Josh Pate Says It (The College Sports Crisis)

#76
#76
S.C. OrangeMan said:
How many times does it have to be said that is fair market value? It's not a drop in the bucket.


"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate
Under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

"The NCAA is not above the law."to

SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring opinion
NCAA vs Alston

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the athletes 9-0 in that case, in a court that is bitterly divided ideologically. Do you know how bad the NCAA model has to be to not get a single vote from the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
Have you even read the Alston opinion? It point blank shuts down your whole argument, this is from the opinion of the court (i.e. the 9-0 part, not Kavanaugh's concurrence):

"The “orderly way” to temper that Act's policy of competition is “by legislation and not by court decision.” Flood, 407 U.S. at 279, 92 S.Ct. 2099. The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 689, 98 S.Ct. 1355. Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. §§ 291–292 (agricultural cooperatives); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1804 (newspaper joint operating agreements). But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone—“competition is the best method of allocating resources” in the Nation's economy. National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 695, 98 S.Ct. 1355."

Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 96, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2160, 210 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2021)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SayUWantAreVOLution and tbh
#77
#77
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Market forces will regulate it right into non-existence. If you have players holding out routinely, changing teams from week to week, you are gonna kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and that is, fan interest. There have to be rules, all of the pro sports have them, right now there are no enforceable rules and it's not sustainable. It's a joke. If you are making money off of it, I get what you want to hang onto the status quo, but it's shortsighted.
Click to expand...
I believe that is the final result. I'm convinced the major schools are prepared to own pro franchises. The media money is too big to give up.

I think several schools (SEC and B1G, primarily) will let the rest of college athletics at lesser schools deal with NIL, transfers, etc and go pro, negotiate with a players union, create a draft, etc, etc with the protection of being affiliated with the major sports businesses.

This effectively destroys smaller revenue athletic departments or absolutely forces Congress to get to work to save it.

Meanwhile schools like UT become a "farm team" without any academics involved, sign media deals, draft players, and essentially operate as pro teams owned by universities.

Whether they maintain non-revenue sports or not won't matter because the pro sports is a separate business owned by the school.

That continues the business for the school, attaches the business to the major sports (no doubt for a cut of the revenue) for the Antitrust Exemption, and gives the revenue sports an established structure to use for trades, salary caps, etc.

I no longer believe the schools want to continue to blend the sports business with the academics business. I think they're done with the ruse of "student athletes" at schools like UT. They aren't even trying to pretend now that academics are remotely involved.
 
#80
#80
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Somebody could take 100 million dollars right now and outbid everyone in the current market by 2.5 times. That is 1/1000th of 100 billion dollars. Extravagantly wealthy people spend all sorts of money on vanity projects. Somebody like Musk could step in and dominate the sport currently. It's just a matter of time really.
Click to expand...

Of course they could but I am assuming the point is to keep it going long term, not just a one year. Throwing out a 100 million dollars is a lot of cash. I don't believe those numbers and very few people have that kind of cash to throw around
 
#83
#83
unfrozencvmanvol said:
The SCOTUS ruling in the Alston case that college sports were not immune from the Antitrust laws opened Pandora's box and made college sports ungovernable. The only way to close the box is for Congress to change the Antitrust laws to allow an exemption for college sports. To pass it there will have to be a compromise. There will have to be revenue sharing but there can be enforcable rules then.
Click to expand...
yeah, revenue sharing, probably including the congress :)
 
#84
#84
unfrozencvmanvol said:
The SCOTUS ruling in the Alston case that college sports were not immune from the Antitrust laws opened Pandora's box and made college sports ungovernable. The only way to close the box is for Congress to change the Antitrust laws to allow an exemption for college sports. To pass it there will have to be a compromise. There will have to be revenue sharing but there can be enforcable rules then.
Click to expand...
I'm uncertain that NIL restrictions will ever work legally. I'm not an attorney but it seems extremely invasive to someone's personal life to prevent them from capitalizing on their NIL.

I know that's not how it's being used to pay players but the legal concept of a company saying you can't use your NIL seems weird. I've not got access to legally research it, of course, but pros aren't restricted, non athlete students aren't restricted.
 
#86
#86
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I'm uncertain that NIL restrictions will ever work legally. I'm not an attorney but it seems extremely invasive to someone's personal life to prevent them from capitalizing on their NIL.

I know that's not how it's being used to pay players but the legal concept of a company saying you can't use your NIL seems weird. I've not got access to legally research it, of course, but pros aren't restricted, non athlete students aren't restricted.
Click to expand...
If Congress provides that it can be regulated without violating antitrust, it will be legal. As I noted above in reference to the Stark and Anti-Kickback laws, Congress already requires financial relationships to be non-sham, arms length transactions for fair market value in other areas, and can certainly do so with NIL in college football, moreover they could regulate it more broadly than that on the basis that participation in college football is voluntary. Many of us in every day life have belonged to private organizations which restrict things we can do, if we break those rules, we can be kicked out. It's the same principle here, that's how essentially all of college football's rules worked UNTIL the NCAA was deemed a monopoly which violates antitrust, if there is no longer a monopoly problem, voluntary participation would be another basis for regulating it again.
 
#87
#87
Tennman said:
yeah, revenue sharing, probably including the congress :)
Click to expand...
Like I said, their 17% approval rating is well deserved. It's just that they are already involved because it's their laws that are the problem and only they can change them. I will stipulate though that being a position where "only Congress can help you" is about the most desperate situation in which one can find oneself. That is literally the posture college sports is in though.
 
#88
#88
The Original Fade said:
Stop using the word exploited. It implies college athletes were forced to play under terms they didn’t agree to. That’s not the case, every college athlete knew exactly what they were signing up for in the pre-NIL era.
Click to expand...
I'll use it as often as I please. It's factual, no matter how much you dislike it due to your previous conditioning.

Exploitation doesn't manically disappear because those being exploited have no better choices at the time. That's EXACTLY why it fits the textbook definition ofby exploitation.

You're absolutely using a Strawman argument. I never said that anyone was forced to play. That simply isn't pertinent.

The poor Southern and Midwestern farmers were exploited their landlords, but no one forced them to farm.

The poor coal miners in KY, WV, and PA were exploited by the mining companies but no one forced them to go underground.

The Asian workers that built the Trans Pacific railroad were exploited, but none fire them to dynamite their way across the Rockies.

In other words, your contenttion doesn't hold a drop of water.
 
Last edited:
#89
#89
unfrozencvmanvol said:
If Congress provides that it can be regulated without violating antitrust, it will be legal. As I noted above in reference to the Stark and Anti-Kickback laws, Congress already requires financial relationships to be non-sham, arms length transactions for fair market value in other areas, and can certainly do so with NIL in college football, moreover they could regulate it more broadly than that on the basis that participation in college football is voluntary. Many of us in every day life have belonged to private organizations which restrict things we can do, if we break those rules, we can be kicked out. It's the same principle here, that's how essentially all of college football's rules worked UNTIL the NCAA was deemed a monopoly which violates antitrust, if there is no longer a monopoly problem, voluntary participation would be another basis for regulating it again.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt Congress can make the law but I'm unsure it can stand a court challenge.

It's the tug between what's good for an industry infringing on someone's personal right to their NIL.

I've always been uncomfortable with someone's job choice curtailing their rights away from the job if it doesn't affect performance. It's as simple as someone not being allowed to wear a beard (except for religious reasons) even though they work a desk job with no public access in their job.

Again, not an attorney and this may be long settled. I'm just not a fan of such restrictions.
 
#90
#90
#91
#91
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I don't doubt Congress can make the law but I'm unsure it can stand a court challenge.

It's the tug between what's good for an industry infringing on someone's personal right to their NIL.

I've always been uncomfortable with someone's job choice curtailing their rights away from the job if it doesn't affect performance. It's as simple as someone not being allowed to wear a beard (except for religious reasons) even though they work a desk job with no public access in their job.

Again, not an attorney and this may be long settled. I'm just not a fan of such restrictions.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
#93
#93
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I don't doubt Congress can make the law but I'm unsure it can stand a court challenge.

It's the tug between what's good for an industry infringing on someone's personal right to their NIL.

I've always been uncomfortable with someone's job choice curtailing their rights away from the job if it doesn't affect performance. It's as simple as someone not being allowed to wear a beard (except for religious reasons) even though they work a desk job with no public access in their job.

Again, not an attorney and this may be long settled. I'm just not a fan of such restrictions.
Click to expand...
Historically, the Supreme Court once did interpret there to be a substantive private "right to contract" and so forth, but they abandoned it in the 1930's in order to uphold the New Deal legislation. It has no teeth anymore as a substantive right. I don't think any law of Congress has been struck down on such a basis in close to a century.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan and SayUWantAreVOLution
#95
#95
  • Like
Reactions: tbh
#96
#96
S.C. OrangeMan said:
I'll use it as often as I please. It's factual, no matter how much you dislike it due to your previous conditioning.

Exploitation doesn't manically disappear because those being exploited have no better choices at the time. That's EXACTLY why it fits the textbook definition of exploitation.

You're absolutely using a Strawman argument. I never said that anyone was forced to play. That simply isn't pertinent.

The poor Southern and Midwestern farmers were exploited y their landlords, but no one forced them to farm.

The poor coal miners in KY, WV, and PA were exploited by the mining companies but no one forced them to go underground.

The Asian workers that built the Trans Pacific railroad were exploited, but none fire them to dynamite their way across the Rockies.

In other words, your content tion doesn't hold a drop of water.
Click to expand...

You just equated college athletes with a free education to poor coal miners, farmers, and Asian railroad workers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sami and tbh
#97
#97
unfrozencvmanvol said:
The SCOTUS ruling in the Alston case that college sports were not immune from the Antitrust laws opened Pandora's box and made college sports ungovernable. The only way to close the box is for Congress to change the Antitrust laws to allow an exemption for college sports. To pass it there will have to be a compromise. There will have to be revenue sharing but there can be enforcable rules then.
Click to expand...
This right here
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1HomeGrownUTVOL, tbh and unfrozencvmanvol
#98
#98
Chad F said:
Waiting on our morally and intellectually bankrupt politicians (on BOTH sides of the current partisan cult dividing line) is a fool’s errand. If they do somehow stumble into a “solution” it will only be because of some corrupt benefit that it provides to them.
Click to expand...
Very true
 
#99
#99
EastTNVol6240 said:
Athlete exploitation? I’m assuming you’re referring to the athletes receiving free education, healthcare, top line nutrition, top line resources, and the platform to get to the next level and make millions? Sounds terrible. Sign me up.
Click to expand...
Sound great when you put it that way! But have listened to players talk of not having the suit needed as an expectation for greeting the public and pocket money to eat out....you know like our son or daughter would want to with friends....Oh then there's that unlucky poor kid who gets crippled and can't ever work a regular job or maybe walk. Are those top of the line resources gonna make up for the health risk he took while the school,conference,sports media and sponsors get rich? There needs to be reward equal to the Risk taken at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top