Jason Garrett cites portal and NILs - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Jason Garrett cites portal and NILs (/thread-23982.html)

---

RE: Jason Garrett cites portal and NILs - BostonCard - 01-21-2023

(01-21-2023, 03:02 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023, 12:21 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Why are you so sure that restrictions on transfers would fail in court?  I think the MCAA could plausibly make a case that players who transfer wind up hurting their chances of graduating, and that having them sit out a year allows them to focus on studying.

Other rules that can be implemented: NIL deals cannot be made before a student enrolls in school, and cannot be made contingent on enrolling in a certain school, cracking down on solicitations, and counting transfers against the 25 per year limit (so that a school can have 25 new students, whether freshmen or transfers).

BC

The Supreme Court has taken a pretty dim view of “it’s for their own good” arguments when it comes to restricting student athletes. By all means the NCAA could try, but I do not expect them to be successful. 


Now one interesting tact could be non-compete agreements as it comes to NIL deals. Perhaps a lucrative NIL deal could specify exclusivity for a X year period. While the FTC has recently focused on limiting non competes, that may not apply to a highly paid spokesperson.

No, the Supreme Court has held a dim view that the NCAA is immune from antitrust law, and it is reasonable to think that under those standards, amateurism will be struck down under the rules of reason test (explained in this article: https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/ncaa-v-alston/). I think that under the same standards, the NCAA probably would lose many battles to restrict player compensation, but right now, the only precedent to mention paying players in non-educational benefits is NCAA v. board of regents of Oklahoma which held:

Quote: T]he NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football — college football. The identification of this “product” with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the “product,” athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like.13×

We are currently in an evolving environment and probably looking at a decade of lawsuits to sort it all out, unless congress intervenes (it won’t). But that’s not a reason for the NCAA to throw up its hands and take a nihilist view to trying to put a semblance of order.

BC

---

RE: Jason Garrett cites portal and NILs - Crafter Artisan - 01-21-2023

(01-21-2023, 07:24 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote:  

(01-21-2023, 05:30 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:  I've noticed some pro teams in Australia are named for universities. I wonder what the history behind that is. Did Australia have an era long ago where college sports were a big deal, but it evolved into the teams splitting off and going pro, in contrast to the US model of outsized college athletic departments?

Happens a bit for soccer teams. For example UNAM Pumas (or Universidad Nacional) in Mexican soccer evolved out of amateur teams put on by the national university in Mexico City. Universitario in Peru has a similar history. I believe there are a few others -- but in Latin America my sense is that these amateur teams were among the strongest in the country and then gradually went pro. 

Of relevance to the original subject of this thread: especially in the UK, but elsewhere also true, soccer started out as an officially amateur game, generally practiced by the wealthy and/or aristocratic of each society. But bit by bit as the masses became interested in what the classes were doing, this changed: it's not really practical for working-class people to play in the same sport, in the same league, on the same terms as the wealthy. You can't train or anything. So eventually players get no-show jobs, followed by formal payment arrangements, all bitterly resisted by toffs who want to keep soccer to themselves. It was, of course, a losing battle.

So if I understand this correctly, in the beginning the elite played soccer because they were wealthy, and now they're wealthy because they play soccer?

---