Thursday, Nov. 7, 2019
For years, the NCAA generated billions in revenue while athletes didn't receive a dime. After mounting pressure, they finally relented.
On Sept. 30, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that permits college athletes in the state to get paid for their name, image and likeness through endorsement deals, sponsorships, autograph signings and other similar opportunities.
Initially, the NCAA responded with a letter: “If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would … result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions.” Since then, lawmakers in at least 10 other states began crafting similar legislation, and on Oct. 29 the NCAA board of governors voted to permit student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.
Is this the end of college sports? Or the beginning of a long overdue process to compensate unpaid, hardworking student-athletes? Mark Nagel, professor from the University of South Carolina, Luke DeCock, columnist from the News & Observer, and Ekow Yankah, professor from Cardozo School of Law join us to determine whether the NCAA profits off the backs of young athletes or if it simply provides the entertainment and much needed revenue for universities across the nation.
GUESTS
Mark Nagel, Professor in the Department of Sport and Entertainment Management at the University of South Carolina (@mnagelusc)
Luke DeCock, Columnist for The News & Observer (@lukedecock)
Ekow Yankah, Professor at Cardozo School of Law and author of an essay in The New Yorker titled "Why NCAA Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid" (@ekownyankah)
