SCOTUS NCAA Case

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

The court is distinguishing and narrowing the 1984 case. The court is saying those statements don't foreclose a more standard "rule of reason" antitrust analysis. This does leave daylight for a broader change in compensation rules going forward because the NCAA will be required to justify the benefits of particular rules rather than enjoying the broad deference the prior case offered.

However, don't get too excited. The court upheld the District Court's analysis which included letting the NCAA place many restrictions on compensation. That's probably why Kavanaugh felt motivated to file his own concurrence.

I was not aware until now: the Plaintiffs did not appeal all their original compensation issues they lost on in the District Ct. and Court of Appeals.

And for those who were worried this would leave a gigantic loophole for compensation:

The district court enjoined only restrictions on education-related compensation or benefits “that may be made available from conferences or schools.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 20–512, at 167a, ¶1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, as the student-athletes concede, the injunction “does not stop the NCAA from continuing to prohibit compensation from” sneaker companies, auto dealerships, boosters, “or anyone else.” Brief for Respondents 47–48; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33. The NCAA itself seems to understand this much. Following the district court’s injunction, the organization adopted new regulations specifying that only “a conference or institution” may fund post-eligibility internships. See Decl. of M. Boyer in No. 4:14–md–02541, ECF Doc. 1302–2, p. 6 (ND Cal., Sept. 22, 2020) (NCAA Bylaw 16.3.4(d)).

Finally, that Andrew Carter dude has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1407034362508492803[/TWEET]

 

[Rogue219]

That entire organization is run by corrupt, short sighted morons.

Let Freedom Ring.

 

[IrishLax]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/SportsLawGuy/status/1406980020279537666?s=20[/TWEET]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1406979795993477127?s=20[/TWEET]

The most prevalent opinions I've read since the decision is that while this decision is unlikely to cause major, immediate changes:
1. Kavanagh basically went full Say Anything with a boombox begging someone to sue the NCAA on more broad terms.
2. The fact that the court acknowledged that things have changed a lot since 1984 shows that they would be receptive to another case.
3. The fact that the court said Board of Regents does not give carte blanche to make up whatever rules they want on compensation because it was mainly focused on TV contracts indicates they don't think it's some unimpeachable precedent.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

.

 

[Irish#1]

From an article on espn.com

Will schools be allowed to pay athletes directly?

No. Most new state laws and the NCAA rules explicitly prohibit schools from paying athletes directly for the use of their NIL or for any other purposes.

Can athletes enter into NIL agreements with boosters?

The NCAA does not have any rules that restrict boosters from paying athletes as long as those payments are not directly for their athletic performance or an inducement for recruiting purposes. Some new state laws address booster involvement in different ways, and some might need further interpretation before it's clear how involved boosters can be in paying athletes in those states.

Are schools allowed to arrange NIL opportunities for student-athletes?

Some state laws restrict schools from arranging deals for their athletes. The NCAA rules leave that decision up to individual schools, but it warns that schools need to be careful that they don't cross any lines into an area that could be considered paying the players or using NIL payments as a recruiting tool.

Are there other restrictions on how athletes can make money?

Yes. State laws and policies crafted by individual schools create an inconsistent variety of restrictions for athletes depending on where they attend school. In some places, athletes can't endorse alcohol, tobacco or gambling products. Others have some restrictions on whether athletes are allowed to use school logos and other copyright material in any paid opportunities.

Most states and schools also prohibit athletes from signing any deals that conflict with the school's sponsorship agreements. For example, a basketball player on a team sponsored by Nike would not be allowed to wear Adidas shoes during games. However, in most cases, that athlete could promote a non-Nike shoe company during times when not playing games or participating in other team activities.

Will an individual be required to report name, image and likeness activities to their school?

Most state laws provide a time frame in which athletes need to share the details of any potential NIL deals with the school. In some states, the school needs to approve of deals ahead of time. The NCAA rules don't specifically require that athletes report their deals to schools, but it's likely that most schools will create policies that require some form of disclosure.

 

[notredomer23]

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

I like this choice a lot. He's going to have to get control of the NIL situation, which means the NCAA is going to have to take an actual active role and if he has to reach out to US Congress to get things settled down he has the political acumen to achieve that.

You can't go from restrictive to the wild west and expect to sustain that model. There needs to be parameters.

Good choice in Baker. Let's see what he can do.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I like this choice a lot. He's going to have to get control of the NIL situation, which means the NCAA is going to have to take an actual active role and if he has to reach out to US Congress to get things settled down he has the political acumen to achieve that.

You can't go from restrictive to the wild west and expect to sustain that model. There needs to be parameters.

Good choice in Baker. Let's see what he can do.

This is 100% why they went after a politician.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

This is 100% why they went after a politician.

I can't think of any other reason. No real connection to athletics. He hooped at Harvard and his wife was an athlete at Northwestern, but so what?

I recall Jack Swarbrick saying something to the effect of Congress is going to have to get involved because this model won't sustain itself the way it is going. You can't go from restrictive to totally unrestricted wild west and expect to survive. Until now, the NCAA would not touch NIL. That is about to change.

Baker is very popular and pragmatic. A fucking political dinosaur going into 2023.

 

[SouthSideChiDomer]

The NCAA just bet its survival on Democrats and Republicans being able to quickly come together to find a compromise solution to a major problem that no one has been able to solve.

RIP NCAA

 

[stlnd01]

I live in Mass., watched Baker for years. He’s very competent, a manager, not one to make waves or create controversy. Pretty much all-business.
Has been among the most popular governors in the US as a moderate Republican in a Dem-dominated state. And his experience navigating between the loud lefties of Massachusetts and the loud Trumpies of his own party may serve him well attempting to run the NCAA, where all his constituents will basically hate him.

 

[Irish#1]

They finally wised up.

 

[NDMatt91]

I live in Mass., watched Baker for years. He’s very competent, a manager, not one to make waves or create controversy. Pretty much all-business.
Has been among the most popular governors in the US as a moderate Republican in a Dem-dominated state. And his experience navigating between the loud lefties of Massachusetts and the loud Trumpies of his own party may serve him well attempting to run the NCAA, where all his constituents will basically hate him.

I'm on the right and have had my disagreements with him in the past, but he was a quality Governor. He ignores the noise and gets stuff done. I have no clue if that will transfer over to his next gig, though.

 

[IrishLax]

Should've done this 4 years ago.

 

[Southside Sully]

The NCAA just bet its survival on Democrats and Republicans being able to quickly come together to find a compromise solution to a major problem that no one has been able to solve.

RIP NCAA

You forget they all have one common goal... Money in their pockets.

 

[Huntr]

Hold on to your butts.

NLRB opens door for union for college athletes​

 

[TNUtoNotreDame]

Hold on to your butts.

NLRB opens door for union for college athletes​

Toobin, is that the Zoom guy and the salami?

 

[IrishLax]

We're at a point where unionized players with profit sharing might actually be the best thing for ND. ND can keep up with profit sharing from traditional revenue streams. It's the "which boosters want to light money on fire?" thing where shit isn't going optimally right now.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Hold on to your butts.

NLRB opens door for union for college athletes​

This isn't new. The NLRB did the same thing when Northwestern players considered it. Northwestern and USC are private universities.

The NLRB has no jurisdiction over any form of public employee; i.e. players at public universities.

I can't foresee what unintended consequences this move might cause but the NLRB isn't going to assert itself over all of CFB.

 

[Domina Nostra]

We're at a point where unionized players with profit sharing might actually be the best thing for ND. ND can keep up with profit sharing from traditional revenue streams. It's the "which boosters want to light money on fire?" thing where shit isn't going optimally right now.

I just don't see how the booster thing lasts. Unless you are Nike or UA, are you really going to drop $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 a year on a hobby with such inconsistent returns? I guess its a lot like gambling, only your pay day is a NC...

Also, I wonder how the IRS looks at this? If your business pays a kid $1,000,000 to make the local team better, but the kid has no actual NIL market value, is that a business expense? Is it marketing?

 

[SouthSideChiDomer]

This isn't new. The NLRB did the same thing when Northwestern players considered it. Northwestern and USC are private universities.

The NLRB has no jurisdiction over any form of public employee; i.e. players at public universities.

I can't foresee what unintended consequences this move might cause but the NLRB isn't going to assert itself over all of CFB.

That is what is different about this case. By calling not only the school, but the conference and NCAA co-employers, it does open the door for athletes at public universities.

There are still other steps, but this is another, wider assault on the amateur model.

 

[stlnd01]

That is what is different about this case. By calling not only the school, but the conference and NCAA co-employers, it does open the door for athletes at public universities.

There are still other steps, but this is another, wider assault on the amateur model.

The "amateur model" is getting hit with cruise missiles by the hour at this point.
Sign me up for a national players union that guarantees them a four-year scholarship and a minimum wage and in exchange sets some clear ground rules on NIL and transfers. The lawyers can sort out the legalisms of who is or is not a student or an employee or whatever. Graduate students are unionizing all over the place. Why can't student athletes?

 

[SouthSideChiDomer]

The "amateur model" is getting hit with cruise missiles by the hour at this point.
Sign me up for a national players union that guarantees them a four-year scholarship and a minimum wage and in exchange sets some clear ground rules on NIL and transfers. The lawyers can sort out the legalisms of who is or is not a student or an employee or whatever. Graduate students are unionizing all over the place. Why can't student athletes?

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons I didn't like the new NCAA president hire. They are trying to get Congress to save the current model instead of looking at ways of fixing it themselves. Which is scary to me, because as much as people dislike the NCAA, if its Congressional Hail Mary fails, the NCAA also likely fails, and what replaces it could be much worse.

 

[stlnd01]

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons I didn't like the new NCAA president hire. They are trying to get Congress to save the current model instead of looking at ways of fixing it themselves. Which is scary to me, because as much as people dislike the NCAA, if its Congressional Hail Mary fails, the NCAA also likely fails, and what replaces it could be much worse.

FWIW, I live in Massachusetts and have watched Baker pretty closely, I wouldn't read his hiring as a sign that they want a politician to get Congress to save things. He's an anti-Trump moderate Republican from a state with an entirely Democratic Congressional delegation. (He's from the Mitt Romney coaching tree, if you will.) He has no party in Washington and basically detests the place. Turned down multiple chances to run for Senate.

What he is, though, is a former business executive who built his whole political brand on being a fair-minded and competent manager of complex problems. And a former college athlete (Harvard basketball player). I think they hired him to negotiate with all involved. Yes lobby Congress a little, but that's not the primary move here. He may or may not succeed. But if they wanted someone to jawbone Congress they would have a DC person, which he is not.

 

[Irish4life]

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons I didn't like the new NCAA president hire. They are trying to get Congress to save the current model instead of looking at ways of fixing it themselves. Which is scary to me, because as much as people dislike the NCAA, if its Congressional Hail Mary fails, the NCAA also likely fails, and what replaces it could be much worse.

The NCAA is powerless to enforce any of it's rules because of the SCOTUS ruling. They need Congress to intervene and regulate things. This is a hire that makes it somewhat more likely to happen. That being said, what if Congress rules that everything that's going on is perfectly fine but sets a precedent that schools or collectives cannot offer NIL deals to high schoolers exceeding 300k? How does ND respond to that?

 

[Bigamejames]

The "amateur model" is getting hit with cruise missiles by the hour at this point.
Sign me up for a national players union that guarantees them a four-year scholarship and a minimum wage and in exchange sets some clear ground rules on NIL and transfers. The lawyers can sort out the legalisms of who is or is not a student or an employee or whatever. Graduate students are unionizing all over the place. Why can't student athletes?

With the amount of money these players are getting , they no longer should qualify for a free ride. They should have to pay their own way .

 

[Huntr]

With the amount of money these players are getting , they no longer should qualify for a free ride. They should have to pay their own way .

Why? There are a myriad of scholarships that are not need-based.

 

[stlnd01]

With the amount of money these players are getting , they no longer should qualify for a free ride. They should have to pay their own way .

You know what tuition is at Notre Dame? Most of them aren’t getting that much money.

I’d think of the scholarship as part of their compensation package.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

A union would be fantastic for the Irish.
Most labor unions offer equal play amongst their ranks so there won't be anymore "over the table" bags of cash and they'll be forced back into the shadows to hide from a punishment.

Every freshman on the football team could earn a base $50,000 salary, meals, housing, and tuition.
Then they get a 20K raise every year. You're allowed one "free" transfer, but if you do it as an under grad, you only get a 10k raise instead of the base 20k.


I'm not sure exactly what the base salary should start at if 50K is too low. Maybe 100K?