Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

SCOTUS Ruling: The Death Knell for Amateurism


Bobref

Recommended Posts

If there was anything left of the concept of amateurism in college sports, yesterday’s 9-0 SCOTUS ruling in NCAA v. Alston took care of that. Many of the stories written about the decision describe it as “narrow,” i.e., limited in its application to a peculiar set of circumstances. But it is anything but, from a legal standpoint.

The decision specifically said the NCAA cannot limit the benefits provided to scholarship athletes, provided those benefits are “tethered” to education. Things like computers, and other learning aids are now freely available. But that is not nearly the most significant part of the decision. The real landmark aspect of the case is that, in terms of antitrust law, the NCAA has lost its special status, and will now have to behave just like any other big corporation. Its actions will now be judged under the “rule of reason” analysis, rather than a much more deferential standard. In essence, it will be up to the NCAA to prove its regulations don’t have an anti-competitive effect — a standard they can never meet.

This ruling has huge implications for the gathering storm over NIL (name, image and likeness) compensation for athletes. It means the NCAA should not even attempt a uniform set of regulations governing NIL compensation, because it won’t legally stand. Instead, the laws that various states are now passing (19 at last count) will control how NIL compensation will allowed. Thus, there will be a hodgepodge of laws unless and until Congress acts to pass a nationwide law.

But the overarching significance of the decision is found in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, when he pronounced that “the NCAA is not above the law.” From this point forward, every restrictive policy that the NCAA has will be scrutinized under a much less forgiving standard, and college athletics will have to be conducted like any other multi-billion dollar business. This is going to dramatically accelerate the changes that have been coming for a while. Stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Record-breaking NIL contract will have the NCAA pocket-watching again: https://deadspin.com/record-breaking-nil-contract-will-have-the-ncaa-pocket-1848648039

Quote

The NIL landscape has opened up a world of big and small endorsement opportunities that have no tangible connections to college campuses. This deal, the largest NIL one ever signed by a non-professional athlete, has placed a spotlight on the hinterland of the NIL landscape.

According to The Athletic, an unnamed five-star recruit in the Class of 2023 signed an agreement with a school’s NIL collective to pay him more than $8 million by the end of his junior year.

Mike Caspino, the lawyer who drafted the contract, shared its contents with The Athletic in exchange for keeping the collective and the athlete’s name anonymous.

Reportedly, the collective will dole out a lump sum of $350,000 to this recruit almost immediately. Then, once his college career begins, Recruit X will receive nearly $2 million at the beginning of each year of his college career. Recruit X will be responsible for making public appearances and taking part in social media promotions and other NIL activities on behalf of the collective.

Recruiting experts have whittled down the list of possible identities for Recruit X as they’re the J. Jonah Jameson’s of the college football universe. Yet, this is bigger than one recruit.

 

Recruit X’s contract explicitly states that “nothing in this Agreement constitutes any form of inducement for (the athlete) to enroll at any school and/or join any athletic team,” meaning there’s no requirement for the athlete to sign with the donors’ school. It’s a big gamble for a collective, but the assurance is implied.

NCAA violations still prohibit prospective athletes from receiving any type of benefit from a booster, especially one that influences an athlete to attend a particular school. However, NIL collectives have emerged as a workaround, and the old guard is also getting inexplicably nervous about them, which means the NCAA isn’t far behind.

.....

These businesses are companies launched solely to create financial opportunities for student-athletes. Many of them are led by business tycoons who are fans or alumni of specific Division I schools. Collectives then set up subscription services for fans, including access to athletes at aforementioned exclusive autograph sessions, interviews, and personal appearances.

Blake Lawrence, the CEO of Opendorse, believes “there will be a NIL collective for every Power 5 school by the end of 2022.” We’ve already seen this trend spread around the country.

Currently, the University of Texas leads the way with four school-affiliated collectives. For example, the Clark Collective describes itself as a group that “provides assistance to University of Texas college athletes by cultivating and facilitating NIL opportunities in conjunction with businesses, donors and fans to ensure college athlete success.”

In December, the collective launched with an initial commitment of $10 million from donors, businesses, and fans for Texas NIL activities. Soon after, The Clark Collective launched a non-profit entity called Horns with Hear, which sparked a program called The Pancake Factory to extend $50,000 to Longhorns offensive linemen in 2022.

Notably, The Pancake Factory initiative was announced weeks before Signing Day as the Longhorns sought to patch up one of their weakest units. Not surprisingly, three of their top signees in the class were offensive linemen, including the nation’s No. 1 offensive lineman.

That convoluted flow of money into the pockets of recruits equates to another form of boosters legally laundering money to student-athletes. I’m not trying to rain on the parade. We should laud collectives for attempting to add a few zeros to the net worths of hardworking, marketable student-athletes as long as the terms aren’t exploitative.

Yet, that offense is what LSU essentially canned Will Wade for on Saturday evening. Since then, the old guard has clutched their pearls and celebrated his exile.

But what are they really criticizing him for? Doing an end-around getting student-athletes paid? That’s the very model behind collectives, and the NCAA has undoubtedly taken notice. If LSU weren’t so fearful of the NCAA threatening them with a “lack of institutional control” accusation, Wade would probably still be coaching them in the NCAA Tournament this week.

Will Wade’s firing by LSU should be the last instance of a coach getting caught up in the NCAA infraction committee’s web. Still, contracts such as the one Recruit X signed have been a clarion call for NCAA administrators to go all Dick Wolf on their bylaws to bring law and order back.

Even today, the NCAA and its member institutions feel the urge to scratch that old itch to exercise some control element. In February, the NCAA Board of Directors asked its Division I council to review the impact of name, image, and likeness on student-athletes.

The statement they released outlined their concerns but mainly seemed focused on fear mongering and the old booster money boogeyman.

“The scope of the NIL review includes school choice, transfer opportunities, academics, and mental health. We are concerned that some activity in the name, image and likeness space may not only be violating NCAA recruiting rules, particularly those prohibiting booster involvement, but also may be impacting the student-athlete experience negatively in some ways,” said board chair Jere Morehead, president at the University of Georgia. “We want to preserve the positive aspects of the new policy while reviewing whether anything can be done to mitigate the negative ones.”

Fortunately, they’ve been slow to enact many restrictions on NIL deals. But if the NCAA starts seeing numbers creep towards eight figures, these collectives may be on the chopping block.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

seen some dude w a mullet, get his thong in a bunch b/c he wasn't handed the qb spot at o$u and left for texas, get money for whatever reason....dumb

seen some dude from ou get beat out for the starting qb job, get his thong in a twist, leaves town, dude beat him out leaves for u$c, get money for whatever reason....dumb

besides that, i see some kids from the region pimping products (minimally) on social media.

I say if you sign an nil, scholly gets revoked.  If you get a full scholly, you can not sign an nil.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DE said:

yeah, some on that court have some weak "opinions" as of late, so not surprising.

I’m sure they feel the same way about you. 😂🤣

35 minutes ago, DE said:

so they can get a free scholly and nil $?  what a f**ked up world.  no thanks.

What is the rationale for forcing a student-athlete to choose one or the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I’m sure they feel the same way about you. 😂🤣

What is the rationale for forcing a student-athlete to choose one or the other?

I couldn’t care less what some of them think. They chose their very prominent, lucrative careers as lawyers, along with their life long positions. Along comes their scrutiny. Wish they all were like Clarence Thomas.  True American Badass. 
 

Sadly, one of the worst is a Hoosier “conservative”. Not surprised by who appointed him. 
 

So many Saul Goodmans…..

Rant over. 
 

Free college education and get millions for some?  Yeah. That makes sense. 

Edited by DE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2021 at 8:05 AM, Bobref said:

If there was anything left of the concept of amateurism in college sports, yesterday’s 9-0 SCOTUS ruling in NCAA v. Alston took care of that. Many of the stories written about the decision describe it as “narrow,” i.e., limited in its application to a peculiar set of circumstances. But it is anything but, from a legal standpoint.

The decision specifically said the NCAA cannot limit the benefits provided to scholarship athletes, provided those benefits are “tethered” to education. Things like computers, and other learning aids are now freely available. But that is not nearly the most significant part of the decision. The real landmark aspect of the case is that, in terms of antitrust law, the NCAA has lost its special status, and will now have to behave just like any other big corporation. Its actions will now be judged under the “rule of reason” analysis, rather than a much more deferential standard. In essence, it will be up to the NCAA to prove its regulations don’t have an anti-competitive effect — a standard they can never meet.

This ruling has huge implications for the gathering storm over NIL (name, image and likeness) compensation for athletes. It means the NCAA should not even attempt a uniform set of regulations governing NIL compensation, because it won’t legally stand. Instead, the laws that various states are now passing (19 at last count) will control how NIL compensation will allowed. Thus, there will be a hodgepodge of laws unless and until Congress acts to pass a nationwide law.

But the overarching significance of the decision is found in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, when he pronounced that “the NCAA is not above the law.” From this point forward, every restrictive policy that the NCAA has will be scrutinized under a much less forgiving standard, and college athletics will have to be conducted like any other multi-billion dollar business. This is going to dramatically accelerate the changes that have been coming for a while. Stay tuned.

Much ado about nothing. What percentage of College students does this actually affect, less than 1%? Colleges reward academic excellence, why not do the same with athletics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Much ado about nothing. What percentage of College students does this actually affect, less than 1%? Colleges reward academic excellence, why not do the same with athletics?

Couldn’t agree more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Much ado about nothing. What percentage of College students does this actually affect, less than 1%? Colleges reward academic excellence, why not do the same with athletics?

When those college students that are on scholarship for academic excellence get the same treatment (free apparel, food, drink, access to top notch nutritionists and strength and conditioning coaches, and free advertisement to them of their work---(TV appearances), etc., we can talk.  Until then, your comparison is nothing more than apples to oranges.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So "athletic excellence" is now part of most universities' mission statement?

 

No idea. However, I can see several paths from which “athletic excellence” aligns perfectly with what I would assume most institutions of higher learning are trying to accomplish.

12 hours ago, Bobref said:

What is the rationale for forcing a student-athlete to choose one or the other?

Still waiting to hear any sort of an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

No idea. However, I can see several paths from which “athletic excellence” aligns perfectly with what I would assume most institutions of higher learning are trying to accomplish.

 

Can you please elaborate on a couple of those paths?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...