(04-13-2022 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote: (04-13-2022 07:15 PM)bullet Wrote: (04-13-2022 06:53 PM)ken d Wrote: (04-13-2022 01:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (04-13-2022 12:25 PM)jimrtex Wrote: If college athletes are receiving compensation for playing golf, aren't they professionals? On what basis can colleges (and the NCAA) restrict them from earning money playing golf, particularly outside the official collegiate season?
Are there any advantages to being an amateur golfer other than you can play in the NCAA?
The courts may rule that the NCAA cannot restrict NCAA golfers from earning money playing golf. They may rule that collegiate golfers can earn money playing golf and still remain eligible to play NCAA events.
But the USGA has its own rules about amateurism.
Which raises this question. If SCOTUS can tell the NCAA what limits it can place on compensation of athletes, why can't it also tell the USGA what they can or can't impose? Do they prohibit sponsorship by equipment or apparel companies in defining who can play in its amateur tournaments?
Because it is entirely voluntary to chose that division.
If by "that division" you mean the USGA, I don't really see that it's any more voluntary than choosing to be in the NCAA. It's the only game in town if you want to compete in the US Amateur Championship, the Walker Cup or the Curtis Cup. I don't know what the requirements are for the British Ladies Amateur or the Open Championship, but they aren't under the purview of our SCOTUS.
Well, the SCOTUS can do a lot, but I think the difference is that with college, there hasn't been a choice for the players. That is, with the USGA, they have events for players that want to accept money (US Open) and players who don't want to accept money (US Amateur). So the players have a choice.
In contrast, the NCAA doesn't have that. If you want to accept money, there is no NCAA league or division or events that you can compete in. There is only (as of now) the "no pay" (excluding NIL) option. It isn't like they have the Rose Bowl for players who want to receive direct pay, and the Sugar Bowl for players who don't want to receive pay. It's either "no pay" or the highway, as all of the NCAA divisions, from FBS down to D3, are "no pay".
Also, one of the big problems I think the courts have with the NCAA is the 'restraint of trade' aspect. Meaning, the NCAA enforces its rules, such that if a member institution wants to pay players, that institution is banned from doing so and would be subject to NCAA sanctions if it tried to defy it. So there is a coercion of other organizations, members, who might like to create a competitive market for player payments, but are coerced to be part of the no pay cartel.
In contrast, IIRC, the USGA doesn't do anything like that. It's not like it imposes its will on the institutions that run the US Open and the US Amateur, because there are no such institutions - both are run by the USGA itself.
And really, since amateurs can play in the US Open too, if a player was trying to argue that they should be allowed to be called "amateur" but accept some kinds of compensation the USGA does not allow for amateurs, then really what they are arguing is that they want to be able to accept more money but still be shielded from competition from professionals, who are barred from the US Amateur. I am not sure a court would find that desire a compelling reason to meddle in the internal workings of the USGA.
Not that I have any expertise in how courts might or might not rule. I am continually shocked by some of the decisions that emanate from our federal courts.
/
College golfers and NIL
