Started By
Message
re: Cal Gov signs bill allowing Athletes to profit from their Image!
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:45 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:45 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
We haven't seen the outcry from feminists yet, but it's coming.
Exactly....I think some Title IX frickery enters the picture
2
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:54 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
We haven't seen the outcry from feminists yet, but it's coming.
Exactly....I think some Title IX frickery enters the picture
Actually, if you're against this law, Title IX could be your best friend. Maybe the women of SCOTUS uses Title IX as one reason to strike it down.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 4:54 pm to ATLabama
quote:
They won't. They strike down non-compete/anti-competition legislature AlL dAy LoNg. It's why NDAs and NCs have industry limits.
This is about ability to profit off of image likeness - which, is inherently a constitutional right. The point of the American Jurisprudence system is to protect citizens from even being put into position of agreeing to unfair terms and conditions. It's why the US government has anti-trust laws. They do this all the time.
The NCAA never wins. They lost the TV case in the 80's. Title IX.
They aren't going to win. Bitch and moan about politics all you want, but this is a losing argument you're just going to get mad about.
I would suggest reading the pre-cursor to this case, "Ed O'Bannon v. the NCAA." The NCAA cannot compensate, but, much like every other amateur in the US, they can make money off their likeness.
No idea why you think previous cases against someone are indicators for future cases.
I guess I need to bring up my own lawsuit against the NCAA since I'll win automatically due to past cases.
On the merits, it's another story. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, it was already "legal" for players to sell their likeness.
Tua can go tomorrow and sell his likeness all he wants and without the state of Alabama doing anything it's 100% legal. What he can't do is play college football after doing it.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 5:15 pm to 3down10
quote:
No idea why you think previous cases against someone are indicators for future cases.
The United States is a common law country, meaning, precedent cases are the absolute back-bone of our decision making. Every case in court is filed with briefs, and arguments, citing precedent. The precedent cases with the highest rulings at the highest courts, usually win, which is why when the Supreme Court make a ruling, it is such a big deal. It sets... precedent.
We need to make social studies great again in the American south, geez.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 5:16 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
I suppose Tua could go out a pitch Tuscaloosa Kia but would have to do so as Tua Tagovailoa......not Tua Tagovailoa the Alabama QB and not wearing any Bama gear.
Bingo!
*Dying laughing at Fred McGriff
Posted on 9/30/19 at 5:25 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Exactly....I think some Title IX frickery enters the picture
I suppose if a female is a popular enough sports celebrity somebody would be willing to pay for her endorsement. Most of them will be male athletes and, by far, most of them will be football and basketball players.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 5:51 pm to ATLabama
quote:
The precedent cases with the highest rulings at the highest courts, usually win, which is why when the Supreme Court make a ruling, it is such a big deal. It sets... precedent.
What are the precedent-setting cases that will impact this potential case?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 6:28 pm to ATLabama
quote:
The United States is a common law country, meaning, precedent cases are the absolute back-bone of our decision making. Every case in court is filed with briefs, and arguments, citing precedent. The precedent cases with the highest rulings at the highest courts, usually win, which is why when the Supreme Court make a ruling, it is such a big deal. It sets... precedent.
We need to make social studies great again in the American south, geez.
You think precedent applies to defendants rather than the topic of the case?
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 6:39 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
I'm still shocked that a state like California did this
I am not because they are a union state not a right to work state. The next thing you know the law will classify them as employees and they will become organized. That is where the shite storm will take place
quote:
We haven't seen the outcry from feminists yet, but it's coming.
Title IX will protect them. It will force the college to pay them no matter their ability. The star QB will make money and the college will be forced to compensate them as well.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 6:44 pm to TideWarrior
In the end it will destroy the PAC 12 and some other programs. Because schools in the SEC will take advantage of the program. We will have boosters that will pay for a TV spot weekly for a different player to get his pic taken wearing a new suit advertising for the guy selling suits in the mall. It will all be legal and every recruit in the country will know that if they come to UA or any other program in the SEC where CFB rules all sports even Pro, they are guaranteed to make bank. So bring it on. 
Posted on 9/30/19 at 6:50 pm to 3down10
quote:
You think precedent applies to defendants rather than the topic of the case?
Huh? Did anyone understand this?
Precedent law applies to everyone - plaintiff and defendant.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:19 pm to ATLabama
quote:
Huh? Did anyone understand this?
Precedent law applies to everyone - plaintiff and defendant.
Name the case that has precedent here, I'll wait.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:34 pm to ATLabama
quote:
We need to make social studies great again in the American south, geez.
Tha frick is that supposed to mean? Most of this country wants to eliminate the Electoral College, disregard the Constitution, and implement socialism
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:48 pm to 14&Counting
If you are against this you are against capitalism and in favor of socialism
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:53 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
If you are against this you are against capitalism and in favor of socialism
How in the frick do you get being against the government trying to force a private organization how to handle it's business is in favor of socialism?
From a law that originated in California no doubt.
I'm truly puzzled.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 9:18 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
If you are against this you are against capitalism and in favor of socialism
LOL - Employers can restrict what you do outside the job. It's done very day and in almost every job.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 11:11 pm to The Spleen
quote:
I don't disagree, and it's not something the IRS/Federal Government is likely ever to crack down.
It's Title IX and the U.S. Department of Education, not the IRS.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 11:17 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
The next thing you know the law will classify them as employees and they will become organized.
Congress will never do this in a million years, because once they become regarded as employees and not students, they aren't under Title IX which is administered by the Department of Education.
quote:
Title IX will protect them. It will force the college to pay them no matter their ability.
Not at all. Absolutely nothing in this law authorizes schools to pay players.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:37 am to MontyFranklyn
(no message)
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:38 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
If you are against this you are against capitalism and in favor of socialism
Isn't socialism where everyone gets a piece of the pie?
Page 5 of 7
Latest Alabama News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News