USSC rules for athletes against NCAA

USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - 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: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA (/thread-22045.html)

Pages: 1 2

USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - BostonCard - 06-21-2021

The ruling was narrow, but it stated the NCAA cannot restrict providing athletes with educational benefits (eg, offering them scholarships for graduate education).

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1000310043/the-supreme-court-sides-with-ncaa-athletes-in-a-narrow-ruling

Not a Supreme Court watcher, but it sounds like this was expected based on the tenor of the questions.

BC

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - 82lsju - 06-21-2021

this article from April said

Quote:Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NCAA v. Alston, a case that will determine whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association can cap educational benefits that college sports programs may provide to their athletes. Although the Supreme Court is not expected to publish its opinion until May, there are at least seven reasons the NCAA is very likely to lose, perhaps even unanimously.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2021/04/05/seven-reasons-why-the-ncaa-is-likely-to-lose-its-supreme-court-case/?fbclid=IwAR2Jv-7r4CG6ub-nVpiWUn9Bkpd3ca9FWoltRzxLr0QE0O6VWpEKWQf2yyA&sh=23320d756ac3

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - BobK - 06-21-2021

Really not much. Not like the California law that goes into effect 2023.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - BostonCard - 06-21-2021

The ruling was indeed unanimous.

Here's the opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

Note the quotes around "amateur".

BC

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - OutsiderFan - 06-21-2021

The NCAA has two choices.

It can fall on the sword of amateurism in one bold move, or it can die by 1,000 cuts of rulings that chip it away until it no longer exists.

You can't build 100k stadiums, 100k SF trading facilities, and pay coaches $10M/year salaries because you're getting paid billions of dollars off unpaid labor that doesn't participate in a free market, and have any credibility claiming you are amateur in nature. So glad SCOTUS is showing it feels the same way.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Spiny_Norman - 06-21-2021

The Athletic has made its story on the ruling available for all.

https://theathletic.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-ncaa-in-dispute-over-athlete-compensation/Sdn0wrTL085f

See especially the section on Longer Term Implications.

Quote:Stewart Mandel, college football editor-in-chief: The NCAA’s insistence on appealing a relatively modest loss to the highest court in the land massively backfired.

While Monday’s SCOTUS decision has limited practical implications (yay, laptops), both the 9-0 vote and, in particular, searing concurrent comments by Justice Kavanaugh calling the NCAA’s price-fixing “highly illegal” signal the court might be willing to allow full-on pay-for-play if a future case comes before it.

. . . .

The NCAA’s longstanding legal strategy has been to dig in and defend the status quo. It would be smart to start devising a new, more modernized compensation model that would withstand antitrust scrutiny.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Giants - 06-21-2021

(06-21-2021, 07:40 AM)BobK Wrote: Really not much. Not like the California law that goes into effect 2023.

The specific issue addressed by the Court in this decision was narrowly defined. However, the implications of the decision are substantial as they relate to future legal action. It is only a matter time before the NCAA will be forced to reckon with the realities of having created a multi-billion dollar industry built on free labor.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - 2006alum - 06-21-2021

Yes, interesting. :D

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Genuine Realist - 06-21-2021

(06-21-2021, 11:17 AM)2006alum Wrote: Yes, interesting. :D

Kavanaugh's concurrence is a colossal storm warning.

BTW, after all the nonsense, Kavanaugh is already developing a reputation as a thoughtful centrist. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/us/politics/supreme-court-conservatives-liberals.html

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Softball Fan - 06-21-2021

I'm old school. I think a full scholarship, medical benefits, and training facilities is a good deal. I understand my opinion will be shunned on a sports message board.

I suspect the majority of student bodies at academic institutions will be against the direction toward paid professional athletes on campus. The athletes or any student for that matter can take their talent/knowledge directly to the marketplace to find out what they are worth and skip the inconvenience of going to classes.

In any event the direction toward paid athletes and other financial incentives seems to favor Stanford over some other colleges. The number of wealthy and successful Cardinal alums should put the Cardinal at an advantage over many public schools. That assumes the end result policies allow private donations to directly or indirectly get to the student athlete.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - BobK - 06-21-2021

30 of the 36 Stanford sports are by rule partial scholarship sports.
To think that Ledecky or Steffens couldn’t earn endorsement money seems strange and wrong to me.

Or to pay say football players only is far more wrong

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - teejers1 - 06-21-2021

(06-21-2021, 12:57 PM)paloalto Wrote: I'm old school. I think a full scholarship, medical benefits, and training facilities is a good deal. I understand my opinion will be shunned on a sports message board.

Not shunned from here . . . embraced.

And I'm all for allowing kids to pursue professional sports aspirations as soon as they can; and further favor them getting as much $$ from the owners as they can. But no one is forcing these kids to go to college.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is no NFL D-league. Get that done and you go a loooooong way to resolving this "injustice."

P.S. Stanford will only be benefitted if it decides to stay in the "pay the athletes game." I tend to think it will not do that; thus, Stanford will drop from the ranks of Big Time Sports Participants. Not the end of the world, by any means, though I'll miss rooting for Stanford football and hoops (and women's hoops) when competing against The Big Boys and Girls.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Goose - 06-21-2021

(06-21-2021, 04:16 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(06-21-2021, 12:57 PM)paloalto Wrote: I'm old school. I think a full scholarship, medical benefits, and training facilities is a good deal. I understand my opinion will be shunned on a sports message board.

Not shunned from here . . . embraced.

And I'm all for allowing kids to pursue professional sports aspirations as soon as they can; and further favor them getting as much $$ from the owners as they can. But no one is forcing these kids to go to college.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is no NFL D-league. Get that done and you go a loooooong way to resolving this "injustice."

P.S. Stanford will only be benefitted if it decides to stay in the "pay the athletes game." I tend to think it will not do that; thus, Stanford will drop from the ranks of Big Time Sports Participants. Not the end of the world, by any means, though I'll miss rooting for Stanford football and hoops (and women's hoops) when competing against The Big Boys and Girls.

This could get interesting. While many people cast this problem as a byproduct of the "big money" available to the Universities and their "umbrella" organization the NCAA, legally that is not the issue as I read it. Even if there was no TV money, it would appear to me that the NCAA cannot restrict the student-athlete from being compensated for use of their image etc. It wouldn't matter if there were no TV money, etc. It seems these decisions go directly against the concept of being "an amateur". If the TV money was 0.01 % of what it is now, what changes? Is it then OK to say the athletes can't get paid? What am I missing?

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - BostonCard - 06-21-2021

I mean, presumably there are plenty of cases where students volunteer their time without pay. For example, students in LSJUMB are not paid for their "services". Ditto students who perform in the Gaieties. So, what distinguishes students on the football team from students performing at Gaieties? Really, the only thing I can see is that there is big money in football, which the students are being denied, that just doesn't exist for Gaieties, and that while students in the Gaieties don't get paid, student athletes playing football can't. In other words, it would not be any sort of violation for a deep pocketed supporter of the Band to, for example, but laptops for every student in the Band; that person, if they were an athletic booster, would not be able to buy a laptop for every athlete on the football team.

I think there is a bit of a "if it smells like professional sports and it acts like professional sports then you can't restrict compensation just because you call it amateur sports", and these days, big name collegiate sporting events have all the trappings of pro leagues.

However, for example, but for the amounts, is this any different than High School Football in Texas (or another football crazy state) or even the little league world series?

BC

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - ca245 - 06-21-2021

Assuming the USSC decision has not made partial scholarships illegal, it'll be interesting to see how those will be divided in the future. In the current model, a school can tell two SA's dividing a scholarship, "You each get X dollars for tuition." But how do you divide things like laptops, internships, and year abroad? Do they both get these perks or do they go rock-paper-scissors?

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - OutsiderFan - 06-21-2021

The issue is you need a victory worth achieving to pursue legal relief. No member of a school band is going to go through all the expense of filing lawsuits to get compensated when there is hardly any money to pay them.

These law suits weren't pursued with much vigor until the money generated by college sports started to become conspicuous.

"Football and basketball, which attract many players from lower-income backgrounds, subsidize money-losing sports which are often played by more affluent athletes." - National Bureau of Economic Research (2020)

So effectively what you see is a system that refuses to pay the labor that produces the majority of its revenue (football and basketball players) so that money generated on their backs can subsidize other people. It's so wrong I can't believe it has been allowed to continue as long as it has. Only when the money generated led to explosions of facilities and coach salaries did the athletes take issue and decide to fight agains the system that exploits them.

For those who say the education is so valuable, etc., that is not the point. The point is the labor is forced to accept limited compensation without its blessing, and every employer in the market has colluded to refuse to pay the athlete who plays a sport anything more than an education. This is a prima facie example of an anti-trust violation and why the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 on the matter.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Goose - 06-21-2021

(06-21-2021, 07:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The point is the labor is forced to accept limited compensation without its blessing, and every employer in the market has colluded to refuse to pay the athlete who plays a sport anything more than an education. This is a prima facie example of an anti-trust violation and why the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 on the matter.

Indeed it is. It is also true of the examples BC cites above. While it may be true nobody is willing to pay the LSJUMB members any money, there is no organization {the NCAA) creating an illegal combination in restraint of such action. It can be argued that the High School Athletic organizations also cannot collude to do so. It is clearly against the law, and always has been. No league is immune to these court decisions. If an alumnus wants to pay a kid to play, the league/teams can't collude forbid it.

Personally, I think there will need to be legislation allowing such "collusion" in order to preserve any amateur sports at all. The fact that in many cases nobody wants to pay the athletes doesn't make it any less illegal for the parties involved to collude to forbid it. I am fully aware that probably most people regard it as unfair that student athletes can't get paid while the coaches and Universities do get paid. I think the flood of money has corrupted the original ethos and intent of college sports, at least in football and basketball. I also think that once players start getting paid, fan interest will plummet. As others have stated, if college football becomes NFL minor league football nobody will watch. It will be like minor league baseball. If the ideal that the athletes are college students playing for the love of the game is completely stripped away, the effects will not be pretty.

My position is that this insanity has to stop. College sports need to be just that. Some of them pretty much still are, because there isn't big money available to compensate athletes easily available. However, without the ability to constrain payments to athletes, even Olympic sports would be subject to the possibility of some school "buying" a team and the associated championship. However, I expect I am in the distinct minority here and no legislative help will be forthcoming. The coming chaos is not going to be pretty.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - 2006alum - 06-22-2021

(06-21-2021, 11:38 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:
(06-21-2021, 11:17 AM)2006alum Wrote: Yes, interesting. :D
Kavanaugh's concurrence is a colossal storm warning.

BTW, after all the nonsense, Kavanaugh is already developing a reputation as a thoughtful centrist. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/us/politics/supreme-court-conservatives-liberals.html

For occupational reasons, no comment. =)

But per board rules, let's just stick to the merits of the decision and not drift into commentary on the personnel.

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - 82lsju - 06-22-2021

Stanford’s William Gould on SCOTUS Student Athlete’s Decision

Quote:I think it’s a very significant decision. The student athletes won a major victory in this ruling today. The holding is a narrow holding. It upholds Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland of the US District Court, who held that education-related expenditures, many of them subsequent to graduation or their college experience, were appropriate to be ordered for student athletes. And her holding really flies the tree tops in that these are modest payments that are education-related.

I think that Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion today will resound for years to come. Coupled with the Court’s refusal to give deference to universities and the Court’s recognition that the market has expanded so considerably to the benefit of universities, makes me think this is just the first shot across the bow.

https://law.stanford.edu/2021/06/21/stanfords-william-gould-on-scotus-student-athletes-decision/?utm_source=Stanford+Report&utm_campaign=2b82d93b15-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_06_21_03_41&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29ce9f751e-2b82d93b15-52343633

RE: USSC rules for athletes against NCAA - Softball Fan - 06-22-2021

(06-21-2021, 07:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The point is the labor is forced to accept limited compensation without its blessing...

I wouldn't describe a young athlete voluntarily engaging in the sport he/she enjoys as "labor" but I understand that perspective. Without the statistics in front of me I would guess the majority of students participating in college sports willingly do it for no financial compensation at all.

The world is headed in the direction you favor so eventually your viewpoint will prevail. My viewpoint on the topic has gone the way of the dinosaurs.