KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
2 years ago
Supreme Court Rules NCAA Went too far in Cracking Down on Student-Athlete Pay
BY MATTHEW VADUM June 21, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rules-ncaa-went-too-far-in-cracking-down-on-student-athlete-pay_3867699.html 

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this morning that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) regulations that restrict benefits that may be given to student-athletes violate federal antitrust law.

The NCAA had argued that policing student-athlete pay helps to preserve the long-standing amateur status of college athletics. The high court was unmoved, rejecting the NCAA’s argument that it should enjoy antitrust immunity and affirmed a lower court’s order that will allow member schools to offer more education-related benefits to student-athletes.

The June 21 ruling, which opens the door for student-athletes to receive greater compensation, could reshape college sports throughout the country.

It’s a big industry. According to an NCAA report, more than $18.8 billion was spent on athletics in 2019 at the 1,100-plus NCAA schools across all three divisions. Of that total, $3.6 billion went toward financial aid for student-athletes, and $3.7 billion was spent on coaches’ compensation.

The case is actually two cases that were heard together: NCAA v. Alston, court file 20-512, and American Athletic Conference (AAC) v. Alston, court file 20-520. Former football player Shawne Alston, one of a group of football and basketball athletes challenging the NCAA, was a running back for the West Virginia University Mountaineers from 2009 to 2012.

The Biden administration sided with the student-athletes during telephonic oral arguments March 31.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion in the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

Gorsuch recounted that the trial court “issued a 50-page opinion that cuts both ways” after “amassing a vast record and conducting an exhaustive trial.”

The trial court carefully reviewed the NCAA’s arguments but was not convinced the organization deserved to be exempted from antitrust laws, he wrote.

Although U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of California “refused to disturb the NCAA’s rules limiting undergraduate athletic scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance,” she struck down “NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits schools may offer student-athletes—such as rules that prohibit schools from offering graduate or vocational school scholarships.”

Wilken found that the NCAA and its member schools have the “power to restrain student-athlete compensation in any way and at any time they wish, without any meaningful risk of diminishing their market dominance.” These compensation limits “produce significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market.”

Even though member schools “compete fiercely in recruiting student-athletes, the NCAA uses its monopsony power to ‘cap artificially the compensation offered to recruits,’” Gorsuch wrote, quoting Wilken. (A monopsony is a market situation in which there is only one buyer.)

If the NCAA’s restraints were removed, competition among schools would increase and student-athletes “would receive offers that would more closely match the value of their athletic services,” Wilken wrote.

Gorsuch commended the trial court for a job well done.

“Courts reviewing complex business arrangements should, in other words, be wary about invitations to ‘set sail on a sea of doubt,’” the justice wrote citing a legal precedent from 1898.

“But we do not believe the district court fell prey to that temptation. Its judgment does not float on a sea of doubt but stands on firm ground—an exhaustive factual record, a thoughtful legal analysis consistent with established antitrust principles, and a healthy dose of judicial humility.”

Justice Kavanaugh noted that the NCAA “has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive” and “has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny” with “surprising success.”

“The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction,” he wrote.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
2 years ago
How do you feel about that?
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
2 years ago
I think this poses issues both for the NCAA and the NFL, who have been taking advantage of the situation for years.

For the NCAA schools, it may introduce a very different dynamic into the economic model. At big programs, football pays the bills for all the lessor sports (including girls sports...sorry, just keeping it real.) Having to pay more for players may greatly reduce the economic juggernaut...and increase the risk. What about transferring? If a player has a great freshmen year at Wisconsin and Alabama wants to pay 100k a year to go there, can they switch. If not, you are denying the player the ability to maximize their earnings potential. We may end up with a baseball model for all sports. (Speaking of baseball, the CWS was fantastic viewing over the weekend) Also economic standards may tighten, leading to more interesting consequences. My guess, long term results, higher tuitions, and a return to more academic college sports.

For the NFL, they may want to/have to invest in a developmental league for the players who cannot, will not, or choose not to actually study something other than sports. Perhaps there is roster expansion for more developmental players. And when can kids get drafted....after high school?

It is really interesting and I think the landscape will change over the next 10-20 years.


In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
2 years ago
Another note....NYT wrote:

Change comes to the N.C.A.A.

In a unanimous ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court said that the N.C.A.A., which governs college sports, could not prohibit student-athletes from receiving modest, education-related payments.

The decision doesn’t mean that college football players can suddenly receive big salaries. But it is a milestone for those trying to change the model of college sports in the U.S., and it could open the door for broader challenges.

Alan Blinder, who covers college sports for The Times, helps us explain what yesterday’s ruling means, and what’s next for the N.C.A.A.


Billion-dollar amateurs

The N.C.A.A. says its athletes are amateurs. That may have been true decades ago, when competition was mostly limited to other schools in the area and less intense training schedules allowed students to balance their athletics with their schoolwork.
But it’s an increasingly hard argument to make, particularly for high-profile sports like football and basketball. Conferences sign lucrative TV deals; coaches earn millions of dollars; teams crisscross the country for games and can spend 50 hours a week training.

“The N.C.A.A., in a nonpandemic year, has more than a billion dollars flow through it. Even more money moves through the conferences and schools because it’s not just TV; it’s apparel and ticket sales and everything else,” Alan told me. “What you’ve seen over the years, as more and more money sloshes around, is that amateurism seemed less visible to a lot of casual fans.”

Those who oppose paying N.C.A.A. athletes say that the current compensation model, in which colleges cover the cost of attendance — including tuition, room and board, and some living expenses — is appropriate. They also say it preserves a line, however faint, between college sports and professional sports.

But others, including former athletes, say the model uses players’ skill and labor to generate huge revenues, and offers generous compensation to everyone except those playing the game.

What the court ruling means
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t immediately change much. The justices said that schools could offer additional education-related perks — things like scholarships for graduate school, internships or computer equipment.

“The question before the court was a fairly narrow one, and the court responded with a narrow ruling,” Alan said. “But what they did was trim the N.C.A.A.’s sails. They said that their power was not absolute and unchallenged.”
That was most apparent in a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who signaled that the court might be interested in going further in a future N.C.A.A. case. “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Kavanaugh wrote.


More change around the corner
“To a certain extent, the Supreme Court ruling is a bit of a sideshow,” Alan told me. “The real change that’s going to affect most athletes playing now is coming a week from Thursday.”

That’s when at least six states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas — will enact laws allowing college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses. A player could, for example, sign an endorsement deal, sell autographs or host a training camp.

Some universities worry that the patchwork rules will create unfair advantages in recruiting high school players, and many have pushed for nationwide standards. The N.C.A.A. agreed to modernize its endorsement rules in 2019, but has not yet produced its own plan. The group’s president asked Congress to help by creating federal regulations, but that effort has also stalled.

Now, as Alan recently wrote, “the college sports industry is bracing for an era they expect will be marked by chaos and uncertainty.”



In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
2 years ago
This is a subject I am not very well versed in. I'm not sure how I feel about any of it. The NCAA makes millions off student athletes. What is done with that money? Does it go towards more scholarships? Does it go back into the students or does it line the pockets of others?

One uninformed and uneducated concern I would have is that kids are going to gravitate towards the more popular schools because it gives them a bigger audience to make money off their name/likeness. We see this kind of thing happening in the NBA and NFL where players are more concerned with their "brand" than the team.

I'm wondering what a development league for post-High School students would look like. Kids could go straight from High School and start earning cash. It would probably kill the NFL because it would water down the product by a lot of kids not even trying the developmental league.

I really don't know how to feel about it. It doesn't sit well with me that people are profiting off kids, and not letting the kids get some of it back in some manner other than scholarships. I dunno enough about it.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (18m) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (10h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (17h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (18h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (18h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (22h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.