He said it wasn't the intent of NIL. He also wasn't president of the NCAA when NIL started. So he's saying that going forward they need to regulate NIL so it can't be used for recruiting purposes. But you're right, it's going to be impossible to put that toothpaste back in the tube.
But the NCAA never "allowed" it. The Supreme Court did. Using it for recruiting still violates NCAA rules right now. The NCAA hasn't enforced those rules because it has to comply with the ruling and fears further litigation. That is why it is going to Congress asking for help.
The NCAA hasn't enforced those rules, and they'll never be able to either. Charlie Baker can pretend he's trying, but it's never going to happenBut the NCAA never "allowed" it. The Supreme Court did. Using it for recruiting still violates NCAA rules right now. The NCAA hasn't enforced those rules because it has to comply with the ruling and fears further litigation. That is why it is going to Congress asking for help.
Business of Football: Supreme Court Sends Message to NCAA
It's rare for sports cases to reach the highest court in the land, but a unanimous decision is a harbinger of much larger industry changes to come.www.si.com
Oh I think it will happen in some form, just not at all like it was before.
I'm not convinced. They can try, but it will just go back to how it was pre-NIL with players getting paid under table to go to a certain school
Theoretically, it is fixable.
Alston doesn't govern NIL. If I recall correctly it limits the NCAA from capping benefits provided by a school to a student athlete. NIL does not come from the school.But the NCAA never "allowed" it. The Supreme Court did. Using it for recruiting still violates NCAA rules right now. The NCAA hasn't enforced those rules because it has to comply with the ruling and fears further litigation. That is why it is going to Congress asking for help.
Business of Football: Supreme Court Sends Message to NCAA
It's rare for sports cases to reach the highest court in the land, but a unanimous decision is a harbinger of much larger industry changes to come.
I do think for the most part if you took the top 25 d1 teams and switched all the players with the top 25 D2 teams and marketed them the same way, that the average fan isn’t going to notice a big enough difference to stop showing up to the games or buy school apparel.
House vs. NCAA is ongoing and seeks to bar the NCAA from limiting NIL as an anti-trust issue. Same judge as Alston. So those remedies may work for now, but potentially not much longer. The NCAA is seeking federal legislation to create rules because they fear they won't be able to make them themselves.
#2 won't fly. That can't happen.
Thanks I wasn't familiar with this ongoing litigation. From the article you attached, a lot of the relief that's being sought seems to be a bit of a reach. Not every organization needs to be a collective. So the notion that NCAA institutions are not profit sharing with players is a reach. That said, given that the judge is the same as O'Bannon and Alston, who knows what decision she might reach.House vs. NCAA is ongoing and seeks to bar the NCAA from limiting NIL as an anti-trust issue. Same judge as Alston. So those remedies may work for now, but potentially not much longer. The NCAA is seeking federal legislation to create rules because they fear they won't be able to make them themselves.
Bringing Down the House: House v. NCAA Could Potentially Mean Big Changes for Collegiate NIL Rules | JD Supra
In a recent development, on September 22, 2023, a federal judge took a significant step by certifying an injunctive relief class comprising of at...www.jdsupra.com
Hard to make a case for #2 to protect the sanctity of competition in a world where Corporations are People. You can give as much as you would like and hide as much as you would like in the name of preserving the sanctity of political competition.
Why not number two? You aren't limiting earnings, you are merely limiting membership in a private organization. As long as the basis is not inherently discriminatory, I would think it would be fine.
The same reason the government has stepped in on issues with MLB, NFL and others. They can use Anti-Trust arguments or threaten to take away their tax exempt status if they feel the rules violate the spirit of the constitution or the market economy. Also the NCAA has a legitimate reason to fear losing their monopoly on college sports in general. There has already been talk of conferences considering abandoning the NCAA and starting their their own organizations.
That's a weird thing to say for the guy who put the Golden State teams together considering all their players were college studs.
Well most great teams in history were made with college studs. Apparently he thinks the difference in play is far greater than we mere mortals can comprehend. My point is if most people weren’t told the two teams were full of all D2 level players and they were marketed by Michigan and Kansas etc as the best players in college, I’m not too sure anyone would really enjoy it any less.
Because they can't make eligibility contingent on not making money on the side. That is never going to fly. Plus, why should they? Paige should be ineligible I guess, because she's popular and can make money from it? How does it help the NCAA to make the most popular athletes ineligible? Most of the highest NIL earners didn't get anything from boosters or related to recruitment. Most of them are social media influencers with their own brands back to HS. Capping earnings makes no sense at all and would quickly be challenged.
#2 won't happen and shouldn't happen, that's the whole reason for NIL. The boosters paying kids to come to their school is not what should be happening and what they can find ways to clamp down on.
Sure they can. They are a private organization they can sit there membership requirements at anything that they like so long as it's nondiscriminatory.
Should be? That's a normative judgment. Would be? Yes, if the NCAA decides that millionaires are not entitled to be college athletes.
They wouldn't necessarily be ineligible, but they would have a choice whether they wanted to be social media personalities or college athletes. Life is choices.
Maybe, but what was the legal basis for that challenge be? That was my question. You've listed a lot of reasons why it won't happen, which I pretty much agree with, but most of those are closing the barn door after the horses left issues rather than legal issues.
that will be the end of the NCAA in D1 sports. Either because they're taken to court and beat over the head or because the P4 finally decide they're sick of the NCAA and just leave and form their own organization that will have their own basketball tournament and football playoff system. The money has gotten too big for the NCAA to have any control anymore. Look at how we were treated with the tournament bans compared to now where they can't even declare players ineligible anymore without blowback and lawsuits from the schools.
You're crazy. This would be suicide for college sports. Nobody should have to choose whether to be a social media star or an athlete. What's the rational basis for that membership test? How does it not unlawfully discriminate? Can you tell a kid who is rich through inheritance that they can't play a sport? What if Ray got this part before he went to the NBA? https://andscape.com/features/how-did-ray-allen-become-jesus-shuttlesworth-spike-lee-he-got-game/
I agree. The horse is out of the barn on this. That's why my post started with "theoretically". But, at the NCAA capped it initially, it would've worked. It's easy to set a rule that gives money to people. It's hard to set at a rule that takes money away from people. I really think it could've been capped it at 15 or $20,000 in all honesty. It sounds ridiculously low now, but then kids would've been happy with the prospect of getting an extra 20 K.