|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 14:13:58 GMT -5
Definition: what us the”NCAA Monopoly”? Business: college sports? Please define for sake of discussion. TY It's long, but it's a good explanation that I won't paraphrase: I teach an Economics of Sports class here at Iowa State University. In my class, we discuss the economic structure of the NCAA and professional sports leagues in the U.S. You are correct that the NCAA is a cartel and so is a professional sports league. One thing different about the NCAA vs a pro sports league is that members of the NCAA are involved in multiple sports and members typically represent non-profit organizations, whereas a pro sports league focuses on one sport and team owners are profit oriented. A cartel is a combination of independent enterprises who work together to coordinate activities and to jointly agree on rules for competing against each other. OPEC is an example of a ‘business’ cartel. There are buying and selling activities in markets. The ability to influence or have some control over the terms of trade in selling is referred to as ‘monopoly power’ and in buying it is referred to as ‘monopsony power’. The NCAA generates approximately $1 billion in revenue annually. Most of that revenue comes from their ‘monopoly’ power to sell broadcast rights to the NCAA post-season basketball tournament. Currently the NCAA is in the middle of a 15-yr (2010-2024) tv deal having sold those broadcast rights to CBS and Turner tv networks for $771 mil/yr. Interestingly, perhaps, these parties just extended that deal to 2025-2032 for $1.1 bil/yr. Most of the remaining small portion (10% or so) of NCAA’s revenue comes from ticket sales to championship events they sanction, which is basically all collegiate sports championships. So, the NCAA can be regarded as a monopolist in selling these items (i.e. broadcast rights to the NCAA basketball tournament and championship ticket sales). On the ‘buying’ side, members of the NCAA (mainly colleges and universities) act as a ‘collusive monopsony’ where they set policies for members to follow mostly on matters related to the operation of collegiate sports (e.g. recruiting rules, scholarship rules, eligibility rules, number of team and number of coach rules, etc.). This ‘monopsony power’ has likely reduced the bargaining power of collegiate student athletes. www.econ.iastate.edu/ask-an-economist/ncaa-monopoly#:~:text=On%20the%20'buying'%20side%2C,and%20number%20of%20coach%20rules This is a good summary of the actual Court decision: Today, a very conservative Supreme Court published its decision on whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association can continue to put rules in place to suppress the wages and terms of student athletes. In NCAA v. Alston, the court ruled 9-0 on narrow grounds for the student-athletes and against the NCAA, which is a clear labor-fixing cartel. The decision did, as Daniel Hanley points out, rhetorically uphold the consumer welfare oriented status quo, but there are a few interesting tidbits worth noting. First, the court finally noted that suppressing competition in labor markets is an antitrust harm. This may seem like it’s already the case. But while courts have said that agreements not to hire the employees of competitors is a violation, they hadn’t yet ruled on using market power to directly lower wages. Now the court has done so, noting that “student-athletes had shown the NCAA enjoys the power to set wages in the market for student-athletes’ labor—and that the NCAA has exercised that power in ways that have produced significant anticompetitive effects." mattstoller.substack.com/p/why-a-pro-monopoly-supreme-court
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:26:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 14:26:53 GMT -5
Definition: what us the”NCAA Monopoly”? Business: college sports? Please define for sake of discussion. TY It's long, but it's a good explanation that I won't paraphrase: I teach an Economics of Sports class here at Iowa State University. Didnt copy whole thing: hope its ok : and thank you by the way: thats how i see it too by the way: so your main point(i think) is: as ncaa (colleges) attempt to create “rules” guidelines to “control collectives” they once again violate the anti trust point of limiting competitive ability of the student/athlete. Therefore if they make no rules on limit can they limit when a collective may contact said athlete, without triggering anti trust issues??
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:36:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 14:36:53 GMT -5
It's long, but it's a good explanation that I won't paraphrase: I teach an Economics of Sports class here at Iowa State University. Didnt copy whole thing: hope its ok : and thank you by the way: thats how i see it too by the way: so your main point(i think) is: as ncaa (colleges) attempt to create “rules” guidelines to “control collectives” they once again violate the anti trust point of limiting competitive ability of the student/athlete. Therefore if they make no rules on limit can they limit when a collective may contact said athlete, without triggering anti trust issues?? ps: has/did/ are. How do you get/receive an anti trust exemptions?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:42:56 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 14:42:56 GMT -5
It's long, but it's a good explanation that I won't paraphrase: I teach an Economics of Sports class here at Iowa State University. Didnt copy whole thing: hope its ok : and thank you by the way: thats how i see it too by the way: so your main point(i think) is: as ncaa (colleges) attempt to create “rules” guidelines to “control collectives” they once again violate the anti trust point of limiting competitive ability of the student/athlete. Therefore if they make no rules on limit can they limit when a collective may contact said athlete, without triggering anti trust issues?? The NCAA already has rules prohibiting boosters from making contact with PSA's/recruits, and a collective organized by boosters is still boosters and subject to those rules. As I said before, the issue with the NCAA (i.e., its institutions/coaches/agents) coordinating with collectives has to do with the anti-trust effects of the NCAA entering the LABOR market from it's position as a monopoly based on AMATEUR status for student-athletes. A truly independent collective (even if it's geared exclusively to student-athletes at a particular institution) might be tenable for the moment. It's the intrusion by the NCAA into the LABOR market via coordination with collectives that potentially creates anti-trust problems. But coaches and institutions just can't keep themselves from trying to find advantages and angles because of the concern for competitive advantage.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:54:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 14:54:19 GMT -5
Didnt copy whole thing: hope its ok : and thank you by the way: thats how i see it too by the way: so your main point(i think) is: as ncaa (colleges) attempt to create “rules” guidelines to “control collectives” they once again violate the anti trust point of limiting competitive ability of the student/athlete. Therefore if they make no rules on limit can they limit when a collective may contact said athlete, without triggering anti trust issues?? The NCAA already has rules prohibiting boosters from making contact with PSA's/recruits, and a collective organized by boosters is still boosters and subject to those rules. As I said before, the issue with the NCAA (i.e., its institutions/coaches/agents) coordinating with collectives has to do with the anti-trust effects of the NCAA entering the LABOR market from it's position as a monopoly based on AMATEUR status for student-athletes. A truly independent collective (even if it's geared exclusively to student-athletes at a particular institution) might be tenable for the moment. It's the intrusion by the NCAA into the LABOR market via coordination with collectives that potentially creates anti-trust problems. But coaches and institutions just can't keep themselves from trying to find advantages and angles because of the concern for competitive advantage. As part of the rookie wage scale, every rookie signs a four-year contract. The value of these contracts obviously varies, but the length does not. Is this anti trust issue??
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:56:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 14:56:45 GMT -5
The NCAA already has rules prohibiting boosters from making contact with PSA's/recruits, and a collective organized by boosters is still boosters and subject to those rules. As I said before, the issue with the NCAA (i.e., its institutions/coaches/agents) coordinating with collectives has to do with the anti-trust effects of the NCAA entering the LABOR market from it's position as a monopoly based on AMATEUR status for student-athletes. A truly independent collective (even if it's geared exclusively to student-athletes at a particular institution) might be tenable for the moment. It's the intrusion by the NCAA into the LABOR market via coordination with collectives that potentially creates anti-trust problems. But coaches and institutions just can't keep themselves from trying to find advantages and angles because of the concern for competitive advantage. As part of the rookie wage scale, every rookie signs a four-year contract. The value of these contracts obviously varies, but the length does not. Is this anti trust issue?? ps: and they can negotiate guaranteed $$’s but can not freely move to another team for 4 years and possibly a fifth? Sounds like a scholarship deal?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 14:59:40 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 14:59:40 GMT -5
The NCAA already has rules prohibiting boosters from making contact with PSA's/recruits, and a collective organized by boosters is still boosters and subject to those rules. As I said before, the issue with the NCAA (i.e., its institutions/coaches/agents) coordinating with collectives has to do with the anti-trust effects of the NCAA entering the LABOR market from it's position as a monopoly based on AMATEUR status for student-athletes. A truly independent collective (even if it's geared exclusively to student-athletes at a particular institution) might be tenable for the moment. It's the intrusion by the NCAA into the LABOR market via coordination with collectives that potentially creates anti-trust problems. But coaches and institutions just can't keep themselves from trying to find advantages and angles because of the concern for competitive advantage. As part of the rookie wage scale, every rookie signs a four-year contract. The value of these contracts obviously varies, but the length does not. Is this anti trust issue?? I don't understand your question. NCAA athletes don't get "wages" from their institution.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:17:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 15:17:15 GMT -5
As part of the rookie wage scale, every rookie signs a four-year contract. The value of these contracts obviously varies, but the length does not. Is this anti trust issue?? I don't understand your question. NCAA athletes don't get "wages" from their institution. Is the nfl rookie scale and 4 year contract an anti trust violation because it removes competitive ability of workers to seek a competitive wage? Conjecture : potential for schools to move to a model where wage-replaces scholarship? 4 year deal worth $200,000 dollars: = 4 year scholarship and cost of attendance? Any valie in this discussion?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:20:23 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 15:20:23 GMT -5
I don't understand your question. NCAA athletes don't get "wages" from their institution. Is the nfl rookie scale and 4 year contract an anti trust violation because it removes competitive ability of workers to seek a competitive wage? Conjecture : potential for schools to move to a model where wage-replaces scholarship? 4 year deal worth $200,000 dollars: = 4 year scholarship and cost of attendance? Any valie in this discussion? There's a lawsuit pending that seeks to classify ncaa student-athletes as employees. That would be a totally different discussion.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:23:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 15:23:15 GMT -5
Is the nfl rookie scale and 4 year contract an anti trust violation because it removes competitive ability of workers to seek a competitive wage? Conjecture : potential for schools to move to a model where wage-replaces scholarship? 4 year deal worth $200,000 dollars: = 4 year scholarship and cost of attendance? Any valie in this discussion? There's a lawsuit pending that seeks to classify ncaa student-athletes as employees. That would be a totally different discussion. Is the nfl rookie scale a potential anti trust situation?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 15:25:09 GMT -5
There's a lawsuit pending that seeks to classify ncaa student-athletes as employees. That would be a totally different discussion. Is the nfl rookie scale a potential anti trust situation? No because the NFL has collective bargaining.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:32:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 15:32:59 GMT -5
Is the nfl rookie scale a potential anti trust situation? No because the NFL has collective bargaining. So because there is a players union that negotiates with nfl it isnt anti trust. But (argument) since players being drafted are not members of union and the players who are in league make up union: are the union players colluding with nfl to keep rookie salaries down because players already in league dont want to see rookies get more than they are? Is this not a form of collusion?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:34:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 15:34:15 GMT -5
No because the NFL has collective bargaining. So because there is a players union that negotiates with nfl it isnt anti trust. But (argument) since players being drafted are not members of union and the players who are in league make up union: are the union players colluding with nfl to keep rookie salaries down because players already in league dont want to see rookies get more than they are? Is this not a form of collusion? Can a union be a monopoly?
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:35:54 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Mar 19, 2023 15:35:54 GMT -5
So because there is a players union that negotiates with nfl it isnt anti trust. But (argument) since players being drafted are not members of union and the players who are in league make up union: are the union players colluding with nfl to keep rookie salaries down because players already in league dont want to see rookies get more than they are? Is this not a form of collusion? Can a union be a monopoly? No to all of the above.
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 19, 2023 15:43:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dodger on Mar 19, 2023 15:43:24 GMT -5
|
|