KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
3 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
3 years ago
How do you feel about that?
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
3 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
3 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
3 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.
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (2m) : Pats have the #4 pick, lots of cap space and Maye at QB; should fetch some attention
Mucky Tundra (2m) : Well that didn't take long; Jerod Mayo out as Patriots HC
Zero2Cool (40m) : I would expect it to be higher in favor of Eagles
Mucky Tundra (46m) : Thst line seems...generous
Zero2Cool (51m) : Eagles -3.5 over Packers in Wildcard Round
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Did it though? Pokes beat the Commanders on the road with Cooper Rush previously
Zero2Cool (8h) : That gives them their best chance
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Cowboys starting Trey Lance at QB vs Commanders; GB vs Philly in the Wild Card incoming!
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Stinks for Lloyd. Hoping he comes back strong for next year
Zero2Cool (3-Jan) : Packers placed Marshawn Lloyd on reserve non-football illness list
Zero2Cool (3-Jan) : Luke Getsy been helping Packers defense. He's former OC Bears/Raiders and our old QB coach
beast (2-Jan) : Thanks dfosterf, I'm still kicking myself for last week, as I forgot to change to pick Vikings and Lions... after putting in a holding spot.
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : First alternate: Elgton Jenkins Other alternates: Jordan Love, Kenny Clark, Keisean Nixon, Tucker Kraft, Josh Myers, Jaire Alexander
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : Pro Bowl still a thing? Guess Packers have three. Jacobs, Gary, McKinney.
dfosterf (2-Jan) : It's a mine field with all the players sitting, etc
dfosterf (2-Jan) : There was quite a bit of "chalk" matchups this year it seemed, but not this week coming up
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : Or we got better and by we I mean everyone except me
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : We have about six that by percent would have won nearly any season. I guess 2024 was predictable 🤷
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : You can check previous seasons. I quick did it and don't think anyone hit 70% before
dfosterf (2-Jan) : Hats off to the Beast
dfosterf (2-Jan) : I'm at 71.76% in pick 'em. 2nd place. Beast is at a flat 75% 9 games ahead. That 75% has got to be unprecedented this late in the season
beast (2-Jan) : I don't care deeply, just want some good entertaining games
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : BTW, not serious.
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : You don't care about it either!!!!
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : NIL and Portal killed college, no one cares about it.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jan) : outside of Texas-Arizona St, it's been a snoozefest
beast (2-Jan) : I expect Georgia will change that tomorrow, but we'll have to wait and see. If they do, then only Big 10 and SEC are left.
beast (2-Jan) : So much for Conference Championship meaning something as 100% (so far) of the conference Champions lost their first playoff game.
Zero2Cool (1-Jan) : Jaire had surgery, season over.
Mucky Tundra (1-Jan) : I guess I need a new sig Pic. Boo
Mucky Tundra (1-Jan) : Eric Dickerson approves of this decision
beast (1-Jan) : Eagles are resting RB Saquon Barkley, so there is no chance he breaks the record despite being just 101 yards from it
Zero2Cool (1-Jan) : Patriots are waiving veteran pass rusher Yannick Ngakoue
beast (1-Jan) : Happy New Year's 🥳🎉
beast (31-Dec) : I want to them chant some songs for Daniel Whelan
beast (31-Dec) : Let's win one! Also, hopefully the Irish will stand with Daniel Whelan
Mucky Tundra (31-Dec) : After London and Brazil, I could go without an overseas game for a while
Zero2Cool (31-Dec) : Packers. Steelers. Ireland. 2025. Reports say.
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Matt Lafleur on if Jaire will play again this season. "Yeah I don't know... he's been dealing with swelling."
Mucky Tundra (30-Dec) : After the way they played for most of the game yesterday, I don't see how you can sit anyone for the whole game
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : I'd say play everyone. Going into playoffs at 7th seed on two game lose streak - yucky
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Do the Packers have any best players?
beast (30-Dec) : Play or Rest*
beast (30-Dec) : Should the Packers play or free their best players vs the Bears?
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Packers should be 3 - 2 in the Division. Bonkers being swept by both Lions and Vikings. yikes
go.pack.go. (30-Dec) : All crazy stuff…and good point beast
beast (30-Dec) : Packers should be 0-5 in the division, can't say I saw that coming, even 1-4
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Sam Darnold 35 TD's ... another one
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Baker Mayfield, 39 TD's ... can't say I saw that one
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : No matter who is playing as 7th, I think we want them to win. Get rid of 2nd seed haha
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
28m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

48m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

3-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Jan / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

2-Jan / GameDay Threads / Zero2Cool

2-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

2-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

31-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

31-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

30-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.