Former Auburn/Ole Miss/Texas Tech/Cincinnati FB HC and current U.S. Senator Tuberville (R-AL) tells Sportico he does not foresee a federal bill passing the next Congress that would include an antitrust exemption for the NCAA. He explains: “We’ve got to take care of all these recruiting possibilities first, and once we get through this we would like to stay out of it. If you get (Congress) involved, it is not a rule, it is a law. We don’t want to jump in this with all four feet and say this is how it is going to be with every situation.” Tuberville, who says he plans to introduce his bill with U.S. Senator Manchin (D-WV) sometime in the spring of 2023, also tells Sportico he believes incoming NCAA President Baker is walking into an “impossible job” and adds: “The problem the NCAA had is they were so vulnerable with lawsuits and couldn’t afford it. It was money going out the door, again and again. We can help to some point, but we don’t want to go overboard on antitrust and all those things.”

TUBERVILLE THROWS COLD WATER ON NCAA ANTITRUST EXEMPTION
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/tuberville-nixes-ncaa-antitrust-exemption-1234698957/

I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Sometimes the right side of the aisle sees the college athletic departments as socialist government behemoths expropirating the income of the athletes who would really be better off as entrepreneurs, openly signing contracts with the highest bidder.

Tuberville may be the least influential senator in the building.

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchises don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jump into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Furthermore, at many schools---you have normal students---manyu of which who could care less about sports----forced to pay thousands of dollars a year in athletics fees (mostly using debt) that will accrue solely to the benefit of the athletes.

Modern college sports occupy a space that is niether fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is a relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

Agreed.

The best play for the NCAA - if they can get all parties to agree - is to have the players form a union, then do a collective bargaining agreement with them. May need a coaches union as well. Negotiate salary caps (and minimums). Lots of moving parts, though.

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I’m not a “sky is falling” person because the amateur myth/model is going away, ultimately it’s appropriate to pay people who generate income. But once money is going directly from schools to players that’s money that’s not going to support non-revenue sports. Programs, for men and women alike, will be slashed. That’s not a football player or basketball player’s fault but it’s a direct effect of paying them. At some point that’s going to get someone in Washington’s attention, because even though men’s sports will go away equally due to Title IX it’s going to be a bad look for those corresponding women’s sports to vanish.

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchised don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jumo into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Modern college sports occupy a space that is niether fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

Students who are not athletes also pay the fees that goes to athletics as well. I think they need to do something about reigning in the greed of the P5 as well which is also hurting all the students as well.

(12-21-2022 03:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

Agreed.

The best play for the NCAA - if they can get all parties to agree - is to have the players form a union, then do a collective bargaining agreement with them. May need a coaches union as well. Negotiate salary caps (and minimums). Lots of moving parts, though.

IMO that is the worst possible solution. Strikes will kill the game. Labor disputes turned me off baseball which was once my favorite spectator sport.

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchises don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jump into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Furthermore, at many schools---you have normal students---manyu of which who could care less about sports----forced to pay thousands of dollars a year in athletics fees (mostly using debt) that will accrue solely to the benefit of the athletes.

Modern college sports occupy a space that is neither fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is a relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

Forty years ago I think the political climate in the US was such that something like this was difficult, but possible. Today, with the country evenly divided by partisans who view the other side as the enemy, I have a hard time imagining they can work together to solve a problem as complex as this one - complex for all the reasons you articulated so well. If any solution is proposed by someone on one side of the aisle, opposing it becomes a litmus test for the other side, to the point we have stalemate.

If we are left with the prospect of unregulated markets filling the vacuum and doing what markets do, there are going to be a lot of casualties, and a lot of things we like about college sports will be among them.

(12-21-2022 06:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

Agreed.

The best play for the NCAA - if they can get all parties to agree - is to have the players form a union, then do a collective bargaining agreement with them. May need a coaches union as well. Negotiate salary caps (and minimums). Lots of moving parts, though.

IMO that is the worst possible solution. Strikes will kill the game. Labor disputes turned me off baseball which was once my favorite spectator sport.

In my opinion, it is the only legal solution.

Schools/conferences/the NCAA can no longer legally get away with solely imposing limits upon athlete compensation.

So, they need something to collectively negotiate with or there will be no limits.

(12-22-2022 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchises don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jump into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Furthermore, at many schools---you have normal students---manyu of which who could care less about sports----forced to pay thousands of dollars a year in athletics fees (mostly using debt) that will accrue solely to the benefit of the athletes.

Modern college sports occupy a space that is neither fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is a relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

Forty years ago I think the political climate in the US was such that something like this was difficult, but possible. Today, with the country evenly divided by partisans who view the other side as the enemy, I have a hard time imagining they can work together to solve a problem as complex as this one - complex for all the reasons you articulated so well. If any solution is proposed by someone on one side of the aisle, opposing it becomes a litmus test for the other side, to the point we have stalemate.

If we are left with the prospect of unregulated markets filling the vacuum and doing what markets do, there are going to be a lot of casualties, and a lot of things we like about college sports will be among them.

Sadly, you make a very good and very accurate point. There are occasions when the two sides view an issue as a bipartisan “American” issue—-but those occasions have become increasingly rare these days. I’ve always enjoyed the ability of sports (both college and pro) to create a world where political, racial, and economic barriers disappear and for a 3 hour game everyone becomes “Cougars” or “Sooners”—(or whatever team moniker you are a fan of). Those kinds of mass gatherings of peace and unity and fun are becoming increasingly rare

(12-22-2022 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchises don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jump into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Furthermore, at many schools---you have normal students---manyu of which who could care less about sports----forced to pay thousands of dollars a year in athletics fees (mostly using debt) that will accrue solely to the benefit of the athletes.

Modern college sports occupy a space that is neither fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is a relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

Forty years ago I think the political climate in the US was such that something like this was difficult, but possible. Today, with the country evenly divided by partisans who view the other side as the enemy, I have a hard time imagining they can work together to solve a problem as complex as this one - complex for all the reasons you articulated so well. If any solution is proposed by someone on one side of the aisle, opposing it becomes a litmus test for the other side, to the point we have stalemate.

If we are left with the prospect of unregulated markets filling the vacuum and doing what markets do, there are going to be a lot of casualties, and a lot of things we like about college sports will be among them.

Sadly, you make a very good and very accurate point. There are occasions when the two sides view an issue as a bipartisan “American” issue—-but those occasions have become increasingly rare these days. I’ve always enjoyed the ability of sports (both college and pro) to create a world where political, racial, and economic barriers disappear and for a 3 hour game everyone becomes “Cougars” or “Sooners”—(or whatever team moniker you are a fan of). Those kinds of mass gatherings of peace and unity and fun are becoming increasingly rare

The thing is that I think on this particular issue, it actually *does* bring together both sides of the aisle: BOTH liberals and and conservatives HATE the NCAA.

Just look at the Alston ruling in the Supreme Court. It was a complete unanimous 9-0 shellacking where you had corporate-friendly conservative justices essentially advocating for collective bargaining rights for players because the NCAA was being so nakedly ridiculous, unfair, and straight up engaging in practices that would be illegal in every other industry!

Everyone should realize just how the college sports compensation model (or lack thereof) was so universally offensive that Brett Kavanaugh(!!!) wrote such a scathing concurring opinion that you would have thought it was written by a combination of the AFL-CIO and ACLU directly. I continue to believe that the Kavanaugh opinion is going to have a chilling effect on the NCAA ever taking a chance on any type of compensation lawsuit again. When THAT guy (the quintessential corporate-friendly conservative judge) outright calls the NCAA a walking antitrust violation with a ridiculously unfair business model, the NCAA *knows* that only worse things can happen from any type of other player compensation issues coming before the Supreme Court again.

That's why there's zero chance of an antitrust exemption gaining any traction. A unified disdain for how the NCAA works is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans actually agree upon today.

(12-22-2022 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchises don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jump into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Furthermore, at many schools---you have normal students---manyu of which who could care less about sports----forced to pay thousands of dollars a year in athletics fees (mostly using debt) that will accrue solely to the benefit of the athletes.

Modern college sports occupy a space that is neither fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is a relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

Forty years ago I think the political climate in the US was such that something like this was difficult, but possible. Today, with the country evenly divided by partisans who view the other side as the enemy, I have a hard time imagining they can work together to solve a problem as complex as this one - complex for all the reasons you articulated so well. If any solution is proposed by someone on one side of the aisle, opposing it becomes a litmus test for the other side, to the point we have stalemate.

If we are left with the prospect of unregulated markets filling the vacuum and doing what markets do, there are going to be a lot of casualties, and a lot of things we like about college sports will be among them.

Sadly, you make a very good and very accurate point. There are occasions when the two sides view an issue as a bipartisan “American” issue—-but those occasions have become increasingly rare these days. I’ve always enjoyed the ability of sports (both college and pro) to create a world where political, racial, and economic barriers disappear and for a 3 hour game everyone becomes “Cougars” or “Sooners”—(or whatever team moniker you are a fan of). Those kinds of mass gatherings of peace and unity and fun are becoming increasingly rare

The thing is that I think on this particular issue, it actually *does* bring together both sides of the aisle: BOTH liberals and and conservatives HATE the NCAA.

Just look at the Alston ruling in the Supreme Court. It was a complete unanimous 9-0 shellacking where you had corporate-friendly conservative justices essentially advocating for collective bargaining rights for players because the NCAA was being so nakedly ridiculous, unfair, and straight up engaging in practices that would be illegal in every other industry!

Everyone should realize just how the college sports compensation model (or lack thereof) was so universally offensive that Brett Kavanaugh(!!!) wrote such a scathing concurring opinion that you would have thought it was written by a combination of the AFL-CIO and ACLU directly. I continue to believe that the Kavanaugh opinion is going to have a chilling effect on the NCAA ever taking a chance on any type of compensation lawsuit again. When THAT guy (the quintessential corporate-friendly conservative judge) outright calls the NCAA a walking antitrust violation with a ridiculously unfair business model, the NCAA *knows* that only worse things can happen from any type of other player compensation issues coming before the Supreme Court again.

That's why there's zero chance of an antitrust exemption gaining any traction. A unified disdain for how the NCAA works is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans actually agree upon today.

Additionally: There really isn't a widespread agreement about how big time college sports SHOULD work.

There's a big segment of opinion that still believes that it's an amateur endeavor that the players are playing for the love of Old State U, and need no compensation and / or that the sticker price of the education si more than enough compensation (Doug Gottlieb).

There's a much bigger segment that believes that it's all a total sham, and not sure at all why it should continue, with universities linked to big-time sports-and-entertainment operations. (And that was before CTE.)

Although now that I put it that way, maybe one way to solve some Title IX problems is to have competitive musical theater-and-dance programs across the P5, some sort of Eurovision type contest.

I try to pay attention to the business side of college sports, but I don’t understand why the NCAA wants (needs?) an antitrust exemption. The reputation of the NCAA, especially Emmert, is horrible. SCOTUS put an end to the fantasy that the NCAA could control athletes via its one-sided definition of “amateur athletics”. Yet no one has explained how the NCAA has reformed itself.

Hopefully, the new NCAA President will be a better communicator.

(12-22-2022 10:07 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 06:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I never understood the thought that politicians for either side of the aisle had any inclination to provide an antitrust exemption to the NCAA.

The left side of the aisle sees the colleges as taking advantage of vulnerable students that are disproportionately minorities and effectively treating them like indentured servants while fighting collective bargaining and compensation at every turn.

The right side of the aisle sees the colleges as elitist institutions that are completely against the conservative cultural agenda while raising tons of tax-exempt revenue in the process.

Why on Earth would the NCAA (or more appropriately, its member institutions) think that this group would give them an antitrust gift? It has never made sense to me.

Agreed.

The best play for the NCAA - if they can get all parties to agree - is to have the players form a union, then do a collective bargaining agreement with them. May need a coaches union as well. Negotiate salary caps (and minimums). Lots of moving parts, though.

IMO that is the worst possible solution. Strikes will kill the game. Labor disputes turned me off baseball which was once my favorite spectator sport.

In my opinion, it is the only legal solution.

Schools/conferences/the NCAA can no longer legally get away with solely imposing limits upon athlete compensation.

So, they need something to collectively negotiate with or there will be no limits.

It will disadvantage those who are more valuable. I imagine a lot of agents will be lobbying against that.

(12-22-2022 12:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I try to pay attention to the business side of college sports, but I don’t understand why the NCAA wants (needs?) an antitrust exemption

they need an antitrust exemption to have any kind of rules at all.
anti trust wise, it should be a fully free market. so you could see Geirgia's QB this Saturday suit up at Alabama's QB next Saturday.

Quote:. The reputation of the NCAA, especially Emmert, is horrible. SCOTUS put an end to the fantasy that the NCAA could control athletes via its one-sided definition of “amateur athletics”. Yet no one has explained how the NCAA has reformed itself.

Hopefully, the new NCAA President will be a better communicator.

(12-22-2022 12:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I try to pay attention to the business side of college sports, but I don’t understand why the NCAA wants (needs?) an antitrust exemption. The reputation of the NCAA, especially Emmert, is horrible. SCOTUS put an end to the fantasy that the NCAA could control athletes via its one-sided definition of “amateur athletics”. Yet no one has explained how the NCAA has reformed itself.

Hopefully, the new NCAA President will be a better communicator.

Emmert was bad, but its not about communication. Even as one who supports some form of amateur model, the NCAA has been greedy, inconsistent and just totally insensitive to the needs of the athletes. The rules have been all about how to maintain control of people and costs and competitive advantage.

And its rulings on violations have been ridiculous. North Carolina violates the very essence of the idea of a student-athlete with their decade of fake classes and the NCAA decides it isn't their issue. Montana has a mass rape case and they get a minor slap on the wrist. Georgia Tech has one player take $300 in clothes from an agent and they put them on probation and strip them of their ACC title. its because they fear agents and don't really care about the schools cutting corners.

(12-22-2022 12:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 12:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I try to pay attention to the business side of college sports, but I don’t understand why the NCAA wants (needs?) an antitrust exemption

they need an antitrust exemption to have any kind of rules at all.
anti trust wise, it should be a fully free market. so you could see Geirgia's QB this Saturday suit up at Alabama's QB next Saturday.

Quote:. The reputation of the NCAA, especially Emmert, is horrible. SCOTUS put an end to the fantasy that the NCAA could control athletes via its one-sided definition of “amateur athletics”. Yet no one has explained how the NCAA has reformed itself.

Hopefully, the new NCAA President will be a better communicator.

You're exaggerating. Now maybe that could theoretically happen in basketball where the season crosses semesters, but I don't think any coaches would do that.

(12-22-2022 12:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I always thought it made sense as part of a package that regulates the sport. There is absolutely a public interest because these are not for profit sports franchises--these are largely publicly funded institutions of higher education that happen to have student athletes who play on their sports teams. That model was and still is the key for millions of past and future athletes to attain a college education. Additionally, for profit sports franchises don't operate under business laws that require them to set aside enough money to fund womens sports that dont make a dime. Its pretty hypocritical to talk about "I dont know if we want Congress to jump into that with both feet" when they already have with Title 9. Furthermore, at many schools---you have normal students---manyu of which who could care less about sports----forced to pay thousands of dollars a year in athletics fees (mostly using debt) that will accrue solely to the benefit of the athletes.

Modern college sports occupy a space that is neither fish nor foul---its not really a sports franchise----but there is a substantial amount of money coming in for certain areas of the sport. This is a relatively complex situation and that needs a reasonable well balanced national solution crafted by the only authority that could do so nationally. The best solution is a anti-trust exemption paired with revenue sharing agreement, some sort of salary caps for competitive balance, and a government regulatory body that protects the financial and overall health of the players. In other words, with the anti-trust exemption the players become partners with a federal overseer as referee.

Forty years ago I think the political climate in the US was such that something like this was difficult, but possible. Today, with the country evenly divided by partisans who view the other side as the enemy, I have a hard time imagining they can work together to solve a problem as complex as this one - complex for all the reasons you articulated so well. If any solution is proposed by someone on one side of the aisle, opposing it becomes a litmus test for the other side, to the point we have stalemate.

If we are left with the prospect of unregulated markets filling the vacuum and doing what markets do, there are going to be a lot of casualties, and a lot of things we like about college sports will be among them.

Sadly, you make a very good and very accurate point. There are occasions when the two sides view an issue as a bipartisan “American” issue—-but those occasions have become increasingly rare these days. I’ve always enjoyed the ability of sports (both college and pro) to create a world where political, racial, and economic barriers disappear and for a 3 hour game everyone becomes “Cougars” or “Sooners”—(or whatever team moniker you are a fan of). Those kinds of mass gatherings of peace and unity and fun are becoming increasingly rare

The thing is that I think on this particular issue, it actually *does* bring together both sides of the aisle: BOTH liberals and and conservatives HATE the NCAA.

Just look at the Alston ruling in the Supreme Court. It was a complete unanimous 9-0 shellacking where you had corporate-friendly conservative justices essentially advocating for collective bargaining rights for players because the NCAA was being so nakedly ridiculous, unfair, and straight up engaging in practices that would be illegal in every other industry!

Everyone should realize just how the college sports compensation model (or lack thereof) was so universally offensive that Brett Kavanaugh(!!!) wrote such a scathing concurring opinion that you would have thought it was written by a combination of the AFL-CIO and ACLU directly. I continue to believe that the Kavanaugh opinion is going to have a chilling effect on the NCAA ever taking a chance on any type of compensation lawsuit again. When THAT guy (the quintessential corporate-friendly conservative judge) outright calls the NCAA a walking antitrust violation with a ridiculously unfair business model, the NCAA *knows* that only worse things can happen from any type of other player compensation issues coming before the Supreme Court again.

That's why there's zero chance of an antitrust exemption gaining any traction. A unified disdain for how the NCAA works is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans actually agree upon today.

Additionally: There really isn't a widespread agreement about how big time college sports SHOULD work.

There's a big segment of opinion that still believes that it's an amateur endeavor that the players are playing for the love of Old State U, and need no compensation and / or that the sticker price of the education si more than enough compensation (Doug Gottlieb).

There's a much bigger segment that believes that it's all a total sham, and not sure at all why it should continue, with universities linked to big-time sports-and-entertainment operations. (And that was before CTE.)

Although now that I put it that way, maybe one way to solve some Title IX problems is to have competitive musical theater-and-dance programs across the P5, some sort of Eurovision type contest.

And look - I have no issue with the NCAA and colleges going to Congress and saying, "Direct payments from colleges to athletes are going to happen eventually. If it's a total free market for those direct payments, then we risk violating Title VII and/or Title IX if the largest beneficiaries are just male football and basketball players. If we paid everyone equally, we would be in violation of antitrust laws under the Sherman Act. Even if we paid all athletes the amount that top male football and basketball players are worth, that would cause us to reduce the number of women's sports teams in response, which would would defeat the legislative purpose of Title VII and Title IX in providing more opportunities for women and other disadvantaged groups. The only way to resolve this *legal* conflict between two different areas of law is Congress."

That's the part that colleges need to emphasize if they want to get any traction: that colleges complying with current antitrust laws regarding direct compensation could cause them to violate and/or defeat the legislative intent of Title VII and/or Title IX. It's a fair request for colleges to not be placed into a "double jeopardy" situation where they're breaking some type of law no matter which course they would choose.

However, that should have absolutely nothing to do with third party NIL payments or other sources of income that have nothing to do with Title VII or Title IX compliance. It also should have absolutely nothing to do with whether School A can compete as well in football, basketball or other sports as School B. Those are pure and completely legal free market and competitive outcomes that Congress has no reason to intervene on here. (That's the problem with a lot of the messaging on this issue. The "worry" about compliance with Title IX from a lot of fans is just a throwaway one compared to the true concern that their football and basketball teams may not be able to compete financially anymore. The thing is that you can address Title IX compliance without having to touch NIL at all.)