Supreme Court Will Hear Case On Player Compensation

[UCGRAD4X]

I assume the answer is that the school will control the shoe contract, and the shoe companies will only be able to sign kids that go to their schools. Unless Nike wants to pay a kid to wear Addidas shoes.

Sounds like another potential anti-trust issue.

[xubrew]

I assume the answer is that the school will control the shoe contract, and the shoe companies will only be able to sign kids that go to their schools. Unless Nike wants to pay a kid to wear Addidas shoes.

How does it work in the pros?? I know so little about pro sports that I don't even know who is in the NBA playoffs right now, much less know how apparel deals work. I'm pretty sure players have their own apparel deals, but do teams have them as well??

[paulxu]

I'm hazy about exactly which federal laws the assistant coaches (like Book) were found guilty of.

But it almost seems like some of their stuff would now be OK...paying a player some $ to go to a certain school, commit to certain brand, etc.

[MADXSTER]

If the schools lose apparel contracts.....

[boozehound]

If the schools lose apparel contracts.....

That would surprise me. I would imagine that Nike/Adidas/UA would rather sign with the school than a bunch of players.

What will be interesting is if the shoe companies sign separate contracts with the star College players. Even if they have to stick with players from the schools that they have apparel contracts with. For example: Nike offering the star recruit from Kentucky an individual contract with $X.

[xubrew]

That would surprise me. I would imagine that Nike/Adidas/UA would rather sign with the school than a bunch of players.

What will be interesting is if the shoe companies sign separate contracts with the star College players. Even if they have to stick with players from the schools that they have apparel contracts with. For example: Nike offering the star recruit from Kentucky an individual contract with $X.

Yes, that is another 'what-if?'

Schools are concerned that instead of sponsors giving money to the schools that they will opt to give it to the individual players instead, which will in a sense reduce their revenue stream.

And, what if a sponsor gives it to the school, but wants to use the NIL of an individual player??

Or, what if they give money to an individual player for their NIL and wants a picture of them in the team's jersey?? Does the school have a gripe about how they should get some money too since they're wearing the school's uniform??


You see, these are a few of the things that are on a rather extensive list of concerns that simply will not be hashed out before these new laws and policies take place. No time has been spent discussing any of this. It's all been spent trying to figure out how to fight against a case that was not winnable from the get-go. So, no one really knows what's going to happen now.

[XUGRAD80]

In speaking strictly in terms of the legalities of it, it's my understanding that none of those things are important at all. The issue (as I understand it) is that putting any sort of a limit on what players are allowed to receive (no matter how high or how low it is) is a violation of anti-trust law. That's the contention.

Those who advocate for the players make it sound like they're constantly being exploited. While I agree that players should probably be allowed to get more than they already do, I'm not going to go so far as to say they're exploited. The deal they have is actually a good one.

Now, having said that...

People who are critical of student-athletes, and say they got it made, and that life is so easy for them are totally outside of their freakin' minds! It's damn hard being a student-athlete. If it's so great and they got it so easy, then why weren't the people who are always being critical of them student-athletes?? The answer is obvious. It was way outside anything and way more difficult than anything that they themselves were capable of doing. It can be extremely rewarding, and in a lot of ways it is a really good arrangement, but at the same time if any of the critics were to step into their world I can almost guarantee you that none of them would last a week. They'd most likely quit, but even if they some how managed to stick with it they'd fail so spectacularly that they'd be thrown off the team.

But, getting back to the central legal issue...

It's not whether or not student-athletes are being exploited. I would argue strongly that the are not being exploited. It's whether or not they would receive more if the limitations weren't in place. I think they absolutely would. That's the anti-trust issue. There are rules in place, the players would get more if those rules weren't in place, and that in and of itself constitutes price fixing.

A while ago the NCAA tried to put a limit on how much schools could pay a coach. Even if that limit was $1 million dollars (which hardly constitutes exploitation) it is still a violation of anti-trust laws due to price fixing if there are some coaches who could earn more than $1 million if there wasn't a rule that limited it. That's why it was thrown out of court. That, right there, close to thirty years ago should have been a warning sign that sooner or later the limits on what players are allowed to receive would be called into question. But, the NCAA did nothing and kept doubling down and have now been pretty much smacked down by the Supreme Court.

To sum it all up in a couple of questions...

Are there rules or agreements that limit how much players can receive?? Yes, there are.

Would some of the players receive more if it weren't for those rules and agreements?? Yes, they would.

Well, then it's a violation of anti-trust laws. It's really as simple as that.

I agree with all of this. My points were in response to those who think the student athletes are being exploited. But you are right on target in regards to the legal arguments regarding limits on benefits.

[Drew]

Can someone paint to me what is the worst case hypothetical? I have a hard time seeing the negatives of athletes simply enjoying the benefits of a free market.

Maintain academic eligibility standards, roll back recent transfer rule changes and let them enjoy the free market. What's the downside here?

[XUGRAD80]

Can someone paint to me what is the worst case hypothetical? I have a hard time seeing the negatives of athletes simply enjoying the benefits of a free market.

Maintain academic eligibility standards, roll back recent transfer rule changes and let them enjoy the free market. What's the downside here?

The downsides…

One example…..there is a limit on scholarships but NOT on roster size. So a big dollar booster at a blue blood school says I’m going to make sure the top BB in the country comes to my school. I’m going to pay him $100,000 and pay for his education, and he can do commercials for my car dealerships. He can be a “walk-on” and won’t count against the scholarship limit.

Another example…..player chooses to go to a school in a BIG city because of the opportunities to sell his off-court “talents” to the highest bidder in that major market.

The whole PURPOSE of the rules has been to produce a situation where the opportunities where as equal as possible across the whole NCAA membership. That as much as it could be controlled, it was a level playing field with equal limits for all members. What you describe would take those limits away and give great advantages to a small number of schools, even more so than what is prevalent today.

The pro leagues have realized that smaller market teams are at a disadvantage and have tried to equal things out with such things as a salary cap, revenue sharing, etc. A totally free-market approach like what you propose for college sports may well drive the small market schools out of it entirely. Texas may have their own TV network that brings in millions and millions, but their players still don’t get anything more than the same athletes at Texas A&M (or at least aren’t supposed to). Thus they compete an a more equal playing field and we see a school like Baylor (Waco, TX) win the national championship. It may well be a boon for the very few schools and athletes that have the money, supports, and talents to reach the very top of the market. But it may ultimately lead to less opportunities for the other athletes and for the schools that might have given them those opportunities.

[xudash]

The downsides…

One example…..there is a limit on scholarships but NOT on roster size. So a big dollar booster at a blue blood school says I’m going to make sure the top BB in the country comes to my school. I’m going to pay him $100,000 and pay for his education, and he can do commercials for my car dealerships. He can be a “walk-on” and won’t count against the scholarship limit.

Another example…..player chooses to go to a school in a BIG city because of the opportunities to sell his off-court “talents” to the highest bidder in that major market.

The whole PURPOSE of the rules has been to produce a situation where the opportunities where as equal as possible across the whole NCAA membership. That as much as it could be controlled, it was a level playing field with equal limits for all members. What you describe would take those limits away and give great advantages to a small number of schools, even more so than what is prevalent today.

The pro leagues have realized that smaller market teams are at a disadvantage and have tried to equal things out with such things as a salary cap, revenue sharing, etc. A totally free-market approach like what you propose for college sports may well drive the small market schools out of it entirely. Texas may have their own TV network that brings in millions and millions, but their players still don’t get anything more than the same athletes at Texas A&M (or at least aren’t supposed to). Thus they compete an a more equal playing field and we see a school like Baylor (Waco, TX) win the national championship. It may well be a boon for the very few schools and athletes that have the money, supports, and talents to reach the very top of the market. But it may ultimately lead to less opportunities for the other athletes and for the schools that might have given them those opportunities.

Not arguing with you, but as a counterpoint to your first example: on the one hand, a talented athlete probably would not enjoy riding the bench just for the sake of compensation, and on the other hand, he would not be good advertising for the car dealership, because he would be unknown as a result of riding the bench.