With NCAA in court, Senate panel OKs allowing SC college athletes to get paid
A bipartisan committee of South Carolina lawmakers voted unanimously Wednesday to send to the Senate floor a bill that would allow S.C. college athletes to profit of their name, image or likeness.
The bill, which sets out parameters for college athletes to enter into profitable contracts, has the support of colleges across the state and would make South Carolina the eighth state to allow such a practice.
South Carolina’s bill is part of a nationwide push to give college athletes a way to profit off of their images. California was the first state to pass a law that would allow collegiate athletes to collect endorsement deals in September 2019. Their law is set to take effect in 2023.
But other states are lining up to allow student athletes to get paid sooner. Florida’s law, passed in June 2020, would allow athletes to receive compensation for use of their name, image and likeness starting in July 2021.
Federal legislation has also been filed this year to allow student athletes to profit off of their names, images or likenesses. The bill in Congress would make it an enshrined right that could not be limited at all by the NCAA, the governing body of college sports.
Though states have passed legislation allowing students to profit, none have gone into effect just yet. Meanwhile, under pressure from the state actions, the NCAA is exploring the matter with its members, in an effort to find a national solution.
NCAA president Mark Emmert has come out against states creating a patchwork of laws, adding that he worries that students will base their school choices on where they can get paid, ESPN reported. Florida’s and other states’ laws put pressure on the NCAA to quickly change their national regulations on player pay, ESPN reported.
South Carolina’s push to pass a bill and have it go into effect by July 2022 is partially fueled by concerns that states without laws allowing athletes to be compensated will have a natural disadvantage when it comes to recruitment.
South Carolina’s bill would specifically not allow colleges to line up contracts or deals for athletes in order to lure them to universities. However, prohibiting South Carolina students to profit of their likenesses could have an impact on their decision between going to school in South Carolina or other states that do allow outside endorsement deals, Sen. Greg Hembree, R-Horry, said.
The bill would allow students to seek out and enter contracts with third parties to get paid for the use of their name, image or likeness, either on their own or through an agent. The bill specifically bans getting paid for student’s athletic performance.
The bill has come caveats, though. Student-athletes could not enter into contracts that conflict with their educational or athletic scheduling. They would also not be allowed to endorse tobacco, illegal substances, alcohol or illegal activities.
A student-athlete also would be barred from using the school’s facilities, uniforms, logos or trademarks in contracts. However, the company seeking the endorsement could work with the university to get permission to use their logos.
Lawmakers added several provisions to the bill Wednesday that would protect students from being taken advantage of by an agent.
Sen. Scott Talley, R-Spartanburg, introduced an amendment that would cap how much money an agent could make on each contract at 10%, a number based on existing practices at the professional level, where agents receive anywhere from 10-20%, he said.
“This is a protection for both the student athlete and our institutions of higher learning,” Talley said. “We are putting in some guard rails so people don’t come in and take advantage of our student athletes.”
Talley’s amendment would also raise the fees for athletic agents to register in the state. The fee increase is aimed at compensating for the influx of agents that may register in the state once the bill passes. To deal with the influx, Department of Consumer Affairs staff will need more resources, Tally said.
The amendment would also require the Department of Consumer Affairs to show on their website which agents are in good standing with the department.
Talley’s amendment was adopted.
As lawmakers met Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a college athlete pay case. The NCAA is facing allegations that it violated federal antitrust laws by stopping college athletes from being paid.
The lower courts have ruled that the NCAA was not allowed to limit compensation and benefits for athletes. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, though, the NCAA argued that allowing students to be paid would eliminate the distinction between college and professional sports.
Regardless of the lawsuit, the NCAA is expected to pass their own route for students to profit on their names, images and likenesses by August.
