Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Author Message
MU88 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,083
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 22
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #161
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.
10-09-2019 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,911
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #162
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.
10-09-2019 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #163
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 02:05 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-09-2019 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,352
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 167
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #164
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

The NCAA is going to lose if they fight this.... not in the courts, but in the membership. Within the 3 year window this takes to make the California law to become effective, more and more states will do something similar and the schools DO NOT want to be on the wrong side of this for the sake of the NCAA Amateurism rules when the opposite side is about money. The kids and parents are going to go to the money. It may be short sighted by the kids and families but money in hand is better than "possible" future money.

The big boys will pull out of the NCAA long before they get kicked out by the NCAA. Then it will all come crumbling down on Emmert and the rest of that good old boys club..
10-09-2019 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #165
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 02:56 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

The NCAA is going to lose if they fight this.... not in the courts, but in the membership. Within the 3 year window this takes to make the California law to become effective, more and more states will do something similar and the schools DO NOT want to be on the wrong side of this for the sake of the NCAA Amateurism rules when the opposite side is about money. The kids and parents are going to go to the money. It may be short sighted by the kids and families but money in hand is better than "possible" future money.

The big boys will pull out of the NCAA long before they get kicked out by the NCAA. Then it will all come crumbling down on Emmert and the rest of that good old boys club..

Your missing a really important key here--there really is no "NCAA". The "NCAA" is nothing more than its member schools. Not one of the member schools wants this--not one. The "big boys" have no interest in leaving to be part of a pay for play gig. Now, if this is forced on them---maybe they split off---but that aint happening until they have exhausted every way to fight it possible. We are nowhere near the end. This is essentially the second inning (with O'Bannon being the first inning).
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 03:46 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-09-2019 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,352
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 167
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #166
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
This isn't pay for play. The school aren't paying the players.

This is legalizing Booster/Sponsor activities and making it all accountable in the eyes of whomever the governing body ends up being and the IRS.....

This is going to happen.....
10-09-2019 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #167
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 03:37 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  This isn't pay for play. The school aren't paying the players.

This is legalizing Booster/Sponsor activities and making it all accountable in the eyes of whomever the governing body ends up being and the IRS.....

This is going to happen.....

Its going to take about 20 seconds (if that long) for this to devolve into pay for play. I think the current basketball shoe scandal makes it clear where the NIL law will immediate lead the game. All these laws will need to survive a basic challenge---can government force a private non-profit amateur league to adopt rules that make it a professional league? Im not so sure they can....lol, Im also not sure they cant.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 03:51 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-09-2019 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #168
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.


The NCAA does discriminate in a way. P5 schools do not want G5 schools be in the championship game. FBS is holding schools who want to move up from a lower levels to move up. The rules keeping schools from the lower levels without an invite from a conference to join. I n other words, NCAA do discriminate race, sex and gender from a school from winning a championship who are not in the P5.
10-09-2019 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #169
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 07:54 PM)Mav Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 09:55 PM)wrcwolf Wrote:  People really think multi-national companies are going to tell their stockholders that they need to spend thousands of dollars for an everyday 18-year-old prospect to attend the founders college? Good luck with that, Mr. Knight. Haha.

If the local car dealer wants to do it, let him. My guess is after a few years of getting burned by the guys that don't live up to their potential, transfers and flunkies, they will realize the ROR isn't worth the little commerce they get from the ads. I mean, do you all go to businesses today because the coach is a spokesman? No, you don't. [/align]
What makes you think it's going to be shareholders and not corporate reps? You really think this is just going to be individual boosters and used car lot owners, huh? Have you been paying any attention to the AAU or the college basketball scandal? This isn't 1965 anymore.

The problem with boosters paying in the past isn't the actual paying, it was the under-handed nature of it, because it is against NCAA rules. And that's why it also can become criminal, because in an effort to avoid NCAA detection, oftentimes schemes are devised that also break federal laws related to bribery or tax evasion, etc. and that's when the FBI gets involved.

If its all above-board, then those problems fall away. As for corporate involvement, corporations usually appeal to a wide audience so are unlikely to want to focus on particular schools. E.g., Nike isn't going to want to help pay for a recruit to go to Texas, because then that will piss off supporters of USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. So the business sponsorship is more likely to be local.

Adidas has already been caught doing just that.

ESPN has promoted schools it has over schools that are not on its network.

Adidas did it because they thought nobody would find out. If it's out in the open, it's out in the open. And even if Adidas is willing to risk the wrath of say North Carolina to provide support to Duke athletes, well, if they think that's good business, then its' good business.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 04:06 PM by quo vadis.)
10-09-2019 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersMike Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 210
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #170
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
The NCAA’s definition of a booster is that anyone who donates money to a college athletic program is a booster and thereby bound by NCAA bylaws regarding permissible and impermissible activities. And most season ticket holders are required by their schools to make an annual minimum donation to the athletic department to keep their current seat and parking locations. I believe the NCAA fears that if they try to enforce those bylaws, they will be sued and probably lose in court like they usually do. And no sane institution will ever say no to their sugar daddy donors. It’s probably going to come down to the conference level enforcing a common set of rules. Will this lead to a arms race between conferences? Most definitely. My prediction is that the NCAA will be relegated to running postseason tournaments and setting scholarship limits for each sport.
10-09-2019 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #171
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 05:35 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  The NCAA’s definition of a booster is that anyone who donates money to a college athletic program is a booster and thereby bound by NCAA bylaws regarding permissible and impermissible activities. And most season ticket holders are required by their schools to make an annual minimum donation to the athletic department to keep their current seat and parking locations. I believe the NCAA fears that if they try to enforce those bylaws, they will be sued and probably lose in court like they usually do. And no sane institution will ever say no to their sugar daddy donors. It’s probably going to come down to the conference level enforcing a common set of rules. Will this lead to a arms race between conferences? Most definitely. My prediction is that the NCAA will be relegated to running postseason tournaments and setting scholarship limits for each sport.

There is no way to enforce these kinds of rules in an environment where accepting NIL money is within the rules. The NCAA either loses its fight and is forced to become a straight up pay-for-play league or wins it court battle, retaining its currently amateur model. Anyone who thinks the olympic "amateur" model can work in college sports hasnt been paying attention for the last 50 years or more. I dont think that point is difficult to prove given the current ongoing basketball shoe scandal---which is why I think the NCAA actually has a really good chance of winning the court battle. This is not a minor adjustment to the rules---it literally creates a radical sea change in the NCAA's currently successful athletic model.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 05:45 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-09-2019 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,911
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #172
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.
10-09-2019 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,911
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #173
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 03:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 03:37 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  This isn't pay for play. The school aren't paying the players.

This is legalizing Booster/Sponsor activities and making it all accountable in the eyes of whomever the governing body ends up being and the IRS.....

This is going to happen.....

Its going to take about 20 seconds (if that long) for this to devolve into pay for play. I think the current basketball shoe scandal makes it clear where the NIL law will immediate lead the game. All these laws will need to survive a basic challenge---can government force a private non-profit amateur league to adopt rules that make it a professional league? Im not so sure they can....lol, Im also not sure they cant.

AC, "pay for play" infers that all athletes will be paid some amount, and it will be done by the schools. That is not remotely what is happening.
10-09-2019 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #174
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 05:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.

Yes, Coog seems to forget that the Appeals court in the O'Bannon case merely said that scholarship + FCOA absolved the NCAA of its anti-trust violation in barring payment for names and licenses, but that is entirely different from what the NCAA would need now, which is a court to rule that states that want to free their athletes to exploit their names and likenesses are somehow violating ..... what legal principle?
10-09-2019 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #175
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 05:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.


It was ruled by a radical judge in California. If the case were taken to a conservative judge, he would rule against O'Bannon. That is why you can overturned a ruling that is unjustly.
10-09-2019 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #176
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 06:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 05:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.


It was ruled by a radical judge in California. If the case were taken to a conservative judge, he would rule against O'Bannon. That is why you can overturned a ruling that is unjustly.

I am conservative, have voted for the GOP presidential candidate in every election since I got the franchise in 1984, but I support what California has done.

I don't think this issue is particularly ideological one way or the other, but if you pressed me, the free-market aspect tips it more towards a conservative position than a liberal one.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 06:33 PM by quo vadis.)
10-09-2019 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 21,435
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1850
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #177
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 06:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 06:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 05:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.


It was ruled by a radical judge in California. If the case were taken to a conservative judge, he would rule against O'Bannon. That is why you can overturned a ruling that is unjustly.

I am conservative, have voted for the GOP presidential candidate in every election since I got the franchise in 1984, but I support what California has done.

I don't think this issue is particularly ideological one way or the other, but if you pressed me, the free-market aspect tips it more towards a conservative position than a liberal one.

We agree on this. The NCAA is a voluntary organization. No school is compelled to be a member. That is why if California begins this a new organization will arise. No large school within the top 40 or so schools will want a gap to arise that would tempt the best players away.

I do think however that California has taken the wrong approach in this matter. The use of likenesses will be somewhat problematic for the schools inasmuch as their images and logos are likely under contract elsewhere. But the greater problem will be the divisiveness it will so on teams. Athletes already know who the star are, but having the monetary difference on display will make cooperation tougher.

I think it would be much easier to simply move to a pay for play where all of the costs of school are included along with adequate pay for play. Put players under contract and schools can recoup investment if a player leaves early for the Pros. The Pro contract would simply buy out the university's contract.

It's a can of worms to be sure, but the schools have a lure to make this move, basketball revenue. They have a big upside in wresting this from the NCAA.
10-09-2019 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #178
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

It should be noted that the only current congressional bill that deals with the matter doesn't technically attempt to define eligibility in private amateur organizations; rather, it seeks to redefine what constitutes an amateur organization that qualifies for tax-exempt status. If that bill were to pass as it's currently written, the Internal Revenue code would be amended to include the part in bold below:

Quote:§501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
...
(j) Special rules for certain amateur sports organizations
...
(2) Qualified amateur sports organization defined
For purposes of this subsection, the term "qualified amateur sports organization" means any organization organized and operated exclusively to foster national or international amateur sports competition if such organization is also organized and operated primarily to conduct national or international competition in sports or to support and develop amateur athletes for national or international competition in sports. Such term does not include an organization that substantially restricts a student athlete from using, or being reasonably compensated for the third party use of, the name, image, or likeness of such student athlete.

So the NCAA could continue to deny athletes the ability to exercise their NIL rights if it wanted. (It wouldn't)
10-09-2019 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #179
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 06:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 05:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.

Yes, Coog seems to forget that the Appeals court in the O'Bannon case merely said that scholarship + FCOA absolved the NCAA of its anti-trust violation in barring payment for names and licenses, but that is entirely different from what the NCAA would need now, which is a court to rule that states that want to free their athletes to exploit their names and likenesses are somehow violating ..... what legal principle?

True, but of O'Bannon the 9th Circuit COA also said this:

Quote:...In our judgment, however, the district court clearly erred in finding it a viable alterative [sic] to allow students to receive NIL cash payments untethered to their education expenses...

...The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap. Once that line is crossed, we see no basis for returning to a rule of amateurism and no defined stopping point; we have little doubt that plaintiffs will continue to challenge the arbitrary limit imposed by the district court until they have captured the full value of their NIL. At that point the NCAA will have surrendered its amateurism principles entirely...

This is why we keep hearing some NCAA types paying lip service to NIL action while using the words "tethered to education" (as if there is some way to tie education & 3rd party payments to athletes.)

Direct pay for play is the very last thing the NCAA wants. (I'm all for it. They do it anyway via athletic schollys.)
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 08:12 PM by chester.)
10-09-2019 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,931
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 151
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #180
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-026

Part 7. Rulings and Agreements
Chapter 25. Exempt Organizations Determinations Manual
Section 26. Amateur Sports Organizations
7.25.26 Amateur Sports Organizations
7.25.26.1 (04-08-1999)
Overview

1. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 amended IRC 501©(3) to exempt from federal income taxation organizations organized and operated exclusively to foster national or international amateur sports competition, provided they do not furnish athletic facilities or equipment. The statute was amended in 1982 by adding IRC 501(j).

2. IRC 501(j)(1) provides generally that a "qualified amateur sports organization" that otherwise satisfies the requirements of IRC 501©(3) will qualify as exempt regardless of whether it provides athletic facilities or equipment and regardless of whether its membership is local or regional in nature. A "qualified amateur sports organization is" defined in IRC 501(j)(2) as an organization organized and operated exclusively to foster national or international amateur sports competition if it is also organized and operated primarily to conduct or to support and develop amateur athletes for national or international competition in sports.

3. Conforming changes were made to the charitable contribution provisions of IRC 170, 2055, and 2522. IRC 501(j) is effective retroactively to October 5, 1976, the date of the original amateur sports legislation under IRC 501©(3).

7.25.26.2 (04-08-1999)
Qualification under IRC 501©(3) or IRC 501©(4)

1. Sports activity is not in and of itself an exempt activity under IRC 501©. However, amateur sports organizations may qualify for IRC 501©(3) exemption under any of three different rationales.

a. An organization may be educational within the meaning of IRC 501©(3) if it teaches sports to youth or by being affiliated with an exempt educational organization. Such educational organizations may also provide facilities and equipment. (This is where/why colleges athletic depts are considered exempt)

b. An organization that develops, promotes, and regulates a sport for youths may be charitable within the meaning of IRC 501©(3) as combatting juvenile delinquency or lessening the burdens of government. See Rev. Ruls. 59–310, 1959–2 C.B. 146; and 80–125, supra. These organizations, like those that qualify as educational, may also provide facilities and equipment. In The Media Sports League, Inc. v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo 1986–568, the Tax Court dealt with an organization that arranged football, softball, volleyball, and other games among its members with membership open to all persons over age twenty-one without regard to their skills in the sport. The organization offered members informal instruction in the fundamentals of each sport, but members were not required to receive instruction or to participate in any athletic activities. The Tax Court held that the organization was not exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(3) because the social and recreational interests of its members constituted a substantial purpose, which is not an exempt one under IRC 501©(3). The Court cited its own case of Hutchinson Baseball Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 144 (1979) aff’d. 696 F. 2d 757 (10th Cir. 1982), holding that "the promotion, sponsorship, and advancement of amateur and recreational sports is a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 501©(3)," and found that "the furtherance of amateur athletics is one of the [organization’s] goals." The distinction appears to be one of whether the organization has as a substantial purpose the social and/or recreational interests of its members who are primarily casual athletes rather than the organization’s fostering serious sports competition. The Service nonacquiesced in the Hutchinson decision in 1980–2 C.B. 2. The Tax Court followed the Hutchinson case in J. David Gladstone Foundation v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 221 (1981) .
Nevertheless, the Service will not follow the decision in the Hutchinson case.

c. The organization is organized and operated to foster national or international amateur sports competition and no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment. (ie NCAA)

2. Similar organizations that cannot or choose not to meet the requirements of IRC 501©(3) may qualify for exemption under IRC 501©(4). See IRM 7.25.4.

7.25.26.3 (04-08-1999)
Qualification Specifically under IRC 501(j)

The intention of IRC 501(j) is to relieve certain organizations from the prohibition in IRC 501©(3) against the provision of facilities or equipment. To meet the requirements of IRC 501(j) the organization must not only meet the general requirements of an IRC 501©(3) organization that "fosters national or international sports competition," but must also be a "qualified amateur sports organization" under IRC 501(j)(2). IRC 501(j) requires the organization to "conduct national or international competition in sports or to support and develop amateur athletes for national or international competition in sports."
Frequently, the distinction between the IRC 501©(3) and the IRC 501(j) provisions is blurred. Organizations that "foster national or international sports competition" generally do so by conducting national or international competition or by supporting or developing amateur athletes for such competition. Typically, the amateur sports organization will promulgate official rules and standards of play; charter and supervise teams; provide coaching, equipment, and facilities; organize inter-team competition; and promote and advertise a sport. These activities are typical of "qualified amateur sports organizations." Thus, the IRC 501©(3) prohibition on the provision of athletic facilities and equipment is effectively negated for the typical amateur sports organization.

7.25.26.7 (04-08-1999)
Compensation of Athletes

Some organizations provide financial support for athletes who are in the organization’s athletic training programs. The forms of support may include stipends, payment of living expenses, housing, and scholarships. Aside from the question of inurement or private benefit under IRC 501©(3), whenever the national governing body of the sport involved does not consider the type of support paid to the athletes as destroying the athletes’ eligibility to participate in competitions as amateurs, the Service will also recognize such athletes as amateurs in the application of IRC 501(j). Such an organization fits the definition of an "amateur sports organization" within the ambit of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, which establishes the United States Olympic Committee and regulates the United States’ participation in the Olympic Games. The Congressional intent underlying both that Act and IRC 501(j) is similar. Under circumstances where such payments do destroy the amateur status of an athlete under the rules of the relevant sanctioning body, the organization cannot qualify the exemption under IRC 501(j).

[Since the NCAA considers NIL as damaging amateur status the IRS will not recognize those athletes as amateurs but professional.]

Remember, the NCAA is a body of over a thousand colleges and not just the P5 schools

7.25.26.8 (04-08-1999)
Digest of Published Rulings

Semi-professional baseball club—The nonprofit organization distributed approximately 95 percent of the net gate receipts among the players as players’ splits or shares pursuant to individual contracts entered into between the corporation and the players. The operation of a semi-professional baseball club is ordinarily a commercial activity and not exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(4) . Rev. Rul. 55–516, 1955–2 C.B. 260, distinguished by Rev. Rul. 69–384, 1969–2 C.B. 122.

(Can't give athletics gate receipts of college games)

Interscholastic athletic association—An organization that directs and controls interscholastic high school athletic competition; prescribes eligibility rules for contestants and penalties for the violation of such rules and for violation of the rules of play in various sports; conducts sectional, district, and sate meets or tournaments; arranges schedules for contests; trains and assigns game officials; and makes suitable awards in the state meets is exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(3) as organized and operated primarily for educational purposes. Rev. Rul. 55–587, 1955–2 C.B. 261.

Operation of recreational facilities for children and other residents of a community—A non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of establishing, maintaining, and operating a public swimming pool, playground, and other recreation facilities for the children and other residents of a community is exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501(a) as charitable within the meaning of IRC 501©(3) but acquiescence in the holding in Isabel Peters v. Commissioner, 21 T. C. 55, which action replaces a previous nonacquiescence, 1955–1 C.B. 8, does not constitute agreement with all the reasons given for such holding. Rev. Rul. 59–310, 1959–2 C.B. 146.

Training for Olympic and Pan American Games—An organization created essentially to provide advanced training to suitable candidates in the techniques of racing small sailboats in national and international competition to improve the caliber of candidates representing the United States in the Olympic and Pan American Games and other international racing events qualifies for exemption from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(3) as educational organizations. Rev. Rul. 64–275, 1964–2 C.B. 142.

Teaching a particular sport to children—An organization teaching a particular sport to children by holding clinics conducted by qualified instructors in schools, playgrounds, and parks; by encouraging student participation in tournaments; by arranging for attendance by players and instructors at state tournaments; and by providing free instruction, equipment, and facilities is exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(3) as educational. Rev. Rul. 65–2, 1965–1 C.B. 227; amplified by Rev. Rul. 77–365, 1977–2 C.B. 192.

Stimulating sports activity by youths—A nonprofit organization that stimulates the interest of youth in the community in organized sports may qualify for exemption from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(4). The organization furnishes free admission to youths at sporting events. It does not conduct sports activities itself but does sponsor various essay contests, awarding prizes to the winners. The prizes usually consist of trips to sporting events in other cities and the chance to participate in the broadcast of sports programs by local radio and television stations. Rev. Rul. 68–118, 1968–1 C.B. 261.

Amateur baseball association—An organization created to maintain an amateur baseball association made up of baseball teams with amateur players of college age is exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(4). Rev. Rul. 55–516, 1955–2 C.B. 260, distinguished. Rev. Rul. 69–384, 1969–2 C.B. 122.

Promoting and regulating a sport for amateurs—An organization engaged in promoting and regulating a sport for amateurs is not exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501©(3) but is exempt under IRC 501©(4). The organization had no regular teaching program. Rev. Rul. 70–4, 1970–1 C.B. 126. Distinguished by Rev. Rul. 80–215, 1980–2 C.B. 174.

Community sports activity—An otherwise qualifying non-profit organization conducting clinics, workshops, lessons, and seminars at municipal parks and recreational areas to instruct and educate individuals in a particular sport is operated exclusively for educational purposes and qualifies for exemption under IRC 501©(3). Rev. Rul. 77–365, 1977–2 C.B. 192, amplifying Rev. Rul. 65–2, 1965–1 C.B. 227.

Promoting sports for children—An otherwise qualifying organization formed to develop, promote, and regulate a sport for individuals under 18 years of age by organizing local and statewide competitions, promulgating rules, organizing officials, presenting seminars, distributing a newsletter, and otherwise encouraging growth of the sport qualifies for exemption under IRC 501©(3). This organization limits its activities to individuals under the age of 18 years. Rev. Rul. 80–215, 1980–2 C.B. 174, distinguishing Rev. Rul. 70–4, 1970–1 C.B. 126.

The sale of exclusive broadcasting rights to athletic events by an organization created as a national governing body for amateur athletics does not constitute an unrelated trade or business where the organization sponsors, supervises, and regulates programs in a number of different sports and arranges for and coordinates open competition for amateur athletes at the local, state, regional, and national levels. The revenue ruling does not directly discuss the qualification of organizations sponsoring athletic competition but suggest that such organizations can qualify under IRC 501©(3) without indicating whether the organization discussed qualifies by virtue of the "foster[ing] national or international amateur sports competition" language in that section. Rev. Rul. 80–295, 1980–2 C.B. 194.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 08:29 PM by MWC Tex.)
10-09-2019 08:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.