bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,967
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3320
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-12-2022 03:19 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote: (05-12-2022 02:27 PM)bullet Wrote: (05-12-2022 12:13 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote: (05-12-2022 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote: (05-12-2022 11:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: All of these fuzzy platitudes about what the student-athlete model is supposed to be are all well and good. However, ultimately, what do the schools *really* want? At least to me, if they really want all of the aforementioned benefits, then there might be additional costs of doing business going forward (including but not limited to student-athletes needing to be considered to be employees).
Right, athletes being classified as employees is not their only issue, IMO not even their biggest issue. The biggest issue is schools agreeing, through the NCAA or otherwise, to rules that restrict athlete movement and/or compensation. Suppose colleges give in on athletes-as-employees, but then want to restrict movement by signing them to a one-year or even a four-year contract. They can't lawfully standardize that among all D-I or FBS schools.
To use a real-world employee example, if Apple tells an engineer he has to sign a one-year contract and can't work for a competitor during that time, he can sign it, or he can go work someplace where they don't ask for a contract. But if every large tech company has agreed amongst themselves that engineers can only work there if they sign a contract of at at least one year, that agreement is probably illegal. The same problem will exist for any group of colleges that agrees to require athletes to sign a contract limiting their ability to move to a team at another college.
In my industry nearly all companies require non-competes. If I leave, I’m sitting out. Whether I get paid to do that depends on whether I had the leverage to negotiate that into my contract.
CBAs will occur for the P2 at least
Conferences have long been able to implement conference rules on things like admission requirements and transfers to in-conference schools. The P2 will have their own min/max contract standards, negotiated via CBA if needed
And the “best of rest” conference will serve as the antitrust. Players will be free to take Baylor’s offer, and if Baylor can make a better one while getting $50-$70 million less per year, good for them. If they do that enough they may earn a P2 invite. In basketball the P2 will likely need to stick closer to market value in their offers. True antitrust. In football they’ll have more market power, but not enough to risk antitrust imo
Non-competes get thrown out by courts all the time. Its just that everybody doesn't contest them. They have to be reasonable in terms of distance and time. To use an extreme example, if they said you couldn't work in the field in the US for 2 years, there's no way it holds up if contested.
If college athletes are employees and not under a union contract, maybe you could restrict them from transferring to conference mates and future opponents, but you could not restrict them from playing for any other school.
Conferences have long been able to implement conference rules on things like admission requirements and transfers to in-conference schools. The P2 will have their own min/max contract standards, negotiated via CBA if needed
And the “best of rest” conference will serve as the antitrust. Players will be free to take Baylor’s offer, and if Baylor can make a better one while getting $50-$70 million less per year, good for them. If they do that enough they may earn a P2 invite. In basketball the P2 will likely need to stick closer to market value in their offers. True antitrust. In football they’ll have more market power, but not enough to risk antitrust imo
Its not just an anti-trust issue. Extreme non-competes violate the constitution.
|
|
05-12-2022 04:19 PM |
|