Supreme Court unanimously sides with former college players in dispute with NCAA about compensation

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3      

illini80

Forgottonia
This is a landmark that will forever change the landscape of college athletics. It could also be the end of the NCAA as we know it. Every rule they make could be challenged. If you can pay an athlete when he plays, why could you not pay an athlete to come as a bonus to his/her salary? I’d expect transfers to be possible at any time just like in the rest of the world, UNLESS they are signing binding contracts with specific terms.

It’s a while new world!!
 
#4      

sacraig

The desert
waynes world thumbs up GIF
 
#5      

Illwinsagain

Cary, IL
This is a landmark that will forever change the landscape of college athletics. It could also be the end of the NCAA as we know it. Every rule they make could be challenged. If you can pay an athlete when he plays, why could you not pay an athlete to come as a bonus to his/her salary? I’d expect transfers to be possible at any time just like in the rest of the world, UNLESS they are signing binding contracts with specific terms.

It’s a while new world!!
I have no idea where this is going to go....but it will be a very wild ride. I really wonder what this looks like in 3-5 years, not to mention, the next 3-5 months.
 
#6      
I have no idea where this is going to go....but it will be a very wild ride. I really wonder what this looks like in 3-5 years, not to mention, the next 3-5 months.
No idea really...maybe, teams like UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas find themselves losing in bidding wars with schools in cities with good cash flow, like USC, UCLA, and UNLV. Maybe the decision kills off some of the really competitive mid-majors.
 
#9      
I have no idea where this is going to go....but it will be a very wild ride. I really wonder what this looks like in 3-5 years, not to mention, the next 3-5 months.

You'd think it would be a big shakeup, ,but I expect this will take them a lot of time to sort out, with resistance every step of the way. If history is a guide, the NCAA would rather flout the law, wait for the lawsuit to work it's way through the court, and settle damages when the dust finally settles. The cost and time to litigate put a huge burden on those injured, all the while the profits come in. And how many athletes will sue and make it to the end of the process with meaningful compensation?

The folks running this are business people, with no appetite for change. And why would they? Organizations that are pulling in billions unethically, rarely stop. Most industries would rather break the law if they can work fines in as a cost of doing business. You need handcuffs and/or massive penalties to change behavior. Even then, you'll see some level of risk-taking, or lobbying to get laws to accommodate them. Delay is good for business.

The NCAA has already suggested that conferences will compete with each other, and that will remedy their current anti-competitive model. I'll give them this: they have great lawyers with multiple lines of defense. Gonna take years just to fight off that one.
 
#12      
The real issue with this ruling is it puts a target on the NCAA for additional lawsuits. As at least a couple of the Justices indicating in their opinions that this relatively narrow ruling might not be sufficient, but they limited themselves to dealing with the case in front of them at this time. Despite the damning quotes, my understanding is that this ruling is limited to in kind academic support rather than salary type compensation. It basically says the NCAA can't limit what a school/conference chooses to provide as far as academic support. It will make it nearly impossible for the NCAA to target any perks offered by a school as long as the perks can be tied in some way to academic needs. (Every football player gets a new iPad every year to help them manage their academic schedule.) So short term it will probably will help the P5 with big TV revenue pull further away from other conferences.
 
#13      
My biggest take is that it has to be tied to their education, not Athletics. At least that is the way I read it.

Will they find loopholes, you better believe it, so may the wealthiest schools win. That is what the new Championship trophy might as well read.
I read this the same way. It is not carte blanche anything goes. It doesn't even have to be totally in cash form.. Schools could even offer all their athletes educational trips to Europe separate from athletics.

This will change athletics dramatically none the less.

One thing will not change, when it is all said and done, the brightest people in the room will come out on top.
 
#14      
I suspect the rich will get richer, the poor get poorer and non-revenue sports might be in trouble.
IOW, not a whole lot of change (pun intended)
Exactly. I understand the Supreme Court reasoning, but unfortunately the consequences will be far more negative than positive. If this is interpreted such that student athletes must be paid for their time, 90% of student athletes will no longer be playing varsity sports while in college.
 
#15      
The ruling says nothing about cash payments to students. The existing rules of a $0.00 salary are still in place and the NCAA still has enforcement powers over non-academic payments:

Justice Gorsuch wrote, “the N.C.A.A. is free to forbid in-kind benefits unrelated to a student’s actual education; nothing stops it from enforcing a ‘no Lamborghini’ rule.”

Think I read the lawyers involved extracted $33,000,000 for themselves from the NCAA with just this ruling. There will be many more lawsuits.
 
#16      
Get rid of the 1 and done rule, expand NBA developmental leagues, but I think paying a salary to college athletes is a bad idea. Allow them all the opportunity to go elsewhere and make money, or earn money off their likeness. I don't really care that the level of competition would drop, I'd watch the NBA/NFL more if that's what I wanted.
 
#17      

illini80

Forgottonia
“Kavanaugh published a concurring opinion that takes a harder line, suggesting that the NCAA's rules that restrict any type of compensation -- including direct payment for athletic accomplishments -- might no longer hold up well in future antitrust challenges.”

“Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in the Alston case in 2019, determining that schools should be able to provide their athletes with educational equipment, study abroad programs, internships and even cash rewards in exchange for academic accomplishments.”

I think the courts are making their point perfectly clear. Cash rewards for academic accomplishments can be interpreted any way you want. If you are academically eligible to play, that’s an accomplishment.

If the NCAA doesn’t allow direct payments they are begging to be sued.
 
#18      

illini80

Forgottonia
Get rid of the 1 and done rule, expand NBA developmental leagues, but I think paying a salary to college athletes is a bad idea. Allow them all the opportunity to go elsewhere and make money, or earn money off their likeness. I don't really care that the level of competition would drop, I'd watch the NBA/NFL more if that's what I wanted.
But what we think is a good idea doesn’t matter if it can’t be defended in court and clearly it cannot.
 
#21      
Kofi could have made good money staying at Illinois another season.
 
#24      
The ruling says nothing about cash payments to students. The existing rules of a $0.00 salary are still in place and the NCAA still has enforcement powers over non-academic payments:

Justice Gorsuch wrote, “the N.C.A.A. is free to forbid in-kind benefits unrelated to a student’s actual education; nothing stops it from enforcing a ‘no Lamborghini’ rule.”

Think I read the lawyers involved extracted $33,000,000 for themselves from the NCAA with just this ruling. There will be many more lawsuits.
I have been on the other side of Berman multiple times and have retained Waxman before. While Waxman certainly doesn’t come cheap, I promise you that Berman made multiples more from this case. Good to know he cares so mich about his clients in this case, as he typically doesn’t even have real ones.
 
#25      
And the NCAA takes one more step toward total irrelevance. This decision would have been unnecessary had the NCAA actually taken a leadership role in figuring out NIL. They continually kicked the can down the road until state legislatures got involved, and now they're playing catch up. They're also not well liked on Capitol Hill these days, due largely to their inability to clearly articulate a position on NIL and their inherent and persistent anti-trust issues. Add to that the major conferences, which have taken it upon themselves to lobby Congress individually, and the message of the NCAA becomes even more diluted. How long will it be before the P5 conferences split off and form their own association?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.