose a serious problem for college sports? Write an essay that addresses these questions along with any other considerations that you think are relevant. Use Martelle’s essay (and any of the the hyperlinked sources) as your They Say, and explain your position as effectively as you can.

Comments

[Matthew Smith 11/8/19 5:27 PM]

1. The NCAA new rule is allowing NCAA players to profit from marketing their own likeness. NCAA has never gotten this opportunity and there are plenty of mixed feels about it. California is threatened to get blocked out of NCAA. The new rule doesn't allow players from California to get paid. Martelle finds this ridiculous because he is saying that college teams are not evenly matched and NCAA says that this will create an unfair recruiting advantage and Martelle finds that ridiculous. Martelles argument is persuasive because he provides facts and a strong opinion with it.
2. Martelle uses his snarky attitude effectively. He provides facts with it. He is very passionate about the NCAA rule and how everyone should be evolved in it. He is persuasive with his facts and how he uses them effectively. With being persuasive he is persuading others about the topic. I feel like with him adding the attitude to the story it gives it more attention and it shows that he wants a change. It grasp your attention and makes you highly engaged about it.
3. I don't have a textbook to look at Chapter 2. But Martelle summarizes the passage well, he gives specific information and backs up the passage with his own argument. While arguing he stays on topic and keeps providing information that helps his case. Martelle says that California is at an disadvantage and NCAA is threating them. He gives his reason and opinion on why he disagrees.
4. I like the idea of players getting a little more extra money on there hard work and media. They have to pay for food and college and being a sports organization at a big time school isn't cheap at all and getting a little more money can help you out big time. I think it is but California needs to be careful on who they put their money into a before people and teams think they are over doing it. Yes, school is first and college is hard enough and when you are playing a sport your study and sleep time is cut down so when the NCAA is helping you out it gives you a little more hope. No, because other schools can get involved with the things they are doing. You can't change your location but you can get more involved.

[Cupcake 1]

The NCAA, which is the governing body of collegiate sports, has been facing a lot of tension in the media because of new laws being passed as far as the wellbeing of a student-athlete and if that person should be able to earn a profit off of their own name in college. This is not the college paying the athlete; this is an athlete who can earn money from outside sponsorships and commercials based on the athlete’s likeness, nationally and in the media. California’s governor recently passed a law allowing college athletes to profit off their own likeness. There is a major debate on whether or not the athlete should be paid any type of money if they’re still enrolled in the university and not in a professional sports league. I believe that college athletes should not be paid, no matter where the money comes from for a couple of reasons. The average tuition for a student at Ohio State University for an out-of-state student comes out to around $45,000. For an athlete at Ohio State University who is on a 4 year full ride scholarship, the scholarship is worth about $180,000. And by the way, that is only for one student, a Division 1 roster has anywhere from 80 to 125 on a single roster but could only give up to 85 scholarships. But if you multiply $180,000, the cost of one 4 year scholarship, by 85, the maximum number of scholarships that could be given, the total cost of the football team alone for just scholarships, is somewhere around 15.3 million dollars. That is the cost just to get the students to the school. The athlete should not be getting paid any more money then what their scholarship is worth because the 4 year scholarship is in turn a paycheck but just deposited and paid out in a different way. $180,000 for a university to be spending on one athlete alone is ridiculous. They don’t need anything more then the large amount that has already been given to them.

[Perez]

4. I think this is good for these college athletes, they’re benefiting from their name and how liked they are. Although most college athletes may be getting scholarships from their universities that doesn’t change the fact that they shouldn’t be getting paid due to their name and how liked they are among the fans. The NCAA has been making an abundance of money on these college athletes while these athletes get nothing. Furthermore, besides the NCAA making so much money from these student-athletes, the universities are as well. The universities get so much money by signing well-known players and also, if they win their conference and how far they get in the NCAA tournament. Not to mention, it is watched nationwide and the stadiums/arenas get packed, which generates the money for the Universities and the NCAA. So far California is the only state that will allow college students to profit from their name but this is costing them a lot because the NCAA is willing to shut California out of all NCAA competitions. For example, Zion Williamson brought so much attention to Duke and from this Duke generated money just by having Zion on the team and not to mention other players they had like RJ Barrett and Cam Reddish. Having well-known players play for any university will produce them more and more money. In conclusion, I personally believe that college students should get paid because they’re not student-athletes, they’re more like athlete students. These student-athletes put so much time into the sport, it’s like they’re playing on a professional level. They train for a significant number of hours during the day and then have to travel to games. They should at least be allowed to market themselves so they could get some type of money for their hard work and dedication that they put into the sport.

[Toby]

1)In California a new law has passed ruling that college athletes in California can be paid for images of themselves and their names for marketing reasons.The NCAA objects to this ruling. This law does not apply to all student athletes that fall under the NCAA control, but only the ones that are student athletes in California. With this law only having the student athletes in California, the NCAA claims this creates an unfair recruitment advantage to the colleges and universities in California because they say that student athletes may consider going to college in California due to them being allowed to get paid for their hard work and athletic ability. This creates unfairness to the other student athletes though, that put in the same, if not more hard work to be great in their sport but do not get paid. The author of the journal, Martelle, had a very persuasive argument claiming that the NCAA profits an enormous amount of money from these student athletes that put in an extreme amount of hard work to be able to play for their college and the struggles they make. The NCAA profits exceed 1 million dollars, by the most recent IRS report, with the president making $2.4 million a year. The author does not talk about how many of the athletes are on athletic scholarships and full rides to college because of their athletic ability or how the NCAA uses the money they make to help keep fund the athletic programs.Instead the author talks about how the student athletes do not get paid directly for their athletic ability by the NCAA. While his article would be a very persuasive article if you knew nothing else about college sports or scholarships. For the article to be truly persuasive to his side of the argument that the NCAA is profiting too much from college athletes, I would need to also see how much college athletes get for scholarships and compare it to how much money their sports bring in per year for the NCAA and colleges themselves, before I say that student athletes need to get paid for their images of themselves and their names for marketing reasons.

[kedar]

Response
I agree that the players/workers should get paid if there is a profit being made off them and their names/likenesses. It is systematic exploitation and they deserve payment for their work, especially if the profit is millions and up to a billion. The NCAA feels that the law is “an unconstitutional interference in interstate commerce” so its government interference within state businesses is unconstitutional or not the American way. The NCAA argues that if some schools pay their players it will give students an incentive to go there rather than somewhere else and create an unfair recruiting advantage as well. Martelle disagrees with their claim and thinks that it is hopeful to assume that the teams were balanced in recruiting and on the field because they are not. Marttele’s attitude in this article is fiery and it’s effective in getting his point across and strengthening his opinion. His argument would have been less effective without the attitude because it wouldn't have shown his passion as much and it would seem robotic or forced. The NCAA is not acting in the students best interest. The law is heading the future of college in the right direction. No the law does not give California a serious advantage in recruitment. Students who don't have financial aid or scholarships to pay for food, room and board, tuition and basically pay to be on their sports team so if there's a profit they should be able to collect. Two hundred and fifty words boy

Summary
The article is a reaction to the NCAA's reaction of a new California law that is allowing players of college sports in the state of California to earn money for their names/likenesses. California is the first state to allow players to get paid in college. The NCAA is heavily opposed to the law and is trying to fight it and even threatens to remove the state of California from the NCAA altogether. The writer of the article thinks it's about time that players get paid for their work and that the NCAA is and has been exploiting them since the beginning.

[jstef]

The NCAA has strict guidelines that prohibit college athletes from making a profit off their own name and image. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is full of players who bring in a ton of revenue for their university. These players, both male and females, have trained their entire lives to get to the position they are in now. The problem isn’t whether or not the college should pay the players but if they should be allowed to accept outside sources of income based on how liked they are. In this era of social media, exposure is at its highest peak. Middle school and high school players are posting their highlights and are being seen all over the world. College and pro scouts are now able to see talent like never before.Once social media explodes over a player their name is known by anyone who pays attention to the sport. If the player is liked and talked about enough companies from all over will want them to endorse their brand. This is becoming a problem because the NCAA will not allow it, even though the players bring in a ton of money for their universities. If the NCAA finds out about a player accepting an outside source of income they will revoke their eligibility to play. Scott Martelle spoke about California passing a new law that allows collegiate athletes to profit off how liked they are. In response to this law, the NCAA has threatened to shut California out of bowl games and March Madness tournaments. They believe that allowing California players to make a profit off themselves would create an unfair advantage when it comes to recruiting. This is not true because there are still college power houses that will bring in top tier players either way. At the end of the day, players should be able to accept outside sources of income to better themselves financially because to them this is their career.

[KP10]

Although the NCAA has gone through many scandals over the years 'stealing' money from people and governing an abundance of money to pay athletes under the radar to get them to come to a certain school to shine. I think with the benefits that these players receive through these prestigious universities and colleges receiving scholarships, free gear, academic advisory, and many other things, these athletes should definitely not receive a base salary because they would spend money recklessly because they would have no control, but should get paid based on their likeliness to watching fans because it will want to make them a better player. Many people across America think that these athletes should receive a salary based on playing in the college divisions, but then again these athletes could show up to play and do the bare minimum. If these athletes get paid based on their jersey marketing it will force these collegiate athletes to want to play harder and it will make the game more interesting. Taking California out of the picture for giving these players to market themselves is bizarre and it should not be happening. These athletes give time day in and day out to try to get themselves into the 'big league' to perform at the professional level. With likeliness, and marketing images could give professional sport recruiters an easier stand to draft these student athletes. I think that this should go nation wide and players should be given the opportunity to market themselves at a high level.

Summary
The article explains how California passed a law to give players the opportunity to market themselves based on their athletic abilities and how well they are known in the league. This being said California is starting a trend to give athletes money to work hard to get themselves on the field or the court. The NCAA is not for this rule and is ready to ban California from all athletic competition. This could potentially be because the NCAA is a money scandal but California is ready to go against them. The author agrees with the California law and is trying to take a stand to Give these athletes a chance to show how they really perform.

[james]

Income opportunities for NCAA athletes has been a controversial topic for many years. I think that college athletes should get paid a small salary every year. Universities and coaches get paid the big bucks while people who are actually doing most of the work receive no compensation. The players and teams who perform the best should be paid the most. Also if athletes jerseys or other merchandise with the player's name on it are sold, they should be compensated. I think California's new law is a step in the right direction because these college athletes work just as hard as professional athletes and have to keep up their grades to even play their sport. I do not think the NCAA acts in the students best interest because the athletes should have been getting paid a long time ago. They're also been many cases of the NCAA suspending athletes for very outrageous things like borrowing money from family friends to fly out a significant other which is exactly what happened in the case of Ohio State football player Chase Young in November earlier this year. He was suspended 2 games for this. I don't think Californias “ unfair recruiting,” is a serious issue in the college sports world because any school can get involved and be a very active recruiter if they try hard enough to get the best players. I think this is a huge step in the right direction for all of college sports and this issue will keep on growing if not handled with soon.

[coolfundude]

A recent law passed in California gives college athletes the ability to be paid for their names being used. The company can sell the jerseys and apparel of the player and then in return the player makes a commission off of what they sell. The player will be making this money alongside whatever scholarship the school decided to give them. I believe this is a totally fair thing because if the college wants to brand itself off of that particular player and their sport the player should be entitled to a fair amount of compensation. We aren’t talking millions and millions of dollars here, we are talking a commission, a small percentage, of how much apparel the player sells. However, the rebuttal is that they don’t want this possibility of compensation to sway an athlete’s college decision. That’s why the money given to the athletes should be a universal system of commission based on sales, but that’s a whole different story. Each college should offer students the same commission rates this way a students decision isn’t surrounded around money, and it is what they truly believe the best choice is for them.

[Brandon Gillner]

1) In the article "Opinion: NCAA’s response to California: Don’t stop our exploitation" by Scott Martelle, he expresses his argument that it The NCAA is opposed to a new law passed that would allow college athletes to profit off of the name, image, and likeness.

[Brandon Gillner]

1) In the article "Opinion: NCAA’s response to California: Don’t stop our exploitation" by Scott Martelle, he expresses his argument that the NCAA's response has no grounds. The NCAA is opposed to a new law passed that would allow college athletes to profit off of the name, image, and likeness. The NCAA is opposed to this law because it would give colleges an unfair recruiting advantage if an athlete were able to profit off of their likeness. Martelle finds it ridiculous and argues that recruiting has never been fair so it wouldn't make a difference and the higher-ups in the NCAA just want to keep the money for themselves. Martelle is very persuasive because he seems very logical and uses evidence. I do agree that pay for athletes might lead to an unfair recruiting advantage but I disagree that it would topple the scales because players are already going to choose the colleges that have the best teams and programs.

2) Martelle's snarky attitude is very effective because it shows that he deeply cares about the outcome of the decision and is unhappy with the NCAA. Without his snarky attitude, his argument would not have been as compelling because it would have come across as just another news report. Whereas with his attitude he comes across as someone who genuinely cares about the game and thinks how the NCAA responded is heinous.

3) Martelle summarizes the NCAA's statement effectively explaining their stance and reasoning. I came to this conclusion because he has specific sections where he is explaining the NCAA's response and then shifts to his argument. Not blending the two together makes his summaries concise and well laid out.

4) I believe that athletes should be compensated for their hard work, especially when the merchandise that the NCAA is selling is their name. It is unfair that athletes can not market themselves and build their brand which will certainly help them later in their sports careers. I do believe that California's law is a big step in the right direction and that the NCAA doesn't always act in the interest of the player's futures, but in their own futures.

[Shahakar Patel]

The NCAA has strict guidelines that prohibit college athletes from making a profit off their own names and image. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is full of players who bring in a ton of revenue for their university. These players, both males, and females have trained their entire lives to get to the position they are in now. The problem isn’t whether or not the college should pay the players but if they should be allowed to accept outside sources of income based on how liked they are. In this era of social media, exposure is at its highest peak. Middle school and high school players are posting their highlights and are being seen all over the world. College and pro scouts are now able to see talent like never before.Once social media explodes over a player their name is known by anyone who pays attention to the sport. If the player is liked and talked about enough companies from all over will want them to endorse their brand. This is becoming a problem because the NCAA will not allow it, even though the players bring in a ton of money for their universities. If the NCAA finds out about a player accepting an outside source of income they will revoke their eligibility to play. Scott Martelle spoke about California passing a new law that allows collegiate athletes to profit off how liked they are. In response to this law, the NCAA has threatened to shut California out of bowl games and March Madness tournaments. They believe that allowing California players to make a profit off themselves would create an unfair advantage when it comes to recruiting. This is not true because there are still college powerhouses that will bring in top tier players either way. At the end of the day, players should be able to accept outside sources of income to better themselves financially because to them this is their career.

[Luke Murphy]

1. The NCAA objects Californians new laws that allow college athletes to be paid because not all schools are paying athletes which would create an unfair recruiting advantage. The author of this article finds this statement ridiculous because of the athletes get paid on the school size and likability of the team. Martelle argues that larger schools already have the recruiting advantage and the student-athletes make the NCAA millions of dollars so they deserve to get paid. Throughout the passage Martelle is very persuasive when making his claim, he does this by using a formal tone throughout the article, using words like "oh please" or "ludicrous" this strengthens his overall claim by making it understandable to all audiences.
2. Martelles "snarky" tone may make his claim understandable but overall it weakens his claim, his attitude and sarcasm on the subject show bias against the NCAA, it sounds like Martelle already has something against the NCAA before even writing on this topic. He calls the association corrupt and says the associations business dealings are similar to exploitation.
3. When Martelle summarizes the NCAA"s claims on the athletes, he weakens them by putting his own little sarcastic touch on the. For example, after each quote he put in the article he debunked it "“it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage.”Oh, please." He does this through out the passage and strengthens his argument by weakening the NCAA's.
4. I believe that California new law should be implemented all around the U.S. I have experienced playing sports in high school and getting school work done is very difficult by itself but adding a sport on top of that is very difficult. I can't imagine this at the college level, those athletes work so hard and push themselves to the max. They at least deserve to be paid a small fraction of what the NCAA makes off of them. Like Martele stated in the article, the bigger schools that have more popularity already have the recruiting advantage and the pay is just a token of the hard work it took to get there.

[Makayla Stevens]

1. In the article, “NCAA’s response to California: Don't stop our exploitation", Martelle makes it clear from the beginning that he opposes the views the NCAA has on the new law in California. The new law was passed to allow student-athletes to earn a profit off of their name and how well-liked they are. The NCAA is considering keeping California out of the NCAA because they believe this law is unfair since it would give an advantage to their college recruitment. Martelle acknowledges that even without this law there are disadvantages for recruitment. He says that some schools like Alabama and Ohio State are the powerhouses whereas Ohio University isn’t. These schools are not evenly competitive and matched for it to be fair and it is still a disadvantage even with paying athletes or without paying them. Martelle also mentions that student-athletes should get paid because these universities are being paid high revenues for work they are not doing and profiting from the players. His argument is very persuasive because he provides lots of examples of why there is already a disadvantage for other schools only because of competitiveness and being more liked. He also provides a strong argument that student-athletes should be able to profit from their own hard work and name by including the amount of money the NCAA earns along with some universities.

2. Martelle uses a snarky attitude while explaining his stance on the argument. His attitude is very effective because it shows the readers/audience his passion towards the NCAA and their actions. If he did not use his attitude it would not engage other readers but by using it, it is able to persuade others. He used attitude in the first few lines of the article and that is what caught my attention and showed that very early on he cares a lot about this situation.

3. Martelle was able to summarize the NCAA’s position well because the reader is able to point out the NCAA’s position along with Martelle’s position. He separated the two opinions, his own and the NCAA’s, by giving an opinion the NCAA has on the problem and then state his own argument with examples too that weaken the NCAA’s position. I came to this conclusion because in paragraph 6 and 7, he ended 6 with a direct quote from the NCAA, “it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage” but starts paragraph 7 with “Oh please. As if college teams are evenly matched now in either caliber or recruiting appeal” which is his own position. In the article this gives him a chance to persuade readers even more because he is giving the opposite and stronger claims which is weakening the NCAA’s argument.

4. I believe that the law allowing student-athletes to earn a profit in California is a step in the right direction. If they are preparing or expect to play in the NBA then this is preparing them for it. In the NBA, everyone does not get paid the same. You are paid based on your skills and being well-liked. For colleges allowing athletes to basically start making a name for themselves while earning money, I think is a mature and great way for athletes to work at something. I also believe this law is good because like Martelle said the athletes are the ones doing the hard work so they do deserve something. I don't think the NCAA acts in the best interest of student athletes because they know that schools already have unfair advantages but they want the money.The new law doesn’t pose a serious problem for college sports if anything it’ll create more attention towards some players and more competition among schools. I think that since it is the responsibility of the student-athlete to earn the profit from others not the universities it is a good thing since it will make them work at something to make their own name.

[noah myers]

1. The controversy in the article, "NCAA's response: don't stop our exploitation" by Scott Martelle roots from the idea that amateur, college level athletes having the opportunity to earn money for the names or images that their respective schools may use to advertise. While NCAA argues that these select schools choosing to offer these earnings pose an unfair recruiting plea that other schools don't provide, Martelle stands by the fact that that the current "fair" recruiting programs are part of a very broken system involving tiers, the top including Clemson or LSU, and the bottom tier includes CSU and Carolina Coastal. Martelle's argument is persuasive because the already uneven recruiting system into the NCAA sport teams isn't heavily threatened by the minimal earnings (in the big picture) that the athletes would earn under their names and images. He builds his argument by showing the audience a perspective in which the NCAA is trying to under cut the athletes that make their profit for them.

2. His argument would be strengthened if his childish, snarky attitude was removed. In rhetoric, credibility is a major part of persuading an audience, and by using those unnecessary comments, he immediately looses the opportunity to stand on a higher ground and just display the ugly truth as it is which would immensely boost the strength of his debate.

3. Martelle presents unsatisfactory levels of hard quotes from NCAA in this article. If more quotes were infused throughout the article from the "big bad" in this situation, then his argument would increase in strength further. By using more quotes, the persuader looks like they know what they are talking about which increases credibility not to mention that more content in general builds logos in his argument. Without these much needed abundance of quotes, some skeptical readers in the audience may be persuaded otherwise due to his lack of credibility because it could look like he's putting words in NCAA's mouth.

4. I personally stand with NCAA in that collegiate level athletes should not be able to earn any direct income from their respective schools. The collegiate level of Athletics was meant to be an amateur gate way that could lead to a professional career with proper potential. The integration of money into collegiate sports just creates a second tier pro league that happens to corespond with colleges. Tuition and fee coverage for scholarship atheles is completely acceptable, but any further economic compensation is futile. In that, California has ruined the tradition of clean, greed protected organization of sports for young athletes.

[Shahed]

The NCAA is a billion dollar enterprise and in my opinion it’s a shame that players who basically work for them aren't getting paid. It’s understandable that it’s a amuture sport, but what most colleges do is endorse players who have the potential to be a pro. For example Zion Williamson who is a basketball player, he was such a dominant player in college that he changed the value of the duke basketball franchise. What I am trying to say is players are not getting their fair share of the profit that they bring for the college. Not to mention that some student-athletes go far and beyond to work on their craft; so if any major injuries were to happen to them what’s going to happen to their scholarships and their education. So this new law should help student-athletes get their part of the share and help them financially throughout their college semesters. I believe that this law should apply to all states.

[Thomas Secaira]

I believe the NCAA should be paying these players to profit off their name but the NCAA thinks otherwise. Scott Martelle argues that division 1 athletes have the right to collect money off the likeness of their name. A good point that Scott Martelle provides is that the players are bringing in loads of money for these universities for decades, in 2016 the NCAA brought in over $1 billion, this would explain why so many people are wanting student athletes to be paid. In challenging Martelles argument, the NCAA believes that these students will handle their money irresponsibly, and the athletes are already getting more than enough money from the colleges sincee most of these athletes are on some sort of scholarship. Scholarships vary from player to player, for example one student can be on a 4 year full ride scholarship vs. a student who has to earn their scholarship based on how they perform on the playing field.

[George Polistin]

I agree that athletes should be payed for use of their name and use of their image. Athletes spend a lot of their time perfecting their work, with all the practice and games, their's no time for work which also means no money coming into the pockets of those athletes, while recognition can take them far, they deserve to be not only acknowledged but payed for being the face of their school. That same athlete could be financially struggling but because of their love for the sport they can't do much or buy much and they have to have a good diet which costs money that they don't have because all the time they mostly have goes into school work on sports which is why athletes should at least be compensated for being used as the face of their school or for their name being used, everyone needs recognition as well as money, we can't make it anywhere without either.

[ANON]

The NCAA has rules that do not allow college athletes to make money off their name. The NCAA has a lot of players who bring in a profit for their university. These players trained their whole life to get where they are now. The problem here isn’t whether or not the college should pay the players but if the player should be allowed to make money off of how liked they are. Social media allows College recruiters to see the talent all across the country. When a player goes viral their name is known by everyone. If the player is well liked and talked about companies might want to endorse them. This is a problem because the NCAA won’t allow it, even though the players are bringing in the money. If the NCAA finds out about a player making an outside source of money the player is no longer eligible to play. Scott Martelle wrote about California passing a new law that allows collegiate athletes to profit off how liked they are. After this law was passed the NCAA threatened to kick California out of bowl games and March Madness. They believe that allowing California players to make money would make an advantage when it comes to recruiting. This is not correct because there are still top college power houses that bring in top players from around the country. It’s plain and simple I believe the best and most well liked players should be able to accept outside sources of income to help out their families.

[Michael Coney]

I agree that athletes should be payed for use of their name and use of their image but the NCAA has rules that do not allow college athletes to make money off their name. The NCAA has a lot of players who bring in a profit for their university. These players trained their whole life to get where they are now. The problem here isn’t whether or not the college should pay the players but if the player should be allowed to make money off of how liked they are. Social media allows College recruiters to see the talent all across the country. When a player goes viral their name is known by everyone. If the player is well liked and talked about companies might want to endorse them. This is a problem because the NCAA won’t allow it, even though the players are bringing in the money. If the NCAA finds out about a player making an outside source of money the player is no longer eligible to play. Scott Martelle wrote about California passing a new law that allows collegiate athletes to profit off how liked they are. After this law was passed the NCAA threatened to kick California out of bowl games and March Madness. They believe that allowing California players to make money would make an advantage when it comes to recruiting. This is not correct because there are still top college power houses that bring in top players from around the country. It’s plain and simple I believe the best and most well liked players should be able to accept outside sources of income to help out their families.

[Jaylen Gilmore]

In this article it states that California passed a new law stating that student-athletes should be able to profit off of their names and I agree. Personally being an athlete myself I find it very unfair that players bring in millions of dollars for these universities and can’t paid.Some people may argue that paying athletes could give other school more of an advantage than others. Even though this may be true athletes are getting more of a disservice by not being paid because their the ones who have to train everyday of their lives to make that particular program look good. Furthermore the overall problem in this article is that the NCAA won’t allow it and if they find out a playing is receiving an outside source of money they will become ineligible to play.

[Samuel Pavon]

NCAA has been making money off college athletes since forever. But a governor of California has signed a law where athletes can make money off their name. I believe this is a step in the right direction. In my opinion this should’ve been done sooner. Colleges all over the United States have made a lot of money off jerseys, tickets, and many other things. But what attracts the people, the fans to the games? It would be the players. Colleges and universities are making money off their players but aren’t paying their players a dime. They don’t even let players get sponsorships, nor get represented by brands. On the other hand, they are getting full ride scholarships that is giving them money, but the schools make way more money than what they are offering the players. All schools in California are being threatened of being blocked out of the NCAA. One thing this rule is affecting is the recruitment processes. Players are now more likely going to schools in California knowing that they can get some money on the side. Now this law isn’t saying that the school is paying the athletes, they will be getting paid by sponsors and brands outside of school. Zion Williamson in my opinion was one of the best college athletes I have ever seen. Coming out of high school he was the most exciting prospect coming out. He played basketball at Duke University and was living up to the hype. Everywhere he played at the gym was full and games were sold out. I believe Duke was making so much money from his name along with his teammates Cam Reddish and RJ Barrett and the players didn’t get one cent. Now a days, high school basketball players are getting sponsorships left and right. Also, many high school basketball players are going pro straight out of high school instead of going to college because they know that them going pro is going to make them more money than being in college. Therefore, I believe this should be accepted by the NCAA so that players can play sports, get an education, and make some money on the side. After all, these players are putting in the hard work, blood, sweet, and tears into their sport, and they should be rewarded. I believe this is a step into the right direction and the NCAA just needs to find a way on how to incorporate this into their system.

[Jp]

College athletes should not be paid because they are not professionals and this would cause major confusion and problems financially in how much to pay/who to pay. They already receive so many benefits from the scholarships, items, and services given to them. With this change the students focus would be sports first not academics. Signing bonuses, multi-year contracts, and salaries will be an endless saga. Imagine a player who is unable to leave college due to his or her contract. Ultimately I think it would ruin college sports and only bring confusion and envy to these young adults.

[GM]

The NCAA is the legislative/administrative authority for men and women collegiate sports. Their purpose is to make and enforce rules for many different sports and the requirements for college athletes. In the article written by Scott Martelle, he explains that in 2019 the state of California had passed a law that established the idea that allowed athletes to make money off the use of their names, endorsements, and/or selling their own merchandise. This makes sense since these students put in a lot of work, so you would expect they would already be making money for it but that’s not the case. In light of this law passing, the NCAA threatened to shut out California from all NCAA-related sporting events, by claiming that it gave an unfair recruiting advantage to those schools. At the time the article was written, in 2019, there was a lot of tension between the NCAA and California regarding college athletes making money off their talents. However, in the present, after 2 years, that debate has not only been settled between the NCAA and California but it has been decided that for all NCAA college athletes from any state, it is allowed for them to make a profit off of their name and skills. Like Martelle portrays throughout the entire article, I agree with his opinion that athletes should be allowed to make their profit from their names. Especially when it is taken into consideration the amount of work these athletes put in throughout their entire life to get where there are now, just for the schools to get all the profits that come from that while the athletes wouldn’t get anything.

[Justin Albaum]

Martelle notes that the state of California approved legislation in 2019 allowing athletes to profit from the use of their names, sponsorships, and/or the sale of their own items. This seems reasonable because these kids put in a lot of effort, so you'd think they'd get paid for it by now, but that's not the case. The NCAA threatened to exclude California from all NCAA-related athletic events as a result of the law's passage, arguing that it provided those institutions an unfair recruiting edge. There was a lot of animosity between the NCAA and California surrounding college players generating money from their abilities during the time the article was published, in 2019. Fast forward 2 years later, on June 30, 2021, the Division 1 Board of Directors approved an interim name, image and likeness (NIL) policy. This new policy allows all NCAA D1, D2 and D3 student-athletes to be compensated for their NIL as of July 1, 2021, regardless of whether their state has a NIL law in place or not. NIL is now fairly new to these college students when the NCAA passed the law of students being able to profit off their name. A lot of people get confused about the concept that this is not the pay-to-play model. The NCAA is not giving any of these kids a salary to play their respective college sports. NIL deals are pretty straightforward for all these students. The outside companies/businesses offer to pay college kids to promote their brand in any possible way they can. In these deals, it is prohibited for companies to give these students incentives based on player performance. For example, a business can’t pay Alabama QB Bryce Young an extra $1,000 if he reaches over 3,000 passing yards on the season. Even though this will make the college students work harder and play harder, this would prohibit and be taking advantage of any NIL deal. After breaking down the article, I agree with Martelle's viewpoint that players should be able to benefit off their identities, as he expresses throughout the piece. When one considers the amount of time these players have put in over the course of their lives to get that scholarship and go to the dream school they wanted, only for the colleges to reap the benefits while the athletes receive nothing for it.