|
|
Post by jgrout on Jun 21, 2021 12:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 21, 2021 12:25:34 GMT -5
This one probably isn't going to change a *ton* about the status quo but opens the door to come for the entire model.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 21, 2021 12:27:55 GMT -5
To be clear, this upholds a previous ruling. The NCAA adjusted rules a while back to account for this, so it doesn’t change much. Those NCAA rule changes allowed for things like laptops and postgrad scholarships.
|
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Jun 21, 2021 12:30:56 GMT -5
Right it will allow for more specific demands from new plaintiffs. Justice Kavanaugh's dissent is telling. He said in a nutshell that the NCAA’s claim of amateurism is ridiculous. So buckle up folks. This SCOTUS ruling was specific to a lower court’s ruling. So there were narrow parameters.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Jun 21, 2021 12:33:35 GMT -5
Right it will allow for more specific demands from new plaintiffs. Justice Kavanaugh dissent is telling. He said in a nutshell that the NCAA’s claim of amateurism is ridiculous. So buckle up folks. This SCOTUS ruling was specific to a lower court’s ruling. So there were narrow perimeters. I don’t think his opinion was a dissent… I think it was obiter dictum because the topics it raised dealt solely with points not raised in this case. The principle is based on a judge trying to assist the legal process because he/she cannot rule on a point not brought before him/her. www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/05/obiter-dicta-and-dissenting-opinions.html?m=1 |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 21, 2021 12:39:50 GMT -5
The problem, IMO, is actually quite fundamental to college sports.
On the one hand, you have a system where (despite all the student-athlete talk), you essentially have people getting compensated to play sports. It's a job.
But on the other hand, the *value* from college sports derives from the "college" part. The audience for college sports is vastly bigger than the audience for minor-league professional and semi-pro sports. And that's entirely because people identify with the colleges -- either because they went to one or because they are geographically associated with one. The question is how much of this value would be lost if the schools gave up the thin pretext that these teams are just "college students" playing for "their school". If teams were openly just hired athletes playing under the sponsorship of the schools, would people still care? More importantly to the NCAA, would they still spend money?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2021 12:40:51 GMT -5
The problem, IMO, is actually quite fundamental to college sports. On the one hand, you have a system where (despite all the student-athlete talk), you essentially have people getting compensated to play sports. It's a job. But on the other hand, the *value* from college sports derives from the "college" part. The audience for college sports is vastly bigger than the audience for minor-league professional and semi-pro sports. And that's entirely because people identify with the colleges -- either because they went to one or because they are geographically associated with one. The question is how much of this value would be lost if the schools gave up the thin pretext that these teams are just "college students" playing for "their school". If teams were openly just hired athletes playing under the sponsorship of the schools, would people still care? More importantly to the NCAA, would they still spend money? "All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks' wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism' in Hollywood. "Traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA's decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated," Kavanaugh wrote. "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." |
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Jun 21, 2021 12:59:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 21, 2021 13:18:18 GMT -5
"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." That's basically every single argument against the $15 minimum wage. "But what about all the high school burger flippers? Where will they work if these minimum wage jobs have to pay more money? Minimum wage jobs are an entry to the job market. Fast food is built on cheap labor. Hamburger prices will go up." Etc. |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Jun 21, 2021 14:12:44 GMT -5
Right it will allow for more specific demands from new plaintiffs. Justice Kavanaugh dissent is telling. He said in a nutshell that the NCAA’s claim of amateurism is ridiculous. So buckle up folks. This SCOTUS ruling was specific to a lower court’s ruling. So there were narrow perimeters. I don’t think his opinion was a dissent… I think it was obiter dictum because the topics it raised dealt solely with points not raised in this case. The principle is based on a judge trying to assist the legal process because he/she cannot rule on a point not brought before him/her. www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/05/obiter-dicta-and-dissenting-opinions.html?m=1yes, what you said. Basically, there will be more lawsuits coming. Of course, there has to be merit, then through the courts and maybe up to SCOTUS. In the end it's putting the NCAA on notice. What they will do next... The self-regulating step seems likely I'm guessing. An industry self-regulating itself is usually a disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jun 21, 2021 14:32:40 GMT -5
"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." That's basically every single argument against the $15 minimum wage. "But what about all the high school burger flippers? Where will they work if these minimum wage jobs have to pay more money? Minimum wage jobs are an entry to the job market. Fast food is built on cheap labor. Hamburger prices will go up." Etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 21, 2021 14:35:13 GMT -5
“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,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The N.C.A.A. is not above the law.”
So if not-for-profit educational based sports are no different than a business...
If student-athletes are employees (per Kavanaugh) - employees of universities are often allowed to take classes for free but they are not required to take classes. Is it wrong to require members of NCAA sports teams to be students? If they take the classes can you suspend their employment because of a bad grade in a class? Do you have to pay them to go to class as well as the time they spend on their sports?
So if State U has to provide a "fair market rate" to athletes on who's performance they derive revenue, what is then different about City High football and basketball that make money down the street? Do high school student-athletes have to go to class if they are now "employees?" And can you require a student to attend one high school that pays less when the other high school is paying their athlete more, just because of an imaginary line called a "school district?" Did they just pave a road to universal school choice for athletes.
And what about title IX? Do you pay the team who makes the money (mostly male athletes) or do you pay all athletes based on the popularity of 2-4 teams?
The NCAA has yet to articulate a coherent argument in defense of amateurism, but now things are going to get wild and I can see this leading down the path that ends up with a lot less scholastic sports across all levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 21, 2021 14:49:54 GMT -5
So if not-for-profit educational based sports are no different than a business... If student-athletes are employees (per Kavanaugh) - employees of universities are often allowed to take classes for free but they are not required to take classes. Is it wrong to require members of NCAA sports teams to be students? Not if it's a negotiated condition of their employment. Maybe! This isn't quite apples to Volkswagens, but it's close. Maybe! If 2020 showed us anything, it's that there's a massive backlash in store for athletic departments which try crying poor while cutting Olympic sports. Honestly, the best solution for both parties (the NCAA and the athletes) is allowing athletes to organize and form labor unions. All of these issues can then be collectively bargained rather than relying on Congress (lol) or the schools themselves (LOL). |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Jun 21, 2021 14:54:40 GMT -5
“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,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The N.C.A.A. is not above the law.” So if not-for-profit educational-based sports are no different than a business... If student-athletes are employees (per Kavanaugh), universities are often allowed to take classes for free, but they are not required to take classes. Is it wrong to require members of NCAA sports teams to be students? If they take the classes can you suspend their employment because of a bad grade in a class? Do you have to pay them to go to class as well as the time they spend on their sports? So if State U has to provide a "fair market rate" to athletes on whose performance they derive revenue, what is then different about City High football and basketball that make money down the street? Do high school student-athletes have to go to class if they are now "employees?" And can you require a student to attend one high school that pays less when the other high school is paying their athlete more, just because of an imaginary line called a "school district?" Did they just pave a road to universal school choice for athletes? And what about Title IX? Do you pay the team who makes the money (mostly male athletes) or do you pay all athletes based on the popularity of 2-4 teams? The NCAA has yet to articulate a coherent argument in defense of amateurism, but now things are going to get wild and I can see this leading down the path that ends up with a lot less scholastic sports across all levels. Well, my impulsive comment. Maybe the NCAA's landscape will be changed forever. Since everyone has a right to a brand and monetizes its brand and has full control over its brand, I cannot see how collegiate sports can remain outside of that system for much longer. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Jun 21, 2021 15:36:07 GMT -5
The problem, IMO, is actually quite fundamental to college sports. On the one hand, you have a system where (despite all the student-athlete talk), you essentially have people getting compensated to play sports. It's a job. But on the other hand, the *value* from college sports derives from the "college" part. The audience for college sports is vastly bigger than the audience for minor-league professional and semi-pro sports. And that's entirely because people identify with the colleges -- either because they went to one or because they are geographically associated with one. The question is how much of this value would be lost if the schools gave up the thin pretext that these teams are just "college students" playing for "their school". If teams were openly just hired athletes playing under the sponsorship of the schools, would people still care? More importantly to the NCAA, would they still spend money? Yup. You can argue that they are getting paid 250k which is the cost of tuition and fees, and then the value of their degree in terms of earning power. IMO it’s how insane the coaches salaries are that makes what their getting seem like “wait a f’ng minute”? Most professions where the money in the pot is huge, that money isn’t going to the general employees. Id also mention that this isn’t a problem in college sports, it’s a problem in major college sports, in two sports. |
|
