Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “Expert”?
Next Post: State’s child care program enhanced with lower co-pays, higher income levels and increased reimbursement rates
Posted in:
* Press release…
Today, Governor JB Pritzker signed SB 2338, the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act, into law, making Illinois a national leader in granting student-athletes the ability to sign individual endorsement deals while enrolled at a college or university. The innovative legislation will grant student athletes control over their name, image, likeness, or voice for the first time, undoing the antiquated practice of banning students from earning money despite the hours they commit to their sport.
“With this law, Illinois will lead the United States in giving student-athletes the opportunity to sign endorsement deals of their own, joining a growing coalition of states leading the fight for innovation in our modern collegiate sports system,” said Governor JB Pritzker. “Let me be clear. Illinois is now at the forefront of this movement, yet another reason student-athletes should choose Illinois for college. Beginning July 1st, Illinois collegiate student athletes – no matter the sport and no matter the division – can take control of their destiny when it comes to their own name, image, likeness, and voice.”
The legislation alleviates financial pressure faced by student athletes who too often have to weigh the decision of finishing their degree or joining a professional sporting league to earn a salary. Going forward, any student athlete can enter into a partnership with either community businesses or large corporations and earn compensation.
“I am so proud of the work that went into passing this legislation to ensure student athletes receive the recognition and compensation they deserve,” said Speaker Chris Welch (D-Westchester). “As a former college athlete myself, I understand firsthand how this will benefit our student athletes, who often balance a full schedule of schoolwork with their sport, as well as their families. We’ve watched universities and coaches profit off of the talents of these young adults, and it is time we allow them to earn their fair share too.”
“As a former collegiate student athlete, this legislation is extremely personal to me, I am proud to see Governor Pritzker sign this bill to ensure student athletes are able to earn income from their likeness, name and image,” said Representative Kam Buckner (D-Chicago). “This is the kind of tangible change we mean when we talk about equity, especially since many of these students come from underserved communities. This will directly help students and their families, which also makes it easier for them to stay in school and finish their degree.”
“Finally student-athletes will receive some financial benefit for the use of their names, images, and likenesses,” said Senator Napoleon Harris, III (D-Harvey). “Their schools will no longer receive all the financial benefits. The students deserve compensation from the hard work of being a college athlete and making their schools millions of dollars.”
Higher learning institutions, such as the University of Illinois and DePaul University, are establishing programs to help students take advantage of this new law, further cementing Illinois colleges and universities as a top destination for both in and out of state students.
“This legislation establishes Illinois as a thought-leader in the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics by ushering in one of the most transformative changes to college sports we have seen in generations,” said UIUC Athletics Director Josh Whitman. “The new NIL paradigm in our state will allow great freedoms to our student-athletes while upholding the core tenets and educational mission of our universities and our athletic programs. Our thanks to Governor Pritzker and our state’s lawmakers for their innovation, open-mindedness, and leadership in this exciting new area.”
“On behalf of DePaul University, I want to thank Governor Pritzker and members of the Illinois General Assembly for their leadership on SB 2338,” said DePaul University Director of Athletics DeWayne Peevy. “This landmark piece of state legislation paves the way for the modernization of the collegiate athletics model, while ensuring our student-athletes remain at the center of these efforts. It also further guarantees Illinois colleges and universities are at the forefront of an increasingly competitive college athletics landscape. Today is a historic day for student-athletes across the state of Illinois.”
SB 2338 takes effective on July 1, 2021.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 12:38 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “Expert”?
Next Post: State’s child care program enhanced with lower co-pays, higher income levels and increased reimbursement rates
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Between laws like this and the recent Supreme Court decision, the NCAA’s grift is on borrowed time.
Comment by ChicagoVinny Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 12:46 pm
It’s a bad, grandstanding bill that in the long run might not matter too much, or might be something that is more trouble than it’s intent.
Same with Texas, Florida, and Alabama… states where they too are redefining.
Why? Today the NCAA is changing their own national governing guidelines to the issue and the NCAA wants national leadership on this… for uniformity… as late as… yesterday.
It’s a feel good thingy…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 12:51 pm
This is a slippery slope on steroids. Best funded teams will now have more cash to throw around.
Oh, it won’t be direct cash. Rather, the endorsement dollars that can be dangled in front of a recruit could be tremendous.
Recruits can now be offered opportunities for direct employment, ghost written book contracts or even creating art work to be purchased.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 12:56 pm
Terrible law. Waste of time. Will lead to more problems.
Comment by ;) Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 12:58 pm
===This is a slippery slope===
I don’t believe that at all.
The haves and the have nots will now be openly bidding (within guidelines) of what each *state* has decided as acceptable.
What the NCAA is now trying to do, along with Congress, is get a national uniformity towards these enticements.
A bill like this, and Texas’… and Florida’s… and Alabama’s laws do is try to grandstand a solution to their states while the governing board (NCAA) and the country try to even a playing field for all.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s off ramps that might come back and make a place like Illinois less attractive.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:04 pm
The false narrative of big time college sports being amateur is slowing being eliminated. What remains to be seen is if this and other changes the NCAA will make impacts the power structure or simply makes legal what the big boys have been doing for years.
Really don’t think think Alabama, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Clemson, LSU, Florida or LSU will alter their operating procedures.
Comment by Give Me A Break Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:04 pm
=Today the NCAA is changing their own national governing guidelines to the issue and the NCAA wants national leadership on this=
I would argue that it’s the NCAA’s inability to change that prompted this and caused the Supreme Court to rule as they recently did. I’m not so sure that organization finally “gets it” as they’ve been so incapable of doing so in the past. I do agree that some uniformity on how endorsements are entered into makes sense. I just don’t trust the NCAA as a governing body given their track record.
Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:11 pm
We should just be flat out giving players a check that participate in high value sports.
This is a start and not the end for college athletes finally getting a legal slice of the pie that is extracted from them every day.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:12 pm
I think this law should only apply to schools in Champaign Urbana. Give us a keg up. Go Illini
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:16 pm
“national uniformity towards these enticements.”
This legislation is allowing, “student athletes control over their name, image, likeness, or voice.” Unless there is a cap on the dollar value of those endorsements or control, then it becomes the wild west, IMO.
Any doubt that Texas will find an alum willing to pay the top recruit $500k to cut a commercial for his company?
Candidly, any school interested in competing in this new era needs to create an office of student endorsements to begin matching potential “advertisers” with recruits.
I can’t imagine that top recruits won’t be comparing the competing schools, in part, based upon endorsement dollars they can secure.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:19 pm
between this and the more open transfer policy, it is going to be dicey keeping players from moving to other schools where there will be more image opportunities.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 1:22 pm
@Amalia = it is going to be dicey keeping players from moving to other schools where there will be more image opportunities. =
From my point of view - Good. It shouldn’t be any harder for an athlete to leave one school for another than it currently is for a coach whos under a contract too.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:02 pm
I fully support the idea. However, if the NCAA sets eligibility guidelines for athletes, and if what they come up with in response to the Supreme Court decision is stricter than this law, will it create confusion?
Comment by fs Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:10 pm
@fs - The NCAA hasn’t been real good at leading.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:14 pm
the dynamics between players play a huge role in how a team plays. changing players makes a much bigger difference.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:28 pm
About time. For years, a student who played the violin could be in a commercial (say for laundry detergent) holding their violin. A student-athlete runner couldn’t be in that same commercial running around a track. But student-athletes, per the NCAA, were supposed to be treated equal to other students.
Yes, the big schools with big boosters will have an advantage to attracting student-athletes. Guess what, they already do.
Schools could put the student-athlete’s photo (think Michael Jordan) on brochures promoting athletics but the student-athlete didn’t get a dime for having their picture there for the next 2, 10, 30 years. It’s time student-athletes are able to control their own images.
Oswego Willy, grandstanding? Why do you think the NCAA is changing their rules (not guidelines)? Because states started standing up for the student-athletes. Don’t think for a second the NCAA is doing this out of concern for the SAs. NCAA knows they’re losing this battle and want to look like they’re being proactive.
Comment by Saluki 1964 Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:31 pm
“The NCAA hasn’t been real good at leading.”
Absolutely correct.
If 5-6 schools decided they were tired of the NCAA’s heavy handed approach, they could upend the system. Suppose Bama, Clemson, Texas, Notre Dame, Georgia and Ohio State decided they wanted to create a new association, the NCAA would have trouble holding everyone else in line.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:38 pm
“ I can’t sit out, coach. I’ve got commitments to my sponsors. They won’t pay me if I don’t score enough.”
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:40 pm
Yep. Change hurts. On this front it leaves it on the team (basically the employer) to cultivate the right atmosphere to get players to stay.
It’s a multi-billion dollar industry, with millionaire head coaches, assistants making many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year - well past time to think about how all those dollars are made and properly compensate those athletes for their toil on the field.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:43 pm
@Downstate Explain to me why it’s a bad thing that players maximize their value in a free market of adults willing to spend the money. If your argument is competitive balance I’d say you could probably do a better job by banning Nick Saban from coaching or bulldozing the facilities in Oregon.
Comment by Chi Cat Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:46 pm
=== Explain to me why it’s a bad thing that players maximize their value in a free market of adults willing to spend the money.===
No state tax states are going to have a leg up in recruiting… maybe?
Why go to USC or Illinois when the endorsement money at Texas and Florida goes further?
Uniformity might help, but now it’s a income/tax/playing time question.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 2:55 pm
Chi Cat,
“why it’s a bad thing that players maximize their value”
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. It simply opens up the door for lots of interesting scenarios.
Top recruits can easily expect $1 million or more per year for their performance on the field.
But that will create some challenges as well. Presume you are a defensive end. You are getting $500/month in sponsorship money to guard a quarterback earning a million.
At the same time, imagine you are a standout with a sponsor paying you $1 million per year. And the sponsor comes to you and says, “I really need for the team to not cover the spread this weekend. They can win, just don’t cover the spread.”
Hard choices for an 18 year old to make.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:00 pm
When the unfunded player outperforms the million dollar star. What could possibly go wrong?
What is that term? Team chemistry? Jealousy?
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:17 pm
I imagine Title IX concerns might constrain the potential unequal nature between most schools. I can’t imagine Courts will look too fondly on a school boosters giving certain players on the football or men’s basketball team a million or so per year endorsement deal, and not doing the same for non-revenue producing women athletes. Even if it’s not coming directly from the school itself, it’s going to create some interesting dynamics and questions as this moves forward.
Comment by fs Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:18 pm
=== I imagine Title IX concerns might constrain the potential unequal nature between most schools. I can’t imagine Courts will look too fondly on a school boosters giving certain players on the football or men’s basketball team a million or so per year endorsement deal, and not doing the same for non-revenue producing women athletes.===
It’s a free market ruling, not about equity.
Nope.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:20 pm
Can’t wait to see which athlete gets the big cannabis endorsement. Or maybe Draft Kings.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:24 pm
@Oswego Why work in Chicago or LA if you can find a similar job in Houston or Miami? Why should Kris Bryant resign with the Cubs if the Marlins call? Better yet why go to USC now if your dollar goes further in Tallahassee?
Comment by Chi Cat Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:24 pm
- Chi Cat -
Meh.
What’s gonna happen is the SEC states are going to make any outside monies “exempt” up to … a million dollars… abd make sure that the SEC keeps the best football players in that conference, baseball, basketball…
The even playing field at least gives other conferences a chance under equal circumstances.
It’s like one and done basketball players going to Kentucky. Now imagine if playing at Kentucky means earning $900,000 in that ONE year, state tax free… at Kentucky, in the SEC… don’t get me started on SEC football.
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, they can compete with that?
“Ok”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 3:30 pm
The Buddy Garritys of the world are licking their chops - they can finally emerge from the shadows and become full-time player recruiters right there, out in the open. Imagine what Phil Knight of Nike is going to be paying players to come to Oregon … er, I mean, signing to endorsement contracts, not paying. T-Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State. On and on. At least for these good old boys, it’s going to be a much more efficient use of their sports money. Instead of having to buy stupid buildings and athletic offices and weight rooms with individual TVs at every locker, they can give the money directly to the guys they want.
And how will it affect universities? It doesn’t, because big time sports doesn’t impact universities (you know, the classes and teaching part) one bit. Maybe this will help chip away at that myth, which is almost as big a lie as the Trump Big Lie. My thoughts? It’s good work if you can get it.
Comment by filmmaker prof Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:02 pm
@Oswego Why should anyone care if Iowa, Nebraska & Minnesota aren’t competitive? Do we care that Ball State isn’t competitive? The SEC already prioritizes athletics. They already spend more on facilities and coaches. And frankly they already get way more talent. Why are we drawing the line at players profiting off of their value in a market that is willing to pay?
Comment by Chi Cat Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:08 pm
=== Why should anyone care if Iowa, Nebraska & Minnesota aren’t competitive?===
For one, the B1G Network will care. A great deal. As will ESPN, and as the conference becomes merely one or three teams, the value of having those games decrease.
It’s like being stuck watching the Baltimore Orioles play the Pittsburgh Pirates a whole college football season, to mix “metaphors and sports”, lol
It matters. Bowl games. Bowls care.
===Why are we drawing the line at players profiting off of their value in a market that is willing to pay?===
Oh, I don’t care. I thought for the betterment of college athletics, make it fair.
If you want Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota to be like Ball State, then have it it. The TV networks don’t.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:14 pm
=== At least for these good old boys, it’s going to be a much more efficient use of their sports money. Instead of having to buy stupid buildings and athletic offices and weight rooms with individual TVs at every locker, they can give the money directly to the guys they want.===
Prophetic by the Professor.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:15 pm
==Why should Kris Bryant resign with the Cubs if the Marlins call?==
Why would he even want to go to the Marlins in the first place?
Comment by EssentialStateEmployeeFromChatham Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:24 pm
@Oswego If the Big Ten Network cares than they can make sure their league pays fair market value for labor. If they don’t care they won’t.
Assuming the effect is even noticeably different than the disparity we see now between powerhouses and the rest of the field, I’m not going to cry for networks or Bowls at the expense of football players doing damage to their brain for pennys on the dollar.
Comment by Chi Cat Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:47 pm
=== If the Big Ten Network cares than they can make sure their league pays fair market value for labor. If they don’t care they won’t.===
It’s not the pay… who wants to play in Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota… when the other markets and states are more lucrative?
You have this all backwards. The athletes will drive the bus. Unless equity for all institutions can be mandated, it’ll be the Wild West, and Oregon became even better than it was before, Maryland (DC Market), Rutgers (tri-state NY) became better… Indiana (Bloomington?)… not as much.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 4:51 pm
@Oswego The point is restricting earnings from the athletes for the sake of competitive balance is BS. There isn’t competitive balance under the current system
Comment by Chi Cat Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 5:06 pm
=== The point is restricting earnings from the athletes for the sake of competitive balance is BS===
We’re gonna find out, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 5:07 pm
Alone…
===There isn’t competitive balance under the current system===
The money will drive choices, not conferences, allegiances, but markets, relationships, taxing earnings…
Conference bottom feeders thought they had it bad, wait till money and bidding begins, with not only coaches meeting with high school juniors and seniors, but tax attorneys, marketers…
… the equity to the institutions, you’d think the majority would want that without denying opportunities. Signing days gonna be like…
“Joe Schmoe signed with Florida, Disney World, PGA Superstores and Waffle House”
I mean, I’d go to Florida State with a Waffle House endorsement
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 5:13 pm
===Can’t wait to see which athlete gets the big cannabis endorsement. Or maybe Draft Kings.===
Blue, you should have read the bill before you put your foot in your keyboard. But once again, I enjoyed your self-own.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 9:42 pm
With this change there is no need for athletic scholarships. Just because you can play ball that shouldn’t mean you get a better education than those who can’t.
Comment by Just Me 2 Tuesday, Jun 29, 21 @ 10:39 pm