Federal judge enjoins NCAA's NIL rules
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
"
This seems like it should be true, but consider the English Premier League, the Bundesliga and others. The teams at the top massively outspend the rest of the league but the popularity of the sport continues to rise.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Congress *can* nullify state law because the Constitution specifies that Federal law is the supreme law of the land; but Congress doesn't always do it.
not quite
supreme law of the land where the federal gov't is empowered to act by Congress
big distinction and one that liberals hate
In this instance, it's a distinction without a difference: Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is broad enough under longstanding Supreme Court precedent that I don't think anyone can seriously challenge Congress's authority to act in this area.
Kirk Herbstreit comments on the NCAA losing in court.
In summary, the P4 Conferences should consider/discuss forming their own League with controls basically the NFL in College Sports.
Don't know if this approach gets any traction.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
In summary, the P4 Conferences should consider/discuss forming their own League with controls basically the NFL in College Sports.
Don't know if this approach gets any traction.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Again, this can work only with legislation granting an antitrust exemption or a collective bargaining agreement with a union of college players.
I am surprised at the lack of understanding of this basic point.
The pro sports leagues negotiate with the players union which results in a final collective bargaining agreement between the two parties. The union/players gives up certain rights (i.e pro football players can't become free agents every year) in exchange for a gain (i.e +/- 50% of NFL revenue is to be distributed to the NFL players).
SCOTUS has ruled the NCAA can't take away from college athletes the same free market rights you and I are afforded until the NCAA (or a body representing college athletics) is able to collectively bargain a solution with an entity that represents college athletes. OR Congress grants college athletics an anti-trust exemption (which imo is not happening). So we wait until the former occurs.
Last edited:
I'm not surprised. Few people are lawyers. But if you and I keep saying it, maybe the message will get through.
The proposed Congressional legislation I've seen would not give the NCAA an anti-trust exemption. Rather it would create a federal administrative agency to lay down the ground rules. But there hasn't been much progress in passing legislation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I take pleasure in reading SCOTUS decisions that I find noteworthy or interesting. Congressional legislation (imo) faces serious headwinds from Kavanaugh's concurrence in Alston. In his concurrence Kavanaugh writes:
"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."
So (imo), any Congressional legislation would need to be extraordinarily careful to not open up a Pandora's box related to antitrust law. And I simply don't see how you could get a majority of the House and Senate to carefully construct and agree to a law that wouldn't have the unintended consequence of opening up antitrust issues for a host of other industries (as Kavanuagh references in the above passage).
It'll be a microcosm of society, and business on a whole
I.E. - Those with the biggest pockets and smartest people in charge are most likely to have the greatest success
I.E. - Those with the biggest pockets and smartest people in charge are most likely to have the greatest success
I can see the SEC and B10 not pushing for any of this to get formally addressed until the B10 and SEC are so far ahead of the Big12 and ACC, that when they decide to push for some guardrails, it will be clear to everyone especially recruits that the P2 is their path to more money and/or the NFL.
Something tells me that things will get worse before things get better for Low Mid B10, Low SEC, and the rest of college football. I think the SEC and B10 will be ok with chaos for a couple of years since it only benefits their big brands.
- In 2026 the payout from the SEC and B10 should be >50M more than the Big12 and ACC. ~35-40M gap in 2024-2025.
- If the CFP adopts a 4/4/2/2/1/1 AQ for SEC/B10/ACC/Big12/G5/AtLarge, then recruits will know that they have a higher likelihood of getting more money from the P2 as well as a higher probability at the CFP as well as exposure.
- The ACC hasn't had a 2nd team in the top 14 in over 5 years.
- Keeps ACC and Big12 at same level even though the Big12 seems clearly ahead.
- Keeps the SEC and B10 far ahead as 1/2.
- Big12 hasn't had a top 25 recruiting class in years outside of TX and OK
- Miami, FSU, Clemson and UNC do typically rank in the top25, but with FSU leaving soon, others wanting out, while stuck in a long media deal that might end up being renegotiated for less, the ACC will be hurting even if some teams recruit well compared to the the Big12
Something tells me that things will get worse before things get better for Low Mid B10, Low SEC, and the rest of college football. I think the SEC and B10 will be ok with chaos for a couple of years since it only benefits their big brands.
I respectfully dissent, as judges say. The anti-trust laws that Justice Kavanaugh is talking about were made by Congress and so Congress is free to amend them however it wishes. If Congress wants to give the NCAA an anti-trust exemption, there is nothing stopping it from doing so.
I don't want to get @RUTGERS95 upset with me, so I want to add that the Constitution restrains what Congress can do. But there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent Congress from granting anti-trust exemptions or even from abolishing the anti-trust laws entirely.
Last edited:
