It started with money, as it so often does in a world of college athletics. For decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) raked in billions from television contracts, sponsorships, and merchandise built on the backs of student-athletes, who were banned from profiting from their own names, images, and likenesses (NIL).
In 2019, California lawmakers decided to call the NCAA’s bluff by passing Senate Bill 206 and becoming the first state to grant college athletes the right to profit from their NIL. The bill, authored by State Senators Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford, passed unanimously in both chambers of the California Legislature and was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in dramatic fashion: live on LeBron James’s HBO show “The Shop.”
SB 206 did not immediately allow Californian athletes to cash in, however. The law was set to take effect in January 2023, giving universities and the NCAA time to adjust. Nevertheless, its passage sent shockwaves through college athletics. Facing a cascade of similar bills emerging across the country, the NCAA had no choice but to act. In July 2021, two years before California’s law was supposed to take effect, the organization lifted its nationwide NIL ban.
This climactic moment signaled a quivering shift in the politics of college sports. By staging the signing on a nationally televised platform, California transformed what might have remained a niche policy dispute into a national reckoning over fairness, power, and money in college sports. What was once confined to committee hearings and legal memos was now unfolding on prime-time television and across social media feeds.
The NCAA’s long-standing arguments – that compensating athletes would “negatively impact” them or create chaos – rang hollow once the issue became publicized. When the organization threatened to bar California schools from competition, it only reinforced the perception that the NCAA was prioritizing its own billion-dollar business model at the expense of athletes. When a letter from NCAA leadership warning Gov. Newsom about potential competition bans was leaked to the press, it provoked immediate backlash. Headlines cast the NCAA as a “bully,” and lawmakers seized on the moment to frame the fight as California standing up for its students against a million-dollar bureaucracy.
In Sacramento, that framing proved politically unassailable. Supporting SB 206 meant siding with fairness and opportunity, while opposing it meant defending the NCAA’s monopoly on power. The bill breezed through the California Legislature without question, a rare show of unity in California politics that demonstrates how thoroughly the state had won the battle. By amplifying the voices of athletes such as UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi and Stanford’s Hayley Hodson, and by staging the signing with LeBron James, California successfully reframed SB 206 as a question of equity.
Just two years later, the NCAA reversed course, lifting its nationwide ban on NIL deals. Dozens of states followed California’s lead, confirming what Sacramento politicians already knew: when California moves fiercely, the rest of the nation scrambles to catch up. Just as it has with other recognizable issues such as climate change and consumer protections, California once again positioned itself as a state that sets the national agenda by challenging entrenched practices.
That legacy continues today. The House v. NCAA settlement, approved this summer, represents the most significant shift in college sports since SB 206. The $2.8 billion agreement requires direct payments to student-athletes and compensates former players for years of lost NIL opportunities. Starting June 6, 2025, schools will be allowed to share revenue directly with athletes – a step that would have been unimaginable without California’s influence and SB 206.
Unlike NIL deals, which allow athletes to earn money from sponsorships and social media promotions, direct revenue sharing means that universities themselves will pay athletes a portion of the revenue generated from TV contracts, ticket sales, and other sources. By forcing the NCAA to abandon its hard-line amateurism stance in 2019, California opened the door for lawsuits such as House to succeed. Once again, California demonstrated how state-level confrontation can transform long-standing institutions.
The impact is already clear. Nationwide, student-athletes have already signed over $1 billion in NIL deals since 2021. However, the distribution has been uneven, as more than half of all NIL dollars have gone to football players, with men’s basketball following in second place. Regardless, NIL has created many stars. Louisiana State gymnast Olivia Dunne, for example, has exploited her athletic achievements and social media platforms into multi-million dollar sponsorships with nationally recognized brands. USC’s Bronny James, even before competing a full collegiate season, signed endorsement deals thanks to his family name and public profile.
Yet for most student-athletes, the story is far less glamorous. The vast majority of athletes receive modest sums from smaller-scale sponsorships or social media posts. According to Opendorse, the average Division I NIL deal is worth a few hundred dollars – hardly life-changing income when weighed against the hours spent on training and competition demands.
This disparity in NIL funding is representative of broader inequalities in the college sports marketplace. NIL opportunities are concentrated in sports that already have national attention. Athletes in Olympic and non-revenue-generating sports see limited opportunities. Many gender disparities also persist, as women’s sports overall receive a smaller share of NIL earnings.
What is clear, however, is the state’s role in driving this transformation. By moving first, California shattered the NCAA’s monopoly on power and dared other states to follow in hot pursuit. It was yet another reminder of California’s unique ability to govern the conversation about fairness in college athletics and beyond.
Featured Image Source: @CAGovernor on X
