KY Legislature Moves to Create Comparable Bill to CA Fair Pay to Play

[UKnCincy]

So everything Walter Byers said and did is at the heart of the NCAA today? Try to not be a greased weasel for once. Mostly all you do is cherry pick data to support your position and you use the pretense of superiority to hammer your point. In other words, you act like a lawyer.

The importance and impact of Walter Byers on the NCAA as it stands today cannot be overstated.

In terms of your accusation of cherry picking, I’ll leave that for others to decide based on reading through my posts. The only defense of myself that I’d offer is that you’ve accused me of doing so already in this thread when you said I ignored the courts supporting the “pro-competitive balance” argument and over whether outside payments are viewed differently than payments by schools.

In both cases, I responded with the facts to illustrate why I did so which also highlighted that I wasn’t the one who was ignoring or misunderstanding key facts. If that makes me a “greased weasel”, so be it.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I don’t have to narrowly define a market nor do I have to establish market power in the context of litigation alleging violations of the Sherman Act. The NCAA themselves have twice tried to argue what you’re suggesting and both times were soundly defeated in court. So there is no need to even ask the question if the NCAA has market power in the market for selling one’s image (see excerpt below from appeal of Law v. NCAA).

By outright banning athletes from even pursuing endorsements, it is a naked restraint on output. Again, were you qualified to discuss this you’d understand that.

The NCAA misapprehends the purpose in antitrust law of market definition, which is not an end unto itself but rather exists to illuminate a practice's effect on competition. In Board of Regents, the Court rejected a nearly identical argument from the NCAA that a plan to sell television rights could not be condemned under the antitrust laws absent proof that the NCAA had power in the market for television programming. See 468 U.S. at 109, 104 S.Ct. at 2964. "As a matter of law, the absence of proof of market power does not justify a naked restriction on price or output. To the contrary, when there is an agreement not to compete in terms of price or output, 'no elaborate industry analysis is required to demonstrate the anticompetitive character of such an agreement.' " Id. (quoting National Soc'y of Prof'l Engineers, 435 U.S. at 692, 98 S.Ct. at 1365). No "proof of market power" is required where the very purpose and effect of a horizontal agreement is to fix prices so as to make them unresponsive to a competitive marketplace. See id. at 110, 104 S.Ct. at 2965. Thus, where a practice has obvious anticompetitive effects--as does price-fixing--there is no need to prove that the defendant possesses market power. Rather, the court is justified in proceeding directly to the question of whether the procompetitive justifications advanced for the restraint outweigh the anticompetitive effects under a "quick look" rule of reason. See Chicago Prof'l Sports, 961 F.2d at 674.​

Again, you brought market power into the discussion, not me, or anyone else. Now you say it's not relevant. Why were you using it as justification if it's not relevant? My comments were based on your contention that the NCAA has market power, and therefore, would lose this issue in court. My reaction to that comment, as someone who has performed market power studies, was hold on a minute. Showing market power in the market of selling ones likeness might not be as easy as you want to let on. In other words, you set up the argument about market power when it is apparently, from what you site above, not relevant to the issue. That's not on me.

I have no idea what a "quick look" rule of reason is, but it seems like the last sentence would still give the NCAA an argument. In other words, the rule is extremely important for the NCAA to fair maintain competition within its leagues, which in their minds outweigh the anti-competitive effects of not allowing players to earn on their image. Things are seldom as cut and dried as you are making them sound. What if the NCAA wanted you represent them in this matter? Would you just throw up your hands and say I got nothing? I doubt it. You would find several angles to attack. I've never met a halfway decent attorney that didn't have arguments on both sides of most cases.

 

[kybassfan]

The importance and impact of Walter Byers on the NCAA as it stands today cannot be overstated.

In terms of your accusation of cherry picking, I’ll leave that for others to decide based on reading through my posts. The only defense of myself that I’d offer is that you’ve accused me of doing so already in this thread when you said I ignored the courts supporting the “pro-competitive balance” argument and over whether outside payments are viewed differently than payments by schools.

In both cases, I responded with the facts to illustrate why I did so which also highlighted that I wasn’t the one who was ignoring or misunderstanding key facts. If that makes me a “greased weasel”, so be it.

Again, nothing more than contrived arguments based on irrelevant context. These are by definition, athletic events where participation is voluntary and with full consent to forego remuneration. The simple fact is that has persisted for decades!! You are dragging irrelevant language into a scenario where it is simply not applicable. If the NCAA sticks to their guns, the courts will bear this out and these compensated players will be ruled ineligible.

 

[Wildcat-in-STL]

Good news is this means that video games might be able to be made again

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The importance and impact of Walter Byers on the NCAA as it stands today cannot be overstated.

In terms of your accusation of cherry picking, I’ll leave that for others to decide based on reading through my posts. The only defense of myself that I’d offer is that you’ve accused me of doing so already in this thread when you said I ignored the courts supporting the “pro-competitive balance” argument and over whether outside payments are viewed differently than payments by schools.

In both cases, I responded with the facts to illustrate why I did so which also highlighted that I wasn’t the one who was ignoring or misunderstanding key facts. If that makes me a “greased weasel”, so be it.

Counselor, were you a bit disingenuous with your quote from Byers? I'm asking because it goes to the heart of my "case" with how you post.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

No it isn’t. The effort to promote amateurism is an effort to do two things. Provide a measure of differentiation for a product that is sold by the universities and control the costs of producing that product. It has nothing to do with protecting and encouraging the student half of things.

Walter Byers was the executive director who built the NCAA into what it is today. He oversaw the introduction of athletic scholarships, created the enforcement division, hammered Kentucky to establish authority, expanded the tournament, negotiated the first big tv deals, invented the term “student-athlete” to avoid paying for injured players, etc.

Byers is the man most reasonable for establishing and imbedding the concept of amateurism into college sports. And in his own words, Byers said:

"Collegiate amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice...”
​

Amateurism was never about protecting the student half of things.

Well counselor, I guess I'll answer my question for you. Yes, you were being disingenuous with your quote. While you are factually correct in stating how important Byers was to the NCAA and you were factually correct in stating his quote, you are clearly framing the quote as if Byers was saying that in his role of making the NCAA into what it is today. He did not. He had been retired for nearly a decade when his book came out and for whatever personal reasons, he had changed his mind on paying players. The NCAA didn't agree with him and his statement carried no more weight than any layperson saying it. You are also wrong, absolutely wrong, on amateurism not being about the "student half of things". The integration of sports and education is at the very heart of the NCAA and is a procompetitive benefit.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=sportslaw

 

[UKnCincy]

Well counselor, I guess I'll answer my question for you. Yes, you were being disingenuous with your quote. While you are factually correct in stating how important Byers was to the NCAA and you were factually correct in stating his quote, you are clearly framing the quote as if Byers was saying that in his role of making the NCAA into what it is today. He did not. He had been retired for nearly a decade when his book came out and for whatever personal reasons, he had changed his mind on paying players. The NCAA didn't agree with him and his statement carried no more weight than any layperson saying it. You are also wrong, absolutely wrong, on amateurism not being about the "student half of things". The integration of sports and education is at the very heart of the NCAA and is a procompetitive benefit.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=sportslaw

That’s neat you can use Google to find articles about the value of amateurism, but there’s nothing about my statement that was disingenuous.

First, Byers changed his mind on amateurism well before he retired. He began advocating for an open division (I.e., allowing athletes to earn endorsements) back in the mid-eighties and just after Board of Regents. Yes, that specific quote is from his post-retirement book, but if you were familiar with Byers then you’d have known that the quote was representative of his view during the last several years of his career.

Second, I don’t need to rely on summary articles written nearly 30 years after his retirement because I’ve personally spoken with Byers before. Just as I’ve spoken personally with university presidents and know what they say off the record about amateurism.

Long before he retired, Byers recognized amateurism for what it really was and also saw the hypocrisy of the situation. And it’s a credit to him that he was able to realize his life’s work was largely in support of a shallow facade, but that’s not an easy thing to come to grips with.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

That’s neat you can use Google to find articles about the value of amateurism, but there’s nothing about my statement that was disingenuous.

First, Byers changed his mind on amateurism well before he retired. He began advocating for an open division (I.e., allowing athletes to earn endorsements) back in the mid-eighties and just after Board of Regents. Yes, that specific quote is from his post-retirement book, but if you were familiar with Byers then you’d have known that the quote was representative of his view during the last several years of his career.

Second, I don’t need to rely on summary articles written nearly 30 years after his retirement because I’ve personally spoken with Byers before. Just as I’ve spoken personally with university presidents and know what they say off the record about amateurism.

Long before he retired, Byers recognized amateurism for what it really was and also saw the hypocrisy of the situation. And it’s a credit to him that he was able to realize his life’s work was largely in support of a shallow facade, but that’s not an easy thing to come to grips with.

You're making assumptions again. I know about his "open division", he was wrong with that belief. The article I linked was a bit more than just an article. So, how would you argue this from the other side?