NIL District Court Decision- Plaintiffs Seeks Schools and Conferences to Make NIL Payments NCAAA Proposals Post #17
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
When does OSHA get involved with University Employees (football players for example) work safety issues?
Not entirely certain a football field is safe for OSHA. Then again, officials and coaches get hit on occasion.. and they are employees.
Not entirely certain a football field is safe for OSHA. Then again, officials and coaches get hit on occasion.. and they are employees.
Just to respond to 1., they want a law stating that college athletes are not to be considered "employees" under federal law.
I cannot help but quote Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in the Alston case (the case striking down the NCAA's limits on educational benefits that can be offered to scholarship athletes):
Under the rule of reason, the
NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justifica-
tion for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, how-
ever, the NCAA may lack such a justification.
The NCAA acknowledges that it controls the market for
college athletes. The NCAA concedes that its compensation
rules set the price of student athlete labor at a below-mar-
ket rate. And the NCAA recognizes that student athletes
currently have no meaningful ability to negotiate with the
NCAA over the compensation rules.
The NCAA nonetheless asserts that its compensation
rules are procompetitive because those rules help define the
product of college sports. Specifically, the NCAA says that
colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the de-
fining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is
that the student athletes are not paid.
In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive.
The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student
athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise
the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly il-
legal 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.
Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing
labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it
extinguishes the free market in which individuals can oth-
erwise obtain fair compensation for their work.
Under the rule of reason, the
NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justifica-
tion for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, how-
ever, the NCAA may lack such a justification.
The NCAA acknowledges that it controls the market for
college athletes. The NCAA concedes that its compensation
rules set the price of student athlete labor at a below-mar-
ket rate. And the NCAA recognizes that student athletes
currently have no meaningful ability to negotiate with the
NCAA over the compensation rules.
The NCAA nonetheless asserts that its compensation
rules are procompetitive because those rules help define the
product of college sports. Specifically, the NCAA says that
colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the de-
fining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is
that the student athletes are not paid.
In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive.
The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student
athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise
the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly il-
legal 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.
Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing
labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it
extinguishes the free market in which individuals can oth-
erwise obtain fair compensation for their work.
Why are all athletes and sports grouped into one bucket?
Why are FBS P5 schools grouped in the same rules as Div 3 schools?
They are completely different sports with different operating models.
If schools want to offer scholarships to non-revenue athletes - LET THEM!
Put the responsibility on the school (and "taxpayers") to fund it though.
Just don't implicate the revenue generating schools and force them to carry the non-revenue school financially.
It just makes Football the scapegoat for the school and "taxpayers" not wanting to pay for these scholarships.
Let revene generating athletes be employees of the revenue generating AD department.
Let non-revenue athletes receive scholarships from the non-revenue generating AD department.
This all seems like just one big attempt to "preserve the NCAA system" that everyone mocks and says was broken long before NIL came around.
Why are FBS P5 schools grouped in the same rules as Div 3 schools?
They are completely different sports with different operating models.
If schools want to offer scholarships to non-revenue athletes - LET THEM!
Put the responsibility on the school (and "taxpayers") to fund it though.
Just don't implicate the revenue generating schools and force them to carry the non-revenue school financially.
It just makes Football the scapegoat for the school and "taxpayers" not wanting to pay for these scholarships.
Let revene generating athletes be employees of the revenue generating AD department.
Let non-revenue athletes receive scholarships from the non-revenue generating AD department.
This all seems like just one big attempt to "preserve the NCAA system" that everyone mocks and says was broken long before NIL came around.
The real problem is that there's no financial accountability on the part of the schools and athletic departments.
State institutions like Rutgers should be compelled to offer a full accounting - without any of the mystical shell gaming that occurs behind things like "direct institutional support" and the book value of a scholarship.
Then and only then can we have a full understand of who's paying for what - and at that point begin to conduct a proper analysis of what a player's worth might be from the perspective of compensation.
State institutions like Rutgers should be compelled to offer a full accounting - without any of the mystical shell gaming that occurs behind things like "direct institutional support" and the book value of a scholarship.
Then and only then can we have a full understand of who's paying for what - and at that point begin to conduct a proper analysis of what a player's worth might be from the perspective of compensation.
We don't even have a workable model yet, but already they're discussing workplace safety standards and unionization efforts.
They don't call it Congress inaction for a reason. There's rarely ever a space between the in and action.
Your head will explode after reading this article:
"She said this issue “is transforming and transforming the support for a lot of things that are really key to athletic competition in the United States of America -- not just Title IX … and support for women and how are we going to preserve that. But how do you keep a college system that is, if you will, the training ground for your future Olympic athletes? We don't want to be the host of a future Olympics (which the United States will be in 2028), and then, all of a sudden, we've destroyed the pipeline of athletes because we got this wrong as it relates to college athletics.”
She added: “There's very unique things within this about NIL and the change to the transfer rule that I think has precipitated some activity that has let boosters out of the box that never should have gotten let out of the box. And I think we need to put them back in.”
As the bottom line, she said: “You could do a lot of different things here. And so the question is: Is there something that we could get agreement on that would be an immediate thing on trying to not create a process without transparency that is giving some schools advantages right now while we still look at the larger issue? … We're just going to have to get everybody together and see. I'm trying to find a win-win-win situation here. … We’ll see.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell says she wants any NIL legislation to also address NCAA athletes' rights
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said she wants any type of legislation related to college sports to cover more than just NIL.
www.usatoday.com
My head didn't explode at all. She's tying the NIL issue to Olympic sports -- nothing wrong with that. She's tying it to the reality that the liberalized transfer rules mean that it is easy for a school's boosters to use NIL to attract athletes from other schools. She's bringing up the truth that the NIL allows boosters to do openly what they always had to do under the table at the risk of having their school punished. Most importantly, she's trying to figure out if there is a quick fix that can be done while Congress considers a more comprehensive solution. So she's trying to find a way to take action rather than have continued Congressional inaction.They don't call it Congress inaction for a reason. There's rarely ever a space between the in and action.
Your head will explode after reading this article:
"She said this issue “is transforming and transforming the support for a lot of things that are really key to athletic competition in the United States of America -- not just Title IX … and support for women and how are we going to preserve that. But how do you keep a college system that is, if you will, the training ground for your future Olympic athletes? We don't want to be the host of a future Olympics (which the United States will be in 2028), and then, all of a sudden, we've destroyed the pipeline of athletes because we got this wrong as it relates to college athletics.”
She added: “There's very unique things within this about NIL and the change to the transfer rule that I think has precipitated some activity that has let boosters out of the box that never should have gotten let out of the box. And I think we need to put them back in.”
As the bottom line, she said: “You could do a lot of different things here. And so the question is: Is there something that we could get agreement on that would be an immediate thing on trying to not create a process without transparency that is giving some schools advantages right now while we still look at the larger issue? … We're just going to have to get everybody together and see. I'm trying to find a win-win-win situation here. … We’ll see.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell says she wants any NIL legislation to also address NCAA athletes' rights
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said she wants any type of legislation related to college sports to cover more than just NIL.www.usatoday.com
Last edited:
Ncaa brought all of this on itself . Should have just given the revenue producing athletes a piece of the pie a long time ago.
Once upon a time, a high school senior got a dance scholarship at the University of Michigan. She turned pro. Had she done so while remaining a University of Michigan student, she would have been free to keep every dime she made and keep her dance scholarship. But had she been a fencer, she couldn't have accepted a penny without losing her scholarship no matter how much demand there was to watch her swordplay.
The senior dropped her middle and last names and is now known simply as Madonna. Would it have been legitimate to treat her differently had she been a fencer? As the Linda Richman character would say on Saturday Night Life, "talk amongst yourselves!"
The senior dropped her middle and last names and is now known simply as Madonna. Would it have been legitimate to treat her differently had she been a fencer? As the Linda Richman character would say on Saturday Night Life, "talk amongst yourselves!"
If Congress is so worried about Olympic Sports maybe they should actually fund and train potential Olympic athletes instead of forcing colleges to do it?
I don't think they can put the toothpaste back in the tube. As far as the Olympics are concerned, other countries have always sent professionals. The U.S. is the only country in the world with an attachment to faux amateurism.They don't call it Congress inaction for a reason. There's rarely ever a space between the in and action.
Your head will explode after reading this article:
"She said this issue “is transforming and transforming the support for a lot of things that are really key to athletic competition in the United States of America -- not just Title IX … and support for women and how are we going to preserve that. But how do you keep a college system that is, if you will, the training ground for your future Olympic athletes? We don't want to be the host of a future Olympics (which the United States will be in 2028), and then, all of a sudden, we've destroyed the pipeline of athletes because we got this wrong as it relates to college athletics.”
She added: “There's very unique things within this about NIL and the change to the transfer rule that I think has precipitated some activity that has let boosters out of the box that never should have gotten let out of the box. And I think we need to put them back in.”
As the bottom line, she said: “You could do a lot of different things here. And so the question is: Is there something that we could get agreement on that would be an immediate thing on trying to not create a process without transparency that is giving some schools advantages right now while we still look at the larger issue? … We're just going to have to get everybody together and see. I'm trying to find a win-win-win situation here. … We’ll see.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell says she wants any NIL legislation to also address NCAA athletes' rights
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said she wants any type of legislation related to college sports to cover more than just NIL.www.usatoday.com
I find that to be suspect.. the gist, not the concession. Market rate had been established for along long time with the cast majority of programs NOT paying more than a scholarship and agreed-upon benefits. It was a few programs who "paid" players in other ways... thus creating a market.
What is market rate anyway? The labor offered has no standard. Plenty of players play without NIL money. Is the market rate zero for them? Plenty others play for scholarships... the established "rate". Why should every player be paid just because some programs and fan bases are willing to flood the market?
For all we know, those monied programs are going to flood the market now to control it.. then when they dominate and have driven other competitors they will then control the market and stop over-paying for athletes. In the end, the sport and its players will suffer as had the majority of universities fielding football teams.
Not only that.. the college system trains THE WORLD's athletes too.. at the expense of Americans.
I understand your point, but I think you are misinterpreting what it means to be "market rate." A rate that results from price-fixing is not a market rate. A market rate is the rate that would prevail if there weren't price-fixing -- that is, a rate that would result from the normal workings of a free market.
An illustration: Suppose that all restaurants agreed not to pay short-order cooks more than the minimum wage, but that in the absence of that agreement, cooks would earn twice the minimum wage because of the workings of supply and demand. The "market rate" is twice the minimum wage, not the rate that resulted from the agreement among the restaurants. The agreement is a violation of the antitrust laws because it fixes the price at less than the rate. Similarly, the compensation that college athletes are now receiving is not a market rate because it is the result of price-fixing among colleges.
Last edited:
Considering the huge increase in media rights, that's a pretty good sign the market rate have also gone up significantly.
The issue is that this market rate isn't being distributed adequately - with schools keeping nearly all the money.
Media partners arent paying $1b/year just to broadcast HC Schiano or HC Pike.
It's to broadcast the players as well.
Now imagine the restaurant has increased revenue by tens of millions per year.
"We can't pay you more. But we used that money to get nicer lockers to put your stuff in. Oh and we got a nicer stove for you to use and some better refrigerators. And we know it was your cooking for dinner that raised the money. But we need to keep propping up the breakfast crew that had no customers because the ownership group won't give us money - so it has to come from the dinner budget."
"Oh and also all the managers keep getting raises even though some were terrible and nearly ran the restaurant into the ground."
The key for purposes of the anti-trust laws is that it's not a single restaurant that is saying that -- but that all (or most) of the restaurants have agreed with each other to hold down the wages. That's what the law means by price-fixing -- an agreement to set prices at a particular level.
Last edited:
Yeah.. agreed.. as I typed it I realized it was off. But the main point is that there really cannot be a "market rate" that applies to all athletes or even all athletes that play the same position in the same sport. What they offer is non-standard. NIL makes sense in that regard... but to go further along these lines.. forcing universities to pay X to all..
There is some craziness ahead... and no one knows what will come except for those willing to influence the "market"... to "corner the market".
The athletes did not make the market. If it were just athletes then there would be a minor league for football that has nothing to do with becoming a student-athlete. College students who wanted to keep playing a kids game made the market over 100 years ago. And they offered scholarships and equipment and uniforms and travel and coaching and now it is up to plush lounges and lockerroom and tutors.. I couldn't imagine what it would cost for an athlete to get those resources in the outside world... but I'd bet it is a surprisingly huge number.
This is going to kill a not-so-golden goose. "Kill" might be a bit much... but think of any of the NFL-wannabe leagues that have come and gone.. some now pay less than what NIL is paying players. This revenue we speak of has more to do with the history of college football and state residents identifying with those names.. largely their state universities. Any current batch of athletes has little to do with it.
Last edited:
Don't you mean too much money is going to the coaches, not the schools? Or maybe the schools are not properly distributing the money between the coaches and players.
Compensating athletes does not necessarily mean that everyone will get the same salary. That's even true under unionization -- not every Rutgers prof gets the same salary, nor does every NFL player get the same salary.
If anyone made the market, it was the fans by going to games and by watching games in sufficient numbers to attract advertisers and thus to make media rights valuable. The question now is to allocate the gains that are generated by fan interest.
You're right to be concerned about the future. Will Rutgers fans care about players who are being paid and who can leave at the drop of a hat? At least in pro sports, key players get multiyear contracts and so the city embraces, say, a Zack Wheeler or a Bryce Harper. Will fans see college football and basketball as just minor league versions of the pros, or will fans continue to value the college game even without amateurism? I am optimistic -- the bulk of fans, say, for March Madness are not particularly affiliated with a school, but enjoy college basketball, not because the players are amateurs, but because the game is more interesting than the NBA. But obviously my crystal ball is no better than anyone else's.
College Football.. has made so many concessions to the TV networks in search of dollars. Would TV networks still pay big dollars had college football, as a group, said, hands off our game?
These concessions include:
- allowing TV networks to set schedules
- setting days of the week (as negotiated)
- setting kickoff times
- setting how long timeouts last.. even preventing the start of play until TV is done selling time (I wonder if they get penalized if they go over.. if, say, they take the 2.5 minutes for ads then add in some time for them to sell some show or the next game).
- at least twice now TV has caused changes in when the clock stops
- at least twice they changed how overtime works.. though, clearly, the game itself has played with that independent of TV taking control
I am sure I am missing something... oh, yeah, number of games in a season... when bowl games get played... who gets what bowl game.. created a still-imaginary national championship that is only slightly more dependable than the old final AP Poll. I wonder if the various replay booths have a TV producer in them, influencing things.
All this to max out money.. most of which went into plush buildings and lockerroom and salaries and on and on. And still many bowl teams lose money going to bowl games and their fans get raked over for surreal prices for bad seats while TV people and bowl committees control the best seats.
We saw a TV network tell a conference when and how to expand their conference, targeting a lesser conference that was contractually a business partner of that same network.
TV lead the way in "pay the players" and probably the transfer rules and so on. I suspect ESPN, the corporation with teh most influence, seeks an NFL-like version of college football. With few teams with big names getting all the talent. no longer will they have to worry that some small market no-name team becomes something they have to cover and sell to their advertisers. Some 40-60 team super league that only plays among one-another is what they seek. Like the NFL, 3-4 TV networks could control all the product.
And as they approach achieving that.. driving out the small teams because they cannot compete with NIL money.. they will pulls the strings and decide what teams that have pull in what TV markets are allowed in. Most will be the named, money teams... but who knows what marginal teams they will encourage a conference to take.
It is disgusting. But we have a century and a half of "college football" whose.. "brand" whitewashes so much of what is going on. It has changed so much. The reputation and following of "college football" predates all of it. Sure, new fans today are fans of today's game. But that aura that attracted them to college football was made long ago.
I would predict that if collegiate rosters become purely transactional, in the way of professional sports, overall interest in college athletics will decline.
I've always felt that a significant part of the appeal of college athletics is that sense of belonging, the ability to identify with the school and the team, the "this is my school, I went to this school and this great athlete is also going to my school".
I'm reminded of the pride that many of us old-timers felt when we first started to hear "Rutgers" in NFL introductions.
If you take that affiliation away, if it becomes all about the money... why watch? At that point college football, college basketball... they're just minor leagues for the pros, without pretense and without a lot of the cultural fanfare that has existed for generations.
I said many months ago that NIL was going to kill college athletics as we know it. Still think it's true.
I've always felt that a significant part of the appeal of college athletics is that sense of belonging, the ability to identify with the school and the team, the "this is my school, I went to this school and this great athlete is also going to my school".
I'm reminded of the pride that many of us old-timers felt when we first started to hear "Rutgers" in NFL introductions.
If you take that affiliation away, if it becomes all about the money... why watch? At that point college football, college basketball... they're just minor leagues for the pros, without pretense and without a lot of the cultural fanfare that has existed for generations.
I said many months ago that NIL was going to kill college athletics as we know it. Still think it's true.
I didn't believe it before, but after reading all these tweets surrounding the Congressional action all the bigshots were calling for, I'm starting to believe. There is no starting small, this is going full tilt.
I would respond that 2024-2025 is being projected as the most interesting Rutgers basketball season ever.
Primarily fueled by 2 players who everyone knows will be on campus for approx 6 months.
Talent trumps "legacy".
Has interest waned at Duke or UNC or Kansas or Kentucky over the last decade?
The proposal is the very last item, so be prepared to scroll. It also says that NIL cannot be used as an inducement to come to or remain at a particular school. (I don't think that's new.) I don't see anything wrong with requiring disclosure or having a registry, but these steps do not solve the problems posed by NIL.
"We're now poised to get the rules stricken that prevent conferences and schools from making NIL payments," said Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs. "That's going to be huge for these athletes."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case also a seeking class-action status for a damages claim that, according to filings by the NCAA, could be worth more than $1.4 billion. Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken expressly does not address that issue, with Wilken writing that she resolve that matter in a separate order.
NCAA, conferences could be forced into major NIL change as lawsuit granted class-action status
A federal district judge granted class-action status to an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA and the nation’s top college conferences.www.usatoday.com
virtually every roster rule the NCAA, NFL, NBA, NHL, has, is an anti trust violation.
conferences made up of schools bargaining as a cartel with networks is an anti trust violation.
and USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, didn't join the B10 to play midwest and east coast schools, they did so to join the negotiating cartel and further monopolize it.
the pay tv bundle is a blatant anti trust violation beyond belief. BEYOND BELIEF!
the latter is the real doer of harm, and needs addressed first, as it adds $100 mo to everyone's bill on something that's basically a utility, and is pricing many out of the market.
and has totally perverted college sports from the makeup of conferences to beyond absurd coaches' salaries to NIL in doing so.
NIL needs gone ASAP.
and as long as it exists, there literally is no way to divorce it from pay to attend, that can't be circumvented in 2 mins.
replace NIL with some in house payments to athletes that schools have some control over, with a hard cap.
this isn't rocket science.
unfortunately, college sports has been taken over from within by malevolent forces that don't have the best interests of college sports or the schools themselves at heart.
NCAA and member schools would rather let NCAA Football video game end than share money with players.
Talk about in-house payments all you want and a salary cap.
The schools prefer off loading the burden to others.
They keep all the money to themselves and have no requirement to be financially sound with their spending.
Talk about in-house payments all you want and a salary cap.
The schools prefer off loading the burden to others.
They keep all the money to themselves and have no requirement to be financially sound with their spending.
