Let me expand a little on my rationale for saying that. The market value of the likeness for the overwhelming majority of athletes coming out of high school is basically zero. The opportunity to participate in college sports and be seen on national TV, etc., is what builds their brand and the value of their image. So there is tremendous value in what the NCAA brings to the table for the future earning power of the athlete. I don't think giving up the value of that image, while they are students, that was created from an opportunity provided them by a college is unreasonable. I know you disagree, but I don't think it is an unreasonable requirement if the NCAA thinks it needs to do that to preserve the integrity of its athletic events.
KY Legislature Moves to Create Comparable Bill to CA Fair Pay to Play
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
Teams like UNCheat will pay enough to the players so they can stay 4 years , then go pro with a college degree as well. They will figure a way to pay 6 figures , they have a billion dollars in their endowments.
The fact that the potential value of endorsements for a given athlete might amount to nothing is not necessarily relevant.
It’s the fact that they are deprived of the opportunity outright that is relevant, given that there is enough evidence that many of them would in fact be able to earn outside compensation especially once they have started competing.
See 13A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3531.4 (3d ed. 1998) (“[L]oss of an opportunity may constitute injury, even though it is not certain that any benefit would have been realized if the opportunity had been accorded.”
Also, you could argue that many might receive nothing outside of potential compensation if EA were to resume making college video games. The amount that an individual athlete would receive as a result of a group licensing agreement with EA is not a huge amount (settlement paid up to $4,000 per player). However, that amount was sufficient for the courts to find that NCAA by-laws prohibiting athletes from receiving video game licensing fees constituted a violation of anti-trust laws.
I didn't really expand to get into further discussion on the matter. I just wanted to clarify why I didn't think what they were asking is unreasonable.
You are ignoring the benefit they receive in exchange for giving up that opportunity. It's not the same situation as EA. They are receiving compensation and benefits in exchange for what they are giving up. I would argue they are getting more value than they are giving up.
It’s not that I’m ignoring the value of what the athlete receives, it’s that the actual value they receive is not necessarily relevant given the context.
If athletes were free to negotiate agreements with schools, then you can weigh the value of what they get versus what they give up. But that’s not the case here.
What’s happening here is that all of the players on one side of the negotiating table for major college sports have banded together to draft a uniform agreement that athletes must accept (i.e., it’s a take it or leave it situation). When that happens, the question of how much value the party without market power actually receives becomes less relevant, and in many cases, completely irrelevant.
UK would sell more than their share of "likeness; BBN may be one of the top 5 fanbases in the world. Show me a college board that gets more traffic than this one
Agree 100%. Don't know of recent history, but I know at one time, for a number of different years, UK merchandise led all colleges in sales. I just wonder (and no one will know until it all starts to come down) how the really large markets will impact recruiting. How will a 17 yr old feel about having his face plastered on billboards, TV commercials, etc in Los Angeles, etc?
Maybe...or maybe that sentiment could more aptly be applied to their constituents, whom said politicians know they can corral, and gin up tribalistic sentiments from, with issues that are contrived or have no bearing on their duties. Seems to me, many of these politicians might be accomplishing exactly what they intended (which some might label as pretty smart - sickening and deceitful, but smart in a weaselly sort of way).
I don't know why, but out of all the silly positions taken against the NIL laws this is one that makes me laugh every time I think about it.
It's obvious what you are saying here. If it's just California, then the NCAA might have enough weight to throw around to stop this. They might be able to delay benefits for athletes by digging into their old playbook of denying eligibility, bog this case down in protracted litigation. Delay, delay, delay.
The only way this doesn't work? Get a critical mass of states to pass NIL laws, it doesn't even have to be very many (3 or 4 if you get the right states), and the NCAA's hand will be forced and they will have no choice but to cave. The NCAA might be tempted to hold March Madness without California.... but can they exclude all of Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Kentucky? At some point the answer is no.
So for proponents of NIL Laws... there absolutely is a need for "political grandstanding" it is the most effecient way to effect the change we want to see.
I'm probably wrong about this, perhaps you have seen more up to date information, but I thought the NCAA removed the signing over of likeness rights from all of its forms. At the very least, I know it stated that signing those releases were not a requirement for participation.
I really enjoy your perspective. I honestly could not have predicted that would be your response. It's just simply delightful.
Imo the biggest problem with schools paying players would be nonrevenue sports such as woman’s bb claiming they should be reimbursed at the same level as the men’s bb players.
Whether or not the NCAA has athletes transfer these rights is not relevant to this discussion.
What is relevant is that the NCAA still prohibits all athletes from earning outside endorsements, and that this prohibition is the result of all market players on one side banding together to adopt a uniform, take it or leave it agreement where athletes are unable to negotiate the terms.
In that context, the amount of value the athlete actually receives is not what’s relevant. What’s relevant is the use of market power to deprive athletes of the opportunity to receive value from third parties.
"Every Major School" Please provide evidence that Kentucky is paying it's players or has been in the past decade.....I'll wait.
Don't spout off nonsense claims without facts to back it up, just makes you look stupid.
But yet you didn't bother to answer. This has reached an all or nothing point for the NCAA. It wouldn't matter if 1 state or 50 decided to make these state laws. SCOTUS has already said the NCAA should be given "ample latitude" to superintend college athletics. So, the NCAA simply needs to enforce their rules, then the states can file suit and it will all be settled in court. Their hand isn't forced any more by 50 states than it is by 1.
I generally agree with your point..... but you don't think the athletic department has a payroll department? How are the coaches, assistants, staff, administrators, trainers, medical, and event staff getting paid then? The athletic department has a $147.7M operating budget.
However, to get around Title IX and other problematic issues, the best way to allow athletes to seek compensation is the Olympic Model, or NIL laws.
Restricting the NCAA’s ability to dictate the conduct of students in their free time does not preclude the NCAA’s ability to manage athletics anymore than laws that limit the scope of non-compete clauses limit the ability of companies to manage their employees.
Having what you refer to as a “right to manage” does not equate to a carte blanche ability to dictate what someone can or cannot do.
This is becoming rather pointless, but what market power does the NCAA have to prevent athletes from earning on their likeness. The NCAA only has market power with respect to athletes who want to participate in NCAA events. They have no market power to prevent someone from earning on their likeness in the marketplace of endorsements, autographs, etc. Again, if the athlete wants to pursue earning on his or her likeness, the NCAA has no power to prevent it. They just can't participate in NCAA sanctioned events. The NCAA does not have monopoly on the marketplace for endorsements, autographs, etc. It only has a monopoly over its own events. In other words, the marketplace for endorsements, autographs, etc., is not limited to the NCAA. It goes far beyond the NCAA. The NCAA has no market power in that marketplace to prevent someone from earning money. It's a condition for participating in NCAA sanctioned events. You think it's unreasonable that that condition exists. Others do not. I can see your side. I just don't agree with it.
I know. I loved your response so much that I couldn't even manage to type answer. It's still making me smile.
What I think you are either disregarding or misunderstanding the limits of the "SCOTUS" ruling. Private organizations can set their own rules. No questions there. But is the NCAA a viable private organization without California, Florida, New York, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Kentucky? I say no. Perhaps you say yes. So California schools as of 2023 will no longer be able to participate in NCAA sanctioned events. May Florida Schools as well. At some point, if enough state enact NIL laws there will be a new governing body for college sports. Or... if the NCAA is interested in self preservation they will cave.
I agree that it is an all or nothing moment for the NCAA. I think if even one more state (provided it isn't Wyoming, Montana or one of the Dakotas) passes a NIL law then you will see the NCAA announce a committee to implement uniform NIL provisions.
If they do that then they will lose the procompetitive goal that amateurism rules provide. Courts have repeatedly seen value in that goal.
Outside of a kid like John Wall, Anthony Davis and Zion Williamson, I think the difference is there are probably less people in LA (or California in general) that would know who the star player of UCLA or USC is compared to a kid at Kentucky. I just don't see a company throwing a ton of money at a kid that most people in their market are unfamiliar with. UCLA basketball is probably the 9th or 10th most popular sports team in LA behind the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, USC Football, Rams, Chargers, Kings and maybe even the Galaxy. In Kentucky, the best or most popular player on UK's team is probably the most famous athlete in the state.
The courts have ruled on the validity of laws limiting the ability of parties with market power imposing restrictions on others.
The courts have not ruled on this specific issue with respect to the NCAA and there’s nothing about this law that precludes their ability to manage sports.
Last edited:
I don't believe that's what courts have done. Either you are misunderstanding court rulings or misconstruing them to fit your argument.
Sure they have, in a way, they have said the goals of amateurism are important for a procompetitive balance and that the NCAA should have "ample latitude" to superintend college athletics. The fact that states are trying to force control away from the NCAA by some backdoor laws doesn't change that. You never talk about this but you're quick to bring up precedent that supports your position.
"As with the District Court, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the NCAA’s rules under the Rule of Reason. In the first step, the court found “substantial support in the record” that the challenged rules produced significant anticompetitive effects in the college education market even, in the absence of any output reduction. Id. at *18 (it is sufficient to show “the student athletes themselves are harmed by the price-fixing agreement among [the] schools” to value the athletes’ NILs at zero). The court found the amount of the harm suffered by the student-athletes irrelevant to this inquiry. Id. at *19 (noting that Supreme Court has rejected this “too small to matter” argument). In the second step, the Ninth Circuit accepted (as had the District Court) that the NCAA’s commitment to amateurism produced concrete procompetitive benefits by increasing the consumer appeal of collegiate sports. Id. at *20-*22. In the third and final step, the court addressed whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence that this procompetitive goal could be achieved by less restrictive alternatives. Here, the court cautioned, that “to be viable under the Rule of Reason, an alternative must be ‘virtually as effective’ in serving the procompetitive purposes of the NCAA’s current rules, and ‘without significantly increased cost.’” Id. at *22 (citation omitted). The court also warned that plaintiffs bear a strong evidentiary burden at this stage, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s admonition to “afford the NCAA ‘ample latitude’ to superintend college athletics. Id. (citing Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 120)."
"The court concluded that capping the permissible amount of scholarships below the full cost of attendance had no relation to the procompetitive justification of advancing amateurism. By NCAA’s own standards, “student-athletes remain amateurs as long as any money paid to them goes to cover legitimate educational expenses.” Id. at *23. The Ninth Circuit thus upheld the District Court’s injunction insofar as it related to permitting schools to set the compensation cap at the full cost of attendance, finding this to be “a substantially less restrictive alternative means of accomplishing the NCAA’s legitimate procompetitive purposes.” Id. at *24. Not so with the second alternative the District Court identified, which would result in NIL cash payments to students “untethered to their education expenses.” Id. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Aside from the self-evident fact that paying students for their NIL rights will vitiate their amateur status as collegiate athletes, the [district] court relied on threadbare evidence in finding that small payments of cash compensation will preserve amateurism as well as the NCAA’s rule forbidding such payments.” Id. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed this aspect of the District Court’s order."
This isn't difficult to read or understand Gossie.
Last edited:
Is that a way of saying it's more likely that UK boosters would be more willing to shell out big money for players than UCLA boosters?
One, “ample latitude” does not mean total freedom.
Two, as the appeals court for O’Bannon stated, payments from an outside event implicate amateurism differently than payments from a school and the O’Bannon case was ruling strictly on payments by schools.
Courts are likely to be receptive to the argument that outside endorsements do not violate amateurism because the payments are not tied specifically to their performance as an athlete. Rather, the payment is tied directly to the service of appearing in an ad or promotion. This may be as a consequence of notoriety obtained from athletics performance, but is still not a payment for that performance specifically. Therefore, amateurism can be maintained despite receiving endorsement money.
That’s the reason I don’t bring up “ample latitude.” Because I’m familiar enough with the prior cases to know when it does and doesn’t apply.
I don't agree with you, what a surprise. "ample latitude" to a layperson would mean "enough". As for your reasoning, you are leaving out procompetitive balance which was mentioned repeatedly and the 9th Circuit didn't refer to payments being tied to performance, they said "Aside from the self-evident fact that paying students for their NIL rights will vitiate their amateur status as collegiate athletes, the [district] court relied on threadbare evidence in finding that small payments of cash compensation will preserve amateurism as well as the NCAA’s rule forbidding such payments.”
I can't see how outside payments to players would change that though I know you will have a technical slant that fits your agenda on this subject. Like I've told you before, this will come down to who has primary right here, the NCAA in fighting to maintain a competitive balance or players who want to make money while in college. I still don't think you are going to win this one.
Possibly. I just think it's more possible that businesses in Kentucky will find more value in a UK player than LA business in a UCLA player.
Yes and that's the problem with these laws. It will create an anticompetitive environment and that is why I don't believe it will stand in the end.
