OT: Alston v NCAA

[HuskyHawk]

Oral argument is live now. It is not looking good for the NCAA. Nicole Aurbach at The Athletic is a great follow on Twitter for these issues. The Justices all seem well informed about these issues. Justice Thomas mentioned the transfer portal. Others talking about graduation rates at the P5.

Justice Kavanaugh: "I start from the idea that antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of student-athletes. That is an overarching concern here."

Justice Thomas: "What if you have a consumer survey that suggests that consumers think it's fine for amateur athletes to make $20,000/year? Would we be back in court with litigation?"

Justice Kavanaugh: "It does seem ... that schools are conspiring with competitors to pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing."

Justice Gorsuch: "The NCAA has monopsony control over the labor market. It is the sole purchaser of labor. Does that make a difference?"

Justice Kagan: The alternate to "awfully high-minded" description of amateurism is looking at this as a group of competitors coming together with "undisputed market power" & using that power to fix athletic salaries at extremely low levels, far lower than the market would set.

 

[businesslawyer]

Of course, if antitrust laws prevent universities from combining to drive down the cost of their labor markets, someone please explain to me why they can come together through conferences and work together to limit competition from other universitites.

 

[ZenConn]

It seems most of the focus is on getting paid vs full ride scholarships. That's going to be a never ending debate.

The real issue I have is the NCAA believes they own a player's name, image and likeness and profit off of it. In addition, an individual isn't allowed to generate money off of what's uniquely their own. That's just wrong.

 

[StllH8L8ner]

I was on the fence with the whole issue, leaning toward the 'they already get a free education' crowd however if the MSU deal with Rocket Mortgage becomes more the norm and they are slapping advertisements on players, the players probably deserve a piece of the pie. Not six figure salaries, but a little something.

 

[superjohn]

It seems most of the focus is on getting paid vs full ride scholarships. That's going to be a never ending debate.

The real issue I have is the NCAA believes they own a player's name, image and likeness and profit off of it. In addition, an individual isn't allowed to generate money off of what's uniquely their own. That's just wrong.

That should be the whole crux of the argument. I don't see how paying players salaries could ever possibly work.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That should be the whole crux of the argument. I don't see how paying players salaries could ever possibly work.

I get the argument. But the reality is that we root for the laundry. Brendan Adams is at GW, I don't plan on watching GW. Some transfer I never watched will come here and I will root for him.

In short, if the players think that their market value is based on their individual skills, I think they are wrong. Put the whole Gonzaga roster in the G League to play the Baylor roster and nobody would watch it. Now the likeness and images, that's where individual value shows up. Paige Bueckers could make some good money off that.

 

[Ricker]

I'm a bit confused as to what the rule is now, since Azzi Fudd and others have their own product lines out being sold on the internet. Maybe Paige too? I've forgotten who some of the others are.

 

[MexicoHusky]

Oral argument is live now. It is not looking good for the NCAA. Nicole Aurbach at The Athletic is a great follow on Twitter for these issues. The Justices all seem well informed about these issues. Justice Thomas mentioned the transfer portal. Others talking about graduation rates at the P5.

Justice Kavanaugh: "I start from the idea that antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of student-athletes. That is an overarching concern here."

Justice Thomas: "What if you have a consumer survey that suggests that consumers think it's fine for amateur athletes to make $20,000/year? Would we be back in court with litigation?"

Justice Kavanaugh: "It does seem ... that schools are conspiring with competitors to pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing."

Justice Gorsuch: "The NCAA has monopsony control over the labor market. It is the sole purchaser of labor. Does that make a difference?"

Justice Kagan: The alternate to "awfully high-minded" description of amateurism is looking at this as a group of competitors coming together with "undisputed market power" & using that power to fix athletic salaries at extremely low levels, far lower than the market would set.

Fascinating. Didn't realize this was happening. I have significant issues with the NCAA, Universities, TV Networks, etc.. making a fortune and the players not being involved in the negotiations or getting a significant portion of the revenue. That said, I'm not sure if a court can truly solve the athletes problems. It seems like the athletes need to unionize in some way. Negotiate with the NCAA, Universities, etc.. the court may somehow get the players something. But not as much as the players probably deserve. They do all the work. Put in all the effort.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Fascinating. Didn't realize this was happening. I have significant issues with the NCAA, Universities, TV Networks, etc.. making a fortune and the players not being involved in the negotiations or getting a significant portion of the revenue. That said, I'm not sure if a court can truly solve the athletes problems. It seems like the athletes need to unionize in some way. Negotiate with the NCAA, Universities, etc.. the court may somehow get the players something. But not as much as the players probably deserve. They do all the work. Put in all the effort.

Well schools can pay a stipend now. If the schools are paying all of the college athletes, then they won't get much. So a union won't change much. What would be devastating to college athletics is open paid free agency. It is not at all clear what the answer is. The reality is that two men's sports fund everything else. UConn WBB makes money, but it is almost alone at that. NCAA is kind of botching this in my opinion. I'd be playing the Title IX card. Congress regulates that we offer these sports that lose lots of money. This scholarship system is how we fund those activities. They can't do both. In fact, most schools lose money even in this model. They ought to concede on the likeness and image rights (only if the kids are not in uniform) and hold on to the scholarship model for dear life.

I've been following this and it currently produces some bizarre outcomes. A volleyball player who posted videos of herself working on a shed was finally able to monetize that. Our own Paige Bueckers is estimated to be a potential top earner, making far more than she would in the WNBA. Social media stardom - How changes to NIL will benefit athlete-influencers across the NCAA (espn.com)

 

[superjohn]

Well schools can pay a stipend now. If the schools are paying all of the college athletes, then they won't get much. So a union won't change much. What would be devastating to college athletics is open paid free agency. It is not at all clear what the answer is. The reality is that two men's sports fund everything else. UConn WBB makes money, but it is almost alone at that. NCAA is kind of botching this in my opinion. I'd be playing the Title IX card. Congress regulates that we offer these sports that lose lots of money. This scholarship system is how we fund those activities. They can't do both. In fact, most schools lose money even in this model. They ought to concede on the likeness and image rights (only if the kids are in uniform) and hold on to the scholarship model for dear life.

I've been following this and it currently produces some bizarre outcomes. A volleyball player who posted videos of herself working on a shed was finally able to monetize that. Our own Paige Bueckers is estimated to be a potential top earner, making far more than she would in the WNBA. Social media stardom - How changes to NIL will benefit athlete-influencers across the NCAA (espn.com)

People never seem to look at the unintended consequences. There are things like equality and women's rights that make salaries a non-starter and free agency would just destroy the couple of college sports people actually watch.

 

[navery12]

 

[August_West]

It seems most of the focus is on getting paid vs full ride scholarships. That's going to be a never ending debate.

The real issue I have is the NCAA believes they own a player's name, image and likeness and profit off of it. In addition, an individual isn't allowed to generate money off of what's uniquely their own. That's just wrong.

It is totally wrong. my GF was a theater major at UConn who also worked off broadway stuff while in school and got paid for it (not a helluva lot, but got paid) , why can a theater major hustle their talent and likeness while in school for extra pocket money, but a basketball player or hoops player cannot? Its not right.


Ill tell you why I think it is though, well, just one of many reasons, and its kind of acrhaic at this point (which is right in line with NCAA policies): Fear of gambling. There's been enough stuff over the years starting with CCNY and then through BC and Tulane etc..... point shaving scandals where the NCAA believes that the smokescreen of faux amateurism will protect them from impropriety. It doesnt. Much like the war on drugs it has only served to make breaking the rules (law) more profitable.


Pay the men some money. Case closed.

 

[8893]

Pay the men some money. Case closed.

What's wrong with being a woman?

 

[HuskyHawk]

It is totally wrong. my GF was a theater major at UConn who also worked off broadway stuff while in school and got paid for it (not a helluva lot, but got paid) , why can a theater major hustle their talent and likeness while in school for extra pocket money, but a basketball player or hoops player cannot? Its not right.


Ill tell you why I think it is though, well, just one of many reasons, and its kind of acrhaic at this point (which is right in line with NCAA policies): Fear of gambling. There's been enough stuff over the years starting with CCNY and then through BC and Tulane etc..... point shaving scandals where the NCAA believes that the smokescreen of faux amateurism will protect them from impropriety. It doesnt. Much like the war on drugs it has only served to make breaking the rules (law) more profitable.


Pay the men some money. Case closed.

I think the theory was that the athlete derived their financial value from association with the school. There was and is some truth to that. Not for your GF on Broadway, or anybody else not relying on their fame as a player. But the reality now in the era of Instagram, YouTube and TikTok is that the LSU Gymnast, Olivia Dunne, has social media money value for...other reasons. Jennie Finch would have made lots of money in this era. Sue Bird could have made money that way. Brian Bosworth at Oklahoma was the first guy I can recall who built that kind of brand. Now loads of them do.

The only thing they need to ensure is that Joe Bob's Chrysler and Jeep isn't promising some new Kentucky recruit $100k in commercials as an inducement to go to UK. There are ways to do that without shutting down that player's ability to make money after he signs.

 

[upstater]

Schools lose money on this. Separate it. Let the players keep the money they make according to what they take in.

They can license the school's name for $1. But no money exchanges between them. Facilities will have to be rented for the time being.

The most interesting moment for me came when the judges asked why not cap coaches' pay since the coaches are coaching amateur teams, and the NCAA responded that they would if they could but that the court ruled against them on that in the past.

Of course, I don't buy Justice Thomas's false comparison between amateur coaches and amateur players. Even some coaches of little little sports do it professionally. But the question of capping pay is interesting.

Coney Barrett noted however that this is all an antitrust nightmare.

 

[krinklecut]

The "they get a full scholarship!" argument is dead in the water when you consider anyone on an academic scholarship can go have a job and collect a paycheck. It's not just that student athletes aren't getting paid by the billion dollar industry built on their backs, it's that they can't even have a job outside of basketball. They are being forced to work, for free, and are forbidden from getting income from anywhere. In no world is this okay.

 

[upstater]

The only thing they need to ensure is that Joe Bob's Chrysler and Jeep isn't promising some new Kentucky recruit $100k in commercials as an inducement to go to UK. There are ways to do that without shutting down that player's ability to make money after he signs.

What are the ways? I think we all understand that this is exactly what would happen.

 

[upstater]

The "they get a full scholarship!" argument is dead in the water when you consider anyone on an academic scholarship can go have a job and collect a paycheck.

This isn't entirely true. We used to sign documents that forbade us from getting jobs. The document also gave hours required for whatever you received the scholarship for.

 

[krinklecut]

...used to...

 

[J187Money]

I think part of the problem is how do you separate name/likeness money from blatant - come to Alabama and we can give you a giant check right out in the open. Then you have a professional league inside the college environment with no salary cap.

 

[krinklecut]

I think part of the problem is how do you separate name/likeness money from blatant - come to Alabama and we can give you a giant check right out in the open. Then you have a professional league inside the college environment with no salary cap.

Which is why it needs to be done through the NCAA.

It makes sense to not let them have a job, because obviously you'd run into this pretty quickly. But you can't say "no we won't share our astronomical profits with you and you can't have a job elsewhere"

 

[JohnFSilver]

Of course, if antitrust laws prevent universities from combining to drive down the cost of their labor markets, someone please explain to me why they can come together through conferences and work together to limit competition from other universitites.

BINGO.

What will have to happen is Congress will carve out an anti-trust exemption.

 

[superjohn]

If you can't find a way to pay the people making you money because gosh, it's just too dang difficult to figure out with all these obstacles, the system doesn't work and needs to be overhauled.

You keep saying this but what does it even mean?

 

[HuskyHawk]

What are the ways? I think we all understand that this is exactly what would happen.

For one, exclude independent monetization from YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, Twitch whatever. Some of these kids build that brand value in high school. That's not anything the NCAA should be involved in. A volleyball player at Aquinas college became popular retrofitting a shed on YouTube. There is no way Aquinas college had anything to do with that.

As for local television or print advertising, you can try to regulate it to prevent those abuses. It won't be perfect. No contracts until they played half of one season perhaps. Big market teams would get a huge advantage. UCLA would have advantages. But players are considering exposure when choosing teams now. That isn't all that different. Most of the payouts would be small. Could Paige Bueckers make serious money doing Dunkin Donuts ads in CT? Yes she can, especially as a 4 year player. The vast majority of kids would find they aren't seeing those opportunities or that they are small. Whaley pitching Ted's grinders perhaps.

You said it, the schools cannot pay them. The money isn't there. It's way to let the best players get something. I just worry it would lead to some jealousy for sure.

 

[krinklecut]

You keep saying this but what does it even mean?

It's the narrative of the people who don't want to pay student athletes. "Too hard," "too many obstacles," "too much work." They're bad excuses. I'm pretty sure if the NCAA put together their collective brainpower they could find a way to do it, but of course, it's not in the NCAA's best interest, so it's much easier to say "too hard."

If it is, in fact, too hard to figure out how to get kids a share of the value they bring then the system is entirely broken and needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up.