re: Co/Wa in process of Passing their version Of Fair Pay for Play.. Forbes NCAA will lose

quote:

---

It will be interesting to see how antitrust laws are implemented twords a voluntary organization that all parties that agreed to the bylaws of.

As members of this organization they are free to request a vote for change but I highly doubt the court is going to entertain that a small minority of members can force the change on the majority.

Any and all of the Cali schools are free to leave and form their own association any such time they see fit.

It aint the slam dunk you seem to feel it is

---

Well, it is, just not the way some are thinking it appears.

You hit the nail on the head. These universities VOLUNTARILY entered into this agreement with the NCAA. These players VOLUNTARILY entered into an agreement with the schools. No one was forced into anything and are completely free to go at anytime.

If they really want to go down this path then their only recourse is to step away from the NCAA, which of course they are free to do

quote:

---

cave canem

---

Thanks... I see where an issue of overlooking is

quote:

---

It will be interesting to see how antitrust laws are implemented twords a voluntary organization that all parties that agreed to the bylaws of.

---

You and others may not be seeing the whole picture.

The University is a voluntary member.

The PLAYER is what the law protects.

It's putting the player in charge. If the player gets and agent and signs some deals, there is nothing the college can do about.

So the college has 2 options, break STATE laws or the NCAA rules.

quote:

---

You and others may not be seeing the whole picture.

The University is a voluntary member.

The PLAYER is what the law protects.

It's putting the player in charge. If the player gets and agent and signs some deals, there is nothing the college can do about.

So the college has 2 options, break STATE laws or the NCAA rules.

---

Actually they have a 3rd option. Let the NCAA handle it and do nothing

quote:

---

prohibiting the NCAA from taking punitive action 

---

Punitive action? It's their rules. How can a state law make a private, non profit organization do anything? They're not breaking laws by telling someone to follow their rules if they want to be a member of their institution. They're not telling anyone they can't go make their own league. California wants to let their athletes get paid? They can. They can start another league that isn't as good as the NFL or college football that no one will watch.

quote:

---

Actually they have a 3rd option. Let the NCAA handle it and do nothing

---

No... that's not an option. I believe you are suggesting this:

- Billy signa with an agent (breaking rules) and then gets a shoe deal(breaking NCAA rules).

- the college does nothing

- Player shows up for game

- Ncaa says play him, and you are have a post season ban for a long time.

- Law says, you don't play him and we come after you legally.


There is no 3rd option.

quote:

---

You and others may not be seeing the whole picture.

The University is a voluntary member.

The PLAYER is what the law protects.

---

Unless your argument is the student is compelled to participate in sports your point is falling flat, it is an extracurricular activity.

It is not the NCAA's duty to provide a showcase for athletes to audition for the pro leagues.

All the parties involved enter into a voluntary agreement that all parties are free to leave.

Not all colleges are members of the NCAA. There is also the NAIA. So one could argue that there is no monopoly, but that is a complicated issue because the NCAA market share is so dominant. Whether the organization is voluntary is not the whole question. Antitrust is a pretty technical area of the law, but for the most part been used very little comparatively recent years, mostly in the area of mergers of large corporations in markets with relatively few players. The government hasn’t really aggressively pushed to apply it to companies that have grown their market, though the Democrat presidential candidates seem to want to push the issue more.

Net result of paying athletes as contemplated by California and Washington will likely result in damage to non revenue sports, including most women’s sports, which provide a large number of scholarships and educational opportunities. Just as Title IX had the consequence of killing off a number of men’s sports for many schools like men’s gymnastics and wrestling, these bills, if enacted with change the landscape in unintended and unfortunate ways. Moreover it may lead to the end of college athletics of any sort for the majority of schools since football and basketball actually don’t make money at most schools, and the programs are dependent on state subsidies. Those subsidies will become political liabilities for legislatures if athletes are to be entitled to pay in addition to the benefits they currently receive. Higher ed funding is already an big issue. Covering athlete pay may be a bridge too far and kill off the majority of college sports programs. Those pushing for this plan won’t be able to make a compelling case that women track or tennis athletes should not be paid or even paid less than football and basketball players and similarly for mens’s minor sports, especially in the political climate of today.

Athletes should be careful what they wish for in this situation. The drive for pay will likely end up reducing opportunities for college athletes as a whole with fewer colleges participating and fewer sports being offered.

quote:

---

They aren't.

---

You keep saying they'll end up with antitrust suits. So they kind of are.

quote:

---

It's no longer Cali and it's up to about 6 states

---

quote:

---

Colorado and Washington

---

That's two states.

quote:

---

quote:
Colorado and Washington


That's two states.

---

Reminds me of the thread earlier today. "it's just 1 state"

it's up to six including cali


But let's go bigger.

Is the federal gov enough for you to think it's serious now? That's 50 states worth right?

quote:

---

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit qualified amateur sports organizations from prohibiting or substantially restricting the use of an athletes name, image, or likeness, and for other purposes.

---

Section 501(j)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding after the period at the end the following: “Such term does not include an organization that substantially restricts a student athlete from using, or being reasonably compensated for the third party use of, the name, image, or likeness of such student athlete.”.

quote:

---

Is the federal gov enough for you to think it's serious now? That's 50 states worth right?

---

LINK
And it's obviously a big priority:

quote:

---

03/14/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Action By: House of Representatives

03/14/2019 Introduced in House
Action By: House of Representatives

---

And a quick search leads me to think the House Ways and Means Committee is focused on a lot of other things instead of this bill.

But why would the NCAA have an issue with players being paid?
I don't know, maybe the possibility of HUGE competitive disadvantages?

Let's assume players gain the ability to sign with an agent to receive money for their likeness rights. What is to prevent boosters from organizing USC Football Supporters, LLC and pooling their money to purchase/lease a player's likeness rights for $10,000/year? It would be legal in a few states while not legal in most of the others.

What happens then?