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

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      

chrisRunner7

Spokane, WA

Without saying anything positive or negative about Kavanaugh (we don't need a political debate here), the fact that the other justices didn't sign onto his concurrence doesn't mean no one else agreed with its message or substance.

He apparently felt strongly enough about the potential antitrust consequence of the NCAA forbidding colleges directly paying athletes (not the issue in the NCAA v. Alston case) that he wanted to discuss it in a concurrence. I imagine most of the justices thought this was unnecessarily wading into an issue for another day... but the justices often say stuff to "invite" someone to bring a case on a particular issue. I don't think Kavanaugh would be the only justice raking the NCAA over the coals if the NCAA shows up in front of the Supreme Court again.
 
#27      

pruman91

Paducah, Ky
Without saying anything positive or negative about Kavanaugh (we don't need a political debate here), the fact that the other justices didn't sign onto his concurrence doesn't mean no one else agreed with its message or substance.

He apparently felt strongly enough about the potential antitrust consequence of the NCAA forbidding colleges directly paying athletes (not the issue in the NCAA v. Alston case) that he wanted to discuss it in a concurrence. I imagine most of the justices thought this was unnecessarily wading into an issue for another day... but the justices often say stuff to "invite" someone to bring a case on a particular issue. I don't think Kavanaugh would be the only justice raking the NCAA over the coals if the NCAA shows up in front of the Supreme Court again.
I agree completely with your thoughts....Understood that other Justices not agreeing with BK had no bearing on their overall decision....clown reference was to Emmert......
This is the beginning salvo which will be litigated for a while before a resolute decision takes effect.....JMHO
 
#28      

sacraig

The desert

Without saying anything positive or negative about Kavanaugh (we don't need a political debate here), the fact that the other justices didn't sign onto his concurrence doesn't mean no one else agreed with its message or substance.

He apparently felt strongly enough about the potential antitrust consequence of the NCAA forbidding colleges directly paying athletes (not the issue in the NCAA v. Alston case) that he wanted to discuss it in a concurrence. I imagine most of the justices thought this was unnecessarily wading into an issue for another day... but the justices often say stuff to "invite" someone to bring a case on a particular issue. I don't think Kavanaugh would be the only justice raking the NCAA over the coals if the NCAA shows up in front of the Supreme Court again.

At the end of the day, the NCAA has been clinging to a clearly antiquated model for how to run their leagues. As the business of NCAA sports has grown over immensely over the last several decades and lined the pockets of the people in charge, nothing was done to even pretend to update the business model. If they had gotten out front of this and tried to do right by the student athletes, this probably could have been avoided and therefore gone more smoothly. Now it's going to be a messier process.

Sometimes you just have to rip off the Band-Aid...
 
#30      
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 was worried that we might need a lawyer stimulus bill at some point (/s)...I guess this will keep many lawyers employed. Hooray.

apologize for offending Josh Whitman and any other lawyers on the board....
 
#31      
And the NCAA takes one more step toward total irrelevance.

Being reviled is not irrelevance.

I expect them to continue to protect their turf, work around the lawsuits, and keep most of the money going into Administration coffers. I think basketball is set up with better competition for talent, and so that might actually make progress. Not sure how to break down the college football juggernaut going mostly to the administration and not players. The way the NFL is set up to pull from college ranks makes that hard to crack IMO.
 
#32      
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.
I have sometimes wondered what it would look like if every college basketball program was assigned as a “minor league” affiliate so to speak to an NBA team. Perhaps different levels similar to baseball. Just a crazy thought…
 
#33      

jmwillini

Tolono, IL
Georgie B is already doing commercials in CU. Wish this came earlier.
 
#34      
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.
It's definitely shocking that the attorney who filed the complaint and stayed on it through SCOTUS would make more than the over-priced appellate lawyer. :rolleyes:
 
#36      
I have sometimes wondered what it would look like if every college basketball program was assigned as a “minor league” affiliate so to speak to an NBA team. Perhaps different levels similar to baseball. Just a crazy thought…
NBA doesnt need to partner with NCAA...just create a better option, which I believe they are doing with g league elite.

College programs are already affiliate to shoe companies. The G league elite team is likely making it hard for shoe companies to "lock in" elite 18 year old players. The Elite program also will challenge blue blood pipelines. But in effect, NBAs elite initiative helps clean up college basketball, at least a little.

G league elite (my understanding )
signs recruits, builds a tailored development program, gives them financial counseling and advice and gives them professional competition and a paycheck. ...college program doesn't offer that , at least "above board"..but there are plenty of underground shoe co. funds transfers, and "no interest, pay it back whenever" loans that create a slimy college recruiting culture particularly for the Zion Williamsons of the world.

Advice for all top 10 recruits who are focused on NBA...avoid bagmen and early under the table shoe deals... jump to G league elite.
 
#37      
I wonder what the ultimate impact of this will be when the Title IX effect comes into play. By that I mean, if star football and basketball players eventually get paid six figures each season, are schools obligated to provide equal salaries to star softball pitchers and volleyball setters? I suspect under current guidelines the answer is yes. Bad news for men’s non-revenue sports, which may need to be cut to free up dollars for player salaries.
 
#38      
I wonder what the ultimate impact of this will be when the Title IX effect comes into play. By that I mean, if star football and basketball players eventually get paid six figures each season, are schools obligated to provide equal salaries to star softball pitchers and volleyball setters? I suspect under current guidelines the answer is yes. Bad news for men’s non-revenue sports, which may need to be cut to free up dollars for player salaries.

Great question, and probably something the NCAA will work out guidelines for. My guess is that NIL can vary player to player --it's not the school doing the payment.
 
#39      
Great question, and probably something the NCAA will work out guidelines for. My guess is that NIL can vary player to player --it's not the school doing the payment.
Agreed for NIL but it seems that anything that the schools provide will have to be equalized between men's and women's sports.
 
#40      

illini80

Forgottonia
Agreed for NIL but it seems that anything that the schools provide will have to be equalized between men's and women's sports.
If that’s ultimately the rule, it’s a sad thing for women’s sports because many won’t survive. Despite everyone wanting football and basketball players to be paid, there’s not enough money to go around. According to the NCAA website there are 176,000 athletes in D1 alone.

Edit: Many other non-revenue sports will not survive either.
 
#41      

JFGsCoffeeMug

BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
I'm guessing sponsors and donors will probably need to get involved, if non-revenue sports are to survive.
 
#42      
Can’t a lot of those other non revenue athletes already make money in competition though?

I work with former auburn track star who competed in the “pro” events at the penn relays because he knew he could win and get money for it.

He also ran for Jamaica and was sponsored by Nike as a true Pro so he was super elite and not American anyway. Maybe it’s offering for those guys?
 
#44      
Can’t a lot of those other non revenue athletes already make money in competition though?

I work with former auburn track star who competed in the “pro” events at the penn relays because he knew he could win and get money for it.

He also ran for Jamaica and was sponsored by Nike as a true Pro so he was super elite and not American anyway. Maybe it’s offering for those guys?
I believe that they are allowed to 'take' money to cover their expense of competing.
 
#45      

Epsilon

M tipping over
Pdx
I think the relevant question is - how will this ruling ultimately impact the overall economics of college sports? I suspect for basketball they will eventually work into something similar to NBA contracts, where there is a minimum salary and a ‘franchise’ cap. The figures will not likely come that close to NBA contracts, but here are some links for reference:



Not sure what the ‘franchise cap’ might look like, but many schools have recently invested a lot of money in facilities and stadiums. If I recall correctly I believe our football program is one of the more leveraged programs in terms of debt to repay, due to all the work done there. So, how does a school support this completely new expense? Will some schools overcommit to their resources, etc. It’s a new paradigm that school administrators will have to adapt to. Perhaps with salaried players there will be more interest in watching, so perhaps there is an opportunity for more revenue from TV rights ? Perhaps ticket prices will need to increase? Not sure what the impact will be for sure, but yeah with Title 9, it will at the very least get pretty sticky and uncertain for a while. Perhaps there is even some opportunity for schools to make more money - who knows. But we are entering a brave new world whether we are for it or against it.
 
#46      
If that’s ultimately the rule, it’s a sad thing for women’s sports because many won’t survive. Despite everyone wanting football and basketball players to be paid, there’s not enough money to go around. According to the NCAA website there are 176,000 athletes in D1 alone.

Edit: Many other non-revenue sports will not survive either.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom. There's a crazy amount of money in college athletics. NIL money will come from outside sponsors, so I don't see how that would be a Title IX issue, at least not directly. Men's football and basketball should continue to fund a heck of a lot of teams.
 
#48      

illini80

Forgottonia
I don't think it's all doom and gloom. There's a crazy amount of money in college athletics. NIL money will come from outside sponsors, so I don't see how that would be a Title IX issue, at least not directly. Men's football and basketball should continue to fund a heck of a lot of teams.
I was responding to the thought that spending would have to increase a like amount for women’s sports. If that wasn’t the OP’s intent, my mistake.

There IS an incredible amount of money in college athletics, but it is not unlimited. The question I’ve had for sometime and asked repeatedly is where the extra is coming from. NIL is a good and a fair thing. But most companies are not going to just add those $’s to their spending budget. It’s a reallocation of their advertising budget. Some new money will come, I’m sure. I just see an arms race coming that I don’t think most athletic depts are prepared for. It will certainly be interesting and I predict there will be big winners and big losers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.