The California state Assembly’s recent passage of Assembly Bill 252 has raised concerns and stirred discussions about the future of college sports. Bill 252 would require colleges to share revenue with athletes, which raises many red flags for universities and athletic administrations alike.

The legislation mandates that universities in California use all new athletic revenue generated by sports like football and basketball to compensate players. This move has sparked apprehension among college sports officials nationwide, who see it as a significant threat to the traditional concept of amateur athletics.

In recent years, California has been at the forefront of advancing athlete compensation rights. The state has allowed athletes to be paid for their name, image, and likeness, and legal battles are intensifying regarding minimum wage and other employment benefits for athletes. The potential enactment of California’s College Athlete Protection Act is seen as a significant disruption to the traditional operation of university athletic departments.

According to the Los Angeles Times, under the proposed legislation, payments to players would follow a formula, with half of the revenue allocated to male athletes and half to female athletes each year. The funds would be distributed equally among players in revenue-generating programs, beyond the baseline established in 2021-2022, after deducting the cost of scholarships. The first player payday is set for March 2024, based on this year’s generated revenue.

This legislation could have far-reaching implications, challenging the existing model and prompting further discussions about the balance between amateurism and fair compensation for athletes. This legislation would also have an indirect implication on recruitment to such programs as star athletes tend to follow the biggest dollar signs. Would Assembly Bill 252 end up making a level playing field for collegiate athletes or expand the rift between the “haves and have nots” of college sports programs?