(06-22-2022 09:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-22-2022 09:07 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  Or, you can just have each conference establish its own rules and enforcement. If your conference sets rules no other conference is willing to live with they can just stop playing your schools. That moderating influence should quickly result in a manageable number of conferences and schools with common interests.

Except... the Supreme Court said that this is an illegal trust.


The only reason conferences used to set eligibility rules for student-athletes (such as not paying salaries) is so that schools would compete on even ground. But the Supreme Court said that schools can not coordinate on any rules that involve compensation.

Going forward, individual schools can choose to stop playing other individual schools. But conferences can't choose to stop playing other conferences based on NIL money or any form of compensation, because it would violate anti-trust law.


It's possible that the Supreme Court didn't realize this was implied in their ruling. But I doubt it.

SCOTUS said no such thing. They did suggest the NCAA couldn't do it, but not schools within a conference that they voluntarily belong to. They may have a problem if a conference were to set a salary cap without a collective bargaining agreement, but I doubt they would object to a salary minimum. That's the kind of rule I was talking about, and which the marketplace would regulate whether that number is too high.

Salary minimums (or NIL minimums) are not a problem. But I don't think anyone is talking about conferences setting salary minimums.


A conference setting a salary cap is the same thing as Delta and United colluding to set a salary cap. Sure, there's other airlines, but it's still illegal. The same law applies if Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State collude (through the conference) to set a salary cap. Or collude to do anything that might lower salaries.

Taking it one step further... if schools collude to boycott schools with fewer salary restrictions, that is illegal.


That was the big problem I had with the Supreme Court ruling. There is no analogy for this in business, because sports require an opposing team. Businesses don't require opponents.

I see nothing wrong with universities choosing to only play opponents that have player eligibility rules similar to their own. I see nothing wrong with universities voluntarily joining an organization (such as a conference or the NCAA or the Alabama High School Athletic Association) that sets uniform rules for player eligibility. The Supreme Court disagrees with me, though.


To take it one small step further: The Federal Trade Commission's Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals states, "Agreements among employers not to recruit certain employees or not to compete on terms of compensation are illegal." Can Delta and United collude to exclude pilots who have flown for more than thirty years (or four years) to make room for cheaper talent? Can Delta and United collude to exclude pilots who take legal stimulant drugs that increase performance but may have long-term negative health consequences? Can Delta and United agree to refrain from poaching each other's employees during the month before the national championship game? The answer to all of these is "no," and the implications for college and high school sports are obvious.