You are correct in part. The NCAA organization does not have an anti-trust exemption. However, all of the members (the schools) do. I think the lone exception might by Grand Canyon State, as they recently became a for-profit institution. But I really don't know what effect that change had on their status.
The colleges would never claim they are protected by anti-trust because they do not believe the students are employees. Eventually many of them will be classified as "employees" depending on the situation... but you are actually proving the ones suing right with your argument.
At the end of the day I don't know where the colleges can even go with this.
Either way, the members of the NCAA are not competitors by the legal definition. Thus, calling them a cartel is probably taking it too far.
Yes they are. Either way they have no exemption and it's really immaterial, there are countless laws that the colleges are violating.
I disagree. You are making an argument that has no basis in applicable law. Which is not out of the ordinary for you. Should I link to our past conversation where you accused me of libeling a recruit's mother?
I disagree and fail to identify any specific point you have made to actually support this claim.
There is a semantic argument to be made regarding amateurism. If you're getting a free ride to college in return for playing a sport, and you an amateur?
You are getting scholarship, there really is no definition for "amateur" or "student athlete", these are made up words that have no standing in a court of law. Any other business and these players would be classified as either employees or contractor.... END OF THE STORY.
Therein lies one of my gripes with the way the NCAA handles certain things, like restricting an athlete's ability to use his name or image for promotional gain.
Now we are in agreement, if they want to classify the student as an employees or contractors I have no problem with a separate contract to employ their likeness, but there is should be nothing that should restrict them from selling their own rights as well.... just like any other student.
They could, in that both companies do have their own drilling operations. A more obvious example: OPEC is a cartel, and they are able to manipulate the price of oil, and do so on a regular basis. BP and Exxon could, in theory, be capable of manipulating the price of a gallon of gas were they to collude with one another.
Correct. Foreign governments can collude all they want, U.S. based corporations can't, in general.
I personally don't think their exemptions cover it at all. There is a decent argument to be made when it comes to the NCAA membership colluding with the pro leagues. But I don't think it's designed collusion. I don't think the NFL, for instance, gives a crap if a kid goes to college or plays in Canada for three years. The NFL's rule may be mutually beneficial, but the NFL isn't concerned with manipulating the market to favor the college game.
Well, the NFL might not care because of their exemption status but in the big scheme of things I not sure it matters to their bottom line. To the schools and NCAA it does matter though.... $$$$$$$
But here is where it becomes really tricky: if college athletes should be able to pursue fair market value, whatever that may be, how can an entry draft be legal? All of the pro leagues have drafts, and they absolutely, inarguably prevent the pursuit of fair market value.
Anti-trust exemption and unions.
Don't get me started on unions but that is another story.
This is only the beginning, I said long ago... this ain't going way for obvious reasons. I mean at this point, it's like trying to convince a person the moon is not made out of cheese.
