[needle]

 NCAA President Charlie Baker said Friday that action by Congress was needed to protect what he described as the “95 percent” of athletes whose ability to play college sports would be endangered by a court ruling or regulatory decision declaring them as employees of their schools.

https://fortune.com/2024/02/24/ncaa-coll...interview/

My commentary: Many talking heads and legal guys/gals have pronounced the NCAA all but dead after a federal district court judge in Tennessee on Friday granted a preliminary injunction that blocks NCAA rules governing permissible NIL negotiations with college athletes. Yes, the ruling renders powerless NCAA attempts to rein in NIL. The judge probably correctly foresees that the NCAA prohibiting NIL negotiations for certain student-athletes (those yet to sign a letter of intent) and limiting negotiations during certain times (anti-tampering rules) inhibit an athlete's earning potential in a way that is unacceptable in the good ole U.S. of A.

Unacceptable, that is, absent some serious anti-trust protections coming from Congress. My spin is that the ruling Friday is just the thing needed to sway some potentially sympathetic lawmakers to take action to prevent schools from having to classify athletes as employees. The dire musings have become simply real talk, and a coming apocalypse is no longer just a scenario but what can reasonably be inferred as likely to occur. 

We will see real soon if lawmakers take up the cause. I think they will, though the whole thing will get messier in the short term no matter what. Does Stanford have the stomach for these next few years? I hope so.

[needle]

 NCAA President Charlie Baker said Friday that action by Congress was needed to protect what he described as the “95 percent” of athletes whose ability to play college sports would be endangered by a court ruling or regulatory decision declaring them as employees of their schools.

https://fortune.com/2024/02/24/ncaa-coll...interview/

My commentary: Many talking heads and legal guys/gals have pronounced the NCAA all but dead after a federal district court judge in Tennessee on Friday granted a preliminary injunction that blocks NCAA rules governing permissible NIL negotiations with college athletes. Yes, the ruling renders powerless NCAA attempts to rein in NIL. The judge probably correctly foresees that the NCAA prohibiting NIL negotiations for certain student-athletes (those yet to sign a letter of intent) and limiting negotiations during certain times (anti-tampering rules) inhibit an athlete's earning potential in a way that is unacceptable in the good ole U.S. of A.

Unacceptable, that is, absent some serious anti-trust protections coming from Congress. My spin is that the ruling Friday is just the thing needed to sway some potentially sympathetic lawmakers to take action to prevent schools from having to classify athletes as employees. The dire musings have become simply real talk, and a coming apocalypse is no longer just a scenario but what can reasonably be inferred as likely to occur. 

We will see real soon if lawmakers take up the cause. I think they will, though the whole thing will get messier in the short term no matter what. Does Stanford have the stomach for these next few years? I hope so.

[Giants]

 NCAA President Charlie Baker said Friday that action by Congress was needed to protect what he described as the “95 percent” of athletes whose ability to play college sports would be endangered by a court ruling or regulatory decision declaring them as employees of their schools.

https://fortune.com/2024/02/24/ncaa-coll...interview/

My commentary: Many talking heads and legal guys/gals have pronounced the NCAA all but dead after a federal district court judge in Tennessee on Friday granted a preliminary injunction that blocks NCAA rules governing permissible NIL negotiations with college athletes. Yes, the ruling renders powerless NCAA attempts to rein in NIL. The judge probably correctly foresees that the NCAA prohibiting NIL negotiations for certain student-athletes (those yet to sign a letter of intent) and limiting negotiations during certain times (anti-tampering rules) inhibit an athlete's earning potential in a way that is unacceptable in the good ole U.S. of A.

Unacceptable, that is, absent some serious anti-trust protections coming from Congress. My spin is that the ruling Friday is just the thing needed to sway some potentially sympathetic lawmakers to take action to prevent schools from having to classify athletes as employees. The dire musings have become simply real talk, and a coming apocalypse is no longer just a scenario but what can reasonably be inferred as likely to occur. 

We will see real soon if lawmakers take up the cause. I think they will, though the whole thing will get messier in the short term no matter what. Does Stanford have the stomach for these next few years? I hope so.

Leaving anything up to Congress is a losing proposition.  The legislative process is broken with no Mr. Fix-It anywhere in sight.  

We now live in a world in which the judicial system calls the shots. Given decisions made to date, a formal play for pay system appears to be inevitable.  I look forward to seeing how the transition unfolds.  IMO, the sooner, the better.

[Giants]

 NCAA President Charlie Baker said Friday that action by Congress was needed to protect what he described as the “95 percent” of athletes whose ability to play college sports would be endangered by a court ruling or regulatory decision declaring them as employees of their schools.

https://fortune.com/2024/02/24/ncaa-coll...interview/

My commentary: Many talking heads and legal guys/gals have pronounced the NCAA all but dead after a federal district court judge in Tennessee on Friday granted a preliminary injunction that blocks NCAA rules governing permissible NIL negotiations with college athletes. Yes, the ruling renders powerless NCAA attempts to rein in NIL. The judge probably correctly foresees that the NCAA prohibiting NIL negotiations for certain student-athletes (those yet to sign a letter of intent) and limiting negotiations during certain times (anti-tampering rules) inhibit an athlete's earning potential in a way that is unacceptable in the good ole U.S. of A.

Unacceptable, that is, absent some serious anti-trust protections coming from Congress. My spin is that the ruling Friday is just the thing needed to sway some potentially sympathetic lawmakers to take action to prevent schools from having to classify athletes as employees. The dire musings have become simply real talk, and a coming apocalypse is no longer just a scenario but what can reasonably be inferred as likely to occur. 

We will see real soon if lawmakers take up the cause. I think they will, though the whole thing will get messier in the short term no matter what. Does Stanford have the stomach for these next few years? I hope so.

Leaving anything up to Congress is a losing proposition.  The legislative process is broken with no Mr. Fix-It anywhere in sight.  

We now live in a world in which the judicial system calls the shots. Given decisions made to date, a formal play for pay system appears to be inevitable.  I look forward to seeing how the transition unfolds.  IMO, the sooner, the better.

[M T]

It will get really interesting if players for state schools are ruled public employees, and pay-to-play (or any "NIL" money that is shown not to really have been paid for NIL) paid to them is ruled as bribes.

"Hey, officer, can I pay you for a selfie with me?  Will $10,000 be enough?"
(lawmaker, judge, inspector, auditor, football player)

[M T]

It will get really interesting if players for state schools are ruled public employees, and pay-to-play (or any "NIL" money that is shown not to really have been paid for NIL) paid to them is ruled as bribes.

"Hey, officer, can I pay you for a selfie with me?  Will $10,000 be enough?"
(lawmaker, judge, inspector, auditor, football player)

[dabigv13]

Pretty sure SCOTUS has ruled paying a public official is only a bribe if the payment is made in sacks of unmarked bills or gold bars by a curly mustachioed man, with both parties being recorded stating their names and the corrupt purpose for the bribe.

I think the current NIL fig leaf of paying players for their "image rights" would pass muster just fine.

[dabigv13]

Pretty sure SCOTUS has ruled paying a public official is only a bribe if the payment is made in sacks of unmarked bills or gold bars by a curly mustachioed man, with both parties being recorded stating their names and the corrupt purpose for the bribe.

I think the current NIL fig leaf of paying players for their "image rights" would pass muster just fine.