(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A state can definitely enjoin an organization from outside of its state. The NCAA has members in California impacting many more student-athletes along with a whole slew of economic and administrative ties to the state. Heck, all it practically takes is for a single business dealing between the NCAA and a person in the state of California and you can establish nexus for an injunction. It's no different than other laws that California has passed that have effectively forced organizations to change their actions nationally, such as the auto emissions laws and the new data privacy law that will come into effect in January.

I'm not sure we disagree, and I think the problem is i worded my claim poorly, so let me try again - and maybe you'll say I'm still mistaken, LOL:

What I was trying to say is, while California *can* stop the NCAA from forcing California schools to enforce its anti-pay regulations, it *cannot* stop the NCAA from "punishing" California schools that do so. That is, California can absolutely tell UCLA that it cannot abide by NCAA regulations that violate the new law. But, the NCAA can still threaten to kick UCLA out of the NCAA, and California cannot stop *that*.

And I think the California law tries to do that. Here is the provision I am talking about, copied from the link to the bill someone posted:

"(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness."

Again, not a lawyer, but to me, this clause is saying "when UCLA complies with our law and starts paying players in defiance of NCAA regulations, the NCAA may not prevent UCLA from playing Oklahoma or Nebraska or Texas in athletic competitions". And to me, California doesn't have the power to do that. If the NCAA tells Oklahoma "do not schedule any games with UCLA as they are no longer NCAA members", California has no unilateral power to stop that. It can't force the NCAA or institutions not in California to consort with or compete with California schools.

Am I wrong?

Now, as you say, as a practical matter, because California is so big and rich and powerful, it is very unlikely that the NCAA would kick all those California schools out. The NCAA would be losing a big chunk of its revenues. So what is likely to happen is that something would be negotiated, or maybe as in auto-emissions, the California standard becomes the de-facto national standard. But i was just commenting on that clause of the law above which IMO overreaches California authority.

OK - I see the argument there. This is where the inevitable lawsuit comes in.

On the one hand, an organization generally has the freedom to transact with (or not to transact with) whoever it wants. That would point to the NCAA being able to kick out the California schools if it really wanted to do so as a general matter.

On the other hand, when an organization has monopoly power, the general rule doesn't necessarily apply. The NCAA would very likely to be considered to have monopoly power in the realm of national intercollegiate sports competitions, so there is a much different level of scrutiny with their actions. If the NCAA is literally and figuratively the "only game in town" (and it essentially is with respect to pretty much everything in college sports), then it doesn't necessarily have carte blanche freedom to determine its membership. Antitrust laws are in place to protect other entities from the NCAA from using its monopoly power to shut down competition and restrain trade.

The other complexity is that the California schools are in a position where they need to comply with the new state law. If a court finds a law to be valid in its substance (which is an entirely separate question), then they're going to have a wary eye on an organization effectively punishing members for complying with that law, especially if that organization has monopoly power. This goes without saying, but courts generally have a huge policy interest in ensuring that people comply with the law.

So, the potential legal question is whether an organization with monopoly power is able to remove members on the basis of such members complying with a state law that contradicts with such organization's policies.

My 10,000-foot view guess is that it hinges on the fact that the NCAA has monopoly power. If there were dozens of intercollegiate organizations that were similarly situated, then the NCAA could argue that kicking out the California schools wouldn't cause undue harm since they had other competitive associations to join. However, that's simply not the reality: getting kicked out of the NCAA is the equivalent of getting kicked out of college sports altogether due to the monopoly power involved, so antitrust laws come into play and I just don't think the courts will take kindly to punitive actions taken by a monopoly organization against members that are complying with a state law.

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

lol---you do indeed seem to hate the NCAA. Im not a big fan either---but I do think they are an asset with respect to certain aspects of college sports.

In reference to your employee/employer example above----This situation is a bit different than that as I see it. Its more like if the California legislature said Little League teams in California could pay players and recruit players from anywhere. California then cant require that Little League Baseball allow their paid team, which recruited the best players in that age group from the 50 states and 6 other nations, to play in the Little League World Series.

The courts have already upheld the NCAA amateur model and have made it clear that the league is well within its rights to enforce rules that deal with establishing a competitive balance within the sport. Given the recent basketball shoe scandal---it requires zero imagination or forethought to see how fraught with misuse and abuse the "olympic model" would be in college sports. I think California would have a hell of time proving that it isnt a violation of the NCAA handbook and that their ability to provide players with additional income wouldn't be a competitive recruiting advantage. The NCAA would be well within their rights to bar the California schools from the post season. In fact, given that third parties straight up paying players got SMU the death penalty---simply barring the California schools from the post season would seem like a proportional response to a clear and openly admitted violation of NCAA recruiting rules.

As Ive said before----Im actually ok with some sort of revenue sharing plan for the players. I think there is probably overwhelming public support for something like that. I just dont think the olympic model fits the college game. Whatever form revenue sharing takes needs to be a plan that pays all the players (be they star QB or second string kicker). It also needs to be a plan that maintains the same general competitive balance as the current NCAA amateur rules. Despite the big TV deals, these remain first and foremost institutions of higher learning---Even the athletics programs are still ideally supposed to be a getting an education. Hopefully, they will figure out a way to make it work.