NighthawkVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,093
- Likes
- 42,707
So was Row v Wade. What the court ruled on was players making money on NIL image. Not schools partnering (under the table) with 3rd party groups who are little more than a front for wealthy boosters to funnel money and broker $$ to players with little to no actual marketing obligations.
I’m 100% for players making $ on their image, by earning it honestly and openly on the market.
Players showing up and getting paid for autograph sessions? Love it. Commercials, appearances, and actually having reciprocity for their work? Perfect!
I’m also cool with what we saw with ZZ when his home burned. I think that was a purely organic and free market.
Comparing this to Roe is absurd. Again, the Alston decision was 9-0. The Dobbs ruling kicked abortion to the states to decide, after 5 decades of political posturing. Judges were specifically appointed from the top down during those 5 decades to overturn Roe. It was a hot political issue for over a generation.
Alston is an open and shut antitrust ruling that will not be heard by the Court again anytime soon and likely never. The distinction between who pays the players is legally meaningless. It’s here to stay. You can pay them, I can pay them, it doesn’t matter. No one has the right to step in and say what a person can and cannot be paid for. The old system was, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, wrong. Alston corrected that. We’re not going back.