(05-12-2022 03:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 03:30 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 02:15 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  Frank, you might have said "the insurance company will pay for it".

Third party monies are funds that would have gotten to the school instead of some individuals pocket.
NIL isn't going to kill the goose, but it will rob the nest of lots of golden eggs.

Which is still a win for AD budgets.
They get donors to spend more on the most revenue generating input, but keep the revenue.
The fixed costs and inflated salaries will come down now that the arms race is on donors buying players.

The real question is once the ADs can spend on players directly, how quickly to they get a CBA in place? Otherwise ADs will be incentivized to compete with each other on players. Still, a lot less need for gold locker rooms then, but a CBA is beneficial to schools and players

Help me understand why is a win for AD budgets.
Donors don't give money to the school but make risky investments in players of unknown benefit to the school.
The school gets less money but keeps the revenue?
How long will it take to reduce those inflated salaries?

Because right now they are forced to spend millions on even riskier things. What’s the ROI on a building? On an unproven coach?

Instead, they can now have donors just buy players.

In fact, if donors won’t do it, you’ll see schools redirect funds to NIL, basically giving donors their money back to donate to NIL, as it’s a better driver of revenue..

In the transition period, funds will be borrowed for fixed costs if donors don’t increase and variable cost relief isn’t an option. Effectively the same as refinancing.

Paying players is much more efficient than the previous arms race. It is actually a direct revenue generating cost. Likely with a CBA to keep it from escalating

Why? Nobody ever paid players before (except the SEC).
Your math is still fuzzy, now you have the schools paying the players with NIL funds and borrowing money for capital improvements instead of using donated funds?
It must be "new math".

Because of amateurism. Yes, it is ridiculous we've held on to that for so long and created a backmarket for player compensation.

The math is not fuzzy at all. I am not sure I can make it clearer, but I'll try.

I provided an example how even schools in which donors foolishly do not want to pay players, the input cost with best ROI, the AD will still use their donations to pay for players over buildings.

Any fixed costs already incurred in which moving such donations would jeopardize, would be covered by borrowing if needed. That is how much paying players is superior to any other cost- costs inflated due to arms race spending infrastructure and salaries as proxy's to spend on players.

Pretty simple stuff. Hope that helps.

Frank has this right. For a few years, while ADs and boosters figure out where the real market is, there will be some chaos in the schools' budgets. But eventually, schools will find that some money that used to come to them from boosters will now go to players and that will mean less revenue for the schools. But they will also find that their expenses will be reduced as well, because they won't feel compelled to spend extravagantly on amenities that already have diminishing returns for recruiting top talent.

And, for most P5 schools at least, they have already run out of ideas for new capital projects like IPFs and weight rooms because those are already in place. So the money that would have gone in the future to more questionable capital expenditures will now be available to fund player salaries.

The concern is that the money freed up by the Washington States or Appalachian States might allow them to afford to play $10,000 salaries, but the Alabamas, Ohio States and Texas' would let them afford to pay $50K - $100K or more and create an ever growing gap between the few richest schools and everybody else that's far greater than anything we have seen to date.

At some point, college sports will need to find some legal mechanism to restore competitiveness or fans will gradually lose interest in the product.

Maybe I'm coming into this conversation way too late or maybe I'm just not fully understanding everything, but what is the actual incentive to this potential pro-lite model for P5 programs? Is it more media dollars? Writing your own rulebook? Being able to solicit more donor dollars? Increasing salaries? I'm truly curious here and would love to hear thoughts, as I just... don't get it.

From an outsiders perspective, we don't need another pro-lite sports league. We don't need another MiLB to feed into the MLB. We don't need the Syracuse Orange football team to only exist to be a feeder program for the Albany Empire so they can be a feeder program for the Buffalo Bills. We don't need another easy route out to encourage kids to get that quick buck that likely won't set them up for long-term success.

And maybe I'm in the minority here, but professionalizing college sports, or even segmenting them further from the academic side of the house, just feels grimy and dirty. It feels like that kid only got into Duke because he could throw a ball, not because he was an exceptional student AND an exceptional athlete. Is that already happening at many schools? I'm sure, but this separation would solidify it for good, something that I don't think we need. Instead, tying college sports to a college degree ensures that that kid is going to have a future, regardless of whether they go on to play professionally or not. Taking that aspect out means we are just milking them however long their bodies will last and throwing them out to figure out what the hell they do now with no career, no degree, and no clue what else they like to do.

Hell, the idea of professionalizing college sports bores me already. I don't give a damn about watching Alabama beat up Ohio State when those players have no loyalty to that team or school, just loyalty to the cameras that are catching them dancing in the endzone. If I wanted to see showboating by semi-pro athletes who were told they were the best by their high school coach, I could turn on the XFL any day of the week, but at some point, I question if these college athletic administrators give a damn about their fans anymore or if they've only been blinded by dollar signs.

Also, yes, pay college athletes, but standardize it across the nation. Stop kneecapping the App States, Louisvilles, UCFs, and Cincinattis so you can lift the Alabamas, Ohio States, Michigans, and Texas A&Ms up a little higher.

(05-11-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I doubt it.

All of these schools seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It's easy for all of these schools to bemoan that NIL, the transfer portal and other changes in college sports are negatively impacting their respective academic missions.

However, what's not easy for all of these schools is no longer seeing their football and/or basketball games in prime slots on major TV networks while making tens of millions of dollars per year from their respective conferences. That's what would happen if they become a lower tier version of college sports compared to the "SEC pro model" that you've mentioned here.

If these schools are truly and legitimately fine with the latter (the direct loss of money and exposure by downgrading sports), then more power to them. I don't buy that will happen at all, though - not Stanford, not ND, not Duke, not anyone that's currently in a P5 league. Call me crazy, but unilaterally downgrading money and prestige (which is conferred with P5 membership) isn't something that really wealthy and prestigious schools actively choose to do in anything that they participate in, which would include sports.

Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

(05-12-2022 10:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I doubt it.

All of these schools seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It's easy for all of these schools to bemoan that NIL, the transfer portal and other changes in college sports are negatively impacting their respective academic missions.

However, what's not easy for all of these schools is no longer seeing their football and/or basketball games in prime slots on major TV networks while making tens of millions of dollars per year from their respective conferences. That's what would happen if they become a lower tier version of college sports compared to the "SEC pro model" that you've mentioned here.

If these schools are truly and legitimately fine with the latter (the direct loss of money and exposure by downgrading sports), then more power to them. I don't buy that will happen at all, though - not Stanford, not ND, not Duke, not anyone that's currently in a P5 league. Call me crazy, but unilaterally downgrading money and prestige (which is conferred with P5 membership) isn't something that really wealthy and prestigious schools actively choose to do in anything that they participate in, which would include sports.

Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I doubt it.

All of these schools seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It's easy for all of these schools to bemoan that NIL, the transfer portal and other changes in college sports are negatively impacting their respective academic missions.

However, what's not easy for all of these schools is no longer seeing their football and/or basketball games in prime slots on major TV networks while making tens of millions of dollars per year from their respective conferences. That's what would happen if they become a lower tier version of college sports compared to the "SEC pro model" that you've mentioned here.

If these schools are truly and legitimately fine with the latter (the direct loss of money and exposure by downgrading sports), then more power to them. I don't buy that will happen at all, though - not Stanford, not ND, not Duke, not anyone that's currently in a P5 league. Call me crazy, but unilaterally downgrading money and prestige (which is conferred with P5 membership) isn't something that really wealthy and prestigious schools actively choose to do in anything that they participate in, which would include sports.

Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

(05-13-2022 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I doubt it.

All of these schools seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It's easy for all of these schools to bemoan that NIL, the transfer portal and other changes in college sports are negatively impacting their respective academic missions.

However, what's not easy for all of these schools is no longer seeing their football and/or basketball games in prime slots on major TV networks while making tens of millions of dollars per year from their respective conferences. That's what would happen if they become a lower tier version of college sports compared to the "SEC pro model" that you've mentioned here.

If these schools are truly and legitimately fine with the latter (the direct loss of money and exposure by downgrading sports), then more power to them. I don't buy that will happen at all, though - not Stanford, not ND, not Duke, not anyone that's currently in a P5 league. Call me crazy, but unilaterally downgrading money and prestige (which is conferred with P5 membership) isn't something that really wealthy and prestigious schools actively choose to do in anything that they participate in, which would include sports.

Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

And you have it backwards on politics imo. They’ll do whatever the emerging P2 wants, as that will constitute most fans

There’s just not a lot of political capital in pretending this is amateurism anymore, which is causing most of the issues

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

I don't think details like that matter so much. My point was that if the P2 steals top expansion targets from the ACC and Pac-12, meaning the remaining ACC and Pac-12 schools will no longer have primo TV exposure and money, and the "losers" will try try desperately to save face.

That's where I believe some type of Ivy League approach will be preferred (regardless of the compensation details)--it allows them to take a high brow approach that maintains their dignity/status.

(05-13-2022 09:23 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

I don't think details like that matter so much. My point was that if the P2 steals top expansion targets from the ACC and Pac-12, meaning the remaining ACC and Pac-12 schools will no longer have primo TV exposure and money, and the "losers" will try try desperately to save face.

That's where I believe some type of Ivy League approach will be preferred (regardless of the compensation details)--it allows them to take a high brow approach that maintains their dignity/status.

If the details don’t matter, what do you mean by an Ivy approach?

Not competing at the highest level hasn’t saved face for the Ivy League- their academics have. The leftovers won’t have that. There’s a reason you’re saying Ivy approach rather than Pioneer or other FCS conference. That’s death to the leftovers, not saving face

Those not able to get in the P2 do NOT benefit from intentionally contracting even more.

The leftovers in combination with the very top G5 will band together and form the antitrust conference. Aka, what the Big 12 is going for. Making what they’re currently making, likely still getting some benefits of the escalating TV rights, plus using antitrust to get access, is FAR FAR better than slashing budgets by 85%. Dropping to Ivy approach would result in default risk, massive layoffs, and even more loss of fans

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I doubt it.

All of these schools seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It's easy for all of these schools to bemoan that NIL, the transfer portal and other changes in college sports are negatively impacting their respective academic missions.

However, what's not easy for all of these schools is no longer seeing their football and/or basketball games in prime slots on major TV networks while making tens of millions of dollars per year from their respective conferences. That's what would happen if they become a lower tier version of college sports compared to the "SEC pro model" that you've mentioned here.

If these schools are truly and legitimately fine with the latter (the direct loss of money and exposure by downgrading sports), then more power to them. I don't buy that will happen at all, though - not Stanford, not ND, not Duke, not anyone that's currently in a P5 league. Call me crazy, but unilaterally downgrading money and prestige (which is conferred with P5 membership) isn't something that really wealthy and prestigious schools actively choose to do in anything that they participate in, which would include sports.

Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

And you have it backwards on politics imo. They’ll do whatever the emerging P2 wants, as that will constitute most fans

There’s just not a lot of political capital in pretending this is amateurism anymore, which is causing most of the issues

The question of amateurism vs professionalism is quite different from the question of employee, contractor or other. You can vote for recognizing that college sports are not (and have not been) amateur without supporting legislation to change athletes' employee status.

(05-13-2022 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

And you have it backwards on politics imo. They’ll do whatever the emerging P2 wants, as that will constitute most fans

There’s just not a lot of political capital in pretending this is amateurism anymore, which is causing most of the issues

The question of amateurism vs professionalism is quite different from the question of employee, contractor or other. You can vote for recognizing that college sports are not (and have not been) amateur without supporting legislation to change athletes' employee status.

That's a conversation of taxonomy, if not just being pedantic.

Call it whatever you want, student-employee, student-contractor, student professional, would be a catalyst to seismic change, and is being ruled on soon.

Conventionally speaking, if you're not an amateur, you're able to be paid directly for you athletic talents. Doing so would greatly help solve the issues plaguing college basketball and football. CBAs are needed.

And outside the traditionalists, that tend to be the ones on message boards, athletes getting more of the revenue they bring in will have political support.

(05-13-2022 12:22 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Call it whatever you want, student-employee, student-contractor, student professional, would be a catalyst to seismic change, and is being ruled on soon.

Conventionally speaking, if you're not an amateur, you're able to be paid directly for you athletic talents. Doing so would greatly help solve the issues plaguing college basketball and football. CBAs are needed.

And outside the traditionalists, that tend to be the ones on message boards, athletes getting more of the revenue they bring in will have political support.

Are band members employees? Cheerleaders?

(05-13-2022 12:25 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:22 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Call it whatever you want, student-employee, student-contractor, student professional, would be a catalyst to seismic change, and is being ruled on soon.

Conventionally speaking, if you're not an amateur, you're able to be paid directly for you athletic talents. Doing so would greatly help solve the issues plaguing college basketball and football. CBAs are needed.

And outside the traditionalists, that tend to be the ones on message boards, athletes getting more of the revenue they bring in will have political support.

Are band members employees? Cheerleaders?

If they do a lot of work to bring in value, they may be.

I don't frequent many marching band or cheerleading boards, but perhaps they are and they have their own version of Johnson vs NCAA

(05-12-2022 01:26 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 03:58 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 01:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 12:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The school doesn't pay NIL in the first place. This is third party money. That's the first mistake that so many posts seem to make. No school should care whatsoever how much NIL money their players are receiving (and if anything, ought to be encouraging it so it disincentivizes those players from seeking more direct compensation from the schools themselves). A school earning $40 million from TV while their roster is receiving $400 million in NIL compensation is a school that's earning $40 million from TV while paying $0 in NIL compensation (with a lot of happy players that aren't trying to get money directly from the schools). That's essentially the best deal ever for the schools.

Ideally, NIL doesnt affect school revenue. However, in practice, college AD's are now discovering thats not how its working. The reality? The pool of revenue potentially available to college sports hasn't actually changed. The same total pool of advertising, corporate sponsorship, and alum donation dollars that existed before NIL exists after NIL. The real difference is to whom it will be paid. The that pool of money used for direct payments to players, means less will be available to flow directly to the schools.

I don't totally agree. At some point NIL money will be replacing direct donations to the schools. But I see a lot of new money out there right now.

Zero Sum game.

Seriously it is a huge risk for a business to invest in an 18 year old. For every Tebow, Melo and Brady there are 200 4 and 5 star kids who might make pro but have very limited marketability.

Much safer for a business to donate to a school.

Is the NBA aware that they should be drafting buildings rather than 19 year olds?

It's an operating expense. The most impactful to winning, ratings, and thus revenue

The bucks never won anything. Then they announced they were building new locker rooms with a waterfall and putting a lazy river around their facilities. Next thing you know it's a championship. It's all on the administration in Milwaukee and coach bud, ignore that 7 foot tall Greek dude. He just happened to be there.

(05-13-2022 12:25 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:22 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Call it whatever you want, student-employee, student-contractor, student professional, would be a catalyst to seismic change, and is being ruled on soon.

Conventionally speaking, if you're not an amateur, you're able to be paid directly for you athletic talents. Doing so would greatly help solve the issues plaguing college basketball and football. CBAs are needed.

And outside the traditionalists, that tend to be the ones on message boards, athletes getting more of the revenue they bring in will have political support.

Are band members employees? Cheerleaders?

We've addressed this straw man argument that we seem to seeing a lot of lately elsewhere.

A university could choose to pay athletes, band members, cheerleaders or anyone else to be employees. Anyone could be an employee by the university's choice in theory. However, that isn't threshold issue.

Instead, the threshold issue is whether certain people are *deemed* to be employees under applicable law despite the university trying to argue that they shouldn't have employment status. Essentially, we're examining who would be deemed to be employees even when it's *not* the university's choice to do so.

On that front, athletes (at least at the Division I and II levels) are very different than band members and cheerleaders. Athletes are required to:

(1) Sign a National Letter of Intent that binds them to participate in the athletic activity at a specific university, which is an employment-like agreement;

(2) Be subject to restrictions on transferring to other universities if they want to participate in that athletic activity elsewhere, which is an employment-like non-compete restriction; and

(3) Suffer direct negative repercussions if they choose to stop participating in that activity (e.g. losing an athletic scholarship), which is an employment-like detriment.

Even band members and cheerleaders that could conceivably have scholarships tied to their participation in their activity under #3 above still wouldn't be subject to the agreement terms and restrictions under #1 and #2. No student is signing a National Letter of Intent or restricted from transferring to another university for any activity other than athletics.

That's why colleges are at risk specifically regarding athletes being deemed employees much more than virtually any other activity because they have a legal agreement regarding their activity and transfer (AKA non-compete) restrictions that don't apply to anyone else (even if they might be receiving a band/cheerleading scholarship or spending many hours per week on their activity).

This is the dilemma for colleges and the fans that bemoan that it's the Wild Wild West regarding NIL compensation and the transfer portal: the more that colleges attempt to restrict the compensation and transfer ability of athletes, the MORE likely that those athletes are going to be deemed to be employees. Essentially, if you *don't* want direct pay-for-play compensation from schools to athletes, the schools essentially *have* to allow for the Wild Wild West for NIL money and transfers to continue. Otherwise, any restrictions on player movement and compensation would in and of themselves be evidence of a deemed employer-employee relationship (and there's a pretty good case that the current restrictions on athletes would already be judged to create that employer-employee relationship if this gets litigated in court).

This is also why part of why George Kliavkoff and Greg Sankey were lobbying Congress last week on the athlete employment status issue. They're likely getting advice from their lawyers that athletes would be deemed to be employees under current applicable law (or at least close enough that they're going to get embroiled in constant litigation over the issue). As a result, the only real way to avoid that is for Congress to pass a law that effectively makes student-athletes an exception. I highly doubt that's going to work at all (as there's simply so much more support from across the entire political spectrum in favor of the athletes over the colleges here), but we'll see.

(05-13-2022 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  Do these schools have much choice in the matter? An Ivy League-type of model might be the best available alternative if these schools' conferences are shaken up significantly and they're stuck on the outside looking in.

Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

And you have it backwards on politics imo. They’ll do whatever the emerging P2 wants, as that will constitute most fans

There’s just not a lot of political capital in pretending this is amateurism anymore, which is causing most of the issues

The question of amateurism vs professionalism is quite different from the question of employee, contractor or other. You can vote for recognizing that college sports are not (and have not been) amateur without supporting legislation to change athletes' employee status.

ken, you might do a better job defending the NCAA and its members than their lawyers do.

Defendants in Johnson v NCAA have not argued plaintiffs are independent contractors. How can they? That would make them pros, which the NCAA always denies.

When considering whether Johnson plaintiffs can be employees under the FLSA as it is currently worded (no change needed), the district judge weighed "employees" vs "unpaid intern". --And that was at the request of defendants as an alternative to their preference, which was to apply no test at all because, hey, plaintiffs are obviously amateurs, not employees! He decided, yes, they can be employees. The question is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal.

My understanding is that in all of the FLSA lawsuits brought in recent years, defendants have used amateurism as a defense. That may have worked in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits but the Third is not strictly bound by their precedents. Besides, those prior cases came before the Supreme Court indicated in Alston that the "tradition of amateurism" is not an excuse for breaking laws.

(05-13-2022 01:55 PM)chester Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:39 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Ivy league model in which athletes technically get zero compensation for their work? Not likely to be an option if athletes are ruled employees

If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

And you have it backwards on politics imo. They’ll do whatever the emerging P2 wants, as that will constitute most fans

There’s just not a lot of political capital in pretending this is amateurism anymore, which is causing most of the issues

The question of amateurism vs professionalism is quite different from the question of employee, contractor or other. You can vote for recognizing that college sports are not (and have not been) amateur without supporting legislation to change athletes' employee status.

ken, you might do a better job defending the NCAA and its members than their lawyers do.

Defendants in Johnson v NCAA have not argued plaintiffs are independent contractors. How can they? That would make them pros, which the NCAA always denies.

When considering whether Johnson plaintiffs can be employees under the FLSA as it is currently worded (no change needed), the district judge weighed "employees" vs "unpaid intern". --And that was at the request of defendants as an alternative to their preference, which was to apply no test at all because, hey, plaintiffs are obviously amateurs, not employees! He decided, yes, they can be employees. The question is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal.

My understanding is that in all of the FLSA lawsuits brought in recent years, defendants have used amateurism as a defense. That may have worked in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits but the Third is not strictly bound by their precedents. Besides, those prior cases came before the Supreme Court indicated in Alston that the "tradition of amateurism" is not an excuse for breaking laws.

Heh - even if the NCAA can convince the courts that athletes are unpaid interns, it's a pyrrhic victory because that still doesn't absolve them of antitrust law that would apply when all of the NCAA members are collectively colluding and agreeing to all not pay their athletes on an unpaid intern basis.

There are several industries where unpaid internships are common, particularly in the media industry. Each company can make the *individual* decision regarding unpaid interns. However, it's still illegal under antitrust law for multiple media companies (or companies in any other industry) to *collectively* agree to all not pay their interns. That same rationale would apply to the multiple colleges that are members of the NCAA.

(05-13-2022 02:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 01:55 PM)chester Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  If I read the current status of the law correctly, athletes are not considered employees, nor are they considered independent contractors. I'm not sure what constitutional issue might be claimed in order for SCOTUS to say they are employees. In the absence of that, Congress would have to act to change their status.

As long as athletes are being compensated in ways that are tolerable to both the House and Senate, I'm not sure there's much political upside to passing a law that says they are employees, and in many states there could be a political downside. The only benefit to taxpayers would be that some athlete compensation would become subject to FICA (it's already subject to income tax) which is chump change in the federal budget, so I'm doubtful this will happen.

Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

And you have it backwards on politics imo. They’ll do whatever the emerging P2 wants, as that will constitute most fans

There’s just not a lot of political capital in pretending this is amateurism anymore, which is causing most of the issues

The question of amateurism vs professionalism is quite different from the question of employee, contractor or other. You can vote for recognizing that college sports are not (and have not been) amateur without supporting legislation to change athletes' employee status.

ken, you might do a better job defending the NCAA and its members than their lawyers do.

Defendants in Johnson v NCAA have not argued plaintiffs are independent contractors. How can they? That would make them pros, which the NCAA always denies.

When considering whether Johnson plaintiffs can be employees under the FLSA as it is currently worded (no change needed), the district judge weighed "employees" vs "unpaid intern". --And that was at the request of defendants as an alternative to their preference, which was to apply no test at all because, hey, plaintiffs are obviously amateurs, not employees! He decided, yes, they can be employees. The question is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal.

My understanding is that in all of the FLSA lawsuits brought in recent years, defendants have used amateurism as a defense. That may have worked in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits but the Third is not strictly bound by their precedents. Besides, those prior cases came before the Supreme Court indicated in Alston that the "tradition of amateurism" is not an excuse for breaking laws.

Heh - even if the NCAA can convince the courts that athletes are unpaid interns, it's a pyrrhic victory because that still doesn't absolve them of antitrust law that would apply when all of the NCAA members are collectively colluding and agreeing to all not pay their athletes on an unpaid intern basis.

There are several industries where unpaid internships are common, particularly in the media industry. Each company can make the *individual* decision regarding unpaid interns. However, it's still illegal under antitrust law for multiple media companies (or companies in any other industry) to *collectively* agree to all not pay their interns. That same rationale would apply to the multiple colleges that are members of the NCAA.

Yes, indeed. I'd be surprised if they win this suit (and let's not forget about the labor board) but as you say they are from out of the woods if they do. At least one Supreme justice is licking his chops in anticipation of another antitrust case. Good luck to the Cartel and to its seriously academic-minded members who think they can indefinitely get away with business as usual

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

Johnson v NCAA is by FBS football players, and DI men's and women's basketball players.

What if the universities spent all their football profits on reducing tuition for all students?

(05-14-2022 06:26 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 08:38 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Johnson vs NCAA could change that.

Johnson v NCAA is by FBS football players, and DI men's and women's basketball players.

What if the universities spent all their football profits on reducing tuition for all students?

No it’s not. It’s by FCS football, and soccer, tennis and swimming athletes.

Most revenue is already spent at most universities. And not from going to the players.