The Official “Regular Posters of the Basketball Forum” Thread

#17,851
#17,851
omghulkhands said:
Because it’s labor issue. So the same way the constitution has been used to argue for labor rights all apply here.

I don’t want to get into a big debate or give a dissertation on it, but apply it to your trade or industry. And if some governing body that basically had a monopoly on your trade forces you to sit out a full year if you wanted to change to a different company.

I know it isn’t apples to apples, but that’s where some of the logic starts.
Click to expand...
That's essentially a non-compete agreement and people sign them every day. I've signed one before. They prevent you from working in said industry for a competing company for a period of time. And they don't prevent you from working at all just like the NCAA rule doesn't prevent you from attending school on scholarship, collecting NIL money, or being involved with your team. It just prevents you from playing in games, which is the result of choosing to leave your original school.
 
#17,852
#17,852
cncchris33 said:
That's essentially a non-compete agreement and people sign them every day. I've signed one before. They prevent you from working in said industry for a competing company for a period of time. And they don't prevent you from working at all just like the NCAA rule doesn't prevent you from attending school on scholarship, collecting NIL money, or being involved with your team. It just prevents you from playing in games, which is the result of choosing to leave your original school.
Click to expand...

My lawyers have always told me that non-compete’s rarely hold up in court. 99% of the time they are misused or misunderstood.

I’ve run into it by hiring people who had a non-compete at a previous company.

basically, a company has someone sign what amounts to a frivolous non-compete. Many employees are afraid of it and so abide by it, being a win for the company. The reality is, it won’t hold up in court, but the benefit to the company is they have more financial resources to fight it in court and draw it out, and make it an expense the employee can’t compete with.

This is why collective bargaining is important. It helps balance that power. And I say that as an owner of many businesses with many employees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsSportsFan, MinisterofDef#92, DowntownVol and 2 others
#17,853
#17,853
omghulkhands said:
My lawyers have always told me that non-compete’s rarely hold up in court. 99% of the time they are misused or misunderstood.

I’ve run into it by hiring people who had a non-compete at a previous company.

basically, a company has someone sign what amounts to a frivolous non-compete. Many employees are afraid of it and so abide by it, being a win for the company. The reality is, it won’t hold up in court, but the benefit to the company is they have more financial resources to fight it in court and draw it out, and make it an expense the employee can’t compete with.

This is why collective bargaining is important. It helps balance that power. And I say that as an owner of many businesses with many employees.
Click to expand...
It’s not my area, but non-competes can most certainly be binding. But it depends on the industry and the scope. You can’t make a non-compete overly broad.

This is all getting into employment law, however. Student athletes aren’t employees. If they want to be, then you are headed for collective bargaining and the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and berryvol
#17,859
#17,859
omghulkhands said:
Because it’s labor issue. So the same way the constitution has been used to argue for labor rights all apply here.

I don’t want to get into a big debate or give a dissertation on it, but apply it to your trade or industry. And if some governing body that basically had a monopoly on your trade forces you to sit out a full year if you wanted to change to a different company.

I know it isn’t apples to apples, but that’s where some of the logic starts.
Click to expand...
Game here to say this. The NCAA is a monopoly and have operated for decades using student athletes as cash cows while denying them rights that would be afforded to any other student.

Imagine an engineering student transferring and someone telling them they couldn't go into the field and intern for a year because they'd changed schools.

The NCAA, which is the schools, not some separate entity, always seemed to come down on the side of schools when dealing with transfers, pay etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterofDef#92, chuckiepoo and berryvol
#17,860
#17,860
Using the “s” word really turns a lot of people into crazy persons on this issue, but the easiest NCAA-of-the-past comparison really is slavery. The fat cats at the top, run the schools and the leagues and profit off the backs of the player’s risky play, while the players, in many cases, are living off crumbs. While the current NIL model certainly has its flaws, we shouldn’t be hoping to go back to the old system of no compensation (or solely under the table compensation) - not to say that anyone here wants that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsSportsFan
#17,862
#17,862
VolArmy74 said:
Game here to say this. The NCAA is a monopoly and have operated for decades using student athletes as cash cows while denying them rights that would be afforded to any other student.

Imagine an engineering student transferring and someone telling them they couldn't go into the field and intern for a year because they'd changed schools.

The NCAA, which is the schools, not some separate entity, always seemed to come down on the side of schools when dealing with transfers, pay etc.
Click to expand...
NO, the NCAA member is forced to take money from the very few profitable sports to fund all aspects, including scholarships for ALL their sports. IF the money from FB and mens BB is distributed to the players in their sports, where do the facilities, staff, and schollies for the rest of the sports come from? If you apply balance sheet calculations for the money makers, you have to apply it to all the sports and Title IX has to go. Mens and womens sports will have to be financially self sustainable through tickets and donations. Not many cross country teams can even pay for their transportation.

That is the reason that they better draw the line with the current amateur model with individual players being able to earn outside money from NIL. The FAIRNESS mantra will kill most sports if college players become employees. You will not be able to require funding for sports that don't pay their own way. Most individual sports will go bankrupt. Even if you isolate a few sports, the balance could not exist by pooling their revenues like the current model. That will force a world with a lot of Division III sports at best.
 
#17,863
#17,863
cncchris33 said:
That's essentially a non-compete agreement and people sign them every day. I've signed one before. They prevent you from working in said industry for a competing company for a period of time. And they don't prevent you from working at all just like the NCAA rule doesn't prevent you from attending school on scholarship, collecting NIL money, or being involved with your team. It just prevents you from playing in games, which is the result of choosing to leave your original school.
Click to expand...
Non-competes are very hard to enforce.

I am not happy about all of the changes as I love college sports but this is what happens when you have a corrupt organization like the NCAA working with the universities who are solely focused on enriching themselves and, to do so, contrive a system/organization through which they unfairly exploit an entire class of workers for decades which are in violation of federal antitrust laws...I'm shocked it went on for so long to be honest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol and chuckiepoo
#17,864
#17,864
cncchris33 said:
Yeah, I'm not saying the NCAA is perfect. There are a ton of things they could do better. But playing college sports also isn't a fundamental human right. It's a privilege and a choice. You play by the governing bodies rules, or you don't play. Athletes don't have to like it, but it isn't infringing upon their most basic inherent rights. Just like I don't have to like some of the policies my company institutes, it isn't necessarily my "right" to work at that company. I shouldn't expect to demand special treatment and file suit because they won't let me come to work without shoes and a shirt on.
Click to expand...
IMHO, athletes shouldn’t be held to any higher standard than the other students at a university. I think the NCAA was created / run by the athletic directors to support their agenda as the priority instead of looking out for the athletes which is what they proclaim as their priority.
 
#17,865
#17,865
cncchris33 said:
That's essentially a non-compete agreement and people sign them every day. I've signed one before. They prevent you from working in said industry for a competing company for a period of time. And they don't prevent you from working at all just like the NCAA rule doesn't prevent you from attending school on scholarship, collecting NIL money, or being involved with your team. It just prevents you from playing in games, which is the result of choosing to leave your original school.
Click to expand...
This would be for “professional” players opposed to amateur players as college athletes are currently labeled. Obviously, that amateur status is very much now in question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#17,872
#17,872
MinisterofDef#92 said:
Non-competes are very hard to enforce.

I am not happy about all of the changes as I love college sports but this is what happens when you have a corrupt organization like the NCAA working with the universities who are solely focused on enriching themselves and, to do so, contrive a system/organization through which they unfairly exploit an entire class of workers for decades which are in violation of federal antitrust laws...I'm shocked it went on for so long to be honest.
Click to expand...
But they aren't employees, which is the key component to these types of arguments. It's one thing for the public to look at them and visualize them as theoretical employees of the universities they represent. But in reality, the same government that is stepping into control the situation and overrule the NCAA doesn't even recognize them as employees of the university.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and cardvolfan
#17,873
#17,873
walkenvol said:
IMHO, athletes shouldn’t be held to any higher standard than the other students at a university. I think the NCAA was created / run by the athletic directors to support their agenda as the priority instead of looking out for the athletes which is what they proclaim as their priority.
Click to expand...
Being an athlete comes with specific advantages and privileges that aren't afforded to the other students of a university. Tuition, housing, meals, healthcare, nutrition, books...average students don't receive many (or any) of those things at no cost.

Those benefits come with a cost to student athletes. If they want the freedom of the average student, no one is stripping them of that opportunity. They just couldn't be a scholarship student-athlete, which is an option, not a requirement, of every student. No one is forcing these kids to be athletes and then restricting their rights to move around anywhere they want. Being a student-athlete is optional, and it comes with independent requirements and rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, Willy14, berryvol and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top