Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/14/25 at 2:05 pm to 3down10
quote:
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.
It’s state owned and private not for profit organizations. Capitalism doesn’t just mean money.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:19 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
They all agreed not to compete for labor.
LINK .”
That's not true at all, the competition between schools has always been extreme. It's all in the VALUE that was offered to them. There is a reason recruits go to the big schools, and it completely crushes any claims of not competing for "labor".
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:20 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
It’s state owned and private not for profit organizations. Capitalism doesn’t just mean money.
The NCAA is a private organization.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:34 pm to 3down10
It’s a non profit organization of state institutions and (largely) not for profit private schools. When a bunch of state owned enterprises organize to limit competition for labor that doesn’t create capitalism.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:35 pm to 3down10
It’s totally true. They all agreed not to pay labor. If this happened in your industry you’d be screaming. If I’m wrong why does the ncaa keep losing these cases?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:38 pm to CaliHorn
Let’s say you’re a computer programmer. Let’s say all the companies in a geographic region agreed not to hire programmers from other companies and agreed to limitations on what they’d pay.
Even if they offered benefits other than pay, that would still limit competition for labor.
Even if they offered benefits other than pay, that would still limit competition for labor.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:41 pm to Marcelo Lavanda
Hate to spoil your bad take, but capitalism has thousands of laws. NIL is mayhem.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:42 pm to AtlantaLSUfan
What laws limit how much you can make?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:43 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
It’s a non profit organization of state institutions and (largely) not for profit private schools. When a bunch of state owned enterprises organize to limit competition for labor that doesn’t create capitalism.
They did not limit competition, that's easily debunkable just by looking at the difference in facilities and staff from top schools and bottom schools.
To accept your description of things would be to say things like that have no value to the "labor" and that the only thing that matters is money.
Furthermore, in what way is not allowing the NCAA to set their own standards on who they admit by government force and thus allowing 3rd parties to give these people money suddenly capitalism? NIL doesn't change anything the schools are doing except forcing them to admit people.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:45 pm to 3down10
So would you be okay if in your industry all the companies could agree to limit take home pay (to $0 per hour) but agree they could offer on the job benefits like nice offices?
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:47 pm to 3down10
If I’m wrong, why is the NCAA losing these cases? Every court is just getting it wrong?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:49 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
Let’s say you’re a computer programmer. Let’s say all the companies in a geographic region agreed not to hire programmers from other companies and agreed to limitations on what they’d pay.
Even if they offered benefits other than pay, that would still limit competition for labor.
I am a computer programmer.
While I do competitive programming as a hobby, my real life work doesn't revolve around being competitive against other programmers. As such, there would never be a reason to have such limits.
If a group of companies wanted to get together and take the competitive programming I do and turn it into some entertainment, then it would not be unreasonable for them to set caps and such on who the companies hired.
From that point, since it would be voluntary, I would either accept the offer because I thought it was a great offer, or I would just do something else. And if they didn't make good offers, the talent and everything else would suffer because nobody would want it.
The reason why everyone wants to go to the schools is because the schools offer the most. Not because it's their only option in life as your scenario tries to suggest.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:57 pm to 3down10
Respectfully, you don’t seem to get antitrust economics at all. Let’s go back here
Here’s the thing: I have a right to earn a living lawfully. If I’m offering a lawful service, I should have the right to bargain for what I charge.
When employers within an industry + geographic region agree that they will not bargain with me except on terms to which they all agree, that’s an unlawful restraint on trade.
Now, maybe some individual employees don’t care. But if I want to be paid, employers shouldn’t be able to agree to restrict my ability to do that.
That’s what the NCAA did. And they keep losing in court because it’s obviously wrong.
quote:
To accept your description of things would be to say things like that have no value to the "labor" and that the only thing that matters is money.
Here’s the thing: I have a right to earn a living lawfully. If I’m offering a lawful service, I should have the right to bargain for what I charge.
When employers within an industry + geographic region agree that they will not bargain with me except on terms to which they all agree, that’s an unlawful restraint on trade.
Now, maybe some individual employees don’t care. But if I want to be paid, employers shouldn’t be able to agree to restrict my ability to do that.
That’s what the NCAA did. And they keep losing in court because it’s obviously wrong.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:01 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
If I’m wrong, why is the NCAA losing these cases? Every court is just getting it wrong?
What matters in court is the arguments people make. Most of these will likely be overturned one day, or congress will just give the NCAA an exemption and nobody will think about it again - assuming it still keeps making money. Only 40-60 schools are even in the black.
You'd be surprised how often Supreme Court decisions are reversed, much less court decisions from the lower courts being added.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:04 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
Here’s the thing: I have a right to earn a living lawfully. If I’m offering a lawful service, I should have the right to bargain for what I charge.
When employers within an industry + geographic region agree that they will not bargain with me except on terms to which they all agree, that’s an unlawful restraint on trade.
Now, maybe some individual employees don’t care. But if I want to be paid, employers shouldn’t be able to agree to restrict my ability to do that.
That’s what the NCAA did. And they keep losing in court because it’s obviously wrong.
You can bargain all you want, the other party has the right to refuse. You don't have a right to a job, that's call communism.
It's not their fault nobody else is able to offer you the deal you believe you are owed. You can go to Wal-Mart and tell them you want an extra $1 an hour and they can tell you no. You can then at that point accept their offer, or do something else.
Same thing with the NCAA. Your error here is you believe you are entitled to shite you are not entitled too.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:04 pm to 3down10
Well, what you’re now talking about is a *change* in the law that would *exempt* the ncaa from generally applicable antitrust laws.
Congress could do that.
That would not change basic antitrust economics or what we understand to be the general rights of individuals to bargain for their wages.
Congress could do that.
That would not change basic antitrust economics or what we understand to be the general rights of individuals to bargain for their wages.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:06 pm to CaliHorn
Just show of hands here:
Who here would sue if you learned literally every employer in your industry agreed none of them would offer you anything above a certain wage for your services? I would!
Who here would sue if you learned literally every employer in your industry agreed none of them would offer you anything above a certain wage for your services? I would!
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:07 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
Well, what you’re now talking about is a *change* in the law that would *exempt* the ncaa from generally applicable antitrust laws.
Congress could do that.
That would not change basic antitrust economics or what we understand to be the general rights of individuals to bargain for their wages.
In no way did the NCAA prevent anyone from bargaining for their "wages". The have no authority or ability to do so.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:08 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
What laws limit how much you can make?
Price gouging
Inside trading
Monopoly laws
The list goes on.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News