(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.