SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law
-
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
-
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
@axtremus said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
Why?
About 97% of college sports participants are in programs that will never be shown on TV or make much money.
They were never emphasized or prioritized to begin with.
-
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
@axtremus said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
I don’t think the athletes would want that outcome at all.
Not to mention the super important role college sports plays in our culture. It’s a a valid opinion but is DOA
-
Read Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. Excerpts below.
“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The N.C.A.A. is not above the law.”
“The N.C.A.A. couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels,” he wrote. “But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that ‘customers prefer’ to eat food from low-paid cooks,” he wrote. “Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a ‘love of the law.’”.
“Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work.”
-
Read Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. Excerpts below.
“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The N.C.A.A. is not above the law.”
“The N.C.A.A. couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels,” he wrote. “But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that ‘customers prefer’ to eat food from low-paid cooks,” he wrote. “Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a ‘love of the law.’”.
“Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work.”
-
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
@axtremus said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
Plain and simple, you are an idiot. Worse, you're an idiot opining on something you know nothing about.
Almost 100,000 students play college sports, more if you count club level sports. A tiny fraction - less than 1% - ever sign a pro contract, let alone play at a professional level. Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise. After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. For instance, the Saints had one free agent walk away from his contract this year, because he was accepted to medical school. Warren Morris works here in town as an investment advisor. My high school principal held the basketball scoring record at his college. The examples are countless.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
The NCAA has been screwing over kids for years and the SCOTUS ruling is the right one.
Years ago, I remember guys and gals I went to school with, that barely had pizza money. They were athletes from poor families, going to school on scholarship. The NCAA had just decided universities could not give athletes "laundry money". Laundry money was a name for catch-all miscellaneous expenses incurred by an athlete while in school.ex
I guess that $50/month was corruption writ large...
-
@axtremus said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
As far as legal considerations go, this is the correct ruling.
As for societies in general, the right thing to do is to deemphasize and deprioritize “college sports” entirely.
Plain and simple, you are an idiot. Worse, you're an idiot opining on something you know nothing about.
Almost 100,000 students play college sports, more if you count club level sports. A tiny fraction - less than 1% - ever sign a pro contract, let alone play at a professional level. Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise. After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. For instance, the Saints had one free agent walk away from his contract this year, because he was accepted to medical school. Warren Morris works here in town as an investment advisor. My high school principal held the basketball scoring record at his college. The examples are countless.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
@jolly said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise.
A place given to a student because of athletics is a place not given to a student who otherwise qualify sans athletics. One young person getting a chance to go to school because of athletics is also one otherwise qualified young person not going to school sans athletics.
After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. ...
So would whoever else that would have taken the spots of those let into schools because of athletics.
I would tell you that the "sports let young people go to school" argument nets to zero for society as a whole, except it's worse -- sports create a lot of distractions that, had it not been for sports, time, effort, and resources could be more effectively utilized to more broadly benefit society or get people to their ultimate calling more efficiently.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
"Sports fund education" is fundamentally no better than, say, "casino gambling funds education" or "tobacco tax fund education" or "alcohol tax funds education." This line of argument speaks to society's failure to properly fund education, not to the benefit of schools doing sports.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Recruitment for whom, for what? This argument is no better than "the anime appreciation club is a great recruitment tool" or "the juggling club is a great recruitment tool."
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
Lots of other things are great teachers of life. Theater, ensemble playing, academic bowls, any team projects, even just writing as senior thesis or completing a capstone project. Sports are no greater.
Want schools that truly focus on sports? Build sports academies. Throw in a few courses about the arts and humanities if you really really want to, but no one at a sports academy needs to pretend that his main reason to be there is sports. Let those who want to focus on sports focus on sports.
-
@jolly said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise.
A place given to a student because of athletics is a place not given to a student who otherwise qualify sans athletics. One young person getting a chance to go to school because of athletics is also one otherwise qualified young person not going to school sans athletics.
After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. ...
So would whoever else that would have taken the spots of those let into schools because of athletics.
I would tell you that the "sports let young people go to school" argument nets to zero for society as a whole, except it's worse -- sports create a lot of distractions that, had it not been for sports, time, effort, and resources could be more effectively utilized to more broadly benefit society or get people to their ultimate calling more efficiently.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
"Sports fund education" is fundamentally no better than, say, "casino gambling funds education" or "tobacco tax fund education" or "alcohol tax funds education." This line of argument speaks to society's failure to properly fund education, not to the benefit of schools doing sports.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Recruitment for whom, for what? This argument is no better than "the anime appreciation club is a great recruitment tool" or "the juggling club is a great recruitment tool."
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
Lots of other things are great teachers of life. Theater, ensemble playing, academic bowls, any team projects, even just writing as senior thesis or completing a capstone project. Sports are no greater.
Want schools that truly focus on sports? Build sports academies. Throw in a few courses about the arts and humanities if you really really want to, but no one at a sports academy needs to pretend that his main reason to be there is sports. Let those who want to focus on sports focus on sports.
@axtremus said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
@jolly said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise.
A place given to a student because of athletics is a place not given to a student who otherwise qualify sans athletics. One young person getting a chance to go to school because of athletics is also one otherwise qualified young person not going to school sans athletics.
After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. ...
So would whoever else that would have taken the spots of those let into schools because of athletics.
I would tell you that the "sports let young people go to school" argument nets to zero for society as a whole, except it's worse -- sports create a lot of distractions that, had it not been for sports, time, effort, and resources could be more effectively utilized to more broadly benefit society or get people to their ultimate calling more efficiently.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
"Sports fund education" is fundamentally no better than, say, "casino gambling funds education" or "tobacco tax fund education" or "alcohol tax funds education." This line of argument speaks to society's failure to properly fund education, not to the benefit of schools doing sports.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Recruitment for whom, for what? This argument is no better than "the anime appreciation club is a great recruitment tool" or "the juggling club is a great recruitment tool."
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
Lots of other things are great teachers of life. Theater, ensemble playing, academic bowls, any team projects, even just writing as senior thesis or completing a capstone project. Sports are no greater.
Want schools that truly focus on sports? Build sports academies. Throw in a few courses about the arts and humanities if you really really want to, but no one at a sports academy needs to pretend that his main reason to be there is sports. Let those who want to focus on sports focus on sports.
Maybe you know more than I do Ax but my gut is sports is fundamental to every stage of schooling and it won’t change. The arts could have flourished as well if those in charge had any business sense and didn’t make it so it was impossible for a wide swath of “stupid people”. Elitism has not been so great except for all the safe spaces it created.
-
@jolly said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise.
A place given to a student because of athletics is a place not given to a student who otherwise qualify sans athletics. One young person getting a chance to go to school because of athletics is also one otherwise qualified young person not going to school sans athletics.
After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. ...
So would whoever else that would have taken the spots of those let into schools because of athletics.
I would tell you that the "sports let young people go to school" argument nets to zero for society as a whole, except it's worse -- sports create a lot of distractions that, had it not been for sports, time, effort, and resources could be more effectively utilized to more broadly benefit society or get people to their ultimate calling more efficiently.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
"Sports fund education" is fundamentally no better than, say, "casino gambling funds education" or "tobacco tax fund education" or "alcohol tax funds education." This line of argument speaks to society's failure to properly fund education, not to the benefit of schools doing sports.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Recruitment for whom, for what? This argument is no better than "the anime appreciation club is a great recruitment tool" or "the juggling club is a great recruitment tool."
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
Lots of other things are great teachers of life. Theater, ensemble playing, academic bowls, any team projects, even just writing as senior thesis or completing a capstone project. Sports are no greater.
Want schools that truly focus on sports? Build sports academies. Throw in a few courses about the arts and humanities if you really really want to, but no one at a sports academy needs to pretend that his main reason to be there is sports. Let those who want to focus on sports focus on sports.
@axtremus said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
@jolly said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
Sports allow many young people a chance to go to school, that they would not have had otherwise.
A place given to a student because of athletics is a place not given to a student who otherwise qualify sans athletics. One young person getting a chance to go to school because of athletics is also one otherwise qualified young person not going to school sans athletics.
After they graduate ( most of them do) they're around you in the workworld every day, in many different types if jobs. ...
So would whoever else that would have taken the spots of those let into schools because of athletics.
I would tell you that the "sports let young people go to school" argument nets to zero for society as a whole, except it's worse -- sports create a lot of distractions that, had it not been for sports, time, effort, and resources could be more effectively utilized to more broadly benefit society or get people to their ultimate calling more efficiently.
Sports can also generate money for a school. From tickets, parking concessions, etc., the money can be in the tens of millions of dollars. Not all of that money goes back to athletics, much of it is spent on one-time purchases for the university.
"Sports fund education" is fundamentally no better than, say, "casino gambling funds education" or "tobacco tax fund education" or "alcohol tax funds education." This line of argument speaks to society's failure to properly fund education, not to the benefit of schools doing sports.
Sports are also a great recruitment tool for a university. There is nothing like a Saturday night football game at LSU or an ACC basketball game at North Carolina. Or for that matter, at many other schools.
Recruitment for whom, for what? This argument is no better than "the anime appreciation club is a great recruitment tool" or "the juggling club is a great recruitment tool."
Lastly, sports are great teachers of life. They teach young people dedication, sacrifice, teamwork and something bigger than self.
Lots of other things are great teachers of life. Theater, ensemble playing, academic bowls, any team projects, even just writing as senior thesis or completing a capstone project. Sports are no greater.
Want schools that truly focus on sports? Build sports academies. Throw in a few courses about the arts and humanities if you really really want to, but no one at a sports academy needs to pretend that his main reason to be there is sports. Let those who want to focus on sports focus on sports.
Yes, I understand...They put a chain on classrooms and cap the numbers who can take the class. There is no such thing as hiring another full-time professor or an adjunct to teach burgeoning numbers of students. Of course, much of the equipment in those new classes are funded by monies generated by sports and by athletic funding organizations. No sports, no extra money. No sports, no economic development within a community.
And we're not talking pennies, either. For LSU, we're talking just shy of $400,000,000.
https://lsusports.net/sports/2019/7/11/209460108.aspx
See if your ensemble or your theater company generates that kind of economic impact.
Heck, I just want to see you get 100,000 people to show up for your ensemble or your theater company's play.
Lastly, unless you've been involved in the grind and competition of sports, you have no idea how well they do teach people the hard lessons of life. No capstone project will ever have the impact of trudging through two-a-days in August. No senior thesis can teach what hitting the pool at 5AM every day and watching every bite that goes in your mouth. For years. (That last example is from a couple of my cousins who swam for UT, which paid for their engineering degrees. They've always said the discipline of swimming helped them with the focus of building their own company).
As I've always said, your IQ may be astronomical, but your EQ is sadly lacking. You simply do not get it...
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
“Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor,”
Like telling doctors what Medicare will pay, for example.
@copper said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
“Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor,”
Like telling doctors what Medicare will pay, for example.
@copper said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: NCAA violates anti-trust law:
“Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor,”
Like telling doctors what Medicare will pay, for example.
Not analogous. Medicare is a single payer. This involves collusion.
-
NCAA, Power Five conferences reach deal to let schools pay players
The proposed legal settlement also would involve $2.8 billion in damages to former and current college athletes.
...
Multiple sources have told USA TODAY Sports they expect that the proposed arrangement will have a future impact of at least $20 million a year on the budgets of athletics departments that pay their athletes the maximum combined total that would be allowed under a cap that would be established, and then increase over time.
.
Athletes also would continue to be allowed to receive money for activities connected to the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL), including – but not limited to – endorsements and personal appearances. -
So, now there will be "bidding" for the supposed best high school atheletes?
