I would actually love to see this happen. Big life lesson for this entitled generation.
NCAA amateurism is effectively dead, and the association itself may not be far behind
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
I would actually love to see this happen. Big life lesson for this entitled generation.
Ummm….that’s entirely what the case is about. The NCAA fixes the prices of “labor” by limiting what athletes can receive from school. As the Supreme Court said: “Put simply, this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control.”
I would strongly urge you to read the Supreme Court’s opinion before commenting further.
Nonresponsive. But nice try attempting to move the goalposts after revealing to all your ignorance.
You just said the NCAA fixes prices of labor. College athletes are not labor.
Of course, then the insults come. Classic sign that you know you're on the wrong side of a debate.
Whatever you want to call the services that the athletes provide, the NCAA fixes the prices or compensation or whatever you want to call it that the athletes receive for it. Whether or not it’s “labor,” the Supreme Court recognized that the NCAA was engaged in price fixing—the suggestion of which you laughed at until I provided a quote, which you conveniently ignored.
Student-athletes don't provide a service. They are playing a sport for their own interests, passions and enjoyment. If they want to provide a service, they can sign a contract with a professional team that will pay them for their services.
Then what is it that they do? Who performs the services in college basketball? You have not read the opinion and really have not comprehended the issues one bit. And this case was about education benefits in exchange for labor or service, but clearly has bigger ramifications.
And their "interests" are being limited by the NCAA. Money interests a lot of people.
They play their sport. They are not providing a service to anyone but themselves for their own personal growth.
Are HS athletes labor? What do college athletes do that HS athletes don’t do besides stay in luxury hotels and travel 1st class? Many prep schools exchange education for playing a sport.
IMHO
There’s a fair balance
but ,the free education is being ridiculously discounted, notwithstanding my arguments elsewhere that college tuition is insane.
I’d rather go to a solution whereby these athletes get grad school scholarships and maybe life time benefits or a uniform lifetime stipend, or, even royalty so to speak
paying these young adults is silliness unless you want to disband NCAA which is another topic
They play their sport and the NCAA makes money off them. And when the players try to make money off of what they do for themselves as you referred to it the NCAA limits or stops them on all levels. You can disagree with the court's decision or just not like it but your argument makes no sense and has nothing to do with the matter of law.
NCAA money is distributed to conferences and schools, no? Money that benefits the student-athletes!
There's a simple solution: Don't sign up for the system if you don't agree with it. Want to make money off your name? Go professional. See how that works out. Fact of the matter is, the majority of these athletes would be no-names if it weren't for the schools and the NCAA.
I hear you. I don’t want it to change. Period. It’s already starting though. If there is some creative solution that can save the sport from where folks think it’s going, I’d prefer that to alternatives.
That’s where I was going. The free education, boarding, training, exposure, college experience has to count for something, right. I would argue a significant amount. If you add lifetime health benefits paid for by NCAA funds and maybe some time of other form of compensation paid for through those funds, maybe that’s enough to stave off compensation like normal employees. Then again, how many true revenue producing sports are there besides football, men’s basketball, baseball at a few schools and maybe men’s hockey or women’s hoop at a select few schools. So shouldn’t those kids be treated differently if you go down this rabbit hole.
And that’s the other option. The two sports where this really is an issue - football and basketball - don’t have real established functioning minor leagues (or any for football). The G-league options are just getting off the ground. The NCAA has basically served as the minor league in those sports. So let kids that want to get paid right away in some form go that route.
Complicated matter for sure so this might be a long one.
As a Seton Hall fan, I’m super hesitant with this change but change is coming no matter what any of us say so we hope the form of the change isn’t going to damage our favorite team or it’s potential.
Overall I’m ok with paying players their fair value but we have to address the below first.
One of the problems I see is that not all the college athletes’s fair value will meet or exceed the value of tuition, room, board, PCs, trainers, cooks, laptops, and all the other perks like the opportunity of growing brand awareness being on tv, hyped by the college’s marketing dept, Conf, tv network.
FDU women’s lacrosse team’s back up goalie is not worth $300,000 for her tuition and room/board. So title 9 is out the door with this change as is lots of players in the non revenue sports.
Will the top HS and AAUs teams pay players too? Why wouldn’t we if we pay college players?
Then the taxes question comes to mind? If tuition and everything else has a value, which it does, who will be paying taxes for the broke college players and their families that aren’t among the few that get a lot more from NIL and other direct payments?
Will boosters have even more power over university’s and its players since they are more important bc $ is now more important and they can pay directly to school or from business to player with NIL ?
Will all the non football 5 teams now have even more of an uneven playing field…college football it doesn’t matter bc only a handful of teams can ever win championship but it can hurt quality basketball teams that are non football 5 like big east schools not named UConn. The best playoffs in sports, NCAA tourney, can suffer as a result.
Will individual players be less team oriented because individual players will want to score more points to get more money from boosters?
Will the teams with the most money not only tamper but bribe players to transfer to their team? Will this be common practice?
If you play for money abroad or even in the states, why would that end eligibility now? Can you have young g league players that came out directly from HS, go to college after?
The good part of this is top players can make money they deserve (whitehead, Powell, Delgado, Mamu) all earned $100s of thousands more than they got with their scholarship and all the things that came with it. These players are however the minority of college sports. We are helping a smaller % of players to potentially hurt more.
Another good thing is most of the slimy things currently done under the table and illegall will be brought to full light….like giving jobs to family members, cash bags to uncles and advisors, lots of that will stop bc we can just play players directly.
Another good thing is the NCAA, colleges and coaches are getting way more money then they deserve, this will reallocate more of the money back to the hardworking players. No matter what anyone says, playing high major D1 basketball and football is more demanding than some regular jobs so you can easily describe it as labor. But even defined as labor, most college players don't add more value than what they are currently getting.
As a Seton Hall fan, I’m super hesitant with this change but change is coming no matter what any of us say so we hope the form of the change isn’t going to damage our favorite team or it’s potential.
Overall I’m ok with paying players their fair value but we have to address the below first.
One of the problems I see is that not all the college athletes’s fair value will meet or exceed the value of tuition, room, board, PCs, trainers, cooks, laptops, and all the other perks like the opportunity of growing brand awareness being on tv, hyped by the college’s marketing dept, Conf, tv network.
FDU women’s lacrosse team’s back up goalie is not worth $300,000 for her tuition and room/board. So title 9 is out the door with this change as is lots of players in the non revenue sports.
Will the top HS and AAUs teams pay players too? Why wouldn’t we if we pay college players?
Then the taxes question comes to mind? If tuition and everything else has a value, which it does, who will be paying taxes for the broke college players and their families that aren’t among the few that get a lot more from NIL and other direct payments?
Will boosters have even more power over university’s and its players since they are more important bc $ is now more important and they can pay directly to school or from business to player with NIL ?
Will all the non football 5 teams now have even more of an uneven playing field…college football it doesn’t matter bc only a handful of teams can ever win championship but it can hurt quality basketball teams that are non football 5 like big east schools not named UConn. The best playoffs in sports, NCAA tourney, can suffer as a result.
Will individual players be less team oriented because individual players will want to score more points to get more money from boosters?
Will the teams with the most money not only tamper but bribe players to transfer to their team? Will this be common practice?
If you play for money abroad or even in the states, why would that end eligibility now? Can you have young g league players that came out directly from HS, go to college after?
The good part of this is top players can make money they deserve (whitehead, Powell, Delgado, Mamu) all earned $100s of thousands more than they got with their scholarship and all the things that came with it. These players are however the minority of college sports. We are helping a smaller % of players to potentially hurt more.
Another good thing is most of the slimy things currently done under the table and illegall will be brought to full light….like giving jobs to family members, cash bags to uncles and advisors, lots of that will stop bc we can just play players directly.
Another good thing is the NCAA, colleges and coaches are getting way more money then they deserve, this will reallocate more of the money back to the hardworking players. No matter what anyone says, playing high major D1 basketball and football is more demanding than some regular jobs so you can easily describe it as labor. But even defined as labor, most college players don't add more value than what they are currently getting.
Last edited:
Dude what’s wrong with you? No-names? That’s nice. “Fact of the matter” is schools and the NCAA DO exist so they have made a name for themselves. Who are you to judge? Classic keyboard warrior always on the opposing side of the argument on this board. I always wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a troll but the ignorance proves otherwise.
Yes. Fair and equal are different although about 1/3 of our country refuse to understand this.
09 has relatively legit points (even though I disagree with him, to an extent)
They charge to go to a HS football game. They are charge to go to HS basketball games. They charge to go to HS hockey games. What makes the college game labor and the HS game not?
News flash we all went to college to be about ourselves and cash in. Shit the only difference is I had to pay 60k a year for the opportunity.
The high schools and NJSIAA don't limit what they can do or earn. A high school player can have a YouTube channel etc and make money. And at private HS most pay tuition.
i agree. and forget title 9. all of the athletes in sports that arent football/basketball will hate this. they are plenty happy playing for a scholarship.
Yes, many of them would be no-names because they wouldn't be promoted by the NCAA/college sports hype machine.
Good point but you went solely for the education.
Are athletes there for an education AND to play sports or are they only there to play sports?
If it's the former, the scholarship has a value of $60K as a baseline. Should some get more than that? Yes. Should some get less than that? Also yes. How would that work???
If it's the latter, they shouldn't be in college, they need to pursue other paths which may or may not exist. Hence why this whole major college athletics model is in trouble and we are all to blame. Colleges, college presidents, the NCAA, AD's, coaches, fans. All of us.
I think it can be a combination of the two. You often hear that the players are majoring in basketball. That could apply to both on the court and off the court jobs related to the sport, no? It may not be ideal, but the experience is certainly helpful if the player chooses basketball (not as a player) as a career path.
Last edited:
Sports management is a legitimate major and hence the baseline $60K value is appropriate.
It's not quite as dire as many are saying.
NCAA amateurism is effectively dead, and the association itself may not be far behind
The tenet upon which the NCAA's based is fading, and its power is quickly slipping awaywww.cbssports.com
The tenet upon which the NCAA's based is fading, and its power is quickly slipping away
By Dennis Dodd
NCAA amateurism is dead. Whatever you thought the moving target that was the "collegiate model" is gone. The date for the dearly departed will go down as June 21, 2021, but really, the exit from this world was years in the making.
It's not just that amateurism is dead. The NCAA that strangled it might not be far behind.
No rational human could recognize the association's stance as either amateur or fair. Not with athletes working an average of 50 hours a week on their "job" (per a recent Pac-12 study). Not with the NCAA having to pass legislation to ensure practices were not held starting midnight or before 6 a.m. That needing to be legislated meant that some coach, somewhere, was actually practicing in that window.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court could no longer ignore the abuse.
In a relatively minor legal contention, it upheld a lower-court decision that will allow athletes to receive such education-related items as laptops, paid internships and post-graduate opportunities.
The NCAA was worried about recruiting advantages. The Supreme Court was concerned with fairness, violations of the nation's 131-year-old antitrust law and NCAA power than had become intolerable.
"The NCAA is not above the law," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion following the unanimous 9-0 vote.
Somebody had to say it.
Truth is there are no minor legal contentions with the NCAA. It exists to be sued these days. It chose to go all the way to the Supreme Court over laptops because it can, because powerful people like to stay in power. No matter the consequences.
Monday, the NCAA got slapped down in perhaps its biggest legal defeat. Think about the implications: The association did not prevail in the NCAA v. Alston appeal despite a conservative majority court that included three conservative judges appointed by the previous administration. In fact, the NCAA didn't get a single judge to side with it. The 9-0 whitewash in favor of Alston was pro-player, pro-labor and probably overdue.
It was not predicted by any legal experts analyzing the case. To put it in betting terms, who would have taken Shawne Alston laying the nine (judges)?
Monday, the NCAA was certainly marginalized. It is now somewhat of a bystander as history parades by.
There are a only handful of things the NCAA still controls, namely eligibility and enforcement. And you'll find plenty of complaints from membership regarding those subjects. There is arguably only one thing it still does well -- throw a heck of a party each March known as the NCAA Tournament.
Everything else was laid bare by Monday's decision.
There is no more amateurism because … what was it, anyway? Cost of attendance was handed out to athletes, not normal students. Bowl gifts (capped at $550) are basically pay for play. We're down to arguing semantics and whether five figures can become six figures in the age of name, image and likeness.
Now, there are few roadblocks as to what athletes can earn. Without Congressional help in NIL, whatever the NCAA installs in its legislation will be subject to similar antitrust challenges as Alston v. NCAA
There's no sign that help is coming anytime soon, which speaks to the NCAA's bad planning as much as its desperation.
Predictably, NIL has become politicized in Congress much like any other bill. While this is great for the fair-market earning power of the college athlete, it's dangerous for the NCAA and the membership that allowed it to happen, starting with yet another WTF?! extension for president Mark Emmert.
If this was the real world, the NCAA would be out of business. The only thing tethering it to any kind of logical business model is March Madness. Just don't deny the athletes their share while the association is taking in $1 billion per year.
"The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America," Justice Kavanaugh said. "It is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues."
That opens the door to massive financial gains for those athletes in the future. Justice Kavanaugh even addressed the potential impact on minor sports and Title IX. Athletes could collectively bargain those benefits. Amazing. A Supreme Court justice just gave the NCAA a roadmap out of this mess.
Whether the advice is taken remains to be seen.
One prominent Power Five source characterized Monday's decision as "shock and awe" suggesting it "scraps the entire amateurism model as we know it." The challenge now, the source said, is finding an NCAA decision in this space that is not a walking, talking antitrust violation.
You know what's coming, right? NIL is going to be a monster the NCAA can't control. It certainly can't hint at capping compensation. It is begging Congress for legal protection not only on NIL but for any athlete in the past who want to sue. That's a huge ask for an organization that just got blown out in the Supreme Court.
Unless there is that Congressional intervention, the NCAA is a fly on the wall to antiquity. And if Congress steps in, the NCAA will be even further marginalized. The federal government will be the de facto arbiter of college sports.
"I think it's terminal. I really do," another prominent Power Five source told CBS Sports in March regarding the current set up.
The NCAA had to know this day was coming. Monday's loss in court is at least its biggest since the landmark NCAA v. Board of Regents decision in 1984. The Supreme Court deregulated college football television in that one. That eventually created a pile of money so large it got the attention of the lawyers and the 30% fees they command.
So here we are, arguing over the same pile of money the athletes can't get their hands on. Soon, that will change. That's good for the athletes who have been marginalized themselves.
"When you think about this ruling and the upcoming NIL, now we're starting to see the onion being really peeled back on the power of the NCAA," said Tim Derdenger, associate professor of marketing and strategy at Carnegie Mellon. "It's transformative for the student-athlete."
The NCAA's transformation has already begun. The Supreme Court saw to it.
The operative is "education related"
NCAA Supreme Court ruling: What it means for college sports, athletes
Monday's Supreme Court decision against NCAA is certain to redefine concept of amateurism. Here's what ruling means for the NCAA and college athletes.
www.usatoday.com
That was kind of my point. I see this as a death slide for college Athletics. I hope I’m wrong
Yes they do. If any athlete signs with Nike today they can't play in the NJSIAA. I forget which state, there's a 15 year old girl who signed with Nike for soccer, she can't play HS sports. I believe she is fighting NWSL because shes's too young to play there and not eligible for HS soccer.
The commitment for HS sports is nowhere close to the commitment for college. In college they have longer workouts/preparation including training in the offseason, media requirements, balancing more challenging classes, travel etc. They also charge substantially more for college games that are also televised compared to a $5 HS ticket. The students work hard and should be able to profit off their likeness when so many people are becoming millionaires from their efforts.
Plenty of people I know had full scholarships to SHU including room and board and did not have to do anything close to the things student athletes do and they were allowed to make money without fear of losing their scholarship. For those saying they get a whole bunch of free stuff, I don't see that as free and more things they need to do their job. They need to have outfits for workouts, appearances etc. Imagine you working in retail and your boss telling you everyone has to dress in the same uniform but not providing the uniform for you. Doesn't make sense. They have to travel, stay in a hotel, eat, and have professional trainers to do their jobs effectively. Imagine if your job requires you to travel for work but provided no compensation for flying, food, or lodging. Or your employer not providing you proper training to complete your job. Doesn't make sense Those are not luxuries, but things they need to compete at a high level.
If they gave them a bunch a flat screen TV's with PS5's and new cars and athletes were asking for more than I would say the students are sounding a little ungrateful but for the majority of students that is not the case.
Watch the show on Reelz network about the NCAA. See what the NCAA did to the UCF kicker. Read what the NCAA did to Jeremy Bloom. Read what the NCAA did to the girl tennis player at UMass. Everyone pays property taxes rent or most tuition to attend HS while playing sports. You and 09 say it's not labor or service. It is like pornography. You can 't define it as the saying goes. And check out what UL did with Kevin Ware before they got caught.
The commitment to the sport might be greater in HS. Not only are kids playing on their HS team, some are playing on as many as 2 or 3 AAU teams running around the state or even the country. They don’t have their own personal trainers or academic support staff unless their parents pay for it. I could easily tell you about some parents who are well off spending over 50k in a summer playing in baseball tournament after baseball tournament around the country. If you got the money and you’re willing to spend it good for you but I’m not really sure you can doubt the commitment of a high school athlete. They’re going at it almost daily trying to showcase their talents for college coaches any way they possibly can, anywhere they can.
just out of curiosity how much more labor is the basketball player putting in over the soccer player at SHU? Should they be paid the same?
Last edited:
My point was that high school sports puts their limitations on athletes too. I have no clue what the UCF kicker or Jeremy Bloom has to do with my statement.
NCAA crafting 'interim' college athlete pay rules
The NCAA is working on interim rules that will give college athletes the opportunity to be paid for use of their name, image or likeness (NIL) by July. NCAA president Mark Emmert made the announcement Wednesday.
NCAA president Mark Emmert sets July target for interim rules to allow college athletes to be paid
Associated Press
NCAA president Mark Emmert said Wednesday the association is working on interim rules that will permit college athletes to earn money off their fame and celebrity by July. The rules would act as a bridge until there is a permanent solution.
In a memo sent to member schools and obtained by The Associated Press, Emmert acknowledged the current uncertainty across college sports as it moves toward allowing name, image and likeness compensation for athletes.
"We are focused on providing you additional guidance to make the introduction of the NIL era as smooth as possible," he wrote in the memo, which was first reported by The Athletic.
Six states -- Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and New Mexico -- have laws set to go into effect July 1 that would undercut existing NCAA rules and give athletes to opportunity to be paid by third parties for things such as sponsorship deals, online endorsements and personal appearances.
Several other state laws could also go into effect in July. Without NCAA action, athletes in some states could be making money without putting their college eligibility in jeopardy while their counterparts in other states could be in danger of breaking NCAA rules.
"Although permanent NIL rule changes by July 1 are unlikely due to the legal environment, we are working with divisional governance bodies to develop interim solutions that will fairly allow student-athletes to take advantage of NIL opportunities regardless of the state in which they are enrolled," Emmert wrote.
Last week, Emmert sent a letter to membership urging legislative action on NIL rules or he would take executive action on a temporary solution.
The NCAA Division I Council met Tuesday and Wednesday but was not expected to take any action on NIL. The Council has another meeting tentatively set for Monday.
The leaders of six Division I conferences have urged the D-I Council to shelve a NIL proposal that has been in limbo for months and instead proposed a stopgap measure that would allow schools to implement NIL rules until a federal law is passed.
Emmert wrote in his latest letter that the NCAA remains "committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling" this week, a 9-0 decision against the NCAA on the topic of education-related benefits for athletes.
After the ruling, Emmert stressed the high court still puts authority to govern college sports in the hands of the association. However, he warned the more than 1,100 member schools Wednesday "existing and new rules are subject to antitrust analysis and we should expect continued litigation, particularly in the area of 'play for pay.'"
It is about the NCAA limiting what the players can do completely. The UCF kicker had a YouTube channel on kicking a football and they made him stop. I have no idea what your rant on playing with AAU teams or parents spending 60k has to do with the court's ruling.
Similar threads
