Blue White Illustrated

S ept. 30, 2019, should prove to be a watershed moment in the world of college athletics. By now, you've probably heard of Cal- ifornia's Senate Bill 206, also known as the Fair Pay for Play Act, which was signed into law that day by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The law forces colleges and universities in California to allow their scholarship athletes to make money in di3erent ways. That includes selling their name, image and likeness to any company that may have interest. It's been a long time coming now, and whether you're OK with a state govern- ment forcing this change is a completely di3erent debate, but there's one thing we know for sure: The NCAA is on the clock. While the law has already been signed, it won't go into e3ect until Jan. 1, 2023. There's a reason for that. California is giving the NCAA roughly three years to change the way it does business or get out of the way. Considering that the or- ganization brings in over $1 billion a year, no one is going anywhere. President Mark Emmert is fully aware of this, too. In fact, it took the NCAA just a month to so4en its tone on the subject. Following an internal review, the NCAA stated publicly on Oct. 29 that it was open to the idea of allowing college athletes "the opportunity to bene2t from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consis- tent with the collegiate model." That's a4er years and years of no budging at all. That's also far from an endorsement of California's law, but it does suggest that some sort of change is only a mat- ter of time. But one thing that I don't expect to see right from the start is schools directly paying their players. That could come down the road, but in order to get this started in a few years, expect the NCAA to focus on outside avenues for its stu- dent-athletes to make money on the side. With time, however, that could become an issue in itself. We all know that football players like Micah Parsons and Pat Freiermuth will have plenty of local and regional opportunities, but that won't be the case with everyone, including those on the same team. Not to mention, Title IX could have a real impact on this model holding up on its own. At the same time, life isn't fair and busi- ness isn't fair. If you earn, good for you, so I see both sides of this ar- gument. I also don't think we're going to see agents in college football anytime soon. California's law would actually allow it, but once this does 2nally roll out, I think many will realize that third-party agen- cies aren't a good thing for college ath- letics. The majority of 18-year-olds aren't ready to be brought into that world yet. I know it happens in other sports, but take it from someone who gets to know these players before they ever suit up in Beaver Stadium, many of these young men don't understand the pros and cons that come with that. Not all agents are crooks, but you can also argue that not all agents care about the player over pro2ts. Instead, don't be surprised if schools are forced to start new departments to California law is a game-changer for college athletics LAYING DOWN THE LAW Newsom signed the Fair Pay for Play Act into law in September. It isn't set to take effect until 2023, but the NCAA is already moving to adapt. Photo by Gage Skidmore A N A L Y S I S B Y R Y A N S N Y D E R

• Cover