Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xubrew

To more concisely sum it up...

The NCAA's position was that college sports were a part of the overall educational experience. These aren't employees! They're students! And all this coaching and competition is educational!

The opposition said "Well, then why do you have these transfer rules? If this is all educational, then why can't they transfer freely like they can in all other educational ventures?"

And as more and more litigation played out, the courts decided players were entitled to their own NIL, and the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws, and the players were/are employees, and the players who had been denied access to the free market are now entitled to $2.8 in damages. And who knows if/when all this litigation going to stop?? And what will college sports look like when it finally does??

---

While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Fan

While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.

---

Sweet! So chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Fan

While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.

---

How does college sports get to operate with no rules at all, when all of the professional sports have rules and guidelines and salary caps? Lots of idiot judges and sleazy attorneys is how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JTG

How does college sports get to operate with no rules at all, when all of the professional sports have rules and guidelines and salary caps? Lots of idiot judges and sleazy attorneys is how.

---

To answer your question,
Baseball: Major League Baseball (MLB) enjoys a unique antitrust exemption, established by the Supreme Court in 1922 (Federal Baseball Club v. National League), and upheld in later rulings. This exemption, which Congress has never fully revoked, essentially allows MLB to operate as a legal monopoly in ways other sports leagues cannot. It shields the league from antitrust challenges regarding things like franchise relocation, media rights, and the minor league system. This legal protection creates a framework where MLB can regulate player movement, draft systems, and revenue-sharing agreements without facing the same level of antitrust scrutiny that other industries would.

Football: The NFL, on the other hand, relies on unionization to create stability and manage challenges. The players’ union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), collectively bargains on behalf of all players. This means that issues like revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and even NIL-like endorsements are negotiated and agreed upon through a formalized labor agreement. The existence of a union gives the league an important legal shield: under U.S. labor law, collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. This allows the NFL to impose rules that might otherwise be challenged as anti-competitive, like the draft or franchise tag system.

College sports lack either of these protections.
1. No Antitrust Exemption: Unlike MLB, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption. As a result, its rules—especially those regarding compensation—are vulnerable to legal challenges under federal antitrust law, as we’ve seen in cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. This leaves the NCAA constantly defending its regulations in court, with little ability to create legally durable guardrails.
2. No Unionization: College athletes aren’t currently unionized (though efforts are underway in some places), so there’s no collective bargaining agreement to serve as a framework for rules about NIL, revenue sharing, or transfers. If the NLRB eventually grants athletes employee status, unionization could change that dynamic—but it would also fundamentally alter the structure of college athletics by forcing schools to treat athletes as employees subject to labor law.

As earlier stated, The NCAA exists in a much more precarious legal and structural position. It has no overarching legal exemption or labor agreement to stabilize the system, which is why it’s struggling to adapt to the modern realities of NIL, revenue sharing, and player movement. This lack of protection leaves it far more exposed to lawsuits, and regulatory challenges.
Thus chaos will reign until unionization since there is no political will for an antitrust exemption.

How are non revenue generating sports going to survive in the NCAA?

I see a school like X looking at volleyball, soccer, baseball etc and eventually eliminating them. They can use the cash/budget to support programs and resources that attract the best basketball players.

Its inevitable, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bleedXblue

How are non revenue generating sports going to survive in the NCAA?

I see a school like X looking at volleyball, soccer, baseball etc and eventually eliminating them. They can use the cash/budget to support programs and resources that attract the best basketball players.

Its inevitable, right?

---

One of the big time NIL supporters here will certainly be able to answer that for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Fan

To answer your question,
Baseball: Major League Baseball (MLB) enjoys a unique antitrust exemption, established by the Supreme Court in 1922 (Federal Baseball Club v. National League), and upheld in later rulings. This exemption, which Congress has never fully revoked, essentially allows MLB to operate as a legal monopoly in ways other sports leagues cannot. It shields the league from antitrust challenges regarding things like franchise relocation, media rights, and the minor league system. This legal protection creates a framework where MLB can regulate player movement, draft systems, and revenue-sharing agreements without facing the same level of antitrust scrutiny that other industries would.

Football: The NFL, on the other hand, relies on unionization to create stability and manage challenges. The players’ union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), collectively bargains on behalf of all players. This means that issues like revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and even NIL-like endorsements are negotiated and agreed upon through a formalized labor agreement. The existence of a union gives the league an important legal shield: under U.S. labor law, collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. This allows the NFL to impose rules that might otherwise be challenged as anti-competitive, like the draft or franchise tag system.

College sports lack either of these protections.
1. No Antitrust Exemption: Unlike MLB, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption. As a result, its rules—especially those regarding compensation—are vulnerable to legal challenges under federal antitrust law, as we’ve seen in cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. This leaves the NCAA constantly defending its regulations in court, with little ability to create legally durable guardrails.
2. No Unionization: College athletes aren’t currently unionized (though efforts are underway in some places), so there’s no collective bargaining agreement to serve as a framework for rules about NIL, revenue sharing, or transfers. If the NLRB eventually grants athletes employee status, unionization could change that dynamic—but it would also fundamentally alter the structure of college athletics by forcing schools to treat athletes as employees subject to labor law.

As earlier stated, The NCAA exists in a much more precarious legal and structural position. It has no overarching legal exemption or labor agreement to stabilize the system, which is why it’s struggling to adapt to the modern realities of NIL, revenue sharing, and player movement. This lack of protection leaves it far more exposed to lawsuits, and regulatory challenges.
Thus chaos will reign until unionization since there is no political will for an antitrust exemption.

---

Thank you this is great information and I appreciate all the insights. So as far as the easiest path forward to try and put guardrails up at least a bit, would you say that a collective bargaining agreement with the student athlete becoming employees would be the way to go?

Is there ever any chance of that happening? I guess my question is what would motivate the student athlete to do that if they are now getting everything they want?

After thinking thru it, it sounds like Congress and the NCAA getting an antitrust exemption would be the only way to go? Is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xuperman

One of the big time NIL supporters here will certainly be able to answer that for you.

---

I'm sure that a shift of sorts is inevitable..........

Big donors to the traditional Xavier alumni programs will take part of that and send it over to the NIL funds.........how much is anyone's guess.

Im sure X needs the $$$ for all sorts of things but basketball is critical to almost everything that X does.

Is it possible that at some point, the 2 big college sports have teams "representing" the University with no academic requirement attached to the players?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Fan

To answer your question,
Baseball: Major League Baseball (MLB) enjoys a unique antitrust exemption, established by the Supreme Court in 1922 (Federal Baseball Club v. National League), and upheld in later rulings. This exemption, which Congress has never fully revoked, essentially allows MLB to operate as a legal monopoly in ways other sports leagues cannot. It shields the league from antitrust challenges regarding things like franchise relocation, media rights, and the minor league system. This legal protection creates a framework where MLB can regulate player movement, draft systems, and revenue-sharing agreements without facing the same level of antitrust scrutiny that other industries would.

Football: The NFL, on the other hand, relies on unionization to create stability and manage challenges. The players’ union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), collectively bargains on behalf of all players. This means that issues like revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and even NIL-like endorsements are negotiated and agreed upon through a formalized labor agreement. The existence of a union gives the league an important legal shield: under U.S. labor law, collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. This allows the NFL to impose rules that might otherwise be challenged as anti-competitive, like the draft or franchise tag system.

College sports lack either of these protections.
1. No Antitrust Exemption: Unlike MLB, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption. As a result, its rules—especially those regarding compensation—are vulnerable to legal challenges under federal antitrust law, as we’ve seen in cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. This leaves the NCAA constantly defending its regulations in court, with little ability to create legally durable guardrails.
2. No Unionization: College athletes aren’t currently unionized (though efforts are underway in some places), so there’s no collective bargaining agreement to serve as a framework for rules about NIL, revenue sharing, or transfers. If the NLRB eventually grants athletes employee status, unionization could change that dynamic—but it would also fundamentally alter the structure of college athletics by forcing schools to treat athletes as employees subject to labor law.

As earlier stated, The NCAA exists in a much more precarious legal and structural position. It has no overarching legal exemption or labor agreement to stabilize the system, which is why it’s struggling to adapt to the modern realities of NIL, revenue sharing, and player movement. This lack of protection leaves it far more exposed to lawsuits, and regulatory challenges.
Thus chaos will reign until unionization since there is no political will for an antitrust exemption.

---

Let me ask a question. Clearly there is some component I'm missing that makes this scenario untenable. I belong to a country club. My membership is voluntary. As a member I must comply with certain rules. I have to wear a collared shirt when I play golf. I can't wear a baseball style cap in the clubhouse. My wife can't wear a string bikini at the pool (thank God that rule is in place).........and on and on.

Why can't Xavier and Butler and Georgetown and ND and UK etc voluntarily join a "club" and in doing so agree to comply with the rules that "club" has established? The "club" has rules regarding eligibility, transfers, compliance, player compensation, etc. If a athlete chooses to attend one of the member schools they do so knowing full well what the rules entail. How and why and by whom would this scenario be challenged?