Over the last decade, the NCAA has fought especially hard to maintain its heavily criticized amateur model. It has not only held off calls for players to be paid directly by schools, but also stymied individuals' ability to profit off their name, image and likeness.
Could that model change soon?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act (SB 206) into law on Monday, meaning that, starting in 2023, college athletes in that state will be able to maintain their eligibility while profiting off their name, image and likeness. They'll be able to hire agents, sell autographs and merchandise, accept endorsement deals and — what many people have been waiting for the most — sell their image to appear in a college sports video game.
MORE: The Supreme Court left college video games in limbo after Ed O'Bannon case
There hasn't been a licensed college football video game since the 2013 release of "NCAA Football 14." College basketball goes back even further, to 2009. The Fair Pay to Play Act represents a major milestone in bringing those franchises back, but it's far from the ultimate resolution needed for the return of either.
This latest development will not trigger anything right now in regard to the development of a new "NCAA Football" game. To begin, the law — which only affects California schools — won't go into effect until 2023 at the earliest. Video game developers won't want to produce a college football game with only those universities involved.
The hope expressed by Newsom is that this legislation will lead to similar laws being passed in other states that don't want their athletic programs hindered by a recruiting disadvantage. That in turn would build enough momentum to force the NCAA to relent on its current amateur model (though the organization will likely continue to address NIL rights on its own timeline).
It's possible the NCAA, conferences, and possibly even the schools themselves will take to the courts in an effort to block the legislation. That has been threatened previously (in addition to banning California schools from postseason play), though not specifically cited in the comments made following Gov. Newsom's signing of the bill.
"We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education," the NCAA said in a statement.
From the Pac-12: "This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes."
MORE: Why college sports video games disappeared and have yet to return
EA Sports is not going to develop a new college football video game until the company knows it is no longer at risk for being sued. That will only happen if the partners it needs to produce the game — the universities — are on board. It will also require a method in which to pay the athletes for their rights; in doing so the games will, for the first time, feature the real players.
It's also unclear how EA Sports will compensate players, whether by negotiating with more than 10,000 players every year or by using a union, similar to professional leagues. While it's possible many players might accept a copy of the game in exchange for their rights, there would be players with enough starpower to expect greater compensation. A potential concern is that the rosters would be only partially accurate in that scenario. A union would ensure that the rosters were 100 percent complete, but there are major complications that may prevent that from happening.
The workaround in previous college sports games was to create playable avatars that resembled real-life counterparts but had generic names or were listed simply by their position and number (e.g., "QB #13"). They would be recognizable to fans who would later edit the names. That led to multiple lawsuits, however, including the class-action suit O'Bannon v. NCAA. EA Sports, a co-defendant alongside the NCAA in that suit, settled its way out of court and decided to cease production of the game when conferences and schools started dropping out shortly thereafter.
In a perfect world, "NCAA Football 20" would have released in July, with the players featured compensated in some way for their appearance in the game. Unfortunately, six years have passed since the last edition in the series, and there are still several more to go until its possible return. The Fair Pay to Play Act is a big step toward that end, but it's still just a single step.
The circumstances are bound to change several more times before any determination can be made to greenlight a new "NCAA Football" game.
Bryan Wiedey posts sports gaming news and analysis daily at Pastapadre.com, is co-founder of the sports gaming site HitThePass.com, hosts the "Press Row Podcast" and can be reached on Twitter @Pastapadre.