A bill in Illinois that would allow college athletes to be paid for the use of their image, name and likeness has passed the state House with "broad bipartisan support after lengthy debate," according to Jerry Nowicki of CAPITOL NEWS ILLINOIS. Illinois state Rep. Emanuel Welch called the NCAA's statement on the NIL issue a "PR stunt" that "completely lacks substance." Welch said, "Our bill has substance. Theirs is just a recommendation." During floor debate yesterday, Welch "took more than an hour of questioning from supporters and opponents of the bill, with many calling for greater discussion of protections of athletes and added language prohibiting unseemly endorsements, such as those from gambling companies." Welch committed to "discussing follow-up legislation before his bill's implementation" in '23 (CAPITOLNEWSILLINOIS.com, 10/30). Meanwhile, in St. Louis, Dave Matter notes Missouri will "soon join the party" on proposing NIL legislation. State Rep. Wes Rogers "plans to file a bill at the start of next year's session, in January, that will be similar to the new California law" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 10/31).
ROLL OUT THE BARREL: In Wisconsin, Kelly Meyerhofer reports state lawmakers from both parties are "drafting a bill that allows college athletes to hire outside agents and profit from their status" starting in '23. The Wisconsin bill, spearheaded by Rep. Dave Murphy, will "likely be released next week." Murphy on Tuesday wrote a letter to Univ. of Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez, who has "spoken out against changing student athlete compensation rules." Murphy wrote, "We cannot afford to sit this discussion out" (WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL, 10/31). In Milwaukee, Molly Beck notes the bill proposal comes after Alvarez said that he "wouldn't schedule games against California teams" in the wake of that state's similar bill, because he believed that the rules "make the players professionals" (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 10/31).
THOUGHTS FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE: A TAMPA BAY TIMES editorial states that the NCAA "did the right thing this week by moving into the 21st century" with its statement on the NIL issue. However it is "only responding to pressure from state lawmakers, and Florida should not let up." California lawmakers "cranked up the pressure" and now "other states are not backing down." The NCAA's statement is a "modest first step to treat athletes more fairly and appropriately allow them to have a modest slice of a much larger revenue pie they are generating." Florida "should join California and keep the pressure on the NCAA by passing legislation that would allow college athletes to be paid for the use of their name and likeness" (TAMPA BAY TIMES, 10/31). A South Florida SUN SENTINEL editorial states that the NCAA's announcement "comes with its usual dose of hypocritical claptrap about keeping college athletics 'amateur' or 'nonprofessional.'" It was "interesting this week to see how quickly the NCAA folded on the issue of college athletes earning money for their name and likeness." In the "face of federal legislation that would do the same thing, the organization obviously decided that the wise course was not to battle California or punish its schools for something state lawmakers did" (South Florida SUN SENTINEL, 10/31).
FORCED DECISION? In Louisville, Tim Sullivan writes the NCAA is not softening its stance on the NIL issue "because of inalienable rights or because it's the right thing to do but because the organization's heavy hand has been forced by the law, by lawmakers and by the inexorable tide of history" (Louisville COURIER JOURNAL, 10/31). In Tampa, John Romano writes the NCAA "would have been happy to continue with this sham if lawmakers in California hadn't recently passed" their NIL legislation (TAMPA BAY TIMES, 10/31). In Detroit, Shawn Windsor writes the NCAA "caved to the pressure ... sort of." It is "possible the announcement was a ruse meant to get politicians -- and their laws -- off the NCAA's back." But it "at least acknowledges the growing cultural admission that top student-athletes are worth far more than their scholarships" (DETROIT FREE PRESS, 10/31). ESPN's Jay Bilas said "you can argue" the NCAA's announcement to allow student-athletes to be compensated is "progress but what I really think is happening here is the NCAA is reacting to the different state legislatures and ... Congress that have been pushing them to do this, but it's also in large measure a delay tactic" ("OTL," ESPN, 10/30). In Phoenix, Kent Somers writes it is "impossible to determine the truth" in the NCAA's statement because it is "full of vague principles and guidelines." As for "clarity, the NCAA's announcement on NIL was nil in that department" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 10/31).
INTO THE FUTURE: CBSSPORTS.com's Matt Norlander wrote there is "no way" the NCAA's decision "could have been possible six months ago, let alone a year, two or 10." Norlander: "Not even close. So a dollop of credit there." But instead of action, the NCAA "brought a statement, one that's not satisfying many of its intended targets, politicians included" (CBSSPORTS.com, 10/30). In Providence, Ken Schreiber wrote the NCAA has "waved the white flag." Schreiber: "Why would this organization, which has embraced its role as the protector of amateur athletics, allow this law to change the face of amateur sports?" The answer is "simple," for its "own survival" (PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, 10/30). U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said, "This whole idea of using name, image and likeness as a way to compensate athletes could lead to some very unusual circumstances that need to be avoided." Romney said there could be "some movement here" from the NCAA but "if not, Congress will act to make some movement" ("OTL," ESPN, 10/30). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Jason Gay writes the news this week "should stop the fear mongering that is the end for college sports as we know them." It is a "gentle step to the right thing -- and the NCAA is finally on board" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/31).
