Are you suggesting that they can’t make these same poor decisions without NIL money?
KY Legislature Moves to Create Comparable Bill to CA Fair Pay to Play
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
No. And I'm not suggesting they shouldn't make those decisions, nor am I suggesting those decisions would be "poor". The ends justify the means. What I would insist, however, is that once wealth is established, in select instances, the motivation, the actual purpose, for continuing any form of college participation will be significantly diminished. Stars will quit bands. And the only instrument fans will have to suggest they should not do so, is guilt. Fans will say, we understand you have achieved wealth in a UK uniform, we understand you have little or no reason to remain here, to play another game, to attend another practice, but you should feel guilty about any self-serving action on your part, and that guilt should be what forces you to remain here, and perform to our satisfaction.
So yes, it will be hilarious when top players quit in mid season, when Beyonce quits Destiny's Child in the middle of a world tour.
I hope the NCAA declares them ineligible along with all the other professionals that invade the sport. All the other students at the university are not amateur athletes. And you are just trying to put more money in the hands of future millionaires. If they are in such desperate need for money, they should quite and go overseas until the NBA changes that stupid rule.
Last edited:
This is going to be a mess no matter how you look at it. Not saying it’s not fair but how this is managed is going to be a freaking mess. A booster can now pay for an endorsement for $200k on t shirts that get sent to a third world country. 18 year old players showing up in Bentleys. Groupies. Etc. it’s going to turn into a bidding war for players.
dont we often brag about these guys are rockstars on campus....now you are upset about it when they live real rock star status. why does it matter what a kid drives anyways? so its a "mess" that t shirts end up in a 3rd world country and someone like herro drives a mclaren. that isnt really a mess.
False.
Not sure what your point is here. It's no secret that courts rely on economic evaluations of market power when considering anti-trust cases. I did not say anything about the use of competition in a legal sense versus an economic sense. I said the term anti-competitive is used used in economic circles to describe forces that limit or obstruct competition that doesn't necessarily relate to anti-trust situations. That is factual statement, whether you understand it or not.
I'm also waiting on your answer to how you are going to demonstrate the NCAA has market power in the market for a celebrities likeness?
Let me clarify. I don't really care what they drive. My point is that saying this is just payment for the use of their image, likeness, brand is false. I'm not sure they can control who is paying players and for what reasons once this cat is out of the bag. (cat...lol)..anyway, money is going to start flying around and as always, mo money mo problems. Players will require agents & lawyers to handle contracts and legalities of endorsement deals.
Maybe they could structure it so any endorsements or payments have to go through the NCAA or university to qualify. That might keep a bit of a lid on it but that probably won't hold up to a legal challenge either.
Bottom line, it's about to get really, really messy if this all goes through.
nothing you have said has indicated any mess of any kind. players will have agents. so what.
I guess it's just my opinion so take it for what it's worth. Not much. I just think that recruiting will turn into an all out bidding war for players. I don't think that is good for college sports. I guess we will see.
Do you think they'll take the time to work on their English paper or use the time to manage their growing business?
lol....academic integrity, that is what you are worried about. hilarious. these guys major is basically nothing that is mostly done online anyways. stop acting like these guys are in the lab until midnight trying to cure cancer.
but its great you think they are incapable of meeting their academic requirements. these boogeymen you keep creating are not that scary.
My point was to highlight the inaccuracy, and quite frankly, non-sensical nature of your statements. When you say use of “anti-competitive” in economic circles relates to describing forces that limit or obstruct competition in situations with economic impact, that is precisely how it is used in antitrust contexts.
As to your market power question, I ignored it because it is an irrelevant question to ask in this context and the simple fact that you asked it seems to indicate to me that you’re likely unqualified to even have this discussion. Does the NCAA have market power in the market for television programming? If you understand this space, you’ll understand why the television question is relevant in light of your question.
Last edited:
Because our backwards ass country still tries to link developmental sports with education.
The days of just forming a team with the people who happen to be enrolled at your school ended around the same time they switched from a peach basket.
You surely can't be under the delusion that these guys and gals are here for school. You don't think a kid from California can get a communications degree somewhere in their home time zone?
"If I was smart enough to be a doctor, I'd be a doctor. I ain't, so I'm a football player."
Sincerely,
Dick Butkus
Some are. Actually most are since only a tiny fraction ever go pro in their sport. I prefer that those ready for the NBA go straight there and avoid all of this.
that’s not an argument to justify the top .01% of athletes that are forced to go to school be prohibited from making any sort of money to help themselves or family while enrolled in school.
It's more of a reason than you understand. The effort to promote amateurism is, in large part, an effort to protect and encourage the student half of student-athletes.
It strikes me that we're at a crossroads where we pretty much have to decide if we want what is best and most fair for athletes or best for our enjoyment of college sports. Because the two outcomes seem diametrically opposed.
Most every argument (maybe every single one) that I've heard against allowing players to benefit from NIL is based on, ultimately, the resulting diminished enjoyment in college sports.
If we can agree that it is fair for players to benefit financially to a greater degree than they currently do, then refusing to make changes because of the unintended outcomes seems unreasonable to me.
Want to make sure I understand you...
Restricting the money athletes can make on the free market is justified because of the positive affect this has on education?
If that were the case, other students would be restricted as well.
We can pretend to care about student-athlete academics all we want but they're restricted from earning so that we can enjoy the way the sport functions more.
Once again you are stating the obvious when it comes to the meaning of anti-competitive. And your comments have nothing to do with the discussion surrounding the use of the term. You either aren't following the criticism that was made when another poster used the term or you are being willfully ignorant. One poster criticized another poster because he used the term to describe how the California law might impact the competitive forces the NCAA has worked to achieve in its leagues. The poster that criticized him said he used the term incorrectly because it only has meaning in the context of anti-trust issues. That is in fact wrong. It has meaning in economic circles pertaining to the obstruction of competitive forces within a market, whether or not, it is being discussed as having anti-trust implications. What you're saying seems to support my point, not the other way around, since you seem to acknowledge that it is used outside of anti-trust litigation when a policy or action could reduce the competitive forces within a market.
If the market power question is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up to support why the NCAA shouldn't be able to do what it is doing. I wasn't the one that used it as a rationale, you were. I am also not going to answer my question for you, but I'll give you a little hint. You are not going to be able to narrowly define the market to fit your needs. The market for television programming is not not the market we are talking about. It's the market for the sale of ones image, of which television is one segment.
I have said many times, the NCAA can implement whatever rules they think further their mission, so don't take this as a hard line against change. If they can regulate these revenue streams so that schools can't create booster groups to pay player, then I feel more comfortable with it. They have worked tirelessly to get booster influence out of college sports for a reason. That being said I want to explore why you think they should benefit financially more than they do. It seems to me that the value of their likeness is being created by the opportunity college sports gives them. In other words, coming out of high school, the likeness of most players has no value in the market. College exposure creates that value. It seems to me they are getting huge value in terms of future earnings from attending college and playing sports.
Last edited:
No, other students aren't under the same time pressure as athletes. If elite players could start their business while in school, the demands on their time would never end. Hiring agents, money managers, accountants, setting meetings, going over proposals, performing the work, it would never end for elite players. It would be no big deal for the average player but that's not really who the complaint is geared towards.
This is about a handful of elite players who could make crazy money if only they were allowed.
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.
The very words of those who shaped the concept of amateurism, the findings of the courts, and a basic review of what the universities do versus what they say indicate that I’m right.
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.
I think its clear kids have more worth than their getting given the impermissible benefits kids are accused of getting. Many of them clearly have significant worth. Nike, among other companies (shoe and otherwise) would sign many of the top players prior to college. Hell, they're already funneling them money as it is. Just wouldn't have to be under the table anymore. Matt Jones on KSR the other day said he could get Lynn Bowden 10k in a weekend for having him sign autographs at his restaraunt in a bye week. We don't even need examples like these to prove players have more worth than they're getting. The black market proves it.
Yes, kids benefit from their school affiliation. No doubt about it. Their worth is significantly increased by the opportunity the school gives them. But that doesn't mean its fair to arbitrarily restrict athletes' earning power due to this, now present, elevated value that they hold.
You actually prove my point in what you posted when you assume (correctly) that boosters would pay for play. No doubt they would do this. But why?
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.
So I did understand you.
We care so much about the academic enrichment of athletes that we deem it worth while to limit the "crazy money" (a phrase I agree with) that some of them may be distracted by.
That's not the case but, if it were, we should go ahead and limit other types of students then also. They can't have busy schedules or work certain numbers of hours any more then either. If a gifted artist is in college for art, no selling paintings on the side or doing graphic design work because it might distract them from their studies!
Actually, while we're at it... How are athletes supposed to focus on studying with all the female students throwing themselves at them??? Gotta limit that too?
Obviously I don't think we should do these things.
We limit what athletes can make because we want to keep liking college sports. Them being able to make money may give certain schools bigger advantages, affect the general competitive balance (that barely exisits) or really just take away from our romantic notion of what college athletics is. That doesn't sound like a good rationalization though so we end up coming up with more creative reasons.
Do you realize Byers was a strong advocate of amateurism? Just because he developed a strategy to emphasize amateurism so the courts would not force the NCAA to pay workers comp, doesn't mean he didn't really believe in the concept. His suggestion of an open division in college athletics stemmed from his belief that a huge percentage of colleges were cheating and he didn't know how to bring that under control without destroying college sports. You seem to be suggesting that he had no true belief in amateurism and it was all just scam to make money. I don't think his history supports that theory. He was a huge believer in amateur sports and fair competition among schools. I think his thinking on how the NCAA should evolve changed dramatically over time because he felt his ideals of amateurism weren't being upheld by many of the member institutions.
