NCAA praises Congress Bill for NIL

[GreveHaller]

Agree that we need some rules, and it's going to continue to get more and more out of hand. Not sure I want congress involved though.. From skimming the article, it sounds like this is a lot more than just reigning in the NIL pay-to-win and transfer portal madness.

From the article: "The legislation mandates that four-year institutions provide healthcare coverage to student athletes, including insurance to athletes who are uninsured for eight years after they graduate. "

Keep in mind, a lot of the schools that participate in college athletics are private institutions.

Oh they’ll provide insurance for the uninsured athletes. Doest mean they’ll pay for it. It’s called COBRA. And wow, is it not fantastic (sarcasim).

 

[tennrich1]

“I’m from the government, I’m here to help”

One of our country’s major problems today?….Government overreach! NIL should run for the hills!

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I think the problem there is convincing the SCOTUS that someone like Peyton Manning RIGHTFULLY played for UT for just an athletic scholarship and no compensation then a few months later went to a far more competitive, much higher league doing the same job and signed for an $11M+ bonus.

It's not like Manning "suddenly" became that valuable as a QB. It's like the NCAA conspired as a business to not compensate him for his talent.

I cannot see the SCOTUS saying "the college football experience is worth so much to the culture that we will let the NCAA cap what a player can earn without the player's being able to negotiate."

I honestly don't think that is how America should work and I'm doubtful the SCOTUS will also.

SCOTUS acknowledges that Congress is free to amend and carve out exceptions to the Antitrust law. Call your Congressmen and Senators if you feel strongly because if Congress changes the Antitrust law to allow the NCAA to regulate NIL then SCOTUS isn't going to do anything to the contrary.

 

[Vol-e-ball]

The Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act only lasts for 18 months. Providing insurance for players may drive many schools to drop football entirely. I would think smaller schools would have a severe problem providing coverage for 8 years. Insurance companies must be salivating.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

SCOTUS acknowledges that Congress is free to amend and carve out exceptions to the Antitrust law. Call your Congressmen and Senators if you feel strongly because if Congress changes the Antitrust law to allow the NCAA to regulate NIL then SCOTUS isn't going to do anything to the contrary.

I'm not convinced Congress will craft a law that can pass, whether they should or not. I'm really not sure with everything else on the table for Congress if the NCAA is a good use of their time and effort.

The baseball Anti-Trust win was a century ago and similar attempts by other sports have failed. When Curt Flood challenged MLB, the SCOTUS acknowledged the MLB exemption was weird and let it stand because it "had stood so long without being changed by Congress" which is very weak reasoning when legal scholars see it as inequitable to other pro sports and legally shaky. I'm skeptical the SCOTUS wants to see challenges from the other pro sports again concerning an exemption and attempt to justify why it lets MLB stand on its exemption.

Even with the exemption the MLB has a draft, collective bargaining, etc which would essentially destroy college athletics anyway.

I'm just not convinced Congress can save college athletics though I'll agree they're the only chance. I just don't see a legal path for college to be able to claim they're a billion dollar amateur league and players are not entitled to be treated as employees.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I'm not convinced Congress will craft a law that can pass, whether they should or not. I'm really not sure with everything else on the table for Congress if the NCAA is a good use of their time and effort.

The baseball Anti-Trust win was a century ago and similar attempts by other sports have failed. When Curt Flood challenged MLB, the SCOTUS acknowledged the MLB exemption was weird and let it stand because it "had stood so long without being changed by Congress" which is very weak reasoning when legal scholars see it as inequitable to other pro sports and legally shaky. I'm skeptical the SCOTUS wants to see challenges from the other pro sports again concerning an exemption and attempt to justify why it lets MLB stand on its exemption.

Even with the exemption the MLB has a draft, collective bargaining, etc which would essentially destroy college athletics anyway.

I'm just not convinced Congress can save college athletics though I'll agree they're the only chance. I just don't see a legal path for college to be able to claim they're a billion dollar amateur league and players are not entitled to be treated as employees.

This is from the majority (9-0) opinion in the Alston case:

"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. 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. 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."

That reads to me like SCOTUS is saying it's Congress's call, and that makes sense given it's Congress's law. Anyway, not trying to split hairs with you. I agree with the general reluctance to believe Congress can be helpful here, but I think it's important for people to understand that college sports are in the unenviable position of Congress being their only hope for having some clear and enforceable rules.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

This is from the majority (9-0) opinion in the Alston case:

"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. 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. 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."

That reads to me like SCOTUS is saying it's Congress's call, and that makes sense given it's Congress's law. Anyway, not trying to split hairs with you. I agree with the general reluctance to believe Congress can be helpful here, but I think it's important for people to understand that college sports are in the unenviable position of Congress being their only hope for having some clear and enforceable rules.

It's pointless if you want a "quoting war" about Alstom. It's a legal opinion that essentially led to the NCAA allowing NIL because the SCOTUS essentially said to the NCAA via Gorsuch...... you're lucky they only challenged the academic compensation because you're not going to win on other compensation if they push it.

From there Kavanaugh was blunt: “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. . . . The NCAA is not above the law.”

SCOTUS doesn't see the NCAA model of amateur status as valid. Congress can't create a valid law keeping college sports as amateur sports. Constitutionally, Congress can't tell citizens "you can't get paid your market value if you work for this company but in a few months when you work for that company, they can and will pay you millions to do the same job."

It's not possible to construct a law to enforce that a billion dollar industry doesn't have to pay its employees.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

It's pointless if you want a "quoting war" about Alstom. It's a legal opinion that essentially led to the NCAA allowing NIL because the SCOTUS essentially said to the NCAA via Gorsuch...... you're lucky they only challenged the academic compensation because you're not going to win on other compensation if they push it.

From there Kavanaugh was blunt: “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. . . . The NCAA is not above the law.”

SCOTUS doesn't see the NCAA model of amateur status as valid. Congress can't create a valid law keeping college sports as amateur sports. Constitutionally, Congress can't tell citizens "you can't get paid your market value if you work for this company but in a few months when you work for that company, they can and will pay you millions to do the same job."

It's not possible to construct a law to enforce that a billion dollar industry doesn't have to pay its employees.

Gorsuch's opinion is for 9 justices and was the opinion of the Court, Kavanaugh's was his concurrence. Not that this changes the analysis any, the law Kavanaugh was saying the NCAA was not above were the antitrust laws written by Congress, which can be changed by Congress.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Gorsuch's opinion is for 9 justices and was the opinion of the Court, Kavanaugh's was his concurrence. Not that this changes the analysis any, the law Kavanaugh was saying the NCAA was not above were the antitrust laws written by Congress, which can be changed by Congress.

But there aren't other businesses that can claim "we have to be amateur because we've always been amateur."

The NCAA makes huge money like a pro league, the schools sign massive TV deals like pro teams, the schools build huge stadiums and arenas like pro teams, the schools pay coaches millions like pro teams, the schools build training facilities like pro teams........ but they're amateurs?

It's not going to pass the smell test as Kavanaugh said.

 

[Batman1948]

First thought.. if the NCAA thinks it's great, what's wrong with it? Will have to drill a little deeper to challenge my gut instinct.

If federal NIL legislation is passed, it will just revive the under the table payments again. That will never stop

 

[turbovol]

Such a bad idea.

…and I have shocking news. College football has been the Wild West for 40 years and escalating rights fees have upped the ante the past 10-15 years. The difference is, it all used to be under the table and didn’t affect your sensibilities. Sensibilities are a bad reason to pass laws and Congress will overreach.

Silly comment. Coaches don't like the current, unregulated, no-rules market. Everybody knows that NIL needs to be reigned in. Recruiting by bribe should not be accepted by anyone.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

But there aren't other businesses that can claim "we have to be amateur because we've always been amateur."

The NCAA makes huge money like a pro league, the schools sign massive TV deals like pro teams, the schools build huge stadiums and arenas like pro teams, the schools pay coaches millions like pro teams, the schools build training facilities like pro teams........ but they're amateurs?

It's not going to pass the smell test as Kavanaugh said.

There are numerous instances of people giving up economic rights in exchange for participation. The whole idea of waiver rests on the premise that you can waive an economic right like a right to sue and recover money damages as a condition for participating in an event, students at universities also typically give up their ownership and right to profit from anything they create/invent as a condition of participation in the university's research/masters/doctorate program, etc. That kind of thing is totally legal. The NCAA however ran afoul of the antitrust laws with sports (mainly football is the real problem), however if Congress passes them an exception, they are good to go.

Like you, I remain skeptical that Congress will actually pass anything or that it will be reasonable but whatever Congress passes (if they actually pass something) is going to be the law. SCOTUS is not going to rule that Congress can't make an exception to it's own law. The majority opinion in Alston basically says that it's up to Congress, but they sure as hell weren't going to give the NCAA a judicial exemption. That's why it was 9-0. The left wing justices weren't inclined to help the NCAA out regardless and philosophically the more right wing judges generally oppose judicial exemptions period, so there was that rare complete alignment. The Court was unwilling to legislate from the bench to help the NCAA, but the actual legislature, i.e. Congress can if they choose to.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

There are numerous instances of people giving up economic rights in exchange for participation. The whole idea of waiver rests on the premise that you can waive an economic right like a right to sue and recover money damages as a condition for participating in an event, students at universities also typically give up their ownership and right to profit from anything they create/invent as a condition of participation in the university's research/masters/doctorate program, etc. That kind of thing is totally legal. The NCAA however ran afoul of the antitrust laws with sports (mainly football is the real problem), however if Congress passes them an exception, they are good to go.

Like you, I remain skeptical that Congress will actually pass anything or that it will be reasonable but whatever Congress passes (if they actually pass something) is going to be the law. SCOTUS is not going to rule that Congress can't make an exception to it's own law. The majority opinion in Alston basically says that it's up to Congress, but they sure as hell weren't going to give the NCAA a judicial exemption. That's why it was 9-0. The left wing justices weren't inclined to help the NCAA out regardless and philosophically the more right wing judges generally oppose judicial exemptions period, so there was that rare complete alignment. The Court was unwilling to legislate from the bench to help the NCAA, but the actual legislature, i.e. Congress can if they choose to.

I disagree. Kavanaugh is not a liberal and he was the most "vocal" in telling the NCAA they would have an uphill climb claiming amateur status.

Giving up economic rights for participation is one thing, but being denied compensation is another. As you say, football is a problem for the NCAA, football players have no other option as elite players can't market their skills to the NFL straight out of high school but they ARE playing in a multi-million dollar league, are practicing in pro-like facilities, are getting physio training and treatments just like pro players, etc, etc...... without being compensated by the teams making enormous revenue from their skills. They have nowhere else to play. It's not a "voluntary" situation to give up economic compensation, the NCAA refuses to allow it. They aren't "forgoing" compensation. It is denied them and there is no other place to market their skills. The NCAA essentially has a monopoly on college age football but doesn't pay market value. I'm uncertain the SCOTUS will allow that no matter what Congress does. It's blatantly allowing teams to make millions from skilled players who can't go anywhere else nor be compensated.

Does that seem fair to you? Does it seem Constitutional?

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I disagree. Kavanaugh is not a liberal and he was the most "vocal" in telling the NCAA they would have an uphill climb claiming amateur status.

Giving up economic rights for participation is one thing, but being denied compensation is another. As you say, football is a problem for the NCAA, football players have no other option as elite players can't market their skills to the NFL straight out of high school but they ARE playing in a multi-million dollar league, are practicing in pro-like facilities, are getting physio training and treatments just like pro players, etc, etc...... without being compensated by the teams making enormous revenue from their skills. They have nowhere else to play. It's not a "voluntary" situation to give up economic compensation, the NCAA refuses to allow it. They aren't "forgoing" compensation. It is denied them and there is no other place to market their skills. The NCAA essentially has a monopoly on college age football but doesn't pay market value. I'm uncertain the SCOTUS will allow that no matter what Congress does. It's blatantly allowing teams to make millions from skilled players who can't go anywhere nor be compensated.

Does that seem fair to you? Does it seem Constitutional?

As I said at the top, I would like to see football players get paid, but all your arguments are antitrust arguments, there's not a constitutional issue. If Congress gives them an antitrust exception, whatever Congress decides is going to be legal.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

As I said at the top, I would like to see football players get paid, but all your arguments are antitrust arguments, there's not a constitutional issue. If Congress gives them an antitrust exception, whatever Congress decides is going to be legal.

My argument is that they can't get paid and college football survive. An "NFL Lite" league or G League or whatever is incompatible with student athletes.

There's no way to keep a "lower level" pro team from hiring 35yo aging NFL guys. That's asking for an age discrimination lawsuit. There's no way to keep Stetson Bennett from making an even longer career at Georgia if it's a pro league. There's no way to force an employee to attend History or Math classes when you're employing them to play football.

If college athletes are compensated by the school, the whole student-athlete model disintegrates, unionization occurs almost immediately with the big TV revenue being the prize. The "student" end of things fail and you need a draft from high school.

That's a non starter. That isn't college football but a pro team playing at Neyland. Beyond that, I'm not sure the University of Tennessee should be in the pro sports business, though that's for the Trustees to decide.

My Anti-Trust arguments are mainly the monopoly issue. The athletes out of high school have no where else to market their skills except college and college, by rule, can't pay them. That can't be how America should work.

As I've said, I hope this NIL mess endures until I'm planted and forgotten not because I like the way NIL is going but I can't see anything brighter for the future.

 

[GAVol]

Silly comment. Coaches don't like the current, unregulated, no-rules market. Everybody knows that NIL needs to be reigned in. Recruiting by bribe should not be accepted by anyone.

What possible public interest is served by “reigning in” someone’s ability to earn income?

 

[ntxVOL]

I don't think the current system is really that broken.

The transfer portal is insane but that's because the NCAA loosened the eligibility rule. Fix that and continue on.

Yeah aTm bought themselves a #1 class, but that's mainly because they were ahead of the curve with their collective. Doesn't look like recruiting has changed drastically, the rich keep getting richer just as they always have.

The coaches that are griping either don't like that the playing field is more level or they want the advantage back they had with their bagmen.

If congress acts on this, I fear the result will be even worse.

 

[JohnWardForever]

Manchin and Tuberville introduce bipartisan bill to shake up college sports

What's the best way to ruin a functioning marketplace???

Let the government get involved. So they can spend infinite amounts more taxpayer money meddling where they do not belong and were never invited to begin with...while greatly reducing profitability, efficiency, simplicity, and anything else they can ruin.

Smdh...this is the nanny state in action. I hope this bill gets shot down immediately, or at the least found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

BRAVO! When I read a post like this I am reassured that we have a chance.

 

[JohnWardForever]

What possible public interest is served by “reigning in” someone’s ability to earn income?

None. But don't you thing the guys making millions should at least pay their way instead of the Scholarship Farce continuing?

 

[GAVol]

None. But don't you thing the guys making millions should at least pay their way instead of the Scholarship Farce continuing?

Not sure there are really that many millionaires out there. You're right that it is somewhat of a farce at the top of Power 5, but I don't know that you can really put a means test on football scholarships. Plus, the value of the scholarship is a speed bump compared to what the sport rakes in. It probably costs $3-5 million in scholarships and expenses for the players. Meanwhile, each school is getting $60 million from the SEC annually before any other revenue streams are even considered. I understand the sentiment that they ought to pay their own way if they can, but I'm not sure it's that big of a deal in the big picture.

 

[JohnWardForever]

Not sure there are really that many millionaires out there. You're right that it is somewhat of a farce at the top of Power 5, but I don't know that you can really put a means test on football scholarships. Plus, the value of the scholarship is a speed bump compared to what the sport rakes in. It probably costs $3-5 million in scholarships and expenses for the players. Meanwhile, each school is getting $60 million from the SEC annually before any other revenue streams are even considered. I understand the sentiment that they ought to pay their own way if they can, but I'm not sure it's that big of a deal in the big picture.

Well thanks for addressing the Farce...

 

[woodpusher]

As I said at the top, I would like to see football players get paid, but all your arguments are antitrust arguments, there's not a constitutional issue. If Congress gives them an antitrust exception, whatever Congress decides is going to be legal.

Was any player in the old days (Babe Ruth, for instance) prevented from selling his NIL?

EDIT: I think the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders were (or at least it was discouraged).