- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,507
- Reaction Score
- 5,699
This may harm something I love (college sports), but I'm not sure that it isn't the right decision. I'm not an anti-trust lawyer. That's a very specialized field. But the trend seems to be striking down the "it's always been this way" and "it's for the greater good" arguments. Especially where the greater good in this case is sports (important to our enjoyment and culture, but not as necessary as teaching).I've always thought that if you can't have an amateur model, then totally sever it from the school. Let the teams license the schools name, but the model should be totally overhauled.
That being said, I think SCOTUS is way out of its depth on this. I don't know if it's the lack of knowledge about sports that causes these situations, but there is a lot of precedent for understanding an amateur model. Indeed, a couple decades ago, the court ruled against student teachers on exactly similar issues, so when we hear that athletes are taken advantage of as they are in no other institution in America, it is so plainly false.
The one tell in all of this is I never, ever, ever, ever see an analysis of athletic budgets in any of this.
The media never mentions it. It's not within SCOTUS's purview so they don't have to look at it. But the Senators passing these laws, like Murphy who is frankly an embarrassment on this issue, never look at the school's budget to determine who is really being taken for a ride. And it's doubly nauseating that Murphy and Senators like him represent states where support for academics has been slashed, but there's no concern for what goes on in the classroom. Instead, sports are front and center.
I look at this similar to the tradition of "unpaid interns" which has mostly ended. People have made the clumsy argument that unpaid college athletes are like slaves. Of course they aren't slaves. They aren't being forced to play basketball, they can go to the G League, etc. THIS ALSO ISN'T THE SAME, but for illustrative purposes, look at what a company needs to show in order to have an unpaid intern. Can the NCAA say that teams would fit all of these criteria?
- The experience is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment. FALSE
- The internship is experience is for the benefit of the intern. FALSE
- The intern doesn't displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff. FALSE (there is no regular employee athlete).
- The company derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded. FALSE
- The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship. TRUE
- The employer and intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages. TRUE