Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

[paulxu]

If there is a $20 million cap/year/school, why are you worried about the big schools paying more than the mid-majors?
And if that has to be shared by the football teams, it seems schools like ours could compete with what they have left over for basketball.

(maybe I don't understand the parameters of the settlement proposed)

[xubrew]

If there is a $20 million cap/year/school, why are you worried about the big schools paying more than the mid-majors?
And if that has to be shared by the football teams, it seems schools like ours could compete with what they have left over for basketball.

(maybe I don't understand the parameters of the settlement proposed)

Good question.

My thinking is that the plaintiffs won't accept the $20 million dollar cap, and even if they do it won't be long before the NCAA is back in court again for having a cap that was not collectively bargained with the players being represented. The first time a player is told "well, we can't pay you more because of the $20 million dollar cap limit" it will land right back into the courts. If that term can be collectively bargained, then I'd feel much better about it. But, Texas A&M just paid Jimbo Fisher $75 million to NOT coach their team. If I'm representing the players, I'm asking for a lot more than just $20 million as part of the settlement, or just askin for no cap at all that isn't collectively bargained.

I can't help but think that the NCAA's leaders don't seem to have even a basic understanding of antitrust law and why they're in so much trouble for being in violation of it.

[xubrew]

Remember three years ago when the Supreme Court totally blew up the NCAA after the Alston Case?? And Brett Kavanaugh wrote that scathing concurring opinion that all but said that more lawsuits are likely to come because what the NCAA was doing was completely illegal?? He also said that the NCAA needed to collectively bargain with the players.

So, that's my concern. They're throwing a cap out there that hasn't been collectively bargained and are basically ignoring the Supreme Court. That strikes me as not a smart move.

[MHettel]

Remember three years ago when the Supreme Court totally blew up the NCAA after the Alston Case?? And Brett Kavanaugh wrote that scathing concurring opinion that all but said that more lawsuits are likely to come because what the NCAA was doing was completely illegal?? He also said that the NCAA needed to collectively bargain with the players.

So, that's my concern. They're throwing a cap out there that hasn't been collectively bargained and are basically ignoring the Supreme Court. That strikes me as not a smart move.

Would you PLEASE stop saying “collective bargaining”.

That applies when a union exists. There is no union.

[xubrew]

Would you PLEASE stop saying “collective bargaining”.

That applies when a union exists. There is no union.

That's actually my entire point.

I'm saying it because that's what the Supreme Court said three years ago. The NCAA would be well served to not ignore what they said. They cannot make a rule like that unless it is collectively bargained. Since there is no union or representation, then there can be no cap. That cannot be a part of the settlement. If it is, it will be back in court again very soon, and the NCAA will lose again.

[MHettel]

That's actually my entire point.

I'm saying it because that's what the Supreme Court said three years ago. The NCAA would be well served to not ignore what they said. They cannot make a rule like that unless it is collectively bargained. Since there is no union or representation, then there can be no cap. That cannot be a part of the settlement. If it is, it will be back in court again very soon, and the NCAA will lose again.

No, you are missing the point. they CAN do it. Because there is no union. If that results in the formation of a union, then they will reach a new agreement through collective bargaining.

The scenario you are describing just doesnt make sense. If there were a union, then OF COURSE they couldnt unilaterally impose a cap. But there ISNT, so they CAN.

[xubrew]

No, you are missing the point. they CAN do it. Because there is no union. If that results in the formation of a union, then they will reach a new agreement through collective bargaining.

The scenario you are describing just doesnt make sense. If there were a union, then OF COURSE they couldnt unilaterally impose a cap. But there ISNT, so they CAN.

Okay, perhaps I’m missing something. I’m trying to understand this and I’m open to the possibility that I am missing something.

The NCAA has tried this before. Why was this considered to be blatantly illegal? There are coaches associations, but no unions. So what am I missing? And why are actual lawyers saying the NCAA cannot implement a cap like this?? And after the Alston Case ruling why did a Supreme Court Justice say to the NCAA that they needed to collectively bargain with the players?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede...h=3f23580555e5