With the NCAA's ability to regulate college sports pretty much in the trash can, they appear to be afraid to act at all. Essentially, there are no rules anymore, and schools are free to use surrogates to assemble the best team money can buy and to recruit players from other schools with impunity. At least in the NFL teams have salary caps and player contracts. Colleges have nothing.

In the NFL, owners are motivated by the desire to make a profit, and they know that they make more money if the product they are selling is competitive. Boosters have no profit incentive - they just want their school to beat its rivals. The rewards are the ability to lord it over their neighbors.

Is there nothing schools can legally do to keep their product competitive enough to keep the money rolling in?

IIRC: Illegal, probably, but not unconstitutional.

Placing a dollar limit on an athlete is illegal.

Having scholarship limits or limits on how many players a booster club can provide money to is legal.

Don't the NBA and NFL have salary caps? I think they even have limits on ind8vidual salaries. Or does that all have to be negotiated through a CBA or its illegal?

(05-20-2022 11:16 AM)goofus Wrote:  Don't the NBA and NFL have salary caps? I think they even have limits on ind8vidual salaries. Or does that all have to be negotiated through a CBA or its illegal?

That absolutely has to be negotiated through a CBA or else it would be a flaming scorching dragged into court within 2 seconds antitrust violation.

This is the challenge for the NCAA: the Supreme Court is effectively itching to look for any type of antitrust violation with that organization. They cannot *unilaterally* impose economic restrictions. Athletes might collectively bargain salary caps or income restrictions, but the emphasis is on that it has to be *bargained*. This is what all fans need to understand.

(05-20-2022 11:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Placing a dollar limit on an athlete is illegal.

Having scholarship limits or limits on how many players a booster club can provide money to is legal.

Scholarship limits are probably legal (and even if they aren't legal per se, roster limits that would have the same effect are almost certainly legal).

Restricting boosters is an open question, though. If challenged in court, the legal system could certainly say that whether someone is a booster or not is irrelevant: if there's a group (the NCAA) that collectively restricts otherwise legal economic activity from another group (boosters), that could conceivably be an antitrust violation.

(05-20-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Placing a dollar limit on an athlete is illegal.

Having scholarship limits or limits on how many players a booster club can provide money to is legal.

Scholarship limits are probably legal (and even if they aren't legal per se, roster limits that would have the same effect are almost certainly legal).

Restricting boosters is an open question, though. If challenged in court, the legal system could certainly say that whether someone is a booster or not is irrelevant: if there's a group (the NCAA) that collectively restricts otherwise legal economic activity from another group (boosters), that could conceivably be an antitrust violation.

The restriction would not be on the dollar amount but a rule agreement that caps how many players (at one time) per sport that can participate in "university sponsored" pools.

If a booster wants to set up a pass through corporation and give 100k or 200k to players here or there that is different.

University sponsored pools might have further restrictions around the donated money has to go to boosters in the form of NIL merchandise. Booster then maybe pays $2500 each for the digital jersey of every starting offensive lineman.

(05-20-2022 10:58 AM)Wedge Wrote:  IIRC: Illegal, probably, but not unconstitutional.

I agree with this. What makes the limits probably/possibly illegal are the anti-trust laws. But before those laws were passed, trusts and monopolies were legal, they didn't violate the constitution.

Is admittance into a college/university without remotely fitting the average academic profile illegal?

Is handing out a college/university diploma to a "student" that can't read illegal?

Let's iron out those two questions first.

(05-20-2022 11:39 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Is admittance into a college/university without remotely fitting the average academic profile illegal?

Is handing out a college/university diploma to a "student" that can't read illegal?

Let's iron out those two questions first.

The first question is pretty simple to answer: schools have very wide latitude in accepting who they want based on whatever criteria that they want provided that it's not discriminatory based on a protected class (with the caveat that the law is certainly in flux as to what constitutes discrimination as shown in the Harvard case that will be argued in the Supreme Court this upcoming year). That being said, it's pretty clear that there's zero legal issue with a school providing admission to a student that has a particular talent for an activity regardless of other academic standards, which would certainly include athletes. It's not even a debate.

The second question isn't a legal question but rather an educational accreditation question.

(05-20-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Placing a dollar limit on an athlete is illegal.

Having scholarship limits or limits on how many players a booster club can provide money to is legal.

Scholarship limits are probably legal (and even if they aren't legal per se, roster limits that would have the same effect are almost certainly legal).

Restricting boosters is an open question, though. If challenged in court, the legal system could certainly say that whether someone is a booster or not is irrelevant: if there's a group (the NCAA) that collectively restricts otherwise legal economic activity from another group (boosters), that could conceivably be an antitrust violation.

The NCAA seems to be trying to define "boosters" in such a broad way that, if enforced, it would extinguish pretty much all NIL payments.

(05-20-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Placing a dollar limit on an athlete is illegal.

Having scholarship limits or limits on how many players a booster club can provide money to is legal.

Scholarship limits are probably legal (and even if they aren't legal per se, roster limits that would have the same effect are almost certainly legal).

Restricting boosters is an open question, though. If challenged in court, the legal system could certainly say that whether someone is a booster or not is irrelevant: if there's a group (the NCAA) that collectively restricts otherwise legal economic activity from another group (boosters), that could conceivably be an antitrust violation.

I think this is right on point.

I must say, as an alum/fan of a private school program - one that, I guess, would be considered wealthy, has a top-35 academic reputation, and very good D1 facilities - I have no complaints about any of this.

My school has its own wealthy boosters and a number of its athletes are reportedly already making bank on this through the NIL.

Sure, the very "best of the best" athletes will probably, more often than not (although not always), go to the top programs in the Country, but that has already been the case. Except now the boosters of these programs will be at war with one another to up the ante for these prized athletes - which will, IMO, lead to all the predictable downstream affects.

Another thought. I would not be surprised if this proves to be very beneficial to a number of schools that might not have been initially in the running for a top athlete. Immediate playing time will be a valued premium in the recruiting process. The sooner you play, the sooner you could get paid!

I expect the Jimbo Fisher - Nick Saban type feuds will occur with increasingly regularity in the future. Someone grab the popcorn!

On a serious note, I expect absolute chaos for an indeterminate period of time until some kind of stability is restored. I have no idea what form that stability will take, but we shall see.

I also think that this will serve as a cautionary tale for any school contemplating a radical transformation of CFB. As the old saying goes: "be careful what you wish for"

Limits are legal if schools all sign an agreement to form a league and operate under a set of rules, then get athletes to sign what amounts to a no-compete, being paid a base retainer (say 10K a year), agreeing to accept the parameters/limits of the NCAA.

I sort of assumed they were already doing this or had thought that through, but clearly they haven't.

(05-20-2022 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  With the NCAA's ability to regulate college sports pretty much in the trash can, they appear to be afraid to act at all. Essentially, there are no rules anymore, and schools are free to use surrogates to assemble the best team money can buy and to recruit players from other schools with impunity. At least in the NFL teams have salary caps and player contracts. Colleges have nothing.

In the NFL, owners are motivated by the desire to make a profit, and they know that they make more money if the product they are selling is competitive. Boosters have no profit incentive - they just want their school to beat its rivals. The rewards are the ability to lord it over their neighbors.

Is there nothing schools can legally do to keep their product competitive enough to keep the money rolling in?

Its not really in the trash can....YET. The Alston decision has no specific bearing on the NCAA with repect to NIL--only on educational benefits. The NCAA would still effectively be able to maintain control over NIL in states where there are no state NIL laws. In states where NIL laws have been passed---any NCAA rules that conflict with state law would be illegal and unenforceable. That still leaves a lot of states where the NCAA could theoretically still exert some level of control over NIL. That said, this last court decision makes it pretty clear that any case that challenged the NCAA's ability to limit student athlete NIL (in states without NIL laws) would probably have a really good chance of striking down those NCAA limitations as an anti-trust violation. Conferences on the other hand, might could get away with limiting NIL---but only in states without NIL laws or to the extent that the league limitations dont conflict with new state NIL laws.

The only actually honest and correct answer here is "we don't actually know." The ability of the NCAA to enforce previous compensation rules were called into question via Alston, but we haven't had enough case law to determine exactly where the real limits are yet. I've talked to lawyers practicing in college athletics who believe that the NCAA still can enforce some limits on booster involvement and type of deals...and other lawyers (and particularly economists) who are more absolutists.

The specific antitrust law is pretty fact dependent and technical. A reasonable assumption is that most limits and restrictions are probably out the door, but without legislative or judicial clarity, nobody can REALLY say for certain.

I’ve been saying all along that this will be a system of fans paying players with no salary caps and no contracts and unlimited free agency. The big tv dollars will be gorged by the schools and the fans will pay for this. It’s pretty uninteresting IMO, but there’s many in here that think it’s going to be great and some that will even pay for it.

Is it unconstitutional for the NFL to have a salary cap? Does that not limit players pay?

The U.S. Constitution does not regulate sports. The U.S. Code, perhaps, but not the U.S. Constitution.

(05-23-2022 01:51 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  Is it unconstitutional for the NFL to have a salary cap? Does that not limit players pay?

It's collectively bargained. That cap is set as part of the same negotiation where players get a minimum salary much higher than min wage, where they get pensions, healthcare, a salary floor for team spending. They get a say in limits on practice time, offseason obligations, hotel quality etc in the CBA.