Antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA

March Madness will continue, just because there is too much money involved to give it up.

What the schools and the NCAA fear, though, is players in the title game sitting on their butts at mid court until they get paid the same bonus that their six-and seven-figure coach receives for making it to the title game.

Sounds like a pipe dream, true. But you look at all of these recent lawsuits and Northwestern's unionization attempt. And then you see these meetings of school presidents where they are asked about athlete rights and reply that they didn't talk about it. And you see stories of how the NCAA's token student-athlete representatives ignoring the NCAA's rule on speaking to the media and telling the media that they not only don't have any votes, but they are pretty much patronized and ignored.

The athletes are becoming more and more aware. And they're getting pissed.

 

Given the beating that universities have taken in court on this issue over the last 40 years, I doubt any would have the confidence to set up a system that would have to withstand future challenges.

 

They'll be bothered until the star scores his first touchdown.

 

I'm talking about an act of Congress.

 

Are you talking a constitutional amendment? Short of that, I don't know how a law could be crafted that avoids what has been clearly and repeatedly labeled discrimination.

 

They won't need an act of Congress or a Constitutional amendment. Just allow athletes to get their own sponsorships privately.

 

Isn't it just labeled that way under the statute, though, not the Constitution?

I'd have to read up on the history of Title IX, and will do so, but how would paying football players more be any different than football getting more scholarships than other sports?

 

The Olympic model, basically.

 

Exactly. Jameis Winston can get a huge sum. His team's offensive line can make hamburger commercials at the local steakhouse. The prettiest swimmers on FSU's swim team can model swimsuits.

Coaches can already do things similar to that. Why not the athletes?

 

It's completely idiotic. The reason I hear is that boosters will basically have an auction for top high school talent. I'm not sure how you would or even should regulate that. But I am sure that it isn't such an insurmountable obstacle that it's not worth trying to overcome.

 

Because there is no female equivalent to football. But Title IX as it has grown up has accounted for that. There's a multi-pronged test, one of which is pure scholarship numbers and one of which is related to whether the demonstrated needs of all students on campus are being met. A few years ago in the midst of its funding crisis (which continues to this day), Cal announced that a few men's and a few women's sports were potentially on the chopping block. Then school officials were informed that if they dropped even one sport for women, they would be out of compliance with the second portion and would immediately have to meet the strict numerical definition, and that meant all those football scholarships had to balance out on the women's side.

The value of the scholarship is presumed to be equal for all students. I don't see how a university-run program is going to be able to decide that a football scholarship should be worth more.

So, yeah, I think the model of "let them earn outside income" is the only way it works.

 

And there's nothing morally wrong with boosters bidding for athletes, especially how the current system is constituted.