NCAA amateurism is effectively dead, and the association itself may not be far behind
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
I’ve never said the ncaa doesn’t limit. You claimed the NJSIAA doesn’t, which is false.
my rant about the commitment involved at the HS level was directed at a response from another poster, not you. Carry on.
Fine I get it. But you posted it is not labor and 09 posted playing basketball is something they do for themselves. Like what they do is playing video games or listening to music. Clearly SCOTUS thinks otherwise particularly Kavanaugh as far as what student athletes do and how the NCAA treats what they do.
I'm sure you are right. It bankrupts states (see the budgets of most large population "blue" states) until they find ways to grab money again to fund it. Perhaps some type of pension system -- not too the level we see in states for public employees that work 25+ years, but some kind of long term asset that the NCAA would be able to fund to maintain the sports that its funneling billions each year into their pockets.
If you think it’s labor, you better be willing to pay volleyball players, soccer players, softball players, track athletes, tennis players, and golfers. I don’t see how you can call basketball labor and those sports not labor. Labor should be paid. If you think basketball is labor so are the others. Heck you may think E sports is labor. I don’t see any of them as labor.
Fine again. Some labor and services are worth more than others. And Justice Kavanaugh addresses that and exactly what you posted about all NCAA sports.
Usually when the labor costs more than the revenue, the product gets cut. That should happen to every sport except men’s basketball at Seton Hall. Minimum wage is $12 an hour times almost 30 baseball players times at least 25 hours a week in the off-season and probably 45 hours per week in season if not more. Why have baseball? So we can spend $500k on players in a sport that brings in very little money,
All I find is he suggested salary caps for competitive balance. what else did he say?
One nuance that’s getting a little lost here is that the relevant question is not whether the players should be required to be paid because they’re providing labor or services or what have you. The question here is whether the NCAA can collude to limit what compensation is provided to the athletes (in this particular case, with respect to educational benefits). In other words, these players would receive more but-for the rules. (Or else you wouldn’t need to NCAA to enforce the cartel.) And that’s what’s in particular problematic.
NCAA waiver to effectively allow name, image and likeness rights for athletes near completion
The waiver would go into effect before numerous states enact new laws beginning July 1
www.cbssports.com
The waiver would go into effect before numerous states enact new laws beginning July 1
By Dennis Dodd
The Division I Board of Directors is likely to grant relief from existing regulations that prohibit athletes from benefiting off their name, image and likeness (NIL), creating a "bridge" to July 1 and beyond, sources tell CBS Sports. On that date, at least six states will have NIL laws going into effect. The NCAA has been scrambling to put its own rules in place to govern athletes in the remaining states.
The move is strategic by the NCAA. The idea is that the association will avoid enacting new rules that might be subject to lawsuits. For the moment, it would temporarily resolve the NCAA's role in legislating what are basically going to be nearly unregulated NIL benefits. Members were increasingly nervous about that prospect after the Supreme Court highly criticized the NCAA while rendering its decision Monday in NCAA vs. Alston.
In essence, the action would be an interim waiver of existing NCAA rules that prohibit NIL benefits.
CBS Sports obtained an internal NCAA document titled "Proposed Alternative Rules Amendment." Though that document -- slightly more than a page long -- is still going through edits, it details the NCAA's strategy.
- An athlete will not be penalized for profiting from their name, image and likes in states that have NIL regulations.
- Schools shall post on their websites "written policy governing NIL" prohibiting payments from boosters "in exchange for athletic performance or attendance" at that school.
What is labeled Bylaw 12.5.5 "shall be reviewed, revised, repealed or altered as appropriate." That speaks to the temporary nature of the legislation.
The document may be what NCAA president Mark Emmert was referring to Wednesday in a leaked memo sent to membership. He stated the NCAA is "working with divisional governance bodies to develop interim solutions."
While all three NCAA divisions will have to adopt the change through their governance processes., most of the pressure is on Division I where all the major revenue-producing schools reside. It is about to undergo fundamental change in terms of player compensation.
For the last two years, the NCAA has come around to changing the foundation of its amateurism bylaws allowing athletes to be paid for commercials, endorsements, autographs and the like.
However, the NCAA has tabled formal NIL legislation since January because of multiple concerns. What has emerged is a sense of desperation within the membership as the NCAA lacked direction. Because of the wait and mounting legal questions, athletes will likely be able to get unprecedented benefits for their talents.
Following Monday's Supreme Court decision, there is a general feeling that the NCAA can't do much of anything in the near term to limit NIL compensation without subjecting itself to another lawsuit.
"I don't know how there are going to be a lot of regulations going forward," a source close to the discussions said. "There's really not much you can regulate at this point."
That should add to the angst of coaches and athletic directors who don't know how, when and/or whether this is going to impact recruiting and budgets. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, has already said Congress will not have a federal bill prepared by July 1 to exempt the NCAA from lawsuits.
The relief language, according to one source, is meant to be a "bridge" to that Congressional bill.
The bill may never come. Legislation being developed in the Senate already has become politicized (a lot of bills do as they work their way through the system). In general, Republicans are seeking an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, while Democrats favor long-term medical care and extended scholarships to ensure athletes earn a degree.
The Board of Directors will be briefed on the change Thursday during a regularly scheduled meeting. The NCAA Council will meet again Monday before the board is expected to meet Tuesday and Wednesday and approve the change. If it comes Wednesday, the relief would be put into place just one day before NIL laws go into effect Thursday in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas. The Oregon State Legislature also passed an NIL bill this week that is headed to Gov. Kate Brown's desk.
CBS Sports previously reported there will be no action from the NCAA Council this week. However, a council source said Wednesday expected to "see something [to contemplate] before the weekend, probably an updated version of what they sent out earlier this week."
That source added: "This is insane."
An alternate proposal introduced last week now is less likely to be adopted despite having the support of the ACC, Pac-12 and SEC among other smaller Division I conferences. It involves athletes going directly to schools and conferences to negotiate NIL deals. That would conceivably limit legal liability for the NCAA. Athletes who didn't like an offer at one school would have hundreds of others from which to choose, at least diminishing the possibility of antitrust action.
As of Sunday, it was questionable whether the proposal could reach the threshold of passage by the NCAA Council. The alternative proposal would require 75% support from the council just to be considered for passage. That was before the Supreme Court decision.
"There are a bunch of the membership that are just clamoring for guidance," said another council source close to the discussions. "The more guidance that is in there, the more litigation risk."
The NCAA can't afford to get too intrusive after an epic legal defeat. Justice Brett Kavanaugh basically warned the NCAA, writing in a concurring opinion that its "current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws."
Exactly. But as usual it goes off on a tangent with hoops fan etc. First off nobody in public HS is on scholarship. And the NJSIAA does not limit things like laptops internships etc which is what this case was specifically about.
Tangent of reality? Assuming all baseball players make minimum wage baseball will cost around 500k. Pay players 20-25 per hour you’re looking at over a million. Add in travel expenses and coaches salaries. How the hell is Seton Hall paying for that? How is SPU paying for that? Anyone with any sort of business mind is shutting down that program.
The scholarship is the benefit! Why is that so hard to understand for the pay the players crowd?
I don't disagree on that. The issue is limiting all the benefits or compensation of the athletes.
NCAA waiver to effectively allow name, image and likeness rights for athletes near completion
The waiver would go into effect before numerous states enact new laws beginning July 1
The waiver would go into effect before numerous states enact new laws beginning July 1
By Dennis Dodd
The Division I Board of Directors is likely to grant relief from existing regulations that prohibit athletes from benefiting off their name, image and likeness (NIL), creating a "bridge" to July 1 and beyond, sources tell CBS Sports. On that date, at least six states will have NIL laws going into effect. The NCAA has been scrambling to put its own rules in place to govern athletes in the remaining states.
The move is strategic by the NCAA. The idea is that the association will avoid enacting new rules that might be subject to lawsuits. For the moment, it would temporarily resolve the NCAA's role in legislating what are basically going to be nearly unregulated NIL benefits. Members were increasingly nervous about that prospect after the Supreme Court highly criticized the NCAA while rendering its decision Monday in NCAA vs. Alston.
In essence, the action would be an interim waiver of existing NCAA rules that prohibit NIL benefits.
CBS Sports obtained an internal NCAA document titled "Proposed Alternative Rules Amendment." Though that document -- slightly more than a page long -- is still going through edits, it details the NCAA's strategy.
It is important to note that restrictions against cheating to get a recruit "shall cease to be applicable" if it conflicts with any state's NIL law.
- An athlete will not be penalized for profiting from their name, image and likes in states that have NIL regulations.
- Schools shall post on their websites "written policy governing NIL" prohibiting payments from boosters "in exchange for athletic performance or attendance" at that school.
What is labeled Bylaw 12.5.5 "shall be reviewed, revised, repealed or altered as appropriate." That speaks to the temporary nature of the legislation.
The document may be what NCAA president Mark Emmert was referring to Wednesday in a leaked memo sent to membership. He stated the NCAA is "working with divisional governance bodies to develop interim solutions."
While all three NCAA divisions will have to adopt the change through their governance processes., most of the pressure is on Division I where all the major revenue-producing schools reside. It is about to undergo fundamental change in terms of player compensation.
For the last two years, the NCAA has come around to changing the foundation of its amateurism bylaws allowing athletes to be paid for commercials, endorsements, autographs and the like.
However, the NCAA has tabled formal NIL legislation since January because of multiple concerns. What has emerged is a sense of desperation within the membership as the NCAA lacked direction. Because of the wait and mounting legal questions, athletes will likely be able to get unprecedented benefits for their talents.
Following Monday's Supreme Court decision, there is a general feeling that the NCAA can't do much of anything in the near term to limit NIL compensation without subjecting itself to another lawsuit.
"I don't know how there are going to be a lot of regulations going forward," a source close to the discussions said. "There's really not much you can regulate at this point."
That should add to the angst of coaches and athletic directors who don't know how, when and/or whether this is going to impact recruiting and budgets. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, has already said Congress will not have a federal bill prepared by July 1 to exempt the NCAA from lawsuits.
The relief language, according to one source, is meant to be a "bridge" to that Congressional bill.
The bill may never come. Legislation being developed in the Senate already has become politicized (a lot of bills do as they work their way through the system). In general, Republicans are seeking an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, while Democrats favor long-term medical care and extended scholarships to ensure athletes earn a degree.
The Board of Directors will be briefed on the change Thursday during a regularly scheduled meeting. The NCAA Council will meet again Monday before the board is expected to meet Tuesday and Wednesday and approve the change. If it comes Wednesday, the relief would be put into place just one day before NIL laws go into effect Thursday in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas. The Oregon State Legislature also passed an NIL bill this week that is headed to Gov. Kate Brown's desk.
CBS Sports previously reported there will be no action from the NCAA Council this week. However, a council source said Wednesday expected to "see something [to contemplate] before the weekend, probably an updated version of what they sent out earlier this week."
That source added: "This is insane."
An alternate proposal introduced last week now is less likely to be adopted despite having the support of the ACC, Pac-12 and SEC among other smaller Division I conferences. It involves athletes going directly to schools and conferences to negotiate NIL deals. That would conceivably limit legal liability for the NCAA. Athletes who didn't like an offer at one school would have hundreds of others from which to choose, at least diminishing the possibility of antitrust action.
As of Sunday, it was questionable whether the proposal could reach the threshold of passage by the NCAA Council. The alternative proposal would require 75% support from the council just to be considered for passage. That was before the Supreme Court decision.
"There are a bunch of the membership that are just clamoring for guidance," said another council source close to the discussions. "The more guidance that is in there, the more litigation risk."
The NCAA can't afford to get too intrusive after an epic legal defeat. Justice Brett Kavanaugh basically warned the NCAA, writing in a concurring opinion that its "current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws."
Once any payments are made to any athletes.....the toothpaste is out of the tube, as the saying goes, and there is no putting it back.
So...let the mayhem begin....and the possible end to college athletics....as we knew them.
You thought we "lost" players in the past due to shady circumstances? LOL just wait...only now...its no longer shady!
Well....at least my Jets have a new QB.....
You want to call me out for a tangant. But the reality is you would rather ignore the consequences of calling college athletics labor to all programs. How is Seton Hall keeping baseball if what the players do is considered labor? How is SPU keeping baseball? How does Bloomfield College justify keeping baseball or even their mens basketball program? Basically all divison 2 will be dead. This will likely kill the idea of using sports as a vehicle to get an education. Take away basketball and football, likely only the Power 5 and Ivy's (if they want) will be willing to take on the cost of college athletics besides those 2 sports.
I understand the thought, but I don't necessarily agree. Universities looking to be competitive and attract the best post-grad/doctoral students already waive tuition, provide cash stipend positions for them, and often provide furnished housing. Why is this any different? Each school would simply need to make the determination of how competitive they really want each sport of theirs to be in the landscape of that sport. Title IX throws a bit of a wrinkle in things that should be interesting to witness play out, but I think it is a manageable legal argument on providing the equal experience while financial rewards may be different.
What nobody ever answers is should college athletics be run as a for for profit business or not for profit. If this is for profit and the players are laborers they should receive minimum wage. Also in a for profit business you cut all the areas where you are losing money. There's no need for anyone other than the P5 to have a baseball, softball, volleyball, or soccer team. They lose money. That's just common business sense. Now if the universities want to run athletics as a not for profit and have a cash cow or 2 and spend the rest on programs that make for a well rounded athletic department so be it. But it seems everyone wants the benefits of for profit basketball/football while keeping a well rounded athletic department. It seems impossible from financial position to do both.
As if they have a choice now.
NCAA Council recommends name, image and likeness policies should be up to schools in states without law beginning Thursday
The NCAA Council's recommendation goes to the Board of Directors for a Wednesday vote. NIL state laws go into effect Thursday.
www.usatoday.com
This also strikes heart of why this is antitrust issue. Key word is “competition.” The NCAA enforces a horizontal cartel that prevents schools from competing for players in one important dimension: giving players additional benefits. Rather than subject themselves to that form of competition they agree to limit it across the board, thereby hurting some players who would otherwise benefit from increased offers for their commitments.
Sure, let’s downsize other sports if necessary. Why should basketball players and football players be forced to subsidize a bunch of other sports?
Similar threads
