[BostonCard]

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:

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

[BostonCard]

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:

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