Settlement in House NIL Litigation in the Works September 5
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
Congress needs to stay out of College Sports and let the NCAA handle it
With the NCAA's fine leadership college football will challenge the NFL
for dominance in pro football and become just like the old USFL.
Seriously, I don't know which will hurt college football more, Congress getting involved or the way the NCAA is running it.
With the NCAA's fine leadership college football will challenge the NFL
for dominance in pro football and become just like the old USFL.
Seriously, I don't know which will hurt college football more, Congress getting involved or the way the NCAA is running it.
You lost me at “let the NCAA handle it”. NCAA has done nothing but botch this whole thing. Fighting rather seeking a framework that is sustainable. I dont like the government getting involved, buth the NCAA is not capable of managing this.
Employee status, unionization, and collective bargaining may be the only way to establish some parameters around this mess.
Well one thing is for sure. Congress will politicize the hell out of it and will not come up with a solution that actually works for the schools, conferences, and student athletes. They will be wholly focused on doing whatever they can to have “their side win.”
reread and see the sarcasm , the old USFL folded because of a bad decision.
It's funny but there is less chaos in the pros because of the CBAs. It's the only way. How it gets done and what it will be in the end - I have no idea.
The feckless ncaa and our worthless god damned, good-for-nothing congress…what could possibly go wrong when those shit shows work together?!?
Jesus Elizabeth Christ 🤦🏻♂️
Jesus Elizabeth Christ 🤦🏻♂️
I would assume so. But not to the University.
Just like the college freshman who has 1 million TikTok followers and gets brand sponsorship offers.
They are independent contractors for the brands they are promoting.
Once again ... for the 1000th time on this board ... the NCAA had rules. The Supreme Court (in its infinite wisdom) unilaterally invalidated them. It's the NCAA's fault that the Supreme Court told them they couldn't have rules.
And where does that leave us? I think most people are focused on the path forward rather than the decision that put us here. And, I don’t ask that to be insulting, mainly to get your perspective on this since it seems you have legal expertise.
Doesn't matter who had the idea to take on the NFL , the rest went along so the bad decision is on the group not just the one who came up with a dumb idea.
Trump might have led the parade but the majority of the other owners decided they wanted to march in that parade and got rained on with him.
Just because you have rules doesn't make them appropriate or legal.
And the worst argument of all time is "well that's the rule so can't question or reconsider it."
Didn't the NCAA have a rule against cream cheese for recruit visits for a while?
If the NCAA made a rule that all collegiate head coach salaries couldn't exceed more than $500,00 (because of "amateur athletics") it would be a pretty bad rule.
And the worst argument of all time is "well that's the rule so can't question or reconsider it."
Didn't the NCAA have a rule against cream cheese for recruit visits for a while?
If the NCAA made a rule that all collegiate head coach salaries couldn't exceed more than $500,00 (because of "amateur athletics") it would be a pretty bad rule.
There aren't many good workable solutions ....
1. The Congress steps in and passes a law giving the NCAA an anti-trust exemption (or an anti-trust exemption with caveats). This is the least likely to happen and would also yield the best results because if they did, they could potentially nullify any of the 50 different state laws governing NIL. This won't happen because Congress will never be able to agree on a new law.
2. The Big Ten and SEC ban NIL at the conference level which would most likely result in almost every other conference also banning NIL in response. Most experts would say that the two conferences could not collude, but I actually think these two conferences could collude with each other and it would survive (the argument being that they don't even amount to half of the BCS and less then 10% of NCAA Division 1). If this were to happen, things would be better than ever because now pay-for-play enforcement would fall on the conferences rather than the NCAA (who sucks at it).
3. The NCAA athletes form a union. It might just be for one or two sports (mens basketball and football) or a union covering all sports. Like option #1, I think this is also almost impossible - for several reasons. First, football players aren't going to want to share with the lacrosse players and wrestlers. Second, as soon as players are "paid," under Title IX, schools are going to be on the hook to pay the women players as much as they pay men (never going to happen).
4. Nothing happens <--- the most likely scenario. Players keep getting under-the-table NIL deals with supposedly no school involvement. The rich blueblood schools will get richer (because they can buy whatever players they want) and the poorer smaller schools will have their athletic departments fall apart gradually. Eventually, the lesser schools will drop programs, and then eventually entire athletic departments, because why should they give scholarships when they can't compete? The end game here is a superconference of professional college athletics (between 40 and 50 schools) that makes a ton of money based on tv contracts and every other school essentially running club sports. Thousands of scholarships will disappear and thousands of poor kids will not get to go to college as a result.
This particular bill is not going nowhere in its current form because only one party supports it. (Notice that the ranking minority member of the committee opposes it. ) The House could pass a bill supported by only one party, but it would have to have support in both parties to pass the Senate where 60 of 100 votes are needed to pass legislation because of the filibuster rules. (Neither party has 60 Senators.)
I doubt there will be a bill until the House v. NCAA settlement is done (For those who might not know, the plaintiff athletes and the NCAA have reached a tentative settlement of the plaintiffs' antitrust suit that would result in schools paying players.) Only then will it be clear how things would be without a bill, and so it can be better judged whether there needs to be a bill and what should be in it.
I doubt there will be a bill until the House v. NCAA settlement is done (For those who might not know, the plaintiff athletes and the NCAA have reached a tentative settlement of the plaintiffs' antitrust suit that would result in schools paying players.) Only then will it be clear how things would be without a bill, and so it can be better judged whether there needs to be a bill and what should be in it.
Last edited:
Thank you - good stuff. Although, I wish the options were a little better!
"We are from the government and here to help"
-- Scariest phase in the English language
To make clearer when I said above, House v. NCAA is the key right now. The law suit settlement is still being negotiated between those bringing the suit and the NCAA. When the settlement is done and approved by the judge, it will set the rules on paying athletes unless and until Congress steps in.
Regarding #3, seems to me that it would be the individual sports forming a union. Just football and just men's basketball. As I've said in numerous other threads, at that point Title 9 comes into direct conflict with existing labor law that prevents workplace discrimination on the basis of sex (the opposite of Title 9). Since the enterprise would now be professional and not amateur/scholastic, labor law should apply IMO.
And once there is a union, the schools, conferences and even the NCAA would have an entity that could be negotiated with, and form legal binding agreements, to bring stability and competition back.
We've discussed this before. I continue to be unsure that Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are really in conflict because both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. The bigger question, for the moment, is how Title IX might affect a settlement of House v. NCAA, the current anti-trust suit -- the settlement can't definitively resolve that question because enforcement of Title IX rests with the Department of Education, which is not a party to the litigation.
Take the games off television...if you want to see the game, go to the stadium. Stop selling merchandise, don't license ESPN or other networks to show the highlights or talk about these sports. If people truly want amateur sports that's all it would take. Remove the big money and professional coverage. But people are only upset about things changing, not anything else, they just want things to be how they were when they were 12. Of course politicians will jump on it because they want their constituents to think that they can stop inevitable change. Lol
People don't want "amateur athletics".
They want professional teams with "amateur athletes".
Literally everyone else involved with the sport is a full-time professional.
People literally complain about "increased AD expenses" (even see the above tweet) while coaches, staffs and administrators get raises over and over.
Conferences expand with ever increasing travel costs.
It's comical at this point.
No matter what Congress or the NCAA does about the players, real threat is corporations taking over conferences so those conferences can keep up with the B1G & SEC.
Unions might become involved in handling players and their school interaction with each other because once a corporation becomes part of running a conference the players might claim they are employees demanding rights and one of those rights will be the school provide free education while they are eligible to play college sports.
Unions might become involved in handling players and their school interaction with each other because once a corporation becomes part of running a conference the players might claim they are employees demanding rights and one of those rights will be the school provide free education while they are eligible to play college sports.
I'm interested in how this is going to play out. I don't think what's happening now is sustainable. Although I might be under estimating how much money is actually being made and in turn how much these nil deals can be and how long they will continue to be given out.
A few years from now, probably during the month of August, 10,000 FBS football players will take off their pads, walk out of their 9-figure indoor practice facilities, and begin a strike.
That will be interesting. Wonder if scabs will be brought in on behalf of the media companies that pay billions for rights and private equity investors in athletic programs betting on those rights amounts rising.
That will be interesting. Wonder if scabs will be brought in on behalf of the media companies that pay billions for rights and private equity investors in athletic programs betting on those rights amounts rising.
Understood. So this would eventually wind up in court though if USDOE tried to enforce title 9 and get sorted there (assuming no new law)? I still think that since title 9 covers provision of educational resources and extracurriculars, not paid compensation for students (which is still covered by fair labor standards act), it wouldn't apply here.
Last edited:
In 1987 the NFL hired players to replace the ones on strike.
So when college football players strike > Corporations will find new employees to play for the college programs they own.
