June 21, 20215 yr 8 minutes ago, theguru said: In my opinion that was a nice way to say high level college athletics are corrupt and this decision will make it worse. Well Justice Kavanaugh entered a concurring opinion along with Justice Gorsuch's official court opinion that was MUCH less "way nice". Kavanaugh kinda took the NCAA out back to the wood shed, honestly. ? June 21, 2021 Justice Kavanaugh, concurring. The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws. The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction, and I join the Court’s excellent opinion in full. But this case involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA’s compensation rules — namely, the rules restricting the education-related benefits that student athletes may receive, such as post-eligibility scholarships at graduate or vocational schools. The rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules are not at issue here and therefore remain on the books. Those remaining compensation rules generally restrict student athletes from receiving compensation or ben- efits from their colleges for playing sports. And those rules have also historically restricted student athletes from re- ceiving money from endorsement deals and the like. I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws. Three points warrant emphasis. First, the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules. As the Court says, “the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.” Ante, at 14. Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws. The Court makes clear that the decades-old “stray comments” about college sports and amateurism made in National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), were dicta and have no bearing on whether the NCAA’s current compensation rules are lawful. Ante, at 21. And the Court stresses that the NCAA is not otherwise entitled to an exemption from the antitrust laws. Ante, at 23–24; see also Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U. S. 445, 449–452 (1957). As a result, ab- sent legislation or a negotiated agreement between the NCAA and the student athletes, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should be subject to ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. See ante, at 18–19. Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. Under the rule of reason, the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, 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-market 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 defining 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 illegal 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 otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work. See, e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monopsony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition. The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing. See Brief for African American Antitrust Lawyers as Amici Curiae 13–17. Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules. If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some difficult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly ensue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports? Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive concurring compensation? How would any compensation regime com- ply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some- thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve competitive balance, how would that cap be administered? And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I student athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly compensating some or all of those student athletes? Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option. Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agreement) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the revenues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how professional football and basketball players have negotiated for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Basketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Winter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. 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. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.
June 21, 20215 yr 40 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said: Well Justice Kavanaugh entered a concurring opinion along with Justice Gorsuch's official court opinion that was MUCH less "way nice". Kavanaugh kinda took the NCAA out back to the wood shed, honestly. ? June 21, 2021 Justice Kavanaugh, concurring. The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws. The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction, and I join the Court’s excellent opinion in full. But this case involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA’s compensation rules — namely, the rules restricting the education-related benefits that student athletes may receive, such as post-eligibility scholarships at graduate or vocational schools. The rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules are not at issue here and therefore remain on the books. Those remaining compensation rules generally restrict student athletes from receiving compensation or ben- efits from their colleges for playing sports. And those rules have also historically restricted student athletes from re- ceiving money from endorsement deals and the like. I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws. Three points warrant emphasis. First, the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules. As the Court says, “the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.” Ante, at 14. Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws. The Court makes clear that the decades-old “stray comments” about college sports and amateurism made in National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), were dicta and have no bearing on whether the NCAA’s current compensation rules are lawful. Ante, at 21. And the Court stresses that the NCAA is not otherwise entitled to an exemption from the antitrust laws. Ante, at 23–24; see also Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U. S. 445, 449–452 (1957). As a result, ab- sent legislation or a negotiated agreement between the NCAA and the student athletes, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should be subject to ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. See ante, at 18–19. Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. Under the rule of reason, the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, 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-market 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 defining 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 illegal 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 otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work. See, e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monopsony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition. The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing. See Brief for African American Antitrust Lawyers as Amici Curiae 13–17. Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules. If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some difficult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly ensue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports? Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive concurring compensation? How would any compensation regime com- ply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some- thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve competitive balance, how would that cap be administered? And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I student athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly compensating some or all of those student athletes? Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option. Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agreement) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the revenues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how professional football and basketball players have negotiated for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Basketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Winter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. 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. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law. BOOM!
June 21, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said: But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. 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. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law. This.
June 22, 20215 yr 10 hours ago, Walter said: My biggest question is what happens with non-revenue and women's sports? This decision is no doubt great for athletes but I think there's a lot of unanswered questions that need to be clarified before this goes forward. I'm all for an athlete being able to profit off their NIL and universities being allowed to provide free educational resources (laptops, etc) but I don't think universities should be required to pay them as well... Especially when you factor in the cost of everything included in a D1 football/basketball scholarship. (Tuition, room and board, health care, gear, travel, and in most cases, additional monthly stipend) I agree. If we’re being honest, this should really only affect men’s basketball and football…. Trevor Lawrence and Justin Fields could have made great money. I don’t believe the center or the punter should be entitled to a dime of that. Just because Anthony Davis or John Wall could have made a nice paycheck for themselves doesn’t mean the walk-on at the end of the bench or the point guard on the women’s team deserves the same. This is why I don’t believe the schools should have a hand in the actual paying of players. Let all the money come from outside business. Let the kids do commercials, run camps, sign shoe deals or get paid from various forms of social media. Tons of outside revenue sources for the athletes to take advantage of without the school having to directly pay them.
June 22, 20215 yr So in theory the UK basketball post season "autograph tour" could open up to all players, not just people leaving (few use up their eligibility). Nice parting gift! Those offensive linemen better get their slice of the pie or those QBs and RBs won't look as good and be as valuable. Wow, this is going to be interesting to watch.....and wonder who is monitoring it.
June 23, 20215 yr On 6/21/2021 at 11:15 PM, MBWC41 said: I agree. If we’re being honest, this should really only affect men’s basketball and football…. Trevor Lawrence and Justin Fields could have made great money. I don’t believe the center or the punter should be entitled to a dime of that. Just because Anthony Davis or John Wall could have made a nice paycheck for themselves doesn’t mean the walk-on at the end of the bench or the point guard on the women’s team deserves the same. This is why I don’t believe the schools should have a hand in the actual paying of players. Let all the money come from outside business. Let the kids do commercials, run camps, sign shoe deals or get paid from various forms of social media. Tons of outside revenue sources for the athletes to take advantage of without the school having to directly pay them. Lynn Bowden as well, he would have been walking around with 10k at any given moment. I wonder how it will work with taxes and with jealousy/animosity amongst teammates.
June 23, 20215 yr On 6/21/2021 at 11:15 PM, MBWC41 said: I agree. If we’re being honest, this should really only affect men’s basketball and football…. Trevor Lawrence and Justin Fields could have made great money. I don’t believe the center or the punter should be entitled to a dime of that. Just because Anthony Davis or John Wall could have made a nice paycheck for themselves doesn’t mean the walk-on at the end of the bench or the point guard on the women’s team deserves the same. This is why I don’t believe the schools should have a hand in the actual paying of players. Let all the money come from outside business. Let the kids do commercials, run camps, sign shoe deals or get paid from various forms of social media. Tons of outside revenue sources for the athletes to take advantage of without the school having to directly pay them. I really hope schools don’t pay players. Wouldn’t they essentially be an employee who can be fired then? Just seems odd, let the kids do their side hustles.
June 23, 20215 yr On 6/21/2021 at 1:02 PM, Walter said: I don't think universities should be required to pay them as well... I don't think the universities are or will ever be the ones paying the athletes, as long as the athletes are allowed to make as much money as they can on their own.
June 23, 20215 yr 26 minutes ago, John Anthony said: I wonder how it will work with taxes This is where schools should (IMO) take some responsibility in educating their athletes on the impact of making money and how taxes will inevitably affect them.
June 23, 20215 yr Five years from now when we look back I will be shocked if this ends up being anything other than a corrupt mess.
June 23, 20215 yr 5 minutes ago, theguru said: Five years from now when we look back I will be shocked if this ends up being anything other than a corrupt mess. Corrupt mess like what we have now or worse?
June 23, 20215 yr Just now, Voice of Reason said: Corrupt mess like what we have now or worse? Worse of course. We have known for years high level college athletics are a corrupt mess and this will just open the floodgates for money to flow in.
June 23, 20215 yr 2 hours ago, theguru said: Five years from now when we look back I will be shocked if this ends up being anything other than a corrupt mess. This! Exactly this!!!
June 23, 20215 yr On 6/21/2021 at 11:15 PM, MBWC41 said: I agree. If we’re being honest, this should really only affect men’s basketball and football…. Trevor Lawrence and Justin Fields could have made great money. I don’t believe the center or the punter should be entitled to a dime of that. Just because Anthony Davis or John Wall could have made a nice paycheck for themselves doesn’t mean the walk-on at the end of the bench or the point guard on the women’s team deserves the same. This is why I don’t believe the schools should have a hand in the actual paying of players. Let all the money come from outside business. Let the kids do commercials, run camps, sign shoe deals or get paid from various forms of social media. Tons of outside revenue sources for the athletes to take advantage of without the school having to directly pay them. Maybe it should only impact the star athletes, but that is a pure fantasy. Every 5 Star, 4 Star, 3 Star and a few delusional 2 Star athlete will be expecting to make money from the moment they sign their LOI. During the recruiting process it won't just be the QB, RB or PG expecting to get "Paid." Every recruit will want to know what they can make if they come to Lexington, Columbus or Knoxville. Players Lounges, Training Facilities, Weight Rooms, Dorm rooms will matter less and less on recruiting visits. Each school will need to have "A Guy" that will meet with players during their official visit and lay out their personal marketing plan, endorsements and and what is available. Local businesses will be squeezed for money, cars and other benefits to be offered during recruiting and it won't just be for the Star QB. The 4 Star left tackle is going to want a new truck, the 5 star DB is going to want 6 figure endorsement deal ready if they are going to sign and the 4 Star Stretch 4 is going to need Tesla Plaid promised just to entertain your school. There will be no end to what schools will "Offer" but what will get crazy is that they'll have to find enough money around town that every recruit gets a taste, if not they will go where they can. Players will need agents or attorneys to help them sort through all of this mess. Once there are those guys involved looking to get their percentage, what's best for the players will truly be out the door. Will kids get paid? Yes. Do they deserve the chance to get paid? Yes. Will this be infinitely more corrupt? Yes. Will the rich get richer? In some cases, but big market schools are in a better situation now than ever.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.