[Goose]

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,
<snip>
BC

It isn't that the players "look like employees".  The problem is that the NCAA makes rules that prevent the players from being paid for using their "likeness" as well as a host of other things that any "normal" person can do. That isn't about how many hours the players put in, or the actual value of their scholarships. Remember, the walk-ons are bound by the NCAA rules just as much as the 5 star OMG recruits are.. For that matter, the NCAA says you can't take money from boosters for an autograph. That has nothing at all to do with what Alabama makes playing football. You can't collude to forbid such activity, period. Public entities that are part of the government, like public high schools can be a somewhat different case, since they are granted powers by the legislature/state constitutions that private organizations are not. Other than these cases, non-governmental organizations like the NCAA, conferences, the AAU and the USVBA etc. are in deep trouble. Any way you slice it, these organizations are colluding to restrain trade. It also doesn't matter if the NCAA gains no tangible benefit from their illegal restraint of trade. That isn't the issue.

[Goose]

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,
<snip>
BC

It isn't that the players "look like employees".  The problem is that the NCAA makes rules that prevent the players from being paid for using their "likeness" as well as a host of other things that any "normal" person can do. That isn't about how many hours the players put in, or the actual value of their scholarships. Remember, the walk-ons are bound by the NCAA rules just as much as the 5 star OMG recruits are.. For that matter, the NCAA says you can't take money from boosters for an autograph. That has nothing at all to do with what Alabama makes playing football. You can't collude to forbid such activity, period. Public entities that are part of the government, like public high schools can be a somewhat different case, since they are granted powers by the legislature/state constitutions that private organizations are not. Other than these cases, non-governmental organizations like the NCAA, conferences, the AAU and the USVBA etc. are in deep trouble. Any way you slice it, these organizations are colluding to restrain trade. It also doesn't matter if the NCAA gains no tangible benefit from their illegal restraint of trade. That isn't the issue.