Antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA

[Dick Whitman]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10620388/anti-trust-claim-filed-jeffrey-kessler-challenges-ncaa-amateur-model

There is a lot out there about why the NCAA isn't an antitrust violation - basically, because collusion is an essential part of the business model and thus "pro-competitive."

That said, I don't know that it has ever actually been held to not violate the Sherman Act. Judges have just said this in dicta.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Three hours and 53 minutes until I call my doctor.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

Burn it to the ground.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10620388/anti-trust-claim-filed-jeffrey-kessler-challenges-ncaa-amateur-model

There is a lot out there about why the NCAA isn't an antitrust violation - basically, because collusion is an essential part of the business model and thus "pro-competitive."

That said, I don't know that it has ever actually been held to not violate the Sherman Act. Judges have just said this in dicta.

Except the NCAA argues that they are not a business, they're a "non-profit" regulatory organization.

They'll have a heckuva time claiming that collusion is part of their business model and then claiming they're not a business.

 

[Bob Cook]

I've long thought that what the NCAA should do is remove the players' restrictions on profiting from their athletic success. So the schools could still "only" pay them a scholarship plus room and board and book fees. But the athletes could get a percentage of memorabilia sales, get endorsements or otherwise profit from their own name. (The school retains rights to its name, so the player couldn't be ID'd as being from a specific team unless the athletic department approves it.)

 

[JC]

I've long thought that what the NCAA should do is remove the players' restrictions on profiting from their athletic success. So the schools could still "only" pay them a scholarship plus room and board and book fees. But the athletes could get a percentage of memorabilia sales, get endorsements or otherwise profit from their own name. (The school retains rights to its name, so the player couldn't be ID'd as being from a specific team unless the athletic department approves it.)

It's really a simple solution but that means the NCAA is relinquishing control.

 

[Bob Cook]

I've long thought that what the NCAA should do is remove the players' restrictions on profiting from their athletic success. So the schools could still "only" pay them a scholarship plus room and board and book fees. But the athletes could get a percentage of memorabilia sales, get endorsements or otherwise profit from their own name. (The school retains rights to its name, so the player couldn't be ID'd as being from a specific team unless the athletic department approves it.)

It's really a simple solution but that means the NCAA is relinquishing control.

It's not "the NCAA" -- it's the member schools. If the member schools wanted to allow boosters to hand out hundred-dollar handshakes with impunity, they could make it so. But part of the fiction that fans -- as much as anyone -- buys into is that this is a purely rah-rah, school-based amateur enterprise. If the NCAA becomes an outright pro organization, then the emotional connection starts severing.

The thing is, every high school sports association is struggling with professionalization, Or at least, with the model that every school is a public institution with inherently equal resources, with schools only drawing students from a firm boundary line. That's hardly so, anymore, and that's why you see so many scrambling on so many issues.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I've said this plenty of times: I don't understand why sports, alone, imposes amateur purity on its participants. In no other field that I can think of - certainly there are some, but none that seem prominent - is a college student actually forbidden from making money from his or her craft. The fact that the Olympics for so long imposed amateur status on athletes who dedicated their lives to their sport is astonishing, too.

 

[poindexter]

I've said this plenty of times: I don't understand why sports, alone, imposes amateur purity on its participants. In no other field that I can think of - certainly there are some, but none that seem prominent - is a college student actually forbidden from making money from his or her craft. The fact that the Olympics for so long imposed amateur status on athletes who dedicated their lives to their sport is astonishing, too.

And people buy into it as well... that there is some shining beacon to being an 'amateur' athlete... I have never understood it.

 

[cranberry]

I've long thought that what the NCAA should do is remove the players' restrictions on profiting from their athletic success. So the schools could still "only" pay them a scholarship plus room and board and book fees. But the athletes could get a percentage of memorabilia sales, get endorsements or otherwise profit from their own name. (The school retains rights to its name, so the player couldn't be ID'd as being from a specific team unless the athletic department approves it.)

Wouldn't that just kick the problem further down the road? Why shouldn't the athletes be entitled to share in the primary revenue they generate -- TV contracts and the gate, etc.?

Also, can someone explain the virtue of amateurism?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Amateurism, at least when the modern Olympics began, was seen as a pure thing because the upper class could afford to take time out of their day to play games, while the working class was too busy working. It was seen as a way to show he upper class was superior to everyone else. It also came at a time when pro baseball players were seen as slackers and scumbags.

The Olympics clung to this until it became so blatantly obvious that Commie-bloc athletes were basically pros that it couldn't be controlled. Plus,the IOC, like the NCAA now, couldn't keep spouting off on the virtues of amateurism when their own people were profiting handsomely.

I also agree with Bob, that players are going to be able to make their own deals, or at least get a cut of the school's sneaker money.

 

[cranberry]

There's no good reason why athletes should ignore the bigger pile of money they generate and settle for a little sneaker money. They're entitled to a negotiated cut of all the money they generate -- TV, gate, licensing, endorsements, etc.

 

[Point of Order]

If the NCAA becomes an outright pro organization, then the emotional connection starts severing.

Bob,

I think you hit the nail on the head here. The schools value protecting the brand above everything else. They use paternalistic concerns for the "student-athletes" as an excuse and the fans, media, coaches, administrators, tv networks, and advertisers who are feasting on the pie gladly play along.

If the "free market" were allowed to be free even in the limited since you suggest, what would happen? In the short term, some athletes would profit immensely while most would be unaffected. In the long term, the superstar college athletes would continue to profit immensely because they would be getting their true value rather than a twin-sized bed and a four-year (or less) stay at a luxury resort in exchange for their work. The overall brand of college athletics would be damaged and the pie would shrink for: overpaid head coaches, overpaid assistant coaches, overpaid and bloated athletics support staffs, bloated conference office staffs, NCAA administrators, prestigious university team brands, the media who cover teams and the networks who broadcast them, the merchandisers who profit off team brand apparel, etc.

In the free market parlance those people would be called "moochers". So, what do the moochers do? They conspire to defend an indefensible system. They conspire to hold down the individual superstar for the greater common benefit of the many. Marx would approve.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If the NCAA becomes an outright pro organization, then the emotional connection starts severing.

Bob,

I think you hit the nail on the head here. The schools value protecting the brand above everything else. They use paternalistic concerns for the "student-athletes" as an excuse and the fans, media, coaches, administrators, tv networks, and advertisers who are feasting on the pie gladly play along.

If the "free market" were allowed to be free even in the limited since you suggest, what would happen? In the short term, some athletes would profit immensely while most would be unaffected. In the long term, the superstar college athletes would continue to profit immensely because they would be getting their true value rather than a twin-sized bed and a four-year (or less) stay at a luxury resort in exchange for their work. The overall brand of college athletics would be damaged and the pie would shrink for: overpaid head coaches, overpaid assistant coaches, overpaid and bloated athletics support staffs, bloated conference office staffs, NCAA administrators, prestigious university team brands, the media who cover teams and the networks who broadcast them, the merchandisers who profit off team brand apparel, etc.

In the free market parlance those people would be called "moochers". So, what do the moochers do? They conspire to defend an indefensible system. They conspire to hold down the individual superstar for the greater common benefit of the many. Marx would approve.

Except there's not a greater common benefit for many. A certain select group is still profiting off the labor of the majority. The workers aren't owning the means of production,as Marx would put it.

If anything, if the pie would shrink down to near nothing because of a damaged brand, then college athletics could get back to what the NCAA says they're supposed to be: pure amateur games for fun, with winning not being emphasized and players and coaches on teams for fun and school pride, instead of the quasi-pro spectacles they are today.

 

[Point of Order]

The workers aren't owning the means of production,as Marx would put it.

That never *really* happened with Marxism either, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Alma]

In no other field that I can think of - certainly there are some, but none that seem prominent - is a college student actually forbidden from making money from his or her craft.

Surely there are professional athletes taking college classes. Lots of em.

 

[qtlaw]

You know the NCAA can survive right? Just let the kids who want to be pros go pro; then dial down the facilities/bowls/festivities commensurate with the talent level and pump all those profits truly back into the schools for the whole student body and faculty to enjoy. You will then get truly student-athletes; like the Ivy League. Oh yeah, one other thing, no more athletic scholarships.

 

[LongTimeListener]

The fact that the new NBA commish wants to make kids wait two years out of high school is going to make this thing all the more hilarious. It could possibly, maybe, eventually even lead to one of John Calipari's players attending a class.

 

[Dick Whitman]

In no other field that I can think of - certainly there are some, but none that seem prominent - is a college student actually forbidden from making money from his or her craft.

Surely there are professional athletes taking college classes. Lots of em.

Alma, name me another profession in which a traditional college student is forbidden from monetizing his or her craft. One.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The NCAA always says they want the athletes to be treated as the same as other students. Well, other students are allowed to make money off their name even when they are participating in extracurricular activities.