Again, you've got it ass backwards. Your last paragraph is what is coming without an anti-trust exemption. Congress can draft an anti-trust exemption essentially any way they want to. It's their law. Hell, there are proposed anti-trust exemptions in committee right now that don't include any of that.
I would agree with this 99 times out of 100, but this is the 1. And it's because Anti-Trust is their law, they are the only ones who can amend it legally in a way which would allow for revenue sharing with athletes, but at the same time preserve college sports in anything remotely resembling what it has always been (associated with the schools, multiple sports, sports for women, including most of the sports not making any money, etc.).
So the new law is presented in the House, has to pass, goes to Senate, has to pass, goes to the President's desk to be signed/or not, if not goes back to override veto (what majority vote does this take?), or rewrite the law, try again, then subject to constitutionality with Supreme Court. This ain't happening, not in our current political climate of nothing getting done, because of incessant fighting. It would take years or decades for anything to be done and who knows if they get it right.
The proposed anti trust exemption legislation is unlikely to make it out of committee. If it does, it's unlikely to pass both houses of Congress. It then has to pass judicial review by the courts. Also unlikely. If it does, say hello to the other aspects of pro sports did used above. It's one of the other. You don't get to have it both ways.
You really don't understand this, do you?
I think, and I certainly don't know, the lawsuits to get rid of the "attend college" rules will start shortly after we see the schools start "revenue sharing." That makes logical sense because that's a guaranteed, paid by the school, chunk of the money that's generated from their work.
That would be laid out in their "job description", we are "hiring" you to perform certain duties and training and the position you are applying for requires that you attend job training courses (classes), pass the courses (classes) and also perform the duties laid out in the sport (job) you are applying for. You are also subject to termination for not fulfilling your job requirements. Especially in right to work states.
If you like pro sports, that's how it seems to work.
You don't understand it. At all. All that's coming if Congress doesn't act, plus women's and non-revenue sports will go away (that's what will drive a political compromise). The University will sell the football and basketball programs to Vols, Inc. and maybe lease Neyland Stadium for games, but college sports is over without an anti-trust exemptionCongress can write one however they want, if they write one, college sports has a chance, if they don't, there's no chance, in 10 years CFB will be no more significant than minor league baseball, just a shiddier version of the NFL.
I wish I had your faith that concern for women's sports and non revenue sports will spur Congress into action.
With the inevitable Players Union negotiating for the players, yes. In pro sports, the owners and players have a "vigorous back and forth" about various rules, requirements, salaries, etc.
Yes, schools can create job positions and job descriptions and requirements.
The reason those workers have little power and can be jerked around by the school and made to do things is because a big pool of people can fill those positions.
