Frank the Tank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
|
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-10-2019 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-09-2019 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (10-09-2019 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-09-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote: But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.
It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).
Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?
The first issue is how Notre Dame would view it, and I could see them viewing it either way. I just don't know.
As to the second issue, it's hard to imagine that courts will rule that states lack control over their own institutions. The state schools are creatures of the state and obviously subject to state government, well, governance. It would be absurd for a court to rule that when it comes to their athletics, the president of Cal-State Santa Barbara is free to join an organization that has rules contrary to the wishes of the people of the state, and the people of the state, via their elected officials, have no power to overrule that. IMO that's not going to happen. The NCAA will be able to punish California schools if the laws go in to effect, but if other states join California, then the NCAA will have to capitulate.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that I don't get all worked up about the NCAA as a monopoly. I know that has tremendous legal significance, but it doesn't bother me. What does make me laugh of course is calling NCAA athletics an "amateur model" when its really just amateur for the players. All the coaches and athletics admins and staff are allowed to be fully professional. Did you know that the head football coach at Ball State makes $420,000? To run that program that nobody on his own campus even cares about? It's farcical.
Yet the same is true for both High School and Middle School sports. Are you contending those are not amateur sports either? FYI---for most sports, "amateur" refers to the actual contestants or performers---and pretty much always has. Just because a kid pays a coach for swimming lessons doesn't make the kid a pro.
As for the states being able to control their schools---we will see. There was a time where some states only wanted to let white kids attend--so we know state control over schools has limits. As a general rule, your constitutional ability to exercise your rights end when the exercise of your rights begins to encroach the ability of another entity to exercise their rights. The law that California has passed has far reaching negative repercussions for organizations outside of the border of California. Its basically telling the NCAA they cannot have a national amateur league where the association is voluntary----and both the players and league agree to be bound by the current NCAA definition of amateurism. That kind of dispute gets into the area the Commerce Clause was designed to resolve. I'd also guess this law has some freedom of association issues as well. Thats just off the top of my head. Given time, I suspect there are other grounds on which the law could be challenged.
Even if we accept your definition of 'amateur' as applying to the participants only, the logic fails in this case, because HS students don't get anything to play their sports. At least in Division I, the athletes get scholarships and FCOA, which as many have said here is indeed a form of payment. So D1 already is "pay for play" but just with a salary cap for the players in the form of the "athletic scholarship" an oxymoron if there ever was one.
As for your legal arguments, I'm not a lawyer but ... good grief, comparing California's law to white/black segregation? That's a new one, and one that I don't see any connection between at all, as we all know states cannot violate the federal constitution. The issue is, what is the federal constitutional issue here?
It can't be the "far reaching ramifications", because a lot of state laws do that. E.g., if California raises its minimum wage to $15 an hour, which it surely can do, that could have very big reverberations for businesses and employees in the state and throughout the country.
And the US constitution doesn't have special provisions for the NCAA. If California passes a law saying its schools can't abide by certain NCAA rules, that just means the NCAA can't have those schools as members if it wants to keep those rules. The NCAA can still exist in California, but just not while enforcing that rule. And no, having an "association" doesn't mean you get to have whatever rules you want, they have to comply with the law. Also, the California law doesn't prevent the NCAA from existing, with other schools in other states.
None of us knows how the federal courts will rule, but it seems very unlikely to me that the NCAA can win in court. Their best bet is to try and convince other states not to follow California, so that they can punish California schools and force the state to back down.
Yeah, I agree. I've long said that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. Your point that a voluntary association doesn't give carte blanche ability to make up any rule that it wants is what's critical here. In fact, voluntary associations are VERY much under heavy antitrust scrutiny. People shouldn't conflate free speech protection for voluntary associations (which is very much enshrined in the Constitution) with economic protection for voluntary associations (which is where antitrust law very much directly applies).
Ultimately, either the NCAA can (a) agree that students are employees, in which case they *can* collectively bargain with those students to limit or cap third party compensation or (b) agree that students are not employees, which means that the NCAA *doesn't* have the ability to limit or cap third party compensation. It can't continue to have it both ways.
In fact, I feel very strongly that the NCAA would completely get demolished in court... and I feel very strongly that the NCAA knows it, too. You can see it with all of the public comments from Mark Emmert and the conference commissioners. They might criticize the California law, bemoan the end of "amateur" athletics, and worry about the outcomes... yet not a single one of them has actually said that they would *fight* California law. Instead, you see talk about getting together with legislators and committees to work out a "solution" or find common ground. Note that this is VERY different from the O'Bannon case or the unionization efforts of students, where the powers that be were very clear that they were going to fight those issues tooth and nail through the court system.
The NCAA realizes that a tsunami is going to come through and it's not going to win in the court system, so they're making a last ditch effort to get public opinion on their side (which is failing miserably). On top of California, we can just point to efforts for similar laws in New York, Illinois and Florida (much less the long list of other states considering similar laws plus the federal government). With just those 4 states, you have 4 of the 6 largest states and 8 of the 20 largest TV markets (including the 3 largest of them all). People need to get rid of the fantasy that the NCAA is going to start banning schools from states that pass these laws from competition - the people with MONEY (the TV networks, the shoe companies, the sponsors, etc.) aren't going to put up with that position for one second. The NCAA is going to lose here with legislators and the general public and it's going to lose badly... and they frankly risk losing even worse in the courts since, once again, they are a walking antitrust violation.
EDIT: Those 4 states alone actually have 8 of the 20 largest TV markets. I forgot about Sacramento, which is actually #20.
|
|