Started By
Message
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:09 pm to 3down10
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:09 pm to 3down10
They said no member institution could pay a salary and said no student athlete could earn a living from their NIL.
How is that not a limit on bargaining?
But you’re right about this: they didn’t have authority to do it. It’s why they lost.
How is that not a limit on bargaining?
But you’re right about this: they didn’t have authority to do it. It’s why they lost.
1
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:14 pm to AtlantaLSUfan
All of the things you described are things Congress has agreed are unlawful. From a *lawful* trade, what limits your wages?
Yeah, lol, you can’t get paid for murder. That doesn’t limit your right to earn a living.
Insider trading laws, for example, limit the ability of corporate fiduciaries who owe duties to shareholders to utilize information they have gained in the performance of their duties as fiduciaries to profit personally.
Yeah, lol, you can’t get paid for murder. That doesn’t limit your right to earn a living.
Insider trading laws, for example, limit the ability of corporate fiduciaries who owe duties to shareholders to utilize information they have gained in the performance of their duties as fiduciaries to profit personally.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:14 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
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!
Once again you are back to the claim the only value that can be provided is money. This is false as I've pointed out already.
If they weren't being given value, it would make it easy for another competing league to come in and take the talent. New leagues have constantly tried to form. They are only able to give the players about $50k, which is taxable and does not include all the medical and other benefits of college.
Or if the NFL is the goal, the player could pay a trainer. Those coaches make those millions because they are the best at doing that. But I'm sure you can find some failed/former athlete to train you. You'd also have to pay for your own room and board, your food, and everything else and you wouldn't have the benefit of the education after either.
The only thing the NCAA is guilty of is giving the players a great deal that others can't compete with while creating a product millions of people love.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:21 pm to 3down10
Once again: it doesn’t matter if they agree on how they can compete. What’s relevant is they agreed that they wouldn’t pay salaries and athletes couldn’t earn NIL.
Sure, some athletes might make different decisions within this framework based on what schools decided they could offer.
But it plainly limits a right to earn a living. These kids are making millions now. Your argument is that’s not significant?
You’re wrong for the very reason this angers you: kids are making decisions based on money.
Sure, some athletes might make different decisions within this framework based on what schools decided they could offer.
But it plainly limits a right to earn a living. These kids are making millions now. Your argument is that’s not significant?
You’re wrong for the very reason this angers you: kids are making decisions based on money.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:23 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
They said no member institution could pay a salary and said no student athlete could earn a living from their NIL.
How is that not a limit on bargaining?
But you’re right about this: they didn’t have authority to do it. It’s why they lost.
They don't pay a salary because most schools can't afford it. A lot of the money schools bring in is actually from donations and these programs only survive because of them. There are 858 schools that have football programs, maybe 60 of them are in the black. That's 7%. And at those 60 schools, only 1 or 2 sports are in the black. And if you took away donations, that 60 numbers gets much much smaller.
And these rules have existed since all of them were running mostly on donations. And again, only a few sports that generate much revenue now.
So these claims that the NCAA has done these things for purposes that didn't even exist at the time are just baseless in general. It's fricking ridiculous.
In reality it's a bunch of envious social justice warriors trying to force what they believe is "fair" on everyone else, in the process destroying a sport that was fine for over 100 years.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:24 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
Or if the NFL is the goal, the player could pay a trainer. Those coaches make those millions because they are the best at doing that. But I'm sure you can find some failed/former athlete to train you. You'd also have to pay for your own room and board, your food, and everything else and you wouldn't have the benefit of the education after either.
So your options are no salary or you can pay.
So now do you get how this restrains your right to earn a living?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:30 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
Once again: it doesn’t matter if they agree on how they can compete. What’s relevant is they agreed that they wouldn’t pay salaries and athletes couldn’t earn NIL.
Sure, some athletes might make different decisions within this framework based on what schools decided they could offer.
But it plainly limits a right to earn a living. These kids are making millions now. Your argument is that’s not significant?
They do compete.
It's an offer and it's voluntary.
What about the military? Can I sue them since they wouldn't let me bargin for my salary and they had a monopoly on me shooting other people with large caliber weapons legally? Hell, if I broke it down by the hour, during basic I didn't even make minimum wage either.
quote:
You’re wrong for the very reason this angers you: kids are making decisions based on money.
No dipshit, they are making decisions based on value. They always have. The only difference is now you are allowing 3rd parties to bid and influence them with money.
In reality, you just don't understand the value of a dollar.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:32 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
So your options are no salary or you can pay.
So now do you get how this restrains your right to earn a living?
There is no restrain. Millions of people pay and go into a lot of debt for a fraction of what they are being given.
Also why nobody is able to make them a better offer.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:32 pm to 3down10
quote:
In reality it's a bunch of envious social justice warriors trying to force what they believe is "fair" on everyone else, in the process destroying a sport that was fine for over 100 years.
When OU and UGA sued the NCAA over tv rights was that SJW stuff?
The entire landscape of tv rights stems from schools suing the NCAA to prohibit it from taking action against schools that used the CFA to bargain for tv rights.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:34 pm to 3down10
If there was no restraint why did Vince Young make no money from his name, image and likeness but Quinn Ewers made millions?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:36 pm to CaliHorn
Also, yeah, I went into debt to go to school. But the university didn’t make millions of dollars off me, either. And: if I wanted to and had the ability to I was free to endorse products!
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:36 pm to 3down10
quote:
Also why nobody is able to make them a better offer.
I suspect the schools will disembark from the NCAA very soon actually, at least in football. The market around CFB evolved dramatically and quickly the last two decades with it becoming such a profitable sport for TV networks. The business model the NCAA simply doesn't make sense in the scope of modern college football.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:38 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
When OU and UGA sued the NCAA over tv rights was that SJW stuff?
The entire landscape of tv rights stems from schools suing the NCAA to prohibit it from taking action against schools that used the CFA to bargain for tv rights.
That was a case of the NCAA going against the wishes of it's members and it was the members suing.
I would say they should have just split from the NCAA at that time as the solution, however this is not the same kind of case. That was closer to a HOA dispute.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:38 pm to Quicksilver
Really, it’s the 80s. And the SEC pretty much led the way on it.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:40 pm to 3down10
So when institutions sue to make money that’s fine but people = sjw.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:45 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
If there was no restraint why did Vince Young make no money from his name, image and likeness but Quinn Ewers made millions?
Vince Young could have accepted and made NIL money at any point in his career if he wanted. The NCAA lacks the ability to prevent people from doing that.
They can only make him ineligible to continue playing football in college. He could have cashed out whenever he wanted.
Of course now you will have to admit that his value is tied to him playing football, not his actual worth. Thus further proof the university provides him value.
I think that little LSU gym girl is one of the few that are able to do so on their own merits. I think I remember hearing about 1 other dude.
Repeat after me: You are not entitled to a scholarship and place on a college sports team.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:47 pm to Quicksilver
quote:
The business model the NCAA simply doesn't make sense in the scope of modern college football.
The biggest problem is it’s just in many ways unlawful. The “amateurism” rules were central to the organization. And they’re getting killed in court on that.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:47 pm to AtlantaLSUfan
quote:
Price gouging
Inside trading
Monopoly laws
None of those laws limit how much money someone can make. A person could become a multi-billionare following each of those laws to the letter.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:49 pm to 3down10
quote:
Repeat after me: You are not entitled to a scholarship and place on a college sports team.
Correct.
You *are* entitled to a free market to bargain for a wage for your services for lawful work though!
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:49 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
So when institutions sue to make money that’s fine but people = sjw.
The schools should have left the NCAA, which I'm pretty sure I already said. The schools aren't forced to be in the NCAA. I would have ruled in favor of the NCAA.
And as I already pointed out, it's a completely different case because it's their members, aka the people the NCAA is supposed to represent.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News