Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: OT - Supreme Court rules on student-athlete benefit limits

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default OT - Supreme Court rules on student-athlete benefit limits

    SCOTUS unanimously says current NCAA benefits limits violate Anti-trust laws.

    https://www.foxnews.com/sports/justi...us-ruling-ncaa


    Justice Kavanaugh, in writing the concurring opinion.

    "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

    This basically says the NCAA cannot limit the educational benefits a student athlete may receive.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    Huge changes coming. Defining “employee “ might be tricky. As for GU, we’re really good with a really good program but a bidding war for players seems a bit dangerous to the sport. Lots of money or “packages” can be both good and bad. It’s going to get messy in my opinion. Lots of winners but just as many losers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,810

    Default

    Nervous this will be the beginning of the end of what I love about college hoops.

    IMO, the issue shouldn’t be at the college level, but rather, the professional ranks which limits players due to age. But, with gleague and Europe as valid alternatives to the collegiate route for bball, I don’t see the oppression, players can choose which route they view benefits them the most.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    SCOTUS unanimously says current NCAA benefits limits violate Anti-trust laws.

    https://www.foxnews.com/sports/justi...us-ruling-ncaa


    Justice Kavanaugh, in writing the concurring opinion.

    "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

    This basically says the NCAA cannot limit the educational benefits a student athlete may receive.
    Kavanaugh's opinion was a concurring opinion. The majority opinion targets an increase in educational related expenses, which is more limited that what Kavanaugh suggests. My guess is that further litigation and decisions will flesh out what educational related expenses means.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,974

    Default

    My guess is that this will be analogous to the Teton Dam collapse ...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daskim View Post
    Kavanaugh's opinion was a concurring opinion. The majority opinion targets an increase in educational related expenses, which is more limited that what Kavanaugh suggests. My guess is that further litigation and decisions will flesh out what educational related expenses means.
    Correct, it was a unanimous opinion, so Kavanaugh's opinion was for the whole court.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    Correct, it was a unanimous opinion, so Kavanaugh's opinion was for the whole court.
    Not exactly. A single judge's concurring opinion suggests that that particular judge is open to additional test cases to further flesh out the development of a new legal rule. The majority focused on educational related expenses. Kavanaugh suggests paying "fair market value" for certain services which is arguably not the same as educational related expenses.

    Concurring opinions generally like the results of the majority opinion, but not necessarily how it was arrived.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daskim View Post
    Not exactly. A single judge's concurring opinion suggests that that particular judge is open to additional test cases to further flesh out the development of a new legal rule. The majority focused on educational related expenses. Kavanaugh suggests paying "fair market value" for certain services which is arguably not the same as educational related expenses.

    Concurring opinions generally like the results of the majority opinion, but not necessarily how it was arrived.
    Thanks
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    Thanks
    I was fortunate enough to argue a case in the Supreme Court out of Spokane County years ago. The Supreme Court "playbook" is probably larger than GU's.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daskim View Post
    I was fortunate enough to argue a case in the Supreme Court out of Spokane County years ago. The Supreme Court "playbook" is probably larger than GU's.
    Very cool.

    This does seem to suggest that NIL challenges won't fair well in the courts.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,598

    Default

    college sports is changing and it won't be pretty. Many programs will just close down; most programs are in a deficit anyway, and now they will not have a chance to get good players when the Big U down the road is offering a big financial package.

    shouting into the wind, I think, because the trend is to professionalize college sports, well so be it....

    but take away the college scholarships and give them to needy students...

    and if college athletes are going to be bought and paid for, then they better be paying SS and income taxes, because now their workers, not student athletes.

    sadly, the Golden Age of college sports is passing....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    4,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    Very cool.

    This does seem to suggest that NIL challenges won't fair well in the courts.
    This is precisely what Coach Few's comments in front of congress were about. If the NCAA isn't able to figure something out quickly, Congress and/or the Supreme Court are going to figure it out for them.
    I will thank God for the day and the moment I have. - Jimmy V

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    If the NCAA isn't able to figure something out quickly, Congress and/or the Supreme Court are going to figure it out for them.
    This is exactly why courts are probably the worst venue place to decide marital issues. Resolve it between the parties, and eliminate the need for a third party to impose its views.
    Last edited by daskim; 06-21-2021 at 05:34 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    10,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daskim View Post
    This is exactly why courts are probably the venue place to decide marital issues. Resolve it between the parties, and eliminate the need for a third party to impose its views.
    By all means, handcuff Mark Emmert and the NCAA.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richland, Washington
    Posts
    6,694

    Default

    The athletic department will set up a player consultation contract with H & R Block (or figure out some other way to keep the prize recruits from being distracted by tax issues) and move on. Just like everyone else will. The basketball court dimensions will remain the same. Everything else is subject to change. Adaptability is the key. Roy and K didn't want to go through it.
    I miss Mike Hart

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,558

    Default

    So what is the "fair market value" of a college athlete if their sport is not profitable? Does this jeopardize the scholarships for 99.999999% of all college female athletes and about 95% of all male athletes? And Title IX implications? Very few college programs are actually profitable.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    This is precisely what Coach Few's comments in front of congress were about. If the NCAA isn't able to figure something out quickly, Congress and/or the Supreme Court are going to figure it out for them.
    Web...just my 2 cents....but I doubt that the Congress or the NCAA can overcome partisan and regional interests and produce a comprehensive and fair answer.... so I suspect the States will legislate and the Courts will decide.....

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spike_jr View Post
    So what is the "fair market value" of a college athlete if their sport is not profitable? Does this jeopardize the scholarships for 99.999999% of all college female athletes and about 95% of all male athletes? And Title IX implications? Very few college programs are actually profitable.
    How valuable is a full scholarship? It
    ;; be interestng t find out. Given the 9-0 verdict, and knowing that Kavanaugh's opinion only amplified the 9-0 verdict, next stop is compensation I would think. THen comes the hard part: bidding? Hate to see it bt it does look like the door is now opened. Big issues to be ironed out.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    5,055

    Default

    Just throwing this out there for consideration:

    "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."
    Obviously Football and Mbb earn the vast majority of money for the NCAA, the conferences and the individual schools and it is easy understand Kavanaugh's written opinion. However, in reality, the vast majority of college athletes do not play football or Mbb. Seems a bit disingenuous to call out the college's when they give hundreds of thousands of scholarships to student athletes who never make a dime for the university, yet their scholarship costs the university the same as the football players.

    I think this is the beginning of the end for college sports as we know it.

    ZagDad

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richland, Washington
    Posts
    6,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagDad84 View Post
    Just throwing this out there for consideration:



    Obviously Football and Mbb earn the vast majority of money for the NCAA, the conferences and the individual schools and it is easy understand Kavanaugh's written opinion. However, in reality, the vast majority of college athletes do not play football or Mbb. Seems a bit disingenuous to call out the college's when they give hundreds of thousands of scholarships to student athletes who never make a dime for the university, yet their scholarship costs the university the same as the football players.

    I think this is the beginning of the end for college sports as we know it.

    ZagDad
    The single biggest problem with this whole affair is that this legal process (as specifically referenced to in this recent ruling) was not historically addressed by either legislation or through litigation when the concept of amateurism initially started to blur (For me, this struck home with the "dream team" of NBA players competing in the Olympics). That was the time period where all of this should have been addressed because it was at that time when a person could identify the inevitability of where this inexplicable melding of professionalism and amateurism was all headed.

    What is my issue with the late timing? I have to ask: Why was such heavy investment into the current infrastructure of college athletics allowed to exponentially grow and become so heavily dependent upon such a legally flawed concept? Of course there was always the threat of Congress stepping in when the issue of anti trust was raised long ago, but it seems that when the time came for Congress to (as many commonly assumed it would) step up to the plate, it was too heavily mired in it's new normal state of perpetual gridlock to intervene. Like with everything else, professional contrarians have steered our legislative machinery into a state of perpetual helplessness to the point where nothing of a national scope can ever be adequately resolved. For anything. I suppose if your ideology is centered around the concept that government is inherently flawed, it only make sense to make it even more flawed to allow such self fulfilling prophecy to come true. Why should we expect how college athletics are addressed to be any different? As a society, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon the judicial branch to resolve issues that belong in the legislative wheelhouse because the legislative body has been rendered virtually powerless.
    Last edited by MickMick; 06-22-2021 at 12:37 PM.
    I miss Mike Hart

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    sierra foothills
    Posts
    14,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagDad84 View Post
    Just throwing this out there for consideration:



    Obviously Football and Mbb earn the vast majority of money for the NCAA, the conferences and the individual schools and it is easy understand Kavanaugh's written opinion. However, in reality, the vast majority of college athletes do not play football or Mbb. Seems a bit disingenuous to call out the college's when they give hundreds of thousands of scholarships to student athletes who never make a dime for the university, yet their scholarship costs the university the same as the football players.

    I think this is the beginning of the end for college sports as we know it.

    ZagDad
    well said imo, and spike's call about determining 'fair market value' for sports that operate in the red. weren't differing stipend amounts already at play?

    whatever, I agree with sylean. Plus it seems to me we'll have adults across the board wetting their beaks off the money to 'advise' and get paid a nice chunk of whatever the student professional athletes can make. AAU basketball ideas taken to new extremes in college, with sports that make no money or run deficits possibly getting hosed? we'll see but the ncaa can look in the mirror and see who is to blame imo: their greedy and power hungry selves

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagDad84 View Post

    Seems a bit disingenuous to call out the college's when they give hundreds of thousands of scholarships to student athletes who never make a dime for the university, yet their scholarship costs the university the same as the football players.

    ZagDad
    These athletes may not make money for the athletic department, but they make money for the university as a whole. The non-revenue teams are allowed only limited scholarships which are often divided among multiple people, so each athlete pays the rest of tuition/fee/room and board/etc. beyond what is covered by the partial scholarship. For example, look at DIII athletics that give no scholarships. If the schools didn't make at least some money from athletes, there would be no DIII sports at all. Athletics are also a good way to build community and connect with alumni, so they have value beyond just the gate revenue and tv contracts.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallet View Post
    These athletes may not make money for the athletic department, but they make money for the university as a whole. The non-revenue teams are allowed only limited scholarships which are often divided among multiple people, so each athlete pays the rest of tuition/fee/room and board/etc. beyond what is covered by the partial scholarship. For example, look at DIII athletics that give no scholarships. If the schools didn't make at least some money from athletes, there would be no DIII sports at all. Athletics are also a good way to build community and connect with alumni, so they have value beyond just the gate revenue and tv contracts.
    +1 You can't simply look at the gate receipts to assess value.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,331

    Default

    My personal feeling is that this is not the beginning of the end to the college model. I know that it's human nature to read into what happens and make it seem like it's going to lead to massive change. Honestly, the athletes are compensated, the issue is really what the definition of fair compensation is and whether its fair to restrict an athlete from making money on the NIL. Once that is handled and things such as additional long term insurance issues are addressed, this will mostly be handled. Now, if they didn't address this stuff, more litigation will occur. I don't believe that will happen.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    sierra foothills
    Posts
    14,431

    Default

    https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021...e-nil-proposal

    Some of the most influential college athletes within the NCAA governance system are speaking out against the organization’s latest approach in regulating player compensation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •