SCOTUS Rules 9-0 Against NCAA

[EDGECRUSHER]

But it also frees up athletes to make money off their likeness, something the NCAA would not allow.   

It's going to force the NCAA to come up with some type of agreement with the students about revenue. The devil is in the details and we are months away from that but this was a very good thing for the students. No one is being signed for millions of dollars to play at Alabama, but jersey sales, video game sales and dumb restrictions that hurt players for accepting a bagel are going to change dramatically.

[Sunstroke]

It's going to force the NCAA to come up with some type of agreement with the students about revenue. The devil is in the details and we are months away from that but this was a very good thing for the students. No one is being signed for millions of dollars to play at Alabama, but jersey sales, video game sales and dumb restrictions that hurt players for accepting a bagel are going to change dramatically.

^^^ And it is about time.

[EDGECRUSHER]

^^^ And it is about time.

Absolutely. It was always disgusting of the NCAA to make money off of the players but ruin their lives because some booster bought a kid a suit to attend his Father's funeral and yes, that is what actually happened one time. A lot of these kids come from poor upbringings and sports was their only way out and the NCAA took advantage of that.

[ArtieChokePhin]

The NCAA always had the mentality of amateurism over all and if an athlete takes money or gifts from someone outside their family, they become a paid professional athlete.  I think the best way for this to work but stay within NCAA rules would be that anyone who wants to give a player money should give it to the coach instead.   Then that money would be split and evenly distributed among everyone on the team.  That way even the walk ons can get some pocket money while playing college football.  

[Spider-Dan]

If you're at college on a music scholarship, or a drama scholarship, you can get a summer job in your field of study paying a full salary and not only do you get to keep every cent of your paycheck, the school will brag about your success.

But if you're on a sports scholarship, you're not allowed to accept a dime.  Again, I leave it to the reader as to why that is.

[ArtieChokePhin]

If you're at college on a music scholarship, or a drama scholarship, you can get a summer job in your field of study paying a full salary and not only do you get to keep every cent of your paycheck, the school will brag about your success.

But if you're on a sports scholarship, you're not allowed to accept a dime.  Again, I leave it to the reader as to why that is.

Too much of a threat of corruption and fixed games in sports

[Spider-Dan]

Too much of a threat of corruption and fixed games in sports

We pay pro athletes enormous sums of money without too much worry about a "threat of corruption and fixed games."  And we also allow minor league baseball and hockey players (of the same age as college football and basketball players) to make an income, despite that concern.

So why are only college athletes uniquely susceptible to a "threat of corruption and fixed games"... so much so that we need to artificially restrict their income?

[Phishfan]

If you're at college on a music scholarship, or a drama scholarship, you can get a summer job in your field of study paying a full salary and not only do you get to keep every cent of your paycheck, the school will brag about your success.

But if you're on a sports scholarship, you're not allowed to accept a dime.  Again, I leave it to the reader as to why that is.

One school of thought has to do precisely with the portion you bolded, they are in a field of study. Athletics is extracurricular and not a field of study.

[Spider-Dan]

They are in college on an athletic scholarship so I don't see how that's any different.

Specifically: if you are attending Duke on a basketball scholarship and you suddenly decide sports are immoral, Duke is under no obligation to continue your "scholarship" in your "field of study":

“If a student-athlete is receiving institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability, that financial aid MAY be reduced or canceled during the period of award (e.g., during that year or term) only if the student-athlete:

        • Renders himself or herself ineligible for intercollegiate competition; or
        • Misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent or financial aid agreement; or
        • Commits serious misconduct which warrants a substantial disciplinary penalty (the misconduct determination must be made by the university’s regular student disciplinary authority); or
        • Voluntarily quits the sport for personal reasons. In this case, the student-athlete’s financial aid may not be given to another student-athlete during the term in which the aid was reduced or canceled."

You are attending the university as an athlete, just as much as someone on a music scholarship is attending as a musician.

[ArtieChokePhin]

We pay pro athletes enormous sums of money without too much worry about a "threat of corruption and fixed games."  And we also allow minor league baseball and hockey players (of the same age as college football and basketball players) to make an income, despite that concern.

So why are only college athletes uniquely susceptible to a "threat of corruption and fixed games"... so much so that we need to artificially restrict their income?

If the universities were putting that revenue in their pockets, maybe your argument would hold more water. But that revenue is being used to fund other sports that generate very little revenue or none at all (and that includes scholarships for those sports). When you look at the overall numbers in a school's athletic budget, you can say that the athletes are more than fairly compensated across the board. Most colleges barely break even with athletic revenue.  Now the football and basketball players want to take a big bite out of that revenue.

[Dave Gray]

If the universities were putting that revenue in their pockets, maybe your argument would hold more water. But that revenue is being used to fund other sports that generate very little revenue or none at all (and that includes scholarships for those sports).

I think this is a dubious claim at best.

These staffs, specifically head coaches and ADs are making booku cash.

[Phishfan]

They are in college on an athletic scholarship so I don't see how that's any different.

Specifically: if you are attending Duke on a basketball scholarship and you suddenly decide sports are immoral, Duke is under no obligation to continue your "scholarship" in your "field of study":

“If a student-athlete is receiving institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability, that financial aid MAY be reduced or canceled during the period of award (e.g., during that year or term) only if the student-athlete:

        • Renders himself or herself ineligible for intercollegiate competition; or
        • Misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent or financial aid agreement; or
        • Commits serious misconduct which warrants a substantial disciplinary penalty (the misconduct determination must be made by the university’s regular student disciplinary authority); or
        • Voluntarily quits the sport for personal reasons. In this case, the student-athlete’s financial aid may not be given to another student-athlete during the term in which the aid was reduced or canceled."

You are attending the university as an athlete, just as much as someone on a music scholarship is attending as a musician.

I'll repeat myself, it is not a field of study.

[ArtieChokePhin]

I think this is a dubious claim at best.

These staffs, specifically head coaches and ADs are making booku cash.

The football and basketball coaches are.  Other coaches, not so much.  And they make more because they are the cash cow.  So you gotta take care of them.

[CF DolFan]

I thought this was interesting in Justice Kavanaugh's ripping of the NCAA.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.

The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America

"The NCAA is not above the law."

[EDGECRUSHER]

I thought this was interesting in Justice Kavanaugh's ripping of the NCAA.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.

The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America

"The NCAA is not above the law."

He is 100% correct. It has been illegal for a long time, I have no idea why it took so long for it to reach SCOTUS. I know Justice can be slow, but not one person brought up a lawsuit about this in all of these years until recently?