(07-17-2021 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 10:06 PM)chester Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 05:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 01:49 PM)chester Wrote:  I don't think that what Emmert suggests is really ncessary to comply with the Alston injunction. Just adopt new, compliant rules -- which they did last August when the injunction took effect:
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/propo...?id=105391

Looks to me like they know they will eventually have to give up their remaining "amateurism" rules at the top level.

Back to Alston, there is logic in allowing conferences at the top division to set their own education- related compensation rules, as no single conference is large enough to constitute a monopsony within that space. So long as the conferences do not collude, they're fine. What's more, it's exactly what the player plaintiffs asked for -- though they had wanted the lower courts to broaden the injunction to include non-education related compensation.

From a legal standpoint, the conferences would have the same issue as the NCAA. Collusion immediately exists with an agreement between two *schools* to curtail the free market, so that inherently includes every single conference.

Intra-conference collusion is allowed in this matter. From the injunction: https://imgur.com/4v8nzxD

Good point. But, will this injunction be the last word? That's from a district court, no?

I could imagine that once conferences start setting their own limits, lawsuits will be filed in other district courts claiming that the 14 members of the SEC are a "cartel" fixing prices, and if the SEC replies that well if an athlete doesn't like their limit they can play for a MAC school where there are no limits, the athlete will claim the SEC is a dominant conference with disproportionate market power, that they would suffer significant transition costs and career visibility would be less at a MAC school, etc.

I'm not saying those are good arguments, but I think they could be made, and they might somehow prevail in another venue.

Correct - the ruling may provide the exception for now in an attempt to not to be overbroad, but lawsuits would happen almost immediately against the conferences similar to the NCAA.

Remember that antitrust law isn’t simply about monopolies. Price-fixing between competitors (including fixing compensation for personnel) comes under antitrust law and that can occur simply between two parties whether they’re monopolies/oligopolies or not.

We can see a direct example with coaching. Do you see conferences impose coaching salary limits on its members? Of course not… because that would be a per se violation of antitrust laws! The best guidance here is that whatever can or can’t be restricted regarding coaches today will be similar to what can and can’t be restricted for the student-athletes going forward.