The Washington Post reports that Florida lawmakers want NCAA athletes to get paid as early as summer, 2020. Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane Sports Law Program, explains that the NCAA likely can't make a meaningful permanent change to compensate student-athletes that soon.

The Post reports:

"All eyes were on California last year when lawmakers worked to undo the NCAA’s tightly wound rules governing amateurism and banning athlete compensation. In September, the governor signed a bill allowing the state’s college athletes to seek endorsement dollars. It was landmark legislation, celebrated by athletes and their advocates, but it came with one caveat: The law doesn’t take effect until 2023.

Less than five months later, as statehouses across the country follow California’s example, the focus has shifted to Florida, where lawmakers are trying to upend the system much more quickly.

Florida, a college sports mecca that’s home to 13 Division I universities and more than 50 smaller schools and junior colleges, is one of two states considering bills that would take effect this summer, potentially opening the doors for athletes to begin seeking out financial opportunities before the next college football season kicks off.

An earlier effective date would present big problems for the NCAA, the governing body for college sports, because it would open the doors to athlete compensation before the organization can amend its rules. After California’s law passed last year, the NCAA announced that it would consider rule changes to allow athletes to profit from their fame. But the organization’s timeline calls for “continued discussion” lasting through the summer, with final proposals due to the board of governors by Nov. 1. A vote on any rule changes isn’t expected until its annual convention in January.

“The NCAA, regardless of their motivation and their ultimate plan, cannot move as fast as July 2020,” said Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane Sports Law Program. “It would be hard for the NCAA and the individual divisions and bureaucratic structures to come up with any meaningful permanent change within the next few months.”

The NCAA did not make an official available to be interviewed for this story. Donald Remy, the organization’s chief operating officer, appeared at a Georgetown Law School symposium last week and made clear that the NCAA is no longer debating whether athletes should be able to take advantage of some opportunities. It’s debating the best way to do it, he said. “Over time, it appears, the system has gotten askew. So we want to make sure we give those students that same opportunity that other students might have,” he said. “But you also want to make sure that, as you make modifications, you don’t undermine the system that we have that allows for college athletics to be something that’s fair, appropriate and equitable across the United States. And one of the challenges to that are some of these state laws because it puts us in a position where you can’t have parity and equity.”

If nationwide guidelines aren’t established, states that pass laws with earlier effective dates could give athletes at their schools an advantage of sorts, allowing them to cash checks that aren’t available elsewhere. It’s a scenario that worries many stakeholders, from coaches to NCAA officials: Some schools could have a recruiting advantage if their state allows endorsement dollars while others do not.

Whether change comes from the states or Congress, there are endless wrinkles to be ironed out, NCAA officials warn. The organization’s rulebook prohibits any form of endorsement dollars, which means there will be enforcement and eligibility questions. The NCAA is also concerned about any legislation that lacks restrictions, guidelines or any sort of monitoring apparatus. Plus: What role should the schools play? Is there a way to encourage fairness across divisions, conferences and school programs, including Olympic sports and women’s teams?

Feldman laid out possible scenarios for how this debate could play out in Florida. The legislature there could simply alter the bill’s language and pass legislation with a later effective date, he said. If the governor did sign into law a proposal that busts open the doors this summer, the NCAA would have to decide whether to ignore the law and enforce its longstanding rules or challenge the law in court.

“The NCAA could try to block the legislation in court and argue that this is an issue that needs to be handled at the federal level and not the state level, arguing that state law would be preempted by the commerce laws,” he said. Or, he said, it could ask the courts “to step in to protect the uniformity of the NCAA rules as courts have done in the past.”

That could trigger a separate legal battle, he said, with Florida officials arguing that the NCAA is violating its newly passed law.

In any scenario, it could get messy. And in the absence of uniform rules, many of the stakeholders are bracing themselves for at least a period when athletes in some states can get paid and athletes in other states can’t.

“We live in a world of college sports where there’s competitive imbalance, and this might heighten that competitive imbalance,” Feldman said. “But I think we’d eventually get to a point where states and schools have adjusted, but it might be an ugly period before we actually reach that point.""