How To Fix College Football

[GopherGrit]

This is a wildly hot take as to the reason that I do not disagree with at all

Did you mean to quote my post here, which was a reply to PE? I do not follow you

 

[GopherGrit]

Then they should have no problem publishing the contract numbers.

This!!

Hoping with the House settlement (money coming directly from the athletic departments, now) we can start seeing some FOIA filings on this stuff.

 

[Panthadad2]

I think the solicitation of more NIL partnerships like the Cub Foods deal could actually be sustainable and a way forward. Regional consumer brands spend a ton on marketing and running a smart campaign with the local team might actually produce an ROI for the brand. I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before consumer brands dot uniforms and I'm OK with that. Being located in the Twin Cities might be an advantage from that perspective.

In contrast, I don't see how the whale booster NIL model is sustainable for most teams - ask Troy Aikman.

Rate Bowl: Four key Gophers coming back in unique NIL campaign

Greg Johnson, Nathan Roy, John Nestor and Kerry Brown will be the recipients of Cub Foods’ NIL contributions next season.

www.twincities.com

 

[Some guy]

Did you mean to quote my post here, which was a reply to PE? I do not follow you

you said that the primary reason people watch college sports is because people are usually between 18-22 and are seeking bachelors degrees


One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read

The reason people watch college sports instead of minor league is affiliation with the university either via degree or geography.
If the G league guys were in college classes would they all of a sudden have large crowds? No
The university itself draws more eyeballs than the players.

 

[GolferKill]

I think the most impactful thing the NCAA could do to promote a more level playing field is to limit roster size to something close to 80. The current limit of 105 allows "richest" teams to buy 5+ deep (often 4 stars) at every position, leaving a much smaller player pool for the rest. Enforcing roster size would be much easier than enforcing a salary limit

 

[Some guy]

I think the most impactful thing the NCAA could do to promote a more level playing field is to limit roster size to something close to 80. The current limit of 105 allows "richest" teams to buy 5+ deep (often 4 stars) at every position, leaving a much smaller player pool for the rest. Enforcing roster size would be much easier than enforcing a salary limit

Agree
I said this in about 2018

The way to have parity in a way that hasn’t already been eliminated by the courts is roster size

85 would be a number that makes sense

 

[McGopherFan]

Makes you wonder why the NFL players did.

They sent it back for further litigation on a technicality, ie the relevant market was not defined which is required in antitrust cases. So, the player (and others in similar cases) could still win eligibility if they can prove the 4 year rule is an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Is it? If a student were granted 5,6,7 years of eligibility - as long as an enrolled student - does that harm the college football product? Applying the PE common sense rule I’d say no….but I’m open to arguments otherwise. If proven veterans had access to ongoing “employment” and NIL the costs would definitely rise even higher as their services get bid up versus bringing on unproven high school kids with less or zero compensation leverage that are just happy to be there and get a shot.

If, say, using an entirely made up and ludicrous example if Sanford Health conspired with other upper Midwest health systems to kick out, not rehire senior physicians or nurses after ten years employment in favor of new grads at half the compensation would that pass muster?

It is an interesting question, but I am not sure that the medical field provides apparent parallels.

If I were to defend the use of time limits in college sports - major junior hockey and independent minor league baseball are examples of paid environments in sports that employ year based limits.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Then they should have no problem publishing the contract numbers.

Why? I wouldn't want my compensation published.

 

[GopherGrit]

you said that the primary reason people watch college sports is because people are usually between 18-22 and are seeking bachelors degrees


One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read

The reason people watch college sports instead of minor league is affiliation with the university either via degree or geography.
If the G league guys were in college classes would they all of a sudden have large crowds? No
The university itself draws more eyeballs than the players.

One of the dumbest?? That's harsh man

I guess it was interesting (or appalling) enough that you still felt the need to interject your opinion on the matter into a conversation between two others that didn't concern you.


"If the G league guys were in college classes would they all of a sudden have large crowds? No"
Agreed

However, that does not prove what you want it to.

The debate surrounds the following:
does A -> B ?
does college sports players also being typical undergraduate aged students at the school -> result in college sports have high interest and TV ratings ?

Your hypothetical surrounds the converse:
does A' > ¬B' ?
does professional minor leagues also being typical undergraduate aged students at the school -> not result in professional minor leagues having high interest and TV ratings?
(we agreed, it would not)

It does not surround what you want it to:
does ¬A -> ¬B ?
does college sports players not also being typical undergraduate aged students at the school -> result in college sports not having high interest and TV ratings ?

 

[GopherGrit]

At the end of the day, it will be almost impossible to prove or even get solid reasoning about, because the two things are so tightly coupled in the current system.

Players on college sports rosters are typical undergrade aged students at the school. About as tightly coupled as you can get.

Even the proposal of just loosening the eligibility to be anyone who indefinitely maintains full-time status at the school, is closer to what we have than fully opening it up.


Really the only way you can test it is to actually decouple it and see what happens. But then you risk actually killing the golden goose. Which is exactly what they're afraid of.

 

[Some guy]

One of the dumbest?? That's harsh man

I guess it was interesting (or appalling) enough that you still felt the need to interject your opinion on the matter into a conversation between two others that didn't concern you.


"If the G league guys were in college classes would they all of a sudden have large crowds? No"
Agreed

However, that does not prove what you want it to.

The debate surrounds the following:
does A -> B ?
does college sports players also being typical undergraduate aged students at the school -> result in college sports have high interest and TV ratings ?

Your hypothetical surrounds the converse:
does A' > ¬B' ?
does professional minor leagues also being typical undergraduate aged students at the school -> not result in professional minor leagues having high interest and TV ratings?
(we agreed, it would not)

It does not surround what you want it to:
does ¬A -> ¬B ?
does college sports players not also being typical undergraduate aged students at the school -> result in college sports not having high interest and TV ratings ?

You’re right man.
People watch college sports because it is 18-22 year olds getting bachelors degrees

This is why bethel gets the same crowds as LSU. Because they share the most important variable.

Lol

 

[GopherGrit]

You’re right man.
People watch college sports because it is 18-22 year olds getting bachelors degrees

This is why bethel gets the same crowds as LSU. Because they share the most important variable.

Lol

Another invalid comparison. No one is comparing Bethel to high level colleges, so Bethel doesn't prove anything about them.


You would watch Gophers with players all 30-35 years old who never attended the school?

Maybe you'll say you would and maybe you actually would.

I wouldn't. My gut says a lot of folks currently watching also would not. I think TV executives and college administrators agree with me.

When a collective bargaining agreement is eventually signed, I suspect it will include age restrictions and enrollment requirements.

Guess we'll see who's right!

 

[Some guy]

You would watch Gophers with players all 30-35 years old who never attended the school?

Maybe you'll say you would and maybe you actually would.

I wouldn't. My gut says a lot of folks currently watching also would not. I think TV executives and college administrators agree with me.

When a collective bargaining agreement is eventually signed, I suspect it will include age restrictions and enrollment requirements.

Guess we'll see who's right!

Well if you think there is going to be a collectively bargained contract I can already tell you you’re wrong.

 

[GopherGrit]

Well if you think there is going to be a collectively bargained contract I can already tell you you’re wrong.

I'll save this one

 

[Some guy]

I'll save this one

I’ll put a statute of limitations on this post until 2035 or congressional action declaring college athletes employees

 

[GopherGrit]

I’ll put a statute of limitations on this post until 2035 or congressional action declaring college athletes employees

I don't think congressional action is required.

But I'm happy to leave it as that wild guess for now. I think there is almost zero percent chance that college football won't be revisiting this topic on a yearly basis.

 

[Some guy]

I don't think congressional action is required.

But I'm happy to leave it as that wild guess for now. I think there is almost zero percent chance that college football won't be revisiting this topic on a yearly basis.

Explain to me how you think collective bargaining would work?
Who are the two parties negotiating?

 

[GopherGrit]

Explain to me how you think collective bargaining would work?
Who are the two parties negotiating?

My wild guess is a new legal entity that would be something like the media term P4. The other party would be a players association for players employed by that entity.

I think that's the simplest way. Doesn't mean it is the best way or how it will go down.

 

[Some guy]

My wild guess is a new legal entity that would be something like the media term P4. The other party would be a players association for players employed by that entity.

Price fixing is currently illegal in the US
+
There is no incentive for players to join an agreement that would reduce their compensation and flexibility

I think that's the simplest way. Doesn't mean it is the best way or how it will go down.

It literally legally can’t go down like that without congressional action

 

[GopherGrit]

Price fixing is currently illegal in the US
+
There is no incentive for players to join an agreement that would reduce their compensation and flexibility

It literally legally can’t go down like that without congressional action

I disagree. If the NFL can exist, then I think a new entity can be formed and players can choose to play for it within the confines of a players union. I think federal labor supports such a thing without the need for a congressional action.

Doesn't mean that is what will happen.

 

[Some guy]

I disagree. If the NFL can exist, then I think a new entity can be formed and players can choose to play for it within the confines of a players union. I think federal labor supports such a thing without the need for a congressional action.

Doesn't mean that is what will happen.

The nfl has a monopoly exception to pool their TV rights from congress


The players union formed to get better compensation and more freedom of movement in contracts.




There may be one. I’ve never in the history of humanity seen an example of a labor union forming to reduce compensation and contract rights.


Under current U.S. law you can’t be forced to join a union. In non right to work states you could be forced to pay your share of contract negations fees. But under Janus ruling you can’t be forced to if it’s a public union.
In the power 4 the vast majority of schools are public

 

[GopherGrit]

Just going to address a smaller part first, then will get to the bigger part.

New NFL players are not required to join the NFLPA, right now. So, that wouldn't be any different with a college players union.

 

[GopherGrit]

Well @Some guy , it appears you largely are correct that currently existing law and precedent (key thing) does not support my vision, as is.

On purely technical grounds, it would require either a new law or a new court ruling. I would consider a new court ruling to not be the same thing as what you were saying, but overall I award you the point for the spirit of what you were getting at.

I don't expect you or anyone to read all (or any) of this. The TL;DR is that you were more right than wrong, and I was more wrong than right.

*****


(As always with these things, take with as many grains of salt as you need and/or dismiss as desired)

Prompt:
Would it be possible for major college football to in some way become a singular entity that does all of the following without there needing to be a new act by the US Congress? 1. employees college football players at the respective universities included in the new regime, 2. collectively bargains with a players union that requires all players to be members, and 3. collectively owns the television broadcasting rights to all home games. Elaborate on the following in your response: US laws against price fixing and antitrust, special legal exemptions granted to the NFL that enable its structure that could not simply be copied by this new regime, and if college players would have incentive to join such a new regime given the requirement to join a collective bargaining union.

Answer:

1) Employment Status and Unionization​

Current law on college athletes & employment​

Right now, most college athletes—including FBS football players—are not legally classified as employees of their universities for purposes of federal employment and labor law. This means they generally cannot unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because unions under U.S. law (and collective bargaining rights) are tied to employment relationships. Courts have repeatedly held that the NCAA and member schools aren’t employers in this context. The NCAA and schools have fought to avoid having athletes qualify as employees, partly because that would trigger wages, benefits, unemployment insurance, and labor rights. Ropes & Gray

There are active legal efforts and litigation aimed at having athletes declared employees (e.g., via the National Labor Relations Board or courts), but those have not established a stable, broad-based employment status yet.

Why unionization and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) matter​

Under general U.S. antitrust law (Sherman Act), independent organizations colluding to set wages or labor terms can be illegal price fixing. However:

• Professional leagues avoid this because players are employees and have unions. The collective bargaining process is protected from antitrust liability by the non-statutory labor exemption, which recognizes that CBAs inherently restrain competition in ways that labor law authorizes. Ropes & Gray+1
• College athletes currently lack that legal shield because they are not widely recognized as employees and do not have a certified bargaining unit. This means coordinated action by universities to fix wages or employment terms could trigger antitrust challenges. The Hastings Law Firm

So under present law, players could not be compelled to join a union and bargain as a single block unless they are truly employees and have a certified union. That status itself would be a major legal fight with unpredictable outcomes.

---

2) Antitrust Law and “Price Fixing”​

Sherman Act basics​

U.S. antitrust law (primarily the Sherman Antitrust Act) forbids most concerted actions by competitors to set prices, wages, or other terms that restrict competition in a labor market or commercial market. Universities acting together to set athlete compensation could legally be seen as employers colluding—i.e., illegal wage-fixing—if they are recognized as employers. Since athletes aren’t employees now, the antitrust laws apply with full force. Ropes & Gray

Athletic unions & the labor exemption​

In professional sports:

• A genuine CBA between a league and a players union creates a “labor exemption” from antitrust liability for those jointly-bargained terms. Congressional Research
• Without a union/CBA, any coordinated compensation regime across schools risks antitrust actions by players or third parties. The Hastings Law Firm

This is a fundamental structural difference: the NFL and other professional leagues don’t have to worry about antitrust liability for their pay and rules because players are employees and protect those arrangements through collective bargaining.

So to meet your two conditions (employment + union + collective bargaining), that entity would need players treated as employees—and that status would likely have to be affirmed by courts or law.

---

3) Collective Ownership of Television Rights​

Current structure​

College football broadcasting rights are negotiated at the conference or school level (e.g., SEC, Big Ten, ACC, etc.), not by a single nationwide league. Historically the NCAA did try to sell TV rights centrally (e.g., the College Football Association), but the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma ruled that the NCAA’s restrictions on member schools’ ability to sell rights collectively were an unreasonable restraint of trade under antitrust law.

Because of that decision, current rights are sold by individual conferences or schools—not as one bundled national package like the NFL’s rights.

Why college football can’t just collectivize rights​

Under present law:

• Universities are separate businesses and competitors for TV markets, recruits, and fans.
• A single entity trying to bundle all rights centrally could be challenged as unlawful collusion among competitors unless (1) they are part of a broader statutory structure recognized by Congress, or (2) antitrust law is changed.

Unlike the NFL, which has a limited statutory broadcasters’ exemption (the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961) that permits joint selling of TV rights by professional sports leagues, college football does not currently have such an exemption. Wikipedia

Even the NFL’s antitrust carve-outs are limited; the Sports Broadcasting Act only allows pooling of broadcast rights and does not immunize all league conduct from antitrust scrutiny. Wikipedia

---

4) Special Legal Exemptions the NFL Has That a New College Entity Wouldn’t​

Here’s what the NFL enjoys (but a self-organized college football combine would not automatically receive):

a) Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961​

• This federal law allows professional leagues to pool broadcast rights and sell them collectively without violating antitrust law.
• College football is not covered by that act. Wikipedia

b) Non-statutory labor exemption​

• Applies to pro leagues with employees and certified unions negotiating CBAs.
• A new college regime couldn’t benefit from this unless players were legal employees and a union certified. Congressional Research

c) MLB’s standalone antitrust exemption​

• Major League Baseball uniquely enjoys a judicially recognized antitrust exemption for its business operations—a relic of an early 20th-century Supreme Court case—that no other major sport currently has. SCBC

College football has no such blanket exemption and thus faces full antitrust scrutiny on rights deals, wage restrictions, etc.

---

5) Would College Players Have Incentive to Join This Regime?​

There would be mixed incentives:

Potential benefits​

• If players were employees with a union, they could bargain for guaranteed wages, benefits, health coverage, and pensions—like professional athletes.
• A union could give real voice and protections for safety, working conditions, and revenue sharing.

Potential drawbacks​

• Being required to join a union is controversial. Some players might prefer individual marketing deals or NIL income outside union terms.
• College players’ goals vary: graduating, playing professionally, or balancing sports with education. Some might not want full-time employment status.
• A forced union might impose dues and rules (e.g., transfers, eligibility length) that players don’t all favor.

Legal uncertainty​

• Without legal clarity on whether athletes are employees, some players might fear losing scholarships or tax advantages or triggering Title IX implications.

So whether players “would want” to join something like this depends on how it’s structured and whether the benefits of employment and collective bargaining outweigh loss of individual autonomy.

 

[swede2]

The nfl has a monopoly exception to pool their TV rights from congress


The players union formed to get better compensation and more freedom of movement in contracts.




There may be one. I’ve never in the history of humanity seen an example of a labor union forming to reduce compensation and contract rights.


Under current U.S. law you can’t be forced to join a union. In non right to work states you could be forced to pay your share of contract negations fees. But under Janus ruling you can’t be forced to if it’s a public union.
In the power 4 the vast majority of schools are public

The Sports Broadcasting Act's scope is very narrow. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining between the league and players and instead, permits the league's team, through the league, to collude on negotiating broadcast television rights. It's an irrelevancy to the issue of collective bargaining.

The NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL all collectively bargain. No doubt doing so limits the ability to earn for some (LaBron, Mahomes, etc.) but also raises the floor for others (see, for instance, various league minimum contracts and even in the NFL, for instance, a salary floor). To my knowledge, it has been rare and even unheard of for a professional sports union to decertify. While there are drawbacks to any union membership, professional athletes implicitly suggest that collective bargaining is a net positive for the players. You suggest on one hand that the professional players unions formed to increase compensation but in the next sentence, suggest that for college players, collective bargaining would reduce compensation? Why would that be?

We have already seen attempts at collective bargaining by collegiate athletes. I think where its been attempted its been silly. Did a program at Northwestern try it? An Ivy? I'm not sure what was to be gained at institutions and in programs where there weren't, at the time, many dollars to spread around.

The two biggest issues to collegiate collective bargaining is that as of yet, student athletes are not considered employees, and who the bargaining units Are. Does the issue of employment change under House? It sure seems to bring student athletes closer to being employees.

Who bargains for the institutions? What is the bargaining unit for the athletes? A bargaining unit at each institution from a players perspective gains very little. Gopher Local 219 of the United Steel Workers bargaining with the U of M doesn't seem very productive (although being a labor friendly state, maybe that's how we get over the hump). The athletes need to be in a pool like their "professional" counterparts.

Who negotiates for the schools? Again, each school negotiating doesn't get either the players or the school a very satisfactory result, which might be wildly inconsistent depending on institution and location. Essentially, its where we are now with more bureaucracy.

The NCAA seems like a too disparate and unwieldy group. Kennesaw State and Ohio State have very little in common financially. The negotiating unit for the institutions will almost certainly need to be a new entity created by the P4/P2 or whatever a breakaway faction will be.

There are hurdles to collective bargaining but who ten years ago predicted where we'd be today in CFB? Its a bold statement to say it isn't going to happen. The House settlement has paved the way for recognition of players as employees and unless congress acts, the courts will only diminish the idea of amateurism further.

In the meantime, I think the playing field can and should be leveled by the IRS. Tax deductions should be disallowed for NIL payments that are not in agreement with actual NIL value of a particular player. It won't eliminate all sycophants from making outrageous NIL payments, but it will rein some in. I'm not in the advertising industry but I would be surprised to learn that there are not tools for calculating NIL value.