|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 10:58:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Mar 18, 2023 10:58:56 GMT -5
You sweet summer child. The NCAA knew the whole time exactly what NIL would be. That’s why they fought against it so hard. There’s no realistic way to make it what you seem to want it to be. I don't dispute any of that, I'm just saying that the original idea was for things like this. Katie Ledecky should be able to take money from Speedo and swim for Stanford. Kids should be able to sign posters for money. Everyone knew what it was going to become, but the sponsors of the bills in various state legislatures weren't arguing for what has come of their work. I guess I spent too much time arguing about it for the last 20+ years with people talking about how unfair it is (which it was) with me saying it would inevitably be pay to play. You can’t have one without the other. I mean, we’ve always had pay to play. This just legitimized it and therefore exploded the money involved.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 15:58:17 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 18, 2023 15:58:17 GMT -5
I don't dispute any of that, I'm just saying that the original idea was for things like this. Katie Ledecky should be able to take money from Speedo and swim for Stanford. Kids should be able to sign posters for money. Everyone knew what it was going to become, but the sponsors of the bills in various state legislatures weren't arguing for what has come of their work. I guess I spent too much time arguing about it for the last 20+ years with people talking about how unfair it is (which it was) with me saying it would inevitably be pay to play. You can’t have one without the other. I mean, we’ve always had pay to play. This just legitimized it and therefore exploded the money involved. I understand your reasoning, and pay for play is correct in terms of where the boosters (through organized NIL collectives) and even coaches are pushing it, but it is not correct in a legal sense. Alston was an anti-trust case, and the NCAA as it is currently configured cannot legally engage in pay for play. That may not seem obvious or inevitable at the moment, but it is and will be very soon.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 16:11:50 GMT -5
Post by slxpress on Mar 18, 2023 16:11:50 GMT -5
I guess I spent too much time arguing about it for the last 20+ years with people talking about how unfair it is (which it was) with me saying it would inevitably be pay to play. You can’t have one without the other. I mean, we’ve always had pay to play. This just legitimized it and therefore exploded the money involved. I understand your reasoning, and pay for play is correct in terms of where the boosters (through organized NIL collectives) and even coaches are pushing it, but it is not correct in a legal sense. Alston was an anti-trust case, and the NCAA as it is currently configured cannot legally engage in pay for play. That may not seem obvious or inevitable at the moment, but it is and will be very soon. I do not see any feasible way the NCAA can do anything about it. I'm also not clear how federal legislation curtails it, although that's the best answer. What I do know is that even if collectives were suddenly abolished somehow, there would still be legitimized pay for play through NIL. My big point is that hoping for a world where athletes aren't unfairly treated in terms of NIL, while also living in a world where the same tools aren't used to legitimize pay for play is a fantasy. If I want to pay for an athlete to endorse something for me I should be able to do that, if Pepsi Cola can. There's no legitimate law that should be able to distinguish between the two, and even if there was, getting a law enforcement body to enforce it is impractical.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 16:35:16 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 18, 2023 16:35:16 GMT -5
I understand your reasoning, and pay for play is correct in terms of where the boosters (through organized NIL collectives) and even coaches are pushing it, but it is not correct in a legal sense. Alston was an anti-trust case, and the NCAA as it is currently configured cannot legally engage in pay for play. That may not seem obvious or inevitable at the moment, but it is and will be very soon. I do not see any feasible way the NCAA can do anything about it. I'm also not clear how federal legislation curtails it, although that's the best answer. What I do know is that even if collectives were suddenly abolished somehow, there would still be legitimized pay for play through NIL. My big point is that hoping for a world where athletes aren't unfairly treated in terms of NIL, while also living in a world where the same tools aren't used to legitimize pay for play is a fantasy. If I want to pay for an athlete to endorse something for me I should be able to do that, if Pepsi Cola can. There's no legitimate law that should be able to distinguish between the two, and even if there was, getting a law enforcement body to enforce it is impractical. I'm not clear on the point or distinction you're trying to make. Anyone (except "the NCAA") that operates in the labor market can contract with a student-athlete for NIL opportunities. That applies to a collective that isn't (exclusively) affiliated with the NCAA or one of its member instiutions. The problem arises from collectives that are geared towards one specific institution (which virtually all of them are) and coordinate with the institution or on behalf of the institution. Of course, we all know this is what is happening, but it's precisely the problem of the moth being drawn to the flame. Pay for Play isn't a loop-hole or skirting of NCAA rules--like when club coaches used to be intermediaries to arrange transfers--but as established by Alston, pay for play is a violation of anti-trust law, and eventually, the chickens will come home to roost (how about those metaphors!) and will disrupt the NCAA's de facto monopoly on college sports.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 17:10:49 GMT -5
Post by slxpress on Mar 18, 2023 17:10:49 GMT -5
I do not see any feasible way the NCAA can do anything about it. I'm also not clear how federal legislation curtails it, although that's the best answer. What I do know is that even if collectives were suddenly abolished somehow, there would still be legitimized pay for play through NIL. My big point is that hoping for a world where athletes aren't unfairly treated in terms of NIL, while also living in a world where the same tools aren't used to legitimize pay for play is a fantasy. If I want to pay for an athlete to endorse something for me I should be able to do that, if Pepsi Cola can. There's no legitimate law that should be able to distinguish between the two, and even if there was, getting a law enforcement body to enforce it is impractical. I'm not clear on the point or distinction you're trying to make. Anyone (except "the NCAA") that operates in the labor market can contract with a student-athlete for NIL opportunities. That applies to a collective that isn't (exclusively) affiliated with the NCAA or one of its member instiutions. The problem arises from collectives that are geared towards one specific institution (which virtually all of them are) and coordinate with the institution or on behalf of the institution. Of course, we all know this is what is happening, but it's precisely the problem of the moth being drawn to the flame. Pay for Play isn't a loop-hole or skirting of NCAA rules--like when club coaches used to be intermediaries to arrange transfers--but as established by Alston, pay for play is a violation of anti-trust law, and eventually, the chickens will come home to roost (how about those metaphors!) and will disrupt the NCAA's de facto monopoly on college sports. You're trying to say the ending of collectives geared towards a specific institution will end pay for play, and I'm saying you're out of your mind.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 17:33:33 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 18, 2023 17:33:33 GMT -5
I'm not clear on the point or distinction you're trying to make. Anyone (except "the NCAA") that operates in the labor market can contract with a student-athlete for NIL opportunities. That applies to a collective that isn't (exclusively) affiliated with the NCAA or one of its member instiutions. The problem arises from collectives that are geared towards one specific institution (which virtually all of them are) and coordinate with the institution or on behalf of the institution. Of course, we all know this is what is happening, but it's precisely the problem of the moth being drawn to the flame. Pay for Play isn't a loop-hole or skirting of NCAA rules--like when club coaches used to be intermediaries to arrange transfers--but as established by Alston, pay for play is a violation of anti-trust law, and eventually, the chickens will come home to roost (how about those metaphors!) and will disrupt the NCAA's de facto monopoly on college sports. You're trying to say the ending of collectives geared towards a specific institution will end pay for play, and I'm saying you're out of your mind. No, that’s not what I said. Collectives in collaboration with institutions/coaches resulting in pay for play are in violation of Alston (not just NCAA rules), and enforcement of anti-trust laws lies with federal authorities. That is the significance of Alston, and why the NCAA (and some state legislatures) prohibit direct involvement by coaches in NIL. Coaches/Institutions and collectives looking for an NIL advantage are driving college sports in the direction explicitly prohibited by Alston (that is the moth to flame analogy).
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 18:35:04 GMT -5
Post by slxpress on Mar 18, 2023 18:35:04 GMT -5
You're trying to say the ending of collectives geared towards a specific institution will end pay for play, and I'm saying you're out of your mind. No, that’s not what I said. Collectives in collaboration with institutions/coaches resulting in pay for play are in violation of Alston (not just NCAA rules), and enforcement of anti-trust laws lies with federal authorities. That is the significance of Alston, and why the NCAA (and some state legislatures) prohibit direct involvement by coaches in NIL. Coaches/Institutions and collectives looking for an NIL advantage are driving college sports in the direction explicitly prohibited by Alston (that is the moth to flame analogy). I still do not understand your point. Do you think something is going to end the application of pay for play? You hint at it. What is it? I'm saying very plainly that once we broke the seal of the NCAA preventing any athlete from accepting NIL money, we threw away any chance of not having a huge component of legitimate pay for play in college sports. We're not putting that genie back in the bottle ever again. Legitimized pay for play is here to stay, regardless of what form it takes, whether it's collectives or something else. If Congress and the president ever agree on some kind of legislation that addresses it, then that legislation can help determine a different direction, but we're a long ways from that and it's not at all clear what that legislation would look like or who would be called upon to enforce it. It's hard for me to believe we're going to have the FBI enforcing college sports.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 19:04:47 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 18, 2023 19:04:47 GMT -5
No, that’s not what I said. Collectives in collaboration with institutions/coaches resulting in pay for play are in violation of Alston (not just NCAA rules), and enforcement of anti-trust laws lies with federal authorities. That is the significance of Alston, and why the NCAA (and some state legislatures) prohibit direct involvement by coaches in NIL. Coaches/Institutions and collectives looking for an NIL advantage are driving college sports in the direction explicitly prohibited by Alston (that is the moth to flame analogy). I still do not understand your point. Do you think something is going to end the application of pay for play? You hint at it. What is it? I'm saying very plainly that once we broke the seal of the NCAA preventing any athlete from accepting NIL money, we threw away any chance of not having a huge component of legitimate pay for play in college sports. We're not putting that genie back in the bottle ever again. Legitimized pay for play is here to stay, regardless of what form it takes, whether it's collectives or something else. If Congress and the president ever agree on some kind of legislation that addresses it, then that legislation can help determine a different direction, but we're a long ways from that and it's not at all clear what that legislation would look like or who would be called upon to enforce it. It's hard for me to believe we're going to have the FBI enforcing college sports. I think you’re confusing me with your use of pay for play. Alston ensures that athletes can receive EXTERNAL pay (or in a legal sense, that the NCAA cannot unduly constrain athletes in the LABOR market). That isn’t going away. When people talk about Congress intervening, they’re talking about an EXEMPTION to anti-trust laws, which isn’t likely to happen. And it’s not the FBI, but the anti-trust division of the DOJ and the FCC (lawyers, basically) who will enforce it. Pay for play is inducements by boosters or agents of an institution to athletes. Pay for play under the guise of NIL is illegal under, and because of, Alston.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 18, 2023 23:51:10 GMT -5
Post by ay2013 on Mar 18, 2023 23:51:10 GMT -5
I still do not understand your point. Do you think something is going to end the application of pay for play? You hint at it. What is it? I'm saying very plainly that once we broke the seal of the NCAA preventing any athlete from accepting NIL money, we threw away any chance of not having a huge component of legitimate pay for play in college sports. We're not putting that genie back in the bottle ever again. Legitimized pay for play is here to stay, regardless of what form it takes, whether it's collectives or something else. If Congress and the president ever agree on some kind of legislation that addresses it, then that legislation can help determine a different direction, but we're a long ways from that and it's not at all clear what that legislation would look like or who would be called upon to enforce it. It's hard for me to believe we're going to have the FBI enforcing college sports. I think you’re confusing me with your use of pay for play. Alston ensures that athletes can receive EXTERNAL pay (or in a legal sense, that the NCAA cannot unduly constrain athletes in the LABOR market). That isn’t going away. When people talk about Congress intervening, they’re talking about an EXEMPTION to anti-trust laws, which isn’t likely to happen. And it’s not the FBI, but the anti-trust division of the DOJ and the FCC (lawyers, basically) who will enforce it. Pay for play is inducements by boosters or agents of an institution to athletes. Pay for play under the guise of NIL is illegal under, and because of, Alston. In 2021 Texas went 5-7 and the staff publicly commented on wanting to beef up its offensive line. Subsequently, some rich Texas alumni got together to form a collective to give 50k, per year, to any and every scholarship offensive lineman at Texas (regardless if they even play, or are any good). Your assertions that pay to play isn’t happening and seemingly won’t because it’s illegal falls on deaf ears. www.si.com/college/texas/.amp/news/texas-longhorns-offensive-line-horns-with-hearts-paid-hookem
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 0:17:48 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 0:17:48 GMT -5
I think you’re confusing me with your use of pay for play. Alston ensures that athletes can receive EXTERNAL pay (or in a legal sense, that the NCAA cannot unduly constrain athletes in the LABOR market). That isn’t going away. When people talk about Congress intervening, they’re talking about an EXEMPTION to anti-trust laws, which isn’t likely to happen. And it’s not the FBI, but the anti-trust division of the DOJ and the FCC (lawyers, basically) who will enforce it. Pay for play is inducements by boosters or agents of an institution to athletes. Pay for play under the guise of NIL is illegal under, and because of, Alston. In 2021 Texas went 5-7 and the staff publicly commented on wanting to beef up its offensive line. Subsequently, some rich Texas alumni got together to form a collective to give 50k, per year, to any and every scholarship offensive lineman at Texas (regardless if they even play, or are any good). Your assertions that pay to play isn’t happening and seemingly won’t because it’s illegal falls on deaf ears. www.si.com/college/texas/.amp/news/texas-longhorns-offensive-line-horns-with-hearts-paid-hookeml didn't say pay for play isn't happening. In fact I said the opposite, that it was happening like "moths to a flame." My point is that institutions and coaches are looking for angles to make NIL work for them, but they are also fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Alston.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 0:57:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 0:57:13 GMT -5
In 2021 Texas went 5-7 and the staff publicly commented on wanting to beef up its offensive line. Subsequently, some rich Texas alumni got together to form a collective to give 50k, per year, to any and every scholarship offensive lineman at Texas (regardless if they even play, or are any good). Your assertions that pay to play isn’t happening and seemingly won’t because it’s illegal falls on deaf ears. www.si.com/college/texas/.amp/news/texas-longhorns-offensive-line-horns-with-hearts-paid-hookeml didn't say pay for play isn't happening. In fact I said the opposite, that it was happening like "moths to a flame." My point is that institutions and coaches are looking for angles to make NIL work for them, but they are also fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Alston. I am know anti trust lawyer and i apologize if you are: but i believe you havent fully explained why a collective (organized group of legally formed boosters) are in violation of anti trust law? Are you suggesting that this is an effort by texas to create a monopoly and create an unfair playing dield for consumers?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 1:33:40 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 1:33:40 GMT -5
l didn't say pay for play isn't happening. In fact I said the opposite, that it was happening like "moths to a flame." My point is that institutions and coaches are looking for angles to make NIL work for them, but they are also fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Alston. I am know anti trust lawyer and i apologize if you are: but i believe you havent fully explained why a collective (organized group of legally formed boosters) are in violation of anti trust law? Are you suggesting that this is an effort by texas to create a monopoly and create an unfair playing dield for consumers? In the decision, the Court determines that the NCAA is a monopsony (a monopoly within a specific market, which in this case is college sports. The traditional example of a monopsony is a coal town that controls the labor in the town). A truly independent collective that "hires" student-athletes in the labor market (in the way that a pizza place or a shoe company might) is probably not an issue under anti-trust (even though the collective is probably an artificial entity within the labor market). When the collective coordinates with the NCAA, it's member institions or agents (coaches, etc), then this can become prohibited collusion. The NCAA understands this, but they haven't come up with a plan to establish guardrails against it. There are probably a few reasons for this, including not knowing how to proceed in this turmoil, and being in the middle of a leadership change. Moreover, some state legislatures are actually passing legislation that essentially encourages the NCAA to collude (Florida most recently).
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 12:18:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 12:18:27 GMT -5
I am know anti trust lawyer and i apologize if you are: but i believe you havent fully explained why a collective (organized group of legally formed boosters) are in violation of anti trust law? Are you suggesting that this is an effort by texas to create a monopoly and create an unfair playing dield for consumers? In the decision, the Court determines that the NCAA is a monopsony (a monopoly within a specific market, which in this case is college sports. The traditional example of a monopsony is a coal town that controls the labor in the town). A truly independent collective that "hires" student-athletes in the labor market (in the way that a pizza place or a shoe company might) is probably not an issue under anti-trust (even though the collective is probably an artificial entity within the labor market). When the collective coordinates with the NCAA, it's member institions or agents (coaches, etc), then this can become prohibited collusion. The NCAA understands this, but they haven't come up with a plan to establish guardrails against it. There are probably a few reasons for this, including not knowing how to proceed in this turmoil, and being in the middle of a leadership change. Moreover, some state legislatures are actually passing legislation that essentially encourages the NCAA to collude (Florida most recently). Yes but; every school can have a collective: and for there to be an anti trust impact all the collectives would have to collude and set a “limit” to how much they pay the “workers”. Since there are x number of schools and x number of collectives and they are competing for workers it would appear it isnt an anti trust situation: unless the ncaa puts limits on collectives and removes there competitive bidding?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 12:34:50 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 12:34:50 GMT -5
In the decision, the Court determines that the NCAA is a monopsony (a monopoly within a specific market, which in this case is college sports. The traditional example of a monopsony is a coal town that controls the labor in the town). A truly independent collective that "hires" student-athletes in the labor market (in the way that a pizza place or a shoe company might) is probably not an issue under anti-trust (even though the collective is probably an artificial entity within the labor market). When the collective coordinates with the NCAA, it's member institions or agents (coaches, etc), then this can become prohibited collusion. The NCAA understands this, but they haven't come up with a plan to establish guardrails against it. There are probably a few reasons for this, including not knowing how to proceed in this turmoil, and being in the middle of a leadership change. Moreover, some state legislatures are actually passing legislation that essentially encourages the NCAA to collude (Florida most recently). Yes but; every school can have a collective: and for there to be an anti trust impact all the collectives would have to collude and set a “limit” to how much they pay the “workers”. Since there are x number of schools and x number of collectives and they are competing for workers it would appear it isnt an anti trust situation: unless the ncaa puts limits on collectives and removes there competitive bidding? The issue or risk is that the NCAA monopoly intrudes into the labor market when it coordinates with the collective. Remember, student-athletes are not employees within the NCAA market. Their market is college sports based on AMATEURISM. The Court had a lot to say about the NCAA's claim of amateurism, but it explicitly stated in the opinion that it was not ruling on the validity of the NCAA's monopoly because the plaintiffs won on the issue of academic benefits and didn't appeal that specific issue (and the NCAA obviously didn't appeal that either).
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:06:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 14:06:00 GMT -5
Definition: what us the”NCAA Monopoly”? Business: college sports? Please define for sake of discussion. TY
|
|