Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Sifaka, post: 5315499, member: 8516"] [B]This is NOT a political thread[/B]. 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: [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/college-sports/know-donald-trumps-executive-order-nil-college-sports-rcna221157"]What to know about Donald Trump's executive order on NIL and college sports[/URL] 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, “[I][The President’s] [/I]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 There have been recent cases, mostly but not entirely withdrawn, asking the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to rule on the employment status of college athletes.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 [I]House[/I] 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: [LIST] [*] 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. ”. [/LIST] 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 [I]House[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach