(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.

The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.