Executive Order for College Sports

[Sifaka]

This is NOT a political thread. Please limit comments to the substance of the EO, and legal issues surrounding it, as well as the effects on college athletes. There is no need to mention the name of the source of the EO.

An Executive Order (EO) has been issued that attempts to address pay-to-play, employee status for students playing sports, and associated issues. The quoted text below comes from one of the many news articles about the EO: What to know about Donald Trump's executive order on NIL and college sports

As I read the text of the EO, the first thing that occurs to me is that this is an expression of opinion and desires; it does not have the force of law, either statute or administrative regulation. Lawyers on the board are encouraged to correct me if I have erred.

From the cited article,

“[The President’s] order, which is not itself a law, essentially calls for an implementation of policies that are widely viewed as NCAA (as opposed to athlete) friendly.”

As of today there is no law granting the Executive branch of the federal government authority to issue edicts to govern college sports. There have been recent cases, mostly but not entirely withdrawn, asking the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to rule on the employment status of college athletes.
A ruling under the prior administration has been reversed by the NLRB under the current administration.

The recent House settlement allows schools to directly pay college athletes, though the payments are considered to be of the NIL variety, rather than salaries. (Editorial comment: Hah! A pig by any other name would grunt the same…)

Meanwhile, back at the farm, from the cited article:

“The order calls for the following:

• Prohibiting third parties from engaging in direct “pay-for-play” payments to athletes, which the order deems improper. Currently, school boosters can sign players to multimillion-dollar NIL deals that are widely viewed as a workaround to directly paying players to attend a certain university. Trump’s order says players should only earn “fair market value” for a legitimate service to a third party, such as a brand endorsement. Advocates for athletes say this would impose a cap on their earnings. ”.

Back in the day, when I was earning a Wharton MBA degree, “fair market value” was the point at which a buyer and seller agreed to a transaction, trading consideration—normally a sum of money—for goods or services. Attempting to regulate this point, as in one of the most egregiously stupid provisions of the House settlement, will result in many, many lawsuits. The EO tries to put a presidential thumb on the scale.

“Protections for the NCAA from lawsuits by athletes. The NCAA has been lobbying for these protections for many years, as many of the big changes in college athletics have come as the result of antitrust lawsuits. Protections against further court cases would allow the NCAA to enforce its rules on issues such as transfers and third-party payments without fear of them being upended by another court ruling. “

In my not so humble opinion, this clearly favors the NCAA to the detriment of students playing sports.

What do you think? Remember, keep politics out of your replies.

 

[temery]

I doubt this thread is gonna last a couple hours without a turn into political bullshit

 

[Bone Dog]

Eid are only directly binding on members and employees of the executive branch. They are directions from the chief executive to his or her subordinates. In directly, however, they can have an immense influence on the everyone, since they direct executive offices like the DoJ or the FDA how to carry out policy or enforce regulations passed by the legislature. EOs do not have the force of law, but they can simulate it to the extent that it is very expensive to challenge them in court.

 

[azfan]

The conclusion of the article cited:

"What does this all mean for the immediate future?​

Nothing immediately."

For the desires expressed in the EO to materialize in the future legislation at the federal level would be required which is highly unlikely. (Probability approaches zero)

While I'm not an attorney I don't believe that there would be a judicial action that would in any way implement the EO

With those observations in mind I think the EO plays to the reaction of some fans of college sports, some institutions of "higher learning" (which I find ironic) and potentially offers greater complexity and legal thickettry.

 

[Sifaka]

With those observations in mind I think the EO plays to the reaction of some fans of college sports, some institutions of "higher learning" (which I find ironic) and potentially offers greater complexity and legal thickettry.

The Athletic-NY Times has an article that mostly supports your position.

What does Trump’s college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact

What you need to know about President Trump's college sports executive order.

www.nytimes.com

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

One has to also place all this against the back-drop of supposed changes as a result of the House settlement which actually already calls for NIL payments to meet fair market value standards. The direct funding from the colleges is in the form of (so called) revenue sharing, but it is capped. Do I think any of this is permanent, no. But the fair market value bit isn't far out there.

As we all know, the future is completely up in the air. Some sort of clarity has to come sooner or later.

 

[cancontent]

This is NOT a political thread. Please limit comments to the substance of the EO, and legal issues surrounding it, as well as the effects on college athletes. There is no need to mention the name of the source of the EO.

An Executive Order (EO) has been issued that attempts to address pay-to-play, employee status for students playing sports, and associated issues. The quoted text below comes from one of the many news articles about the EO: What to know about Donald Trump's executive order on NIL and college sports

As I read the text of the EO, the first thing that occurs to me is that this is an expression of opinion and desires; it does not have the force of law, either statute or administrative regulation. Lawyers on the board are encouraged to correct me if I have erred.

From the cited article,

“[The President’s] order, which is not itself a law, essentially calls for an implementation of policies that are widely viewed as NCAA (as opposed to athlete) friendly.”

As of today there is no law granting the Executive branch of the federal government authority to issue edicts to govern college sports. There have been recent cases, mostly but not entirely withdrawn, asking the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to rule on the employment status of college athletes.
A ruling under the prior administration has been reversed by the NLRB under the current administration.

The recent House settlement allows schools to directly pay college athletes, though the payments are considered to be of the NIL variety, rather than salaries. (Editorial comment: Hah! A pig by any other name would grunt the same…)

Meanwhile, back at the farm, from the cited article:

“The order calls for the following:

• Prohibiting third parties from engaging in direct “pay-for-play” payments to athletes, which the order deems improper. Currently, school boosters can sign players to multimillion-dollar NIL deals that are widely viewed as a workaround to directly paying players to attend a certain university. Trump’s order says players should only earn “fair market value” for a legitimate service to a third party, such as a brand endorsement. Advocates for athletes say this would impose a cap on their earnings. ”.

Back in the day, when I was earning a Wharton MBA degree, “fair market value” was the point at which a buyer and seller agreed to a transaction, trading consideration—normally a sum of money—for goods or services. Attempting to regulate this point, as in one of the most egregiously stupid provisions of the House settlement, will result in many, many lawsuits. The EO tries to put a presidential thumb on the scale.

“Protections for the NCAA from lawsuits by athletes. The NCAA has been lobbying for these protections for many years, as many of the big changes in college athletics have come as the result of antitrust lawsuits. Protections against further court cases would allow the NCAA to enforce its rules on issues such as transfers and third-party payments without fear of them being upended by another court ruling. “

In my not so humble opinion, this clearly favors the NCAA to the detriment of students playing sports.

What do you think? Remember, keep politics out of your replies.

I'm confused as to how this came about and its impacts on other initiatives. Will that proposed NIL commission ever go ahead now? What was this order based on with respect to data?

How does this impact collectives as I've been of the assumption that they're considered a third-party? Is this to their advantage because it's limiting how much can be offered, helping them to control costs? Does this mean collectives are going to morph into something else to get around this?

The protections from future lawsuits doesn't surprise me though. The NCAA has been on one heck of a losing streak and has been asking for federal involvement on the matter for some time.