Movement To Compensate College Athletes Slows Down In Florida Legislature

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) – A movement that would allow college athletes the right to profit from endorsement deals is slowing down in the Florida legislature.

The latest issue is whether or not the athletes should get revenue-sharing paydays when they leave campus.

Before voting to back a controversial compensation bill (SB 646), members of the Senate Innovation, Industry and Technology Committee on Monday made clear they would reject a proposed amendment by Sen. Randolph Bracy that would have required colleges and universities to provide each college athlete a share of all ticket sales from the time when the athlete was in school.

“If you look at the billions of dollars generated by these student-athletes, we should have a revenue- sharing model,” said Bracy, an Orlando Democrat who played basketball at the College of William & Mary.

The proposal called for athletes to receive pro-rata shares of 10 percent of ticket sales.

When spread to all athletes, regardless of sport, it wouldn’t be “a grand scale of money” for each person, Bracy said before withdrawing his proposal. Committee members questioned if the proposal would make college athletes essentially professionals, a charge that has confronted the main compensation measure as it has advanced through Senate and House committees.

“If athletes are going to be compensated, whether outright compensation or for this revenue-sharing concept, I think we also have to take a look at how much money is expended for scholarships and upkeep,” Rep. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, said.

Bill sponsor Debbie Mayfield, R-Rockledge, said the intent of the bill is to avoid paying student athletes for on-field play but to allow them to earn money from the notoriety that comes with playing college sports.

Bracy, Mayfield and other lawmakers filed bills for this year’s legislative session after California in 2019 passed a law that will allow college athletes to hire agents and sign endorsement deals starting in 2023.

The Florida proposal has shifted to a “bill of rights” that outlines how student-athletes at schools in the state can make money off their “name, image, likeness or persona.”

Mayfield amended her proposal Monday to prohibit booster clubs and primary members of such organizations from directly providing off-field compensation to students. Mayfield also put in a requirement that colleges and universities conduct financial literacy and life skills workshops with student-athletes. That is also part of the House version of the bill (HB 7051).

Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, added a change that would delay implementing the compensation measure from this July to July 1, 2021.

After the California law was signed and Gov. Ron DeSantis announced support for similar legislative efforts in Florida, the NCAA Board of Governors in October directed its three collegiate sports divisions to consider updates to bylaws and policies, with a January 2021 deadline to address compensation issues.

“They are going to propose potential approaches to this issue that I think provides a little more fairness and justice to our student-athletes,” Bradley said. “I would just personally — and I hope my colleagues feel the same way — like to see what they come up with. And I’d like to do so in a way that doesn’t disadvantage our student-athletes while they have that dialogue and discussion.”

Mayfield’s proposal must next go before the Rules Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto, a Fort Myers Republican who raised questions Monday about issues related to agents, recruiting and the classes college athletes would be required to take.

The House and Senate proposals would prohibit colleges and universities receiving state aid from putting restrictions on athletes earning compensation or receiving professional representation. Schools wouldn’t be able to revoke or reduce scholarships of athletes who earn off-field pay.

The proposal also would prohibit college athletes from making personal deals that conflict with the terms of team contracts. The House also would require schools to provide athletes with health and disability insurance.

(©2020 CBS Local Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The News Service of Florida’s Jim Turner contributed to this report.)

Movement To Compensate College Athletes Slows Down In Florida Legislature

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) – A movement that would allow college athletes the right to profit from endorsement deals is slowing down in the Florida legislature.

The latest issue is whether or not the athletes should get revenue-sharing paydays when they leave campus.

Before voting to back a controversial compensation bill (SB 646), members of the Senate Innovation, Industry and Technology Committee on Monday made clear they would reject a proposed amendment by Sen. Randolph Bracy that would have required colleges and universities to provide each college athlete a share of all ticket sales from the time when the athlete was in school.

“If you look at the billions of dollars generated by these student-athletes, we should have a revenue- sharing model,” said Bracy, an Orlando Democrat who played basketball at the College of William & Mary.

The proposal called for athletes to receive pro-rata shares of 10 percent of ticket sales.

When spread to all athletes, regardless of sport, it wouldn’t be “a grand scale of money” for each person, Bracy said before withdrawing his proposal. Committee members questioned if the proposal would make college athletes essentially professionals, a charge that has confronted the main compensation measure as it has advanced through Senate and House committees.

“If athletes are going to be compensated, whether outright compensation or for this revenue-sharing concept, I think we also have to take a look at how much money is expended for scholarships and upkeep,” Rep. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, said.

Bill sponsor Debbie Mayfield, R-Rockledge, said the intent of the bill is to avoid paying student athletes for on-field play but to allow them to earn money from the notoriety that comes with playing college sports.

Bracy, Mayfield and other lawmakers filed bills for this year’s legislative session after California in 2019 passed a law that will allow college athletes to hire agents and sign endorsement deals starting in 2023.

The Florida proposal has shifted to a “bill of rights” that outlines how student-athletes at schools in the state can make money off their “name, image, likeness or persona.”

Mayfield amended her proposal Monday to prohibit booster clubs and primary members of such organizations from directly providing off-field compensation to students. Mayfield also put in a requirement that colleges and universities conduct financial literacy and life skills workshops with student-athletes. That is also part of the House version of the bill (HB 7051).

Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, added a change that would delay implementing the compensation measure from this July to July 1, 2021.

After the California law was signed and Gov. Ron DeSantis announced support for similar legislative efforts in Florida, the NCAA Board of Governors in October directed its three collegiate sports divisions to consider updates to bylaws and policies, with a January 2021 deadline to address compensation issues.

“They are going to propose potential approaches to this issue that I think provides a little more fairness and justice to our student-athletes,” Bradley said. “I would just personally — and I hope my colleagues feel the same way — like to see what they come up with. And I’d like to do so in a way that doesn’t disadvantage our student-athletes while they have that dialogue and discussion.”

Mayfield’s proposal must next go before the Rules Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto, a Fort Myers Republican who raised questions Monday about issues related to agents, recruiting and the classes college athletes would be required to take.

The House and Senate proposals would prohibit colleges and universities receiving state aid from putting restrictions on athletes earning compensation or receiving professional representation. Schools wouldn’t be able to revoke or reduce scholarships of athletes who earn off-field pay.

The proposal also would prohibit college athletes from making personal deals that conflict with the terms of team contracts. The House also would require schools to provide athletes with health and disability insurance.

(©2020 CBS Local Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The News Service of Florida’s Jim Turner contributed to this report.)

New Proposals Could Squeeze Florida Ballot Initiatives

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) — New proposals have emerged in the Florida House and Senate that would make it harder to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.

The House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee this week are slated to take up newly filed measures that would increase petition-signature requirements for political committees backing ballot initiatives.

The proposals come as the Republican-controlled House and Senate also are moving forward with other bills that would place additional restrictions on the petition-signature process.

The newly filed proposals (House PCB JDC 20-07 and Senate SPB 7062) are scheduled to be heard Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee and Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact that they are emerging more than halfway through the legislative session in the key committees indicates they likely have support from House and Senate leaders.

Currently, backers of ballot initiatives must meet two petition-signature requirements to take proposed constitutional amendments to voters. Both requirements are based on a calculation of 8 percent of the number of votes cast in the last presidential election year.

One of the requirements involves submitting an overall number of petition signatures that equal 8 percent of the votes cast statewide. For proposed constitutional amendments on the 2018 and 2020 ballots, that equated to submitting 766,200 petition signatures statewide, based on the number of votes cast in the 2016 election.

The other requirement says backers of ballot initiatives must submit petitions signatures that equal 8 percent of the votes cast in at least half of Florida’s congressional districts — in effect forcing political committees to get signatures from various parts of the state. In 2018 and 2020, that meant hitting the target numbers in 14 of 27 congressional districts.

The newly filed legislative proposals would make it harder to meet that second requirement. They would mandate backers of proposed constitutional amendments meet the targets in all congressional districts — not half.

The targets vary, as the number of votes cast in congressional districts during the 2016 election varied. But requiring political committees to meet the targets in all congressional districts would be more expensive and time-consuming than the current requirement.

Republican leaders and influential groups such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce have made a series of attempts in recent years to make it harder to pass ballot initiatives. Much of their focus has been on making changes in the petition-signature process, which can cost millions of dollars as initiative backers hire paid petition gatherers to fan out to different areas of the state.

Political committees have met the signature requirements to place as many as four constitutional amendments on the November 2020 ballot.

Business groups oppose one of those amendments, which would gradually increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. The state Republican and Democratic parties oppose another proposed amendment, which would revamp the state’s primary-election system. While the primary measure has received enough signatures, it is still awaiting a ruling from the Florida Supreme Court about whether its wording meets legal requirements.

The newly filed legislative proposals, if passed by the House and Senate, would have to be ratified by voters during the November election. That is because they would involve changing part of the state Constitution that deals with petition signatures.

House and Senate committees, meanwhile, have been steadily moving forward with two controversial bills that would place a series of new restrictions on the petition-gathering process. Those bills (HB 7037 and SB 1794) would not require voter ratification. They are scheduled to be heard Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee and Wednesday in the Senate Rules Committee.

(©2020 CBS Local Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The News Service of Florida’s Jim Saunders contributed to this report.)