[BostonCard]

Will be when this case makes it to the USSC and Justice Kavenough, writing for the majority, will rule that NCAA athletes are employees of the university and owed back wages.

https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...utType=amp


BC

[BostonCard]

Will be when this case makes it to the USSC and Justice Kavenough, writing for the majority, will rule that NCAA athletes are employees of the university and owed back wages.

https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...utType=amp


BC

[Softball Fan]

“I was there to be an athlete,” Livers said in a separate interview, ... “Without being an athlete, I probably wouldn’t have been there. … I was there to take whatever class I needed to continue to play.”


IMO many colleges will eventually do away with athletic scholarships and continue with sports only on a club level.

[Softball Fan]

“I was there to be an athlete,” Livers said in a separate interview, ... “Without being an athlete, I probably wouldn’t have been there. … I was there to take whatever class I needed to continue to play.”


IMO many colleges will eventually do away with athletic scholarships and continue with sports only on a club level.

[Phogge]

And retroactive to the Sixties I hope.

[Phogge]

And retroactive to the Sixties I hope.

[CTcard]

“I was there to be an athlete,” Livers said in a separate interview, ... “Without being an athlete, I probably wouldn’t have been there. … I was there to take whatever class I needed to continue to play.”


IMO many colleges will eventually do away with athletic scholarships and continue with sports only on a club level.

Livers is apparently no longer a plaintiff because of statue of limitations issues, but his case is interesting. He himself seems mainly concerned about his two years as a walk-on. It's not clear to me if in the plaintiff's theory of the case there is any legal distinction between walk-ons and scholarship players.

I am also wondering about the distinction of club sports versus NCAA sports.
Among the plaintiffs in this case are a Fordham swimmer, tennis players from Sacred Heart and Lafayette, and a Cornell soccer player. If those programs are not "there primarily for the athletes [rather than] the monetary benefit of the school" then it is hard to see what sports competition of any type would be primarily for the athlete/students.
[Note the part in quotation marks is supposedly the legal issue upon which a judge decided to let the case continue on for now.]

[CTcard]

“I was there to be an athlete,” Livers said in a separate interview, ... “Without being an athlete, I probably wouldn’t have been there. … I was there to take whatever class I needed to continue to play.”


IMO many colleges will eventually do away with athletic scholarships and continue with sports only on a club level.

Livers is apparently no longer a plaintiff because of statue of limitations issues, but his case is interesting. He himself seems mainly concerned about his two years as a walk-on. It's not clear to me if in the plaintiff's theory of the case there is any legal distinction between walk-ons and scholarship players.

I am also wondering about the distinction of club sports versus NCAA sports.
Among the plaintiffs in this case are a Fordham swimmer, tennis players from Sacred Heart and Lafayette, and a Cornell soccer player. If those programs are not "there primarily for the athletes [rather than] the monetary benefit of the school" then it is hard to see what sports competition of any type would be primarily for the athlete/students.
[Note the part in quotation marks is supposedly the legal issue upon which a judge decided to let the case continue on for now.]