It's really not that clear in the law what are and are not antitrust violations. There are lots of attorneys out there who specialize in bringing antitrust suits because a winning suit is *very* lucrative for the winning lawyers -- if something really were certainly an antitrust violation, plenty of lawsuits would have been brought.
NIL District Court Decision- Plaintiffs Seeks Schools and Conferences to Make NIL Payments NCAAA Proposals Post #17
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
there is no gray area in what i mentioned, they are blatant anti trust violations.
that said, sports has long been officially exempted from anti trust to preserve the competitive nature of the sport..
that said, what's absolutely beyond criminal is the pay tv bundle that's a beyond belief violation of every anti trust law ever written, steals an extra $100 mo from consumers for what's essentially a utility, and not allowed in any other industry for obvious reasons.
amazing what corps can get away with when they are the media arm of the major political parties.
Excuse me, but you are mistaken. There are certain arrangements that are "per se" illegal. But many are subject to a "rule of reason" test. All of those are in shades of gray, rather than black or white. For some info, see the link. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws "Tying," (which is what you are complaining about with the pay TV bundle) is generally not regarded as per se illegal. The question is whether its benefits to its consumers outweigh its burdens to consumers. You may think pay tv bundles *should* be illegal, but that doesn't mean they necessarily *are* illegal.
In addition, while professional baseball is entirely exempt from the antitrust laws, other professional sports are exempt only for purposes of negotiating TV agreements. There is no exemption for college sports. That is why the Supreme Court in Alston held that the NCAA could not limit educational benefits -- because the NCAA *is* subject to the anti-trust laws.
total BS.
any salary cap and roster limit is a blatant anti trust violation, on top of the monopolistic negotiating cartels.
but like i said, sports have long been exempted from these anti trust laws in the name of competitive balance, which i have no problem with.
that said, the pay tv bundle violates every anti trust law ever written and absolutely should be and is illegal, and should be eliminated as of yesterday.
competing entities all literally colluding to contractually mandate that no one can buy anything without also buying 50 other non related products couldn't be any more anti competitive collusion, and isn't remotely allowed in any other industry for obvious reasons. (let alone something that's essentially a utility)
the bundle wasn't an issue for decades when cable tv came about, because the networks didn't charge anything for carriage, so it didn't matter how many were in the bundle, because you were only paying for the line to your house, not the programming..
and not until the industry went addressable in the 90s, was the industry really functionally able to give you this channel but not that channel, other than with a few premium channels. (and the industry was semi regulated up until about that same time).
but bidding wars have driven network price demands off the chart with no normal market forces in play to hold them down because of the monopoly bundle literally wiping out said normal market forces such as price/demand, and the pure monopolistic bundle only is allowed to still exit in pay tv because the major pay tv telecoms are literally connected at the hip with the major political parties. (and pure corruption in both the legislature and regulatory agencies, where the legislators and regulators have literally just been flat bought off).
the pay tv bundle is an anti trust monstrosity beyond belief, isn't remotely legal in any other industry, and flat shouldn't be legal in pay tv either.
of course, since Reagan, Wall St has literally taken over both parties, and anti trust hasn't really been enforced since Reagan.
Last edited:
I understand you feel strongly about these matters. All I ask is that you not make statements about the law that are not supported by the law. If you want to say, for instance, that the pay tv bundle is a monstrosity, fine. That doesn't mean that it is an antitrust violation. Maybe it should be, but that's not the state of the law.
Last edited:
you obviously have absolutely zero idea what an anti trust violation is.
it would literally be impossible to be any more of a monopolistic anti competitive anti trust violation than the forced pay tv bundle, where competing entities have entered into contractual mandates that none can be purchased without purchasing all..
and yes, our govt and regulatory agencies are corrupt beyond belief.
Comcast and AT&T literally run the FCC, Wall St the FTC.
thanks SCOTUS, no greater treason was ever perpetrated on the country than officially blessing the buying of govt in exchange for money.
Last edited:
Excuse me again, but I've been a lawyer for decades. It's possible that I know more than you do about what an anti trust violation is, don't you think?
And I thought I "come in hot" once in a while. I don't understand why winners started in with the insults.
While he makes some points that he is outraged, you have cited guidance as to why there is no antitrust violation here. I am also not understanding the 100s of dollars per month statement. Consumers have many choices on broadcast TV, including over the air, cable companies, satellite and streaming services.
I do understand from my practice that certain tying arrangements are per se illegal, but the rule of reason analysis is often applies by the courts.
I'm not interested in any further discussion on this. You have done a fine job!
Tying the Sale of Two Products
Offering products together as part of a package can benefit consumers who like the convenience of buying several items at the same time.
Last edited:
obviously you don't, so spare me your BS.
i have my own expertise as well.
if you can't recognize the forced pay tv bundle as a monopolistic anti competitive anti trust violation, then you have zero idea what an anti trust violation is.
You can stop with the insults and your personal opinion and offer some citations to legal authority. Why so nasty?
i don't consider pointing out that someone is wrong as a "personal insult", nor should you.
if 711 or you want to make a case for why competing entities contractually entering into an agreement where none can be purchased absent the purchase of all isn't anti competitive collusion and an anti trust violation, i say good luck with that.
before said competing entities charged for carriage, that was different.
before providers were logistically capable of giving us one without giving us all, that was different.
once providers achieved full addressability and said competing entities were each charging individually for carriage, for said competing entities to enter into a contractual agreement that none could be purchased absent the purchase of all, is anti competitive collusion and an anti trust violation.
that said, give so much as one example of any other industry where such an agreement exists.
Thank you for your support, particularly because it comes from a fellow lawyer. I agree there is no point in further engaging with the gentleman.And I thought I "come in hot" once in a while. I don't understand why winners started in with the insults.
While he makes some points that he is outraged, you have cited guidance as to why there is no antitrust violation here. I am also not understanding the 100s of dollars per month statement. Consumers have many choices on broadcast TV, including over the air, cable companies, satellite and streaming services.
I do understand from my practice that certain tying arrangements are per se illegal, but the rule of reason analysis is often applies by the courts.
I'm not interested in any further discussion on this. You have done a fine job!
Tying the Sale of Two Products
Offering products together as part of a package can benefit consumers who like the convenience of buying several items at the same time.www.ftc.gov
Last edited:
still waiting for any of you guys to make your case.
or pointing out any other industry where this happens.
good luck with that.
obviously you have nothing.
Last edited:
It’s not Geo’s job to make the NCAA and the schools figure out some fair rules while also getting the players fair compensation. So much money being made. Geo’s job was to lift the restrictions to help the players get some reasonable compensation. That needed to happen. Nothing was going to stop it from happening. It’s not Geos fault that the people in charge can’t get their shit together and make a system that works.
The difference is the college pays the staff, admins etc. Colleges are not paying the athletes. That is private money.
Honestly this is where it needs to go. Schools in the power 5 have huge media revenues now, but somehow fans are supposed to pay the players in addy to that. The only sensible route forward is bringing that huge media rights cash stream into the NIL funding.
You've already had 2 practicing attorneys, with what I can only imagine is about 175 years of experience between the two of them, tell you that what you think is "antitrust" in fact is not.
Maybe take a break.
Wrong. The players were fairly compensated. They got a free education, they got free housing, they got treated like kings by the university. Further they could have just limited this compensation to actual uses of their NIL instead of taking advantage and making it a monetary free for all. Geo helped kick this pay for play situation off and he deserves to be pointed out.
The difference is that professional ball exists and is a much better quality product. The things that make college sports special are being destroyed.
Wait until OSHA realizes the players use extra protective helmets in practice but not in games. Mandated giant helmet covers inbound along with lawsuits for not doing it sooner. LOL
Last edited:
Do you think Congress should regulate income levels for all industries/professions or just college athletics? What arbitrary income cap established by Congress do you think would be fair for your chosen profession?
College athletes have not collectively bargained away any of their rights under the law. You have mentioned anti-trust violations several times in your posts in this thread. How can an industry set caps/levels of compensation for folks who have not collectively bargained away those rights and not be in violation of anti-trust laws?
Last edited:
Depends who wins in 2024 and by how much. There is one side, which shall not be named, which will, once it has enough power, assure they never lose that power by changing lots of things.. SCOTUS judge count to start, then number of states, then elimination of Electoral College... then comes the massive changes to.. well, everything. Of course, they will say it is for the betterment of society and saving the planet... but you can be assured the ones who will benefit are the friends and families of the party members and those they need to wield power.. like the military (enough to control it and make sure only those loyal to them have weapons) and its contractors.
There is the rub: when the schools and the networks and the coaches are making billions, a free education isn’t fair compensation.
This is a key issue: why do people watch college sports? Is it because the players aren't being paid? I doubt it. I think it is because a lot of people just plain enjoy watching good basketball and football. In addition, many people prefer the college game to the pro game -- basketball is an example because there is much more teamwork.
Note also my quote above from Justice Kavanaugh, not exactly a flaming left-winger, in which he says that there is no other business in which we would accept concerted action to keep wages down. (e.g., limit nurses' salaries so that we can feel they are working for the love of it.) The question is whether we should make an exception for college sports, and that hinges in part on why people watch college games.
It became minor leagues when the schools and cable nets started making billions and started treating athletics like a revenue business and not a student activity. That started many decades ago. TV contracts, conference realignment, and all the crap that goes on, and you focus your ire on the lowest rung in the power structure, the kids. Everyone is chasing money and making gobs of it…except the players. It was absolutely inevitable that they wouldn’t stay as the only group of people in college football that were pretending this isn’t a business.
well Miss Rosannadanna, the post of mine you referred to was concerning the pay tv bundle, not player compensation.
and yet neither could make a credible case in the slightest that the forced pay tv bundle isn't an anti trust violation.
nor could either name so much as one other industry where this sht goes on, as i challenged them to do.
and there's a good reason they didn't and couldn't.
competing entities contractually mandating one cannot be purchased absent the purchase of all, is as blatant an anti trust violation as one can get.
Last edited:
The professor in me wants to make one more try:
Let's assume that the pay TV bundle is unique -- that there's nothing like it in any other industry. That doesn't prove it's illegal. There's a difference between being "unique" and being "illegal."
The pay TV bundle is, as both @Knight Shift and I have told you, an example of a tying arrangement. A tying arrangement is one in which I say to you, "I will sell you X, but only if you also buy Y from me." That's the pay TV bundle: "I will sell you the right to view Fox TV, but only if you also buy from me the right to view MSNBC, ESPN, QVC" and so on and so forth.
Tying arrangements are not always violations of the anti-trust laws. (If you don't believe me, see the linked source, a quick summary of the law) That makes it very hard to predict what a court would do with one. The only court case I could quickly find specifically concerning pay TV bundles said the bundle did not violate the antitrust laws. (The case was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of that decision.)
I should add that antitrust laws are not dependent for their enforcement on the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agency. Rather, those injured can bring suit in court and potentially collect triple damages. (This is how the National Association of Realtors is being forced to change its rules for charging commissions.) There are lots of plaintiffs' firms that specialize in this kind of litigation because it can be quite lucrative. If the pay TV bundle was really an obvious antitrust violation, we'd be seeing lots of lawsuits to collect damages
May I finally say that since you are the one who made the original assertion of illegality, the burden is on you to make that case. Yelling "as blatant an anti trust violation as one can get" is a statement of a conclusion rather than an argument that demonstrates that conclusion.
Have a good evening! Now here's the source on tying arrangements: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tying_arrangement and here's a source on the court case: https://www.streamtvinsider.com/cable/court-says-tv-channel-bundles-don-t-violate-antitrust-statutes
Great work, professor. I don't have the energy to carry this on, not because winners is winning, I just don't care to carry on any more on this topic.
Sensible! The professor in me has always wanted to explain in a way that everyone would understand.(That's why I would spend a week on the Rule Against Perpetuities.) But I know from long experience that I can't always get through. Sigh. All I can do is to try my best.
Last edited:
Specifically, the suit claims that football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball players at schools in the Power Five conferences are entitled to damages related to the use of their NIL’s during telecasts of games and that athletes in any sport at a Power Five school are entitled to damages related to social media earnings. If the plaintiffs prevail, most of the money would be spread among athletes in those three sports who have received full athletic scholarships and play -- or have played -- for a school in one of the Power Five conferences since June 15, 2016. That date is four years prior to when the suit was initially filed, the reach-back period allowed under antitrust law.
Had U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken refused to grant class-action status in the damages portion of the case, any monetary award would have been limited to the claims of the three named plaintiffs: Arizona State men’s swimmer Grant House; former Oregon and current TCU women’s basketball player Sedona Prince; and former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver.
Now, the NCAA and the conferences face the type of consequences that have been driving their increasingly intense effort to get a form of antitrust protection from Congress as part of a broader measure that they want to use to bring a national standard to athletes’ NIL activities. At present, there is a patchwork of state laws surrounding those activities.
Federal judge's ruling puts billions at stake for NCAA
A federal judge granted class-action status in the damages portion of a lawsuit that could result in a multi-billion-dollar award to athletes.
www.usatoday.com
For those who are not lawyers . .. the granting of class-action status means that the court is allowing the suit to be brought on behalf of all college athletes who were allegedly damaged, not just the three individuals who brought the suit. The granting of class-action status does not mean that the defendants have lost the law suit, but rather only that they would have to pay money to all class members, not just to the three individuals if they lose. That, of course, hugely raises the amount of money that is at stake.
Specifically, the suit claims that football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball players at schools in the Power Five conferences are entitled to damages related to the use of their NIL’s during telecasts of games and that athletes in any sport at a Power Five school are entitled to damages related to social media earnings. If the plaintiffs prevail, most of the money would be spread among athletes in those three sports who have received full athletic scholarships and play -- or have played -- for a school in one of the Power Five conferences since June 15, 2016. That date is four years prior to when the suit was initially filed, the reach-back period allowed under antitrust law.
Had U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken refused to grant class-action status in the damages portion of the case, any monetary award would have been limited to the claims of the three named plaintiffs: Arizona State men’s swimmer Grant House; former Oregon and current TCU women’s basketball player Sedona Prince; and former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver.
Now, the NCAA and the conferences face the type of consequences that have been driving their increasingly intense effort to get a form of antitrust protection from Congress as part of a broader measure that they want to use to bring a national standard to athletes’ NIL activities. At present, there is a patchwork of state laws surrounding those activities.
Federal judge's ruling puts billions at stake for NCAA
A federal judge granted class-action status in the damages portion of a lawsuit that could result in a multi-billion-dollar award to athletes.www.usatoday.com
It seems Sr. Judge Wilkens has been down this road before and was reversed:
Notable cases
In 2014 Wilken ruled against the NCAA in O'Bannon v. NCAA, saying that the organization violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting universities from giving student-athletes a share of the revenues earned when their image and personal details were broadcast over television or through other contracts.[1]In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the District Court's ruling.[6] In March 2016, O'Bannon's lawyers appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.[7] The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 3, 2016.[8]
O'Bannon v. NCAA - Wikipedia
Interesting, this was part of a larger group of cases involving Ryan Hart from Rutgers:
Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), both original co-defendants with the NCAA, departed from the case and finalized a $40 million settlement that could net as much as $4,000 to as many as 100,000 current and former athletes who had appeared in EA Sports' NCAA Basketball and NCAA Football series of video games since 2003.[15][16]
$40M settlement finalized in O'Bannon suit
College football and basketball players have finalized a $40 million settlement with a video game manufacturer and the NCAA's licensing arm for improperly using the likenesses of athletes.
This is all ridiculous anyway.
All those athletes knew the rules when they signed to enjoy the benefits of playing college ball. Each of them.. all of them.. could have avoided the use of their NIL by not signing to play college ball or they could have quit once they realized their precious name image and likeness were attached to their bodies as they play their sports in front of TV cameras.
It is all so stupid. But there's money in this for lawyers.. and judges are also lawyers.. so.. why not? Right?
All those athletes knew the rules when they signed to enjoy the benefits of playing college ball. Each of them.. all of them.. could have avoided the use of their NIL by not signing to play college ball or they could have quit once they realized their precious name image and likeness were attached to their bodies as they play their sports in front of TV cameras.
It is all so stupid. But there's money in this for lawyers.. and judges are also lawyers.. so.. why not? Right?
