NIL has already begun to get out of hand

[ptcarter]

I just don't see a world wherein Vandy's boosters are willing to pay more than Bama's.

Nobody has been paying anybody so far, (wink) so how can you know. It WAS against the rules. Now the rules have changed. Or perhaps the rules that some have been abiding by and others not isn't an issue anymore. There are plenty of schools with crappy football teams and wealthy alumni, that, given the chance can lure a young man with money. It's gonna happen.. there will be bidding wars.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I would direct you to the Supreme Court ruling that was just rendered but I’m guessing a grown man who uses “lulz” isn’t going to make it past the first sentence

That decision put the final nail in the coffin for the NCAA scam. Anyone that is reading that and getting a different picture of the situation should consider reading it again.

 

[golfballs]

That decision put the final nail in the coffin for the NCAA scam. Anyone that is reading that and getting a different picture of the situation should consider reading it again.

In it Gorsuch dismissed the NCAA’s amateurism argument because the NCAA failed to prove they applied a strict standard of amateurism. Had they done so their argument would have carried weight.

 

[volfanbill]

In it Gorsuch dismissed the NCAA’s amateurism argument because the NCAA failed to prove they applied a strict standard of amateurism. Had they done so their argument would have carried weight.

Would have. Kind of key there. The courts have scoffed at the ‘AA’s idea of amateurism and here we are.

 

[LSU-SIU]

In it Gorsuch dismissed the NCAA’s amateurism argument because the NCAA failed to prove they applied a strict standard of amateurism. Had they done so their argument would have carried weight.

(2) The NCAA contends the district court should have deferred to its conception of amateurism instead of “impermissibly redefin[ing]” its “product.” But a party cannot declare a restraint “immune from § 1 scrutiny” by relabeling it a product feature. American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U. S. 183, 199, n. 7. Moreover, the dis-trict court found the NCAA had not even maintained a consistent def-inition of amateurism. Pp. 29–30.

Is that what was said? They are saying to me that the NCAA couldn't even get their definition of "amateur" straight, but even if they did... there is no immunity under the law for "amateur".

22 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON Opinion of the Court its member schools are not “commercial enterprises” and instead oversee intercollegiate athletics “as an integral part of the undergraduate experience.” Brief for Petitioner in No. 20–512, at 31. The NCAA represents that it seeks to“maintain amateurism in college sports as part of serving [the] societally important non-commercial objective” of“higher education.” Id., at 3. Here again, however, there may be less of a dispute than meets the eye. The NCAA does not contest that its restraints affect interstate trade and commerce and are thus subject to the Sherman Act. See D. Ct. Op., at 1066. The NCAA acknowledges that this Court already analyzed (and struck down) some of its restraints as anticompetitive in Board of Regents. And it admits, as it must, that the Court did all this only after observing that the Sherman Act had already been applied to other nonprofit organizations—and that “the economic significance of the NCAA’s nonprofit character is questionable at best” given that “the NCAA and its member institutions are in fact organized to maximize revenues.” 468 U. S., at 100–101, n. 22. Nor, on the other side of the equation, does anyone contest that the status of the NCAA’s members as schools and the status of student-athletes as students may be relevant in assessing consumer demand as part of a rule of reason review. With this much agreed it is unclear exactly what the NCAA seeks. To the extent it means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade—that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money—we cannot agree. This Court has regularly refused materially identical requests from litigants seeking special dispensation from the Sherman Act on the ground that their restraints of trade serve uniquely important social objectives beyond enhancing competition.

There is no immunity from the Sherman Act as to "amateur", its a made up term because they have no defense.

 

[volfanbill]

Is that what was said? They are saying to me that the NCAA couldn't even get their definition of "amateur" straight, but even if they did... there is no immunity under the law for "amateur".



There is no immunity from the Sherman Act as to "amateur", its a made up term because they have no defense.

Exactly. The NCAA with all its resources couldn’t create a strong enough argument to prove their “concept”. But if they could have, the Supreme Court (and likely the lower courts) would have sided with the NCAA. But they couldn’t. I repeat: they couldn’t.

 

[golfballs]

Is that what was said? They are saying to me that the NCAA couldn't even get their definition of "amateur" straight, but even if they did... there is no immunity under the law for "amateur".



There is no immunity from the Sherman Act as to "amateur", its a made up term because they have no defense.

That’s in the case of anti-trust, which they argue applies to the NCAA because there aren’t any viable alternatives for college aged kids to make money playing athletics. I don’t believe that’s the NCAA’s fault. If anyone has conspired to prevent those alternatives it’s the pro sports leagues. But they’re covered by varying degrees of anti-trust protection from Congress.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That’s in the case of anti-trust, which they argue applies to the NCAA because there aren’t any viable alternatives for college aged kids to make money playing athletics. I don’t believe that’s the NCAA’s fault. If anyone has conspired to prevent those alternatives it’s the pro sports leagues. But they’re covered by varying degrees of anti-trust protection from Congress.

In antitrust/monopoly cases, there doesn't have to be a 100% control of the market to be a monopoly. Even when the NBA allowed players right out of high school, the NCAA was still in violation of the Sherman act. I would read Kavanaugh concurring opinion. He is laying it out more brutally for the NCAA and member schools, but he is right on the mark.

Matter of fact, its almost like he was reading this forum where I said those things 7 years ago. For the record, this was an easy one for the Supreme Court.

Lawsuit against the NCAA regarding amateur status of the players

Me from 2014.

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.

There is some old sayings similar to, "this isn't the hill to die on", yet the NCAA and the member schools did die on this hill.

The fun is only beginning, as I mentioned years ago... the players will come for everything, eventually. See my comments about being classified as "employees", for the record, this one isn't or shouldn't be an all or nothing... it should depend on the particular situation.

College Athlete Pay Suit Confronts NCAA’s Supreme Court Loss (2)

A federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania that seeks to win collegiate athletes the right to compensation as employees is one of the first to consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision against the NCAA’s limits on education-related benefits for sports stars.

The proposed collective and class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania argues the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s amateurism rule, barring pay-for-play arrangements for student athletes, violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. Judge John Padova set a July 6 deadline for the parties to submit supplemental memos addressing the high court’s June 21 decision in NCAA v. Alston.

College Athlete Pay Suit Confronts NCAA’s Supreme Court Loss (2)

Again, I don't predict a victory on everyone one of these suits, the antitrust ones are easier, imo. These come down to different situations and facts.

 

[volfanbill]

let's just use Brett Kavanaugh's direct quote:

traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated

 

[rjd970]

Nobody has been paying anybody so far, (wink) so how can you know. It WAS against the rules. Now the rules have changed. Or perhaps the rules that some have been abiding by and others not isn't an issue anymore. There are plenty of schools with crappy football teams and wealthy alumni, that, given the chance can lure a young man with money. It's gonna happen.. there will be bidding wars.

I think this is really the key for the rich schools with wealthy donors. The fact that it isn’t against the rules anymore will make it more justifiable. Player contracts will rule over facilities and college towns where players are king.

As with everything else, follow the money, and there is about to be a whole lot more of it filling players pockets.

 

[bamawriter]

The NCAA set up rules to govern college athletics and a cornerstone was that it be amateur competition. It’s not the NCAA’s fault that there havent been a viable alternative for kids to make money and play sports. If anyone has colluded to prevent those opportunities, it’s the professional leagues, since they benefit by allowing colleges to be their de facto farm system. But they enjoy anti-trust exemptions from Congress.

It's their fault that their rules, which haven't changed in any meaningful way since the 60s, are draconian and unjustifiable.

 

[bamawriter]

Nobody has been paying anybody so far, (wink) so how can you know. It WAS against the rules. Now the rules have changed. Or perhaps the rules that some have been abiding by and others not isn't an issue anymore. There are plenty of schools with crappy football teams and wealthy alumni, that, given the chance can lure a young man with money. It's gonna happen.. there will be bidding wars.

I think the bidding wars will be between the usual suspects. Vandy doesn't have a bunch of high powered donors who are itching to spend a ton on athletics but have been willing to sit in that piece of crap football stadium for however long.

 

[wmcovol]

I believe this step you're defining would not actually need to be added to the NLI. The school currently own their logos, colors, etc. and the players cannot use them without permission. The individual player's NIL does not entitle them to their schools intellectual property.

As for video games, etc, the schools already have marketing agreements in place that allow for their intellectual property to be used and themselves compensated accordingly.

I believe your statement on most athletes making limited amount of funds compared to the one select percent is correct, however even a worldly nominal amount like 5 or 10K per year to a college athlete could be viewed as a windfall, especially if they're able to make this money for something as simple as signing an autograph, or a personalized video message via social media.

The bigger issue for me is that now that players can make money on their NIL means it won't be long until those making smaller amounts realize they stand to make more money and have larger opportunities if they unionize. The Supreme Court ruling given last week went as far as to almost encourage it.

You are correct on unionization. It’s coming.

I can see boosters in a area or state combining funds to offer a young man an endorsement contract if he’d stay in state. Imagine a group of boosters offering Ty Simpson $250k or more.to sign with Tennessee. It’s coming I’m afraid.

 

[golfballs]

It's their fault that their rules, which haven't changed in any meaningful way since the 60s, are draconian and unjustifiable.

Thats an argument I haven’t heard. Where federal law requires rules to change after so many years. But you skirt my point. If there’s anyone colluding to prevent these athletes from getting their fair market value, the pro leagues are doing it but they have the fortune of being graced with Congressional protection from anti-trust suits. The NCAA didn’t prevent Maurice Clarett from getting drafted. It was the NFL. And the 2nd circuit court of appeals specifically ruled that because of the NFL’s anti-trust exemption, they’re allowed to do it.

 

[VolPack22]

Just go ahead and dissolve the NCAA and let college athletics become semi-pro. That’s where we seem to be headed with all this anyways. Hard to say you are an amateur sports organization whenever everyone is getting paid.

 

[Blake25p]

The NIL changes nothing other than schools can be open about paying players.

 

[bamawriter]

Thats an argument I haven’t heard. Where federal law requires rules to change after so many years.

No laws. Certainly logic. College athletics has changed immensely over the course of the last 60 years, and everyone involved is making exponentially more money. Everyone except the players.

But you skirt my point. If there’s anyone colluding to prevent these athletes from getting their fair market value, the pro leagues are doing it but they have the fortune of being graced with Congressional protection from anti-trust suits.
The NCAA didn’t prevent Maurice Clarett from getting drafted. It was the NFL. And the 2nd circuit court of appeals specifically ruled that because of the NFL’s anti-trust exemption, they’re allowed to do it.

That's all true, but it doesn't excuse anything. The pro leagues' entry rules have all benefited college athletics, even if the schos had no say in those rules. This is particularly true with the NFL, where a really slimy relationship was formed where the colleges would run an unpaid developmental football league while the NFL would guarantee that the schools would get at least three yeara with the top football talent.

So yeah, the pros share blame for the current situation. But that doesn't excuse the exploitation that the NCAA has fought long and hard to perpetuate.

 

[bamawriter]

Hard to say you are an amateur sports organization whenever everyone is getting paid.

Then college sport ceased being "amateur" in 1950 when athletic scholarships were created.

 

[allvol123]

The NIL changes nothing other than schools can be open about paying players.

Umm...I wouldnt say that. It is different now. How, I am not sure but I would expect differences.

Between more freedom to transfer and accepting money being legal, I dont think you can say "it changes nothing. "

If that is the case, they should stuck with taking it under the table.

 

[golfballs]

When I was at UT I was part of a team of undergrad students that came up with and pitched a technology to one of the largest heavy equipment manufacturers on the planet. Because I was an undergrad and part of a UT-sponsored group who used the facilities at UT, and paid for our travel and other expenses (just like a sports team), UT owned it and sold it for enough money that everyone on our team could have been quite well off yet we didn’t get a penny, just a line on our resume and some job offers. This is how all major universities work, as far as I know. How is this any different?

 

[golfballs]

the National Letter of Intent will be restructed to protect the rights that the schools have to protect their logos, uniforms and income. Players will agree to not use the uniforms, etc for their actions. I dont see schools allowing players to use their uniforms, game videos, etc unless the schools have some form of compensation and even then they are skating down a slippery slope.

College stars like Arch Manning will most likely be will probably make mega dollars. Some Olympic athletes and others will make some big coin but majority of players will make less than $10,000 per year.

I was wondering about this. Will a university really sue one of its players/sponsors for using the university in an advertisement? We didn’t even sue Butch Jones for violating the terms of his buyout and he went to our rival!

 

[golfballs]

Exactly. The NCAA with all its resources couldn’t create a strong enough argument to prove their “concept”. But if they could have, the Supreme Court (and likely the lower courts) would have sided with the NCAA. But they couldn’t. I repeat: they couldn’t.

The lower courts did side with the NCAA. And the amateurism argument wasn’t the crux of the decision. The point they made though was that if anything, the NCAA would have had a stronger case had they been more strict in defining and enforcing a standard of amateurism. The ruling was based on their holding that the ncaa had a “monopoly” per se on college athletics. It’s didn’t hold that there is anything inherently wrong or illegal with amateurism. And one reason the ncaa has a monopoly Is that congress has passed anti-trust exemptions for the pro leagues. So it comes down in a way to political favor. The pro leagues have it, the ncaa does not.

 

[bamawriter]

I was wondering about this. Will a university really sue one of its players/sponsors for using the university in an advertisement? We didn’t even sue Butch Jones for violating the terms of his buyout and he went to our rival!

1. Yes. Some schools will be in situations where they have contracts that will require them to prevent their IP from being used.

2. Butch didn't violate his contract. He's just a prick.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

I'd go back a bit farther. Ever since Georgia and Oklahoma won their legal battle over television appearances, the money has done nothing but grow for everyone but the players.

Quality post.

 

[bamawriter]

The lower courts did side with the NCAA.

No they didn't. SCOTUS affirmed the 9th Circuit's ruling.