Started By
Message
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 2:40 pm to LSUTigresFan
Posted on 6/9/25 at 2:40 pm to LSUTigresFan
quote:
The "establishment" of any kind has never been in favor of the greater good of the people of this country, besides a few small instances in its young history.
I understand what the Fed is and the stranglehold it and our government have on our society because of our debt-based economy. You're a slave too, don't worry.
I can agree I'm not immune to the wealth taken through inflation, that requires being the one who prints the money.
But I am here by choice.
And the government telling a private organization what standards it must have is socialism. It's wrong, it's against the free markets and it's against the commandments. Do not covet your neighbors house/property. And yet people justify it based on envy, or what they call social justice. That because the NCAA has all this revenue, these people are entitled to it.
And that's why your first paragraph is true. Everyone envy's other peoples properties and the government is used to secure it. Always with the spin of being for the good or whatever. This is no different.
If people didn't like the NCAA, they should have just formed something else. Instead, they used the government to force it. I'm not going to pretend this is the free market at work, this is wrong.
0
Posted on 6/9/25 at 2:46 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
OP just said "regulation" in his comment and then said socialism. I assumed he was talking about gov't regulation.
Because 2 non governmental entities voluntarily agreeing to a framework has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. By that logic, a contract you sign with someone that restricts you from doing business with a competitor is "socialism".
i know schools are partially gov't but that really isn't relevant
It has to do with socialism because the government came in and started to regulate it. It was a free market when the NCAA was allowed to set it's own standards in order to create a product/service. It's no longer a free market.
Oddly enough, I think the fact the schools are partially public is the best argument against me. That does actually give the government a way to do this, however it should be directed towards the schools rather than the NCAA. They could say public schools can't choose based on this, and then the NCAA would indirectly be forced to change.
I don't think it's a good idea, but that is the "constitutional" way to go about it without destroying the NCAA's rights.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 2:56 pm to LSUTigresFan
Police Truck is my favorite DK song
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 6/9/25 at 2:57 pm to Marcelo Lavanda
Socialism hinges on the redistribution of wealth and class warfare (marxism). NIL is certainly not socialism.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 3:25 pm to 3down10
Regardless, just isn't socialism it seems to me. I don't think the goals of any of that regulation is to create some sort of "ownership by society". The regulations are probably to keep the powers that be in as the powers that be for a little bit longer. It's just a temporary work around.
I suppose my original point was the knee jerk reaction to brand any type of regulation of market transactions, whether it be voluntarily between two parties or by some government, as Socialism is really silly. They are not two parts of some binary.
I suppose my original point was the knee jerk reaction to brand any type of regulation of market transactions, whether it be voluntarily between two parties or by some government, as Socialism is really silly. They are not two parts of some binary.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 3:28 pm to Jack Daniel
quote:
Rev share is different and can be capped and regulated.
No court has ever said that revenue sharing can be capped and regulated.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 3:32 pm to skrayper
quote:
Did you say the same thing when they put salary caps in place for professional sports?
Those are private organizations. They are completely and freely allowed to become union shops if they so choose.
Federally funded institutions are not private organizations and cannot compel anyone to agree to a collective bargaining agreement as a condition of participatioin or employment. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld this understanding.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 5:00 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
Regardless, just isn't socialism it seems to me. I don't think the goals of any of that regulation is to create some sort of "ownership by society". The regulations are probably to keep the powers that be in as the powers that be for a little bit longer. It's just a temporary work around.
I suppose my original point was the knee jerk reaction to brand any type of regulation of market transactions, whether it be voluntarily between two parties or by some government, as Socialism is really silly. They are not two parts of some binary.
I understand where you are coming from, but it's a step in that direction is why it gets called that.
It's forcing the redistribution of wealth, which is pretty socialist.
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 6/9/25 at 5:01 pm to ouflak
quote:
Those are private organizations. They are completely and freely allowed to become union shops if they so choose.
Federally funded institutions are not private organizations and cannot compel anyone to agree to a collective bargaining agreement as a condition of participatioin or employment. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld this understanding.
The NCAA is a private organization.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 5:05 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:
It's a form of price controls. You can't do it, it never works. The idea of a clearing house for anything above $600. It'll be so backlogged it'll never function and probably just be ignored. The first sign of unfairness (i.e. player for Bama is cool while player for Clemson is told to kick rocks) will result in lawsuits that'll bring the whole thing down. I imagine everything will be rubber stamped unless it's just so obscene (like $20 mil for a player type obscene) unless they just want to invite trouble on themselves.
It should get rid of collectives that can just pay a player for playing.
The ruling should force some sort of service agreement between an athlete and a legitimate business or entity. Ultimately, fans will probably end up paying car dealerships and chicken finger joints cash to buy players instead of fans giving money to the collectives. LOL.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 8:42 am to 3down10
quote:
Those are private organizations. They are completely and freely allowed to become union shops if they so choose.
Federally funded institutions are not private organizations and cannot compel anyone to agree to a collective bargaining agreement as a condition of participatioin or employment. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld this understanding.
quote:
The NCAA is a private organization.
Most of the universities are public and federally funded.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 8:43 am
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:20 am to ouflak
quote:
Most of the universities are public and federally funded.
The NCAA is not.
The athletic programs are not funded federally either. Head coach salaries aren't even paid for by the schools. Nick Saban only made like $200k a year, the rest of his salary was paid through another organization paid for by boosters.
None of them make a profit. All the revenue made is either put back into the programs themselves, or they are used to provide scholarships/funding for other sports that do not generate much revenue.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:21 am to Marcelo Lavanda
Yes just like state highways
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:34 am to Gunga Din
quote:
Ultimately, fans will probably end up paying car dealerships and chicken finger joints cash to buy players instead of fans giving money to the collectives.
The title of this thread should be:
NIL = Big Business.
Given that college football has never been that far beyond the original theory, this should at least be a change of pace. I do believe that the "House" or our brand-new Big Brother will be watching for just such phenomena, like boosters running direct payments through their "Businesses."
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:51 am to Marcelo Lavanda
Socialism is when the government/state owns the means of production, so no.
Regulation of the markets isn't socialism.
Regulation of the markets isn't socialism.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 11:53 am
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:52 am to 3down10
quote:
quote:
Most of the universities are public and federally funded.
The NCAA is not.
The student athletes are attending the public institutions, not the NCAA.
quote:
The athletic programs are not funded federally either.
They are part of the university. That's pretty much the end of it. Those laws of association are almost as old as the nation itself.
Hence the occassional proposals that the athletic departments be completely separated from the schools, thus allowing them to be private organizations and no longer being so beholden to the wide variety of state and federal regulations and laws that are allowing the athletes to practice any degree of economic freedom. Ofcourse even those proposals suggest that somehow some kind of union exists - which gets the same exemptions that Congress currently is giving the pro sports.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 11:56 am
Posted on 6/14/25 at 1:01 pm to Quicksilver
The sport is a cartel of state programs running football teams and private, not for profit programs. Whatever else that is, it isn’t capitalism in any form.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 1:12 pm to ouflak
quote:
Hence the occassional proposals that the athletic departments be completely separated from the schools, thus allowing them to be private organizations and no longer being so beholden to the wide variety of state and federal regulations and laws that are allowing the athletes to practice any degree of economic freedom. Ofcourse even those proposals suggest that somehow some kind of union exists - which gets the same exemptions that Congress currently is giving the pro sports.
College football would still then be interstate commerce. It’s not getting out from regulation. I think also while the pro leagues (other than baseball, which has an exemption) can make reasonable arguments that some collusion is necessary for their product to exist at all, that’s a harder argument to make for what I think is happening in college sports.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 1:48 pm to ouflak
quote:
The student athletes are attending the public institutions, not the NCAA.
The lawsuits were vs NCAA, which includes members who are private institutions already.
As I mentioned previously, if it was just a matter of the federal government regulating the public schools to the point it forced the NCAA to change I wouldn't expect the rulings to eventually be reversed.
Congress makes laws, not the courts.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 1:58 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
The sport is a cartel of state programs running football teams and private, not for profit programs. Whatever else that is, it isn’t capitalism in any form.
A cartel in business is when a group of people agree not to compete with each other in order to improve their profits.
It's not even close to being a cartel. It's a fricking sport that was formed over 100 years ago. The model was never a problem until it started to generate revenue and all the envious fricks decided they needed to social justice the shite because they didn't feel people were getting the amount they thought they should get.
In addition, the system was completely voluntary and they did nothing to prevent competition. Their only crime was providing a deal for the players that was much better than anything anyone else could offer while also providing a product that millions of people enjoyed.
The idea that people/organizations coming together to create such a great product isn't capitalism is straight up ignorance. It's capitalism because it's private organizations and individuals voluntarily participating.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News