Recruiting Football Talk VII

#79,031
#79,031
drylo said:
It’s a school sport. The legal argument you just made above would make any restrictions on compensating athletes illegal in every sports league in the country, including high school sports, middle school sports, etc.

And the moral argument you’re making (that the athletes “deserve” to be paid, etc.) would mean the same for high school athletes presumably too. After all, high school coaches and ADs get paid — why shouldn’t the players?

And I’m not quite sure, but you may even be going further and making a legal argument that it is illegal for schools not to pay athletes… in which case, this would also apply to high schools as well — and probably cheerleaders, marching band members, etc.
Click to expand...
It's illegal to collude. It's illegal for all the schools to agree to pay zero. That's true of any industry, you can't all agree to set a mandatory industry maximum for paying participants.

All your responses are indicating you're not grasping the core of the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush and BigSteve09
#79,041
#79,041
drylo said:
It’s a school sport. The legal argument you just made above would make any restrictions on compensating athletes illegal in every sports league in the country, including high school sports, middle school sports, etc.

And the moral argument you’re making (that the athletes “deserve” to be paid, etc.) would mean the same for high school athletes presumably too. After all, high school coaches and ADs get paid — why shouldn’t the players?

And I’m not quite sure, but you may even be going further and making a legal argument that it is illegal for schools not to pay athletes… in which case, this would also apply to high schools as well — and probably cheerleaders, marching band members, etc.
Click to expand...
I am.

And again, the "it also exists there" argument isn't a valid response to a critique. Your job is to refute why it isn't illegal..

AGAIN, brother...

In an opinion attached to its NIL ruling, the Supreme Court has already more than hinted to the NCAA that their system is in breach of anti-trust law--that if their system depends on colluding to prevent pay of athletes, then it will be eviscerated when challenged in front of them. The SCOTUS has looked at the NCAA's arguments for exclusion from Anti-Trust laws, pushed it back, and said, "Nice try. You'll know what to expect if you try to stand on this and it comes in front of us."

That's the issue. COLLUSION to prevent a free market--most especially in a multi-billion dollar market. No one is saying that any one university has to pay athletes. Just that none of them can jointly collude to infringe the free wage market.

You're not just arguing with me. You are railing against the written opinion from the SCOTUS.

Why do you think the NCAA has been so feckless on NIL and transfers? Because they are afraid to do anything. They are scared to death that they will be brought back to SCOTUS.

The NCAA is a fossil. It is an ancient model that only stayed alive because no one challenged it. It's a dead org walking.
 
#79,046
#79,046
85SugarVol said:
If you removed the current 85, and replaced them with walkons - people would still go watch “Tennessee” in Neyland.

If our 85 walkons were trouncing other team’s 85 walkons - people would fill the stadium.
Click to expand...
Not if those 85 were getting shellacked and fought their way to a 1-11 season playing against paid athletes. VN has already proven they won't support a losing PRODUCT.

And that's what would happen in a free market, when UT decided not to pay players.

And any system that COLLUDES to prevent or cap pay scale is a breach to anti-trust law.
 
#79,049
#79,049
Orange_Crush said:
NCAA football is in clear breach of Antitrust law. Period. That doesn't mean that a university HAS to pay athletes. It just means that it's illegal for NCAA univiersiTIES to conspire to wage-set the system. As SOON as that happens, it's a clear breach of federal antitrust law.

The recent Supreme Court opinion on NIL basically told the NCAA that, and warned them that if their business depends on unpaid athletes, they will rue the day the come back in front of them.
Click to expand...
NCAA football is not “in clear breach of antitrust law.” The model has been directly challenged and upheld in the federal courts. At best, you could say that there are some reasons to believe that courts may take a different view in future cases.

And whatever the courts have said or may say about how the 1800s Sherman Act may or may not apply to college football, I am of the view that high schools should be able to sponsor athletic teams and create a league where the schools in that league agree to rules about whether and how much they pay people to play on their sports teams.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top