3down10
| Favorite team: | Alabama  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 31031 |
| Registered on: | 9/22/2014 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 8:10 pm
quote:
Maybe we’re talking past each other: I’m not arguing policy, really. I’m not really making a normative argument. I’m telling you that under existing law the NCAA is in trouble.
As a normative matter, I believe this is an industry that is screaming for some regulation. But that’s not all about NIL.
The industry was fine until the government got involved and stopped allowing the NCAA to regulate itself.
0
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 8:09 pm
quote:
Okay, so let’s break this down!
What you are describing is the process of an individual school or scholarship setting a standard.
If you and I want to bargain with each other, we can.
Where you get into trouble is where, in interstate commerce, multiple institutions band together to agree on how they will bargain with you.
Now, within that there’s also a rule of reason that governs legality. But what you described doesn’t even get there.
Again: your individual employer setting terms and conditions on what it will offer is one thing. A group of employers all agreeing what they will offer individually is another.
At this point the NCAA knows it is cooked on this under the law.
As I already pointed out when these rules were instituted the sport was not making revenue and lived mostly on donations from boosters.
So to say they have band together to do these things is just straight up not true.
The reasons why it's done is also obviously for competitive reasons, not the other bullshite you keep mentioning.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 5:26 pm
quote:
You just described a restraint. Manziel’s NIL value is derived from his talent. His talent is playing football.
No I described a standard.
When I was offered academic scholarships I had all kinds of standards I was expected to meet. Grades, credits, etc. If I didn't keep those standards, the scholarships wouldn't be extended.
Beyond that, you are merely highlighting his NIL value was solely because of his ties to the school. Thus in no way is the school preventing him from his actual worth.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 5:22 pm
quote:
The NCAA thinks nothing of its own legal argument here.
It’s totally true that Congress could act to provide an antitrust exemption for the NCAA or some other successor organization. That would be a change in law though. An exemption that doesn’t currently exist.
If you believe that’s right as a policy matter, you can argue that. I’m not arguing that with you. I’m telling you what courts, economists and experts are all telling everyone: the law as applied to the NCAA invalidates a lot of the rules of the organization.
If we ran into a situation where we ultimately had collective bargaining, etc this could all also change there. But we don’t have that. And I think we’re not likely to.
You're just making an appeal to authority fallacy here. I'm obviously aware of the rulings. That only decide what people are forced to follow for the time. They get overturned all the time when better arguments, which often form from different circumstances come about. I have no idea when it will happen. It will likely form if the NCAA ever grew some balls and fought back.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 5:15 pm
quote:
They don’t have to be employees. It’s still interstate commerce and the players still have a trade.
If they didn’t…none of them would make a dime off NIL.
Again, nobody has ever prevented a single person from earning NIL money. All they can do is prevent them from playing in sports.
Manziel for example would not have been arrested, faced any criminal or civil charges for getting those autographs. The NCAA has no enforcement, they don't even have the ability to make people talk to them/testify in an investigation.
The only thing they could do is prevent Manziel from playing sports after.
So when you say things like the NCAA prevented them from earning NIL money it's just false.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 5:05 pm
quote:
If you think you’re proving me wrong, you should definitely offer your services as counsel or an expert to the NCAA in court.
Once again, court cases are overturned constantly, so I'm not sure what your point is. It all depends on the arguments being made, and when/how they are allowed to make them. I'd never want to be a lawyer, the rules and the way they are limited is ridiculous. I know right and wrong, I don't give a shite about procedure or anything else.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 5:01 pm
quote:
It’s totally true your employer/potential employer has a right to decline your offer. On an individual basis.
However! If multiple employers in an industry agree on the terms on whichever they will bargain with you for your services, that is an agreement in restraint of trade.
This is antitrust 101 stuff.
They aren't employers. If they start paying them, then they are employees and they will be taxed and so on.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:58 pm
quote:
Is your question seriously why doesn’t the Sherman Act apply to the US military?
There wasn't really a question there. I know why, and yet millions of people still volunteer. :lol:
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:56 pm
quote:
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.
I think a big part of the conference stuff is likely geared towards the top 30-60 teams breaking off and forming their own thing. That's really where most of the issues are coming from, you have rules that are being made to apply to over 850 different schools and they need to fit the bottom guy as well as the top guy.
It'll turn into a mini NFL. I'm not sure I'm going to like it, I already don't watch the NFL. The playoffs are already stepping it up and all this talk about "AQ spots etc".
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:52 pm
quote:
Correct.
You *are* entitled to a free market to bargain for a wage for your services for lawful work though!
You just going to keep repeating the same points I've proven wrong in a loop?
They 100% bargained. Nobody forced them to accept the offers. The other party is free to set it's own standards and reject. Bargaining doesn't mean - give me whatever I want.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:49 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:45 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:38 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:32 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:30 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:23 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:14 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:07 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:04 pm
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.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by 3down10 on 6/14/25 at 4:01 pm
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.
Popular
25
