[BostonCard]

I don't know that this is necessarily true.  There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid.  For example, would you consider little leaguers employees?  What about Texas high school football players?  Somewhere, there is an alternate universe where organized athletics is an amateur endeavor even in the presence of bureaucratic organizations that enforce rules to prevent there being a completely free employment "market" for players (or, outside of sports, performers).

I think this is a case where NCAA athletes look like employees and act like employees in an industry where there is a ton of money sloshing around that is not getting to the players, but somewhere someone will need to devise a test as to what makes someone a true amateur and what makes them an employee.  I mean, I'm not an employment lawyer, but somewhere stuff like the degree to which the organization controls your hours, how much money the organization is making and whether there are other paid employees there and probably some other criteria will need to devised.

I think it would be hard to hide the major D1 sports from the idea that athletes are employees and that the organization is making money off them.  But what about, say, track and field at a small D3 college?  Functionally, it's still under the NCAA, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that those student athletes need to be paid.  So, what distinguishes BCS football at a power five school from D3 volleyball?  Really just the amount of money that the sport makes (billions versus basically nothing).  The NCAA restrains trade in both circumstances however, but in one, the restraint is significant compared to what would have happened had there been competition; in the other the NCAA's rules aren't really going to make a difference compared to what would happen to the in a "free" market.

I really wonder what would have happened had college football and basketball developed more akin to college baseball, a more low-key affair with a viable path that didn't involve college.   Maybe collegiate sports is not a $19 billion industry, and the NCAA is not looked upon as a way to restrain trade, but rather as a low key organization, maybe more like a collegiate version of AYSO or something like that.

So, I don't think that the NCAA is inherently engaged in an illegal restraint of trade.  That only happens when the NCAA becomes a revenue maximizing organization, placing the interests of student athletes behind things like maximizing television contracts.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't know that this is necessarily true.  There are lots of organizations that are functionally like the NCAA where there is no concern that the participants should be paid.  For example, would you consider little leaguers employees?  What about Texas high school football players?  Somewhere, there is an alternate universe where organized athletics is an amateur endeavor even in the presence of bureaucratic organizations that enforce rules to prevent there being a completely free employment "market" for players (or, outside of sports, performers).

I think this is a case where NCAA athletes look like employees and act like employees in an industry where there is a ton of money sloshing around that is not getting to the players, but somewhere someone will need to devise a test as to what makes someone a true amateur and what makes them an employee.  I mean, I'm not an employment lawyer, but somewhere stuff like the degree to which the organization controls your hours, how much money the organization is making and whether there are other paid employees there and probably some other criteria will need to devised.

I think it would be hard to hide the major D1 sports from the idea that athletes are employees and that the organization is making money off them.  But what about, say, track and field at a small D3 college?  Functionally, it's still under the NCAA, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that those student athletes need to be paid.  So, what distinguishes BCS football at a power five school from D3 volleyball?  Really just the amount of money that the sport makes (billions versus basically nothing).  The NCAA restrains trade in both circumstances however, but in one, the restraint is significant compared to what would have happened had there been competition; in the other the NCAA's rules aren't really going to make a difference compared to what would happen to the in a "free" market.

I really wonder what would have happened had college football and basketball developed more akin to college baseball, a more low-key affair with a viable path that didn't involve college.   Maybe collegiate sports is not a $19 billion industry, and the NCAA is not looked upon as a way to restrain trade, but rather as a low key organization, maybe more like a collegiate version of AYSO or something like that.

So, I don't think that the NCAA is inherently engaged in an illegal restraint of trade.  That only happens when the NCAA becomes a revenue maximizing organization, placing the interests of student athletes behind things like maximizing television contracts.

BC