Court Hearing on whether NIL rules can be legally enforced

[MNfootballfan]

Will the NFL ever start what the NBA has in a G-league?

No need to do it, other people do it and lose their money so the NFL doesn't have to do it.

Although, this is how I would do it:
Following Free Agency and the Draft the rosters need to be roughly 100 players. No more OTAs and rookie mini camps. Each team has to put roughly 50 players into a spring league and roughly 50 (more veteran type players) are protected. The 50 or so in a spring league is basically a 2-3 week training camp followed by 2 games. This would give the teams a true chance to evaluate players vs a mini camp. These games would take play in May.

Teams then invite 75 players to training camp and that would start in the beginning-to-mid August and there would only be two preseason games.

Over the course of the calendar year there would be the same number of preseason/regular season games, but you are rewarding veterans with a shorter training camp, no OTAs, less pre-season games and you are giving your fringe roster players more of a true shot to show off their abilities.

 

[MplsGopher]

why you are failing to communicate effectively.

You are the one who screwed up, by falsely projecting sentiment that wasn't there. I'm fine

scheme to violate the salary cap and then sue the NFL

Key point, between these two: the NFL rules that the NIL deal between Wilf's (family) business and Cousins is a violation of NFL rules. Very similarly to how the NCAA has ruled that Tennesse violated NCAA rules.

someone other than an owner of the Vikings who took this action

Awaiting your response to this. You certainly jumped all over the chance to respond when you thought you were dunking (though you actually fell on your back). Now that there's no dunk, it's no fun for you, I guess.

and a separate population without such an agreement.

The NFL CBA is very largely a red herring response.

And even if not, antitrust law does indeed govern contracts.

You haven't answered any of the questions you have been asked with anything beyond "if the NCAA can be sued under an antitrust theory, then surely that must mean that the NFL could be, too."

Well, it certainly appears to be a valid answer. You haven't given any valid reason why it isn't, other than "because I said so".

it's not a legitimate legal theory.

You've given zero reason why you have a iota of credibility to authoritatively state so.

Absent that, I will choose not to believe you.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Absent that, I will choose not to believe you.

I've grown weary of trying to get you to see that you are wrong and I am trying to watch the basketball game. You seem to desperately want to believe that you have uncovered the secret that will bring down the NFL. I am satisfied to leave at this--you think you are correct and everyone else thinks you are an ignorant jackass.

 

[MplsGopher]

When challenged to provide literally anything more than zero effort — walks off like a coward.

Cannot say I’m surprised.

You came to dunk, and hit the rim.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

When challenged to provide literally anything more than zero effort — walks off like a coward.

Cannot say I’m surprised.

You came to dunk, and hit the rim.

There isn't really anything more to say. You asked why the Vikings couldn't conspire with one of their players to evade the salary cap and then yell "antitrust" and try to sue the NFL if challenged. You were told why that wouldn't work. You pointed out that the Sherman Act has the word "contract" in it and apparently assumed that means that it's a tool that can be used in every contract dispute like some sort of a Swiss Army knife legal argument. It doesn't apply in this context any more than it would to the lease that a mother made her son sign to keep living in her basement.

I tried to give you the opportunity to explain why you thought it would apply here and you either could not or would not do so. There is no harm in raising a question in an area with which you are uninformed in the first instance, but if you refuse to explain your thought process or accept the answer, no one can help you. In the end, it comes down to your own statement "I will choose not to believe you." Can't really hope to go any further than your own chosen limitations.

 

[PMWinSTP]

When challenged to provide literally anything more than zero effort — walks off like a coward.

Cannot say I’m surprised.

You came to dunk, and hit the rim.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[short ornery norwegian]

some more details on the Court hearing cited in the OP: (from a Knoxville, TN TV station)

Attorneys for the NCAA and the State of Tennessee and Commonwealth of Virginia appeared in federal court Tuesday for a preliminary injunction hearing regarding the lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s NIL rules.

The lawsuit filed by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and the Commonwealth of Virginia claims that the NCAA’s rules regarding student-athletes benefitting from their name, image and likeness are anti-competitive and violate federal antitrust laws. A preliminary injunction would temporarily lift the NCAA’s ban on prospective student-athletes discussing NIL deals before being enrolled in a university.

U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker did not immediately make a decision, but said he had “a lot to think about” following the arguments from both sides. He also said he would make the decision in “short order.”

The legal team for Tennessee and Virginia argued that the NCAA’s rules for NIL were unclear and harmful to student athletes. They argued that if recruits are unable to discuss potential NIL deals ahead of enrolling in a school, they will be making an uninformed decision on what school to go do, which can cause irreparable harm.

From an economic standpoint, plaintiffs argue that the rules “destroy the free market from functioning” and cause student-athletes to lose negotiating leverage, therefore violating the Sherman Act, which created the rule of free competition in commerce.

The NCAA also argued that there is not irreparable harm because there is a robust market for NIL after students are enrolled and that discussions of NIL deals are only banned when they are “connected to a specific university.” This rule is what Skrmetti argues is unclear.

Both sides also cited Tennessee state law regarding NIL, which the state said requires an NIL contract to be linked to a certain school. Tennessee law does not ban discussion of NIL before enrollment, but NCAA rules do.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

There isn't really anything more to say. You asked why the Vikings couldn't conspire with one of their players to evade the salary cap and then yell "antitrust" and try to sue the NFL if challenged. You were told why that wouldn't work. You pointed out that the Sherman Act has the word "contract" in it and apparently assumed that means that it's a tool that can be used in every contract dispute like some sort of a Swiss Army knife legal argument. It doesn't apply in this context any more than it would to the lease that a mother made her son sign to keep living in her basement.

I tried to give you the opportunity to explain why you thought it would apply here and you either could not or would not do so. There is no harm in raising a question in an area with which you are uninformed in the first instance, but if you refuse to explain your thought process or accept the answer, no one can help you. In the end, it comes down to your own statement "I will choose not to believe you." Can't really hope to go any further than your own chosen limitations.

Your previous reply was better, haha (although there's nothing wrong with this one).

 

[PMWinSTP]

Will the NFL ever start what the NBA has in a G-league?

They let others try...latest incarnation is the UFL.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

What color is the sky in your world?

More like, what color are the walls in his "rubber room"....

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Pompous - to flip the argument to the other side -

the question could be seen as - does the NCAA have the legal right to impose rules and policies on its member institutions and the athletes who compete in NCAA-sanctioned activities? If so, what - if any - limits may be imposed on the NCAA's ability to govern or regulation those activities?

the lawsuits seem to be claiming that the NCAA may not or should not impose any restrictions on NIL - because that is seen as constraining the ability of athletes to market their NIL. likewise with the transfer rules.

if the NCAA has no ability - or only a limited ability - to impose rules and policies, then it becomes even more toothless than it already is.

it feels like one of those old western movies where the bad guys run the Marshall out of town - and the town becomes so lawless that the merchants start pleading for a new Marshall to restore 'law and order.' (for an example, see "Man with the Gun" with Robert Mitchum)

The sports industry is not a regular business (despite Kavanaugh’s wierd Alston concurring opinion - that no other justice signed onto BTW…). All the pro leagues have varying levels of special treatment and carve outs from SCOTUS. Leagues are given leeway to promote a level playing field, competition. I’m just a rando internet troll but to my way of thinking:

- in college sports markets the teams and leagues are buyers (of workers, athletes, venues) and sellers (a product) in the market.
- the games are the product.
- we are consumers.
-the teams and conferences operate under the rules of the NCAA; rules designed to promote a level playing field and promote a marketable product for consumers
-players are not (currently) employees or contractors so price-fixing labor talk doesn't make sense.

In the Alston case Gorsuch specifically stated the NCAA is free to set rules and eg ban inducements eg Lambos (actually wrote that). Free to set rules to level the playing field and promote competition. Schools cannot funnel money to recruits. Players cannot be paid to transfer a week before the playoff to their competitor. Cannot transfer two dozen times destroying rosters. Cannot bribe other team‘s players.

Without rules the product starts to stink, and inevitably the field gets even more lopsided. Kavanaugh’s bias notwithstanding. We’ll see what Corker thinks of TN’s efforts to avoid guilt. Maybe it goes all the way to the Supreme Court

 

[Some guy]

They let others try...latest incarnation is the UFL.

And those leagues aren’t profitable, because the university names add as much value or more value than the players themselves.

Players are getting NIL deals for thousands of dollars, yet when they move onto play in the XFL, or USFL, or arena league those endorsements are not there for them. I wonder why that is.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

OK, we are back to your failure to recognize the difference between one population of organizations and individuals who have a collectively bargained agreement governing their relationships and a separate population without such an agreement. You have been told this several times that this is a significant distinction and don't want to accept it. So be it.


Nice try. My "misunderstanding" was naively thinking that the words you used represented what you meant to say and failing to run them through my English to MplsGopher decoder ring. You haven't answered any of the questions you have been asked with anything beyond "if the NCAA can be sued under an antitrust theory, then surely that must mean that the NFL could be, too." The reason that it doesn't happen is that it's not a legitimate legal theory. Believe it or not.

My understanding is unions and related agreements (CBA) are exempt from antitrust scrutiny as long as the union acts in its own interest and not in collusion with management. Is this correct?

If that’s the case it seems odd a CBA (drastically) holding down draftee salaries, the total numbers of players on rosters, enforcing the “age rule” of not drafting or signing players less than 3 years removed from high school, and part of a scheme limiting number of franchises or of banning public ownership of said franchises could not possibly pass this test.

Seems like blatant collusion at the expense of young players, some established players but most importantly consumers held hostage by owners eg threatening to leave town or unable to own their teams. Am I way off base?

I’m just throwing crap at the wall.

 

[MplsGopher]

My understanding is unions and related agreements (CBA) are exempt from antitrust scrutiny as long as the union acts in its own interest and not in collusion with management. Is this correct?

If that’s the case it seems odd a CBA (drastically) holding down draftee salaries, the total numbers of players on rosters, enforcing the “age rule” of not drafting or signing players less than 3 years removed from high school, and part of a scheme limiting number of franchises or of banning public ownership of said franchises could not possibly pass this test.

Seems like blatant collusion at the expense of young players, some established players but most importantly consumers held hostage by owners eg threatening to leave town or unable to own their teams. Am I way off base?

I’m just throwing crap at the wall.

Well, for however little it is worth -- but let's be honest, we're anonymous internet message board posters .... no one believes anything we say anyway ... unless someone posts a Tweet from some recognizable person, it's all just speculation -- I offer this in support of your first paragraph:

Yes, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in sports leagues are generally exempt from certain antitrust laws in the United States. This exemption stems from the recognition by both the courts and Congress that certain aspects of sports leagues, including player drafts, salary caps, and restrictions on free agency, are necessary for the operation and competitiveness of the leagues. These agreements are considered part of the collective bargaining process between the league and its players' union, and they are subject to labor law rather than antitrust law.

The exemption is based on the principle of labor law that allows employers and employees to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment collectively. This exemption is outlined in the Clayton Antitrust Act and has been reaffirmed by subsequent legal decisions, most notably in the case of Federal Baseball Club v. National League in 1922, which held that baseball was not subject to antitrust laws because it did not constitute interstate commerce.

However, it's important to note that not all aspects of sports leagues are immune from antitrust scrutiny. For example, disputes over issues such as franchise relocation or league expansion may still be subject to antitrust review. Additionally, there have been challenges to the antitrust exemption for sports leagues over the years, but they have generally been unsuccessful.


As to the rest of your post and in general what I was posting about in previous posts:

I reject that NIL is part of the standard CBA components that have been tested in court. This is a wild west, new frontier. College football let the cat out of the bag, in that regard.

So I actually do think it could be a legally interesting case for, let's say a very wealthy owner of a NFL franchise, to say that he wants to use his personal/personal business wealth -- not a single iota related to the team's money -- to give a NIL deal to a particular player, and that the NFL, NFLPA, nor the CBA have no legal authority to block such a deal. They say otherwise. He sues. Would be a great court case, if the courts don't wrongly refuse to accept it.

 

[MplsGopher]

And those leagues aren’t profitable, because the university names add as much value or more value than the players themselves.

Players are getting NIL deals for thousands of dollars, yet when they move onto play in the XFL, or USFL, or arena league those endorsements are not there for them. I wonder why that is.

Interesting (to me) thought experiment:

Pick whatever UFL (as they are now merged) team, and the wealthy owner offers Mahomes a massive contract to switch leagues.

Would his State Farm commercial deal still be worth as much?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Yes, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in sports leagues are generally exempt from certain antitrust laws in the United States. This exemption stems from the recognition by both the courts and Congress that certain aspects of sports leagues, including player drafts, salary caps, and restrictions on free agency, are necessary for the operation and competitiveness of the leagues. These agreements are considered part of the collective bargaining process between the league and its players' union, and they are subject to labor law rather than antitrust law.

The exemption is based on the principle of labor law that allows employers and employees to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment collectively. This exemption is outlined in the Clayton Antitrust Act and has been reaffirmed by subsequent legal decisions, most notably in the case of Federal Baseball Club v. National League in 1922, which held that baseball was not subject to antitrust laws because it did not constitute interstate commerce.

However, it's important to note that not all aspects of sports leagues are immune from antitrust scrutiny. For example, disputes over issues such as franchise relocation or league expansion may still be subject to antitrust review. Additionally, there have been challenges to the antitrust exemption for sports leagues over the years, but they have generally been unsuccessful.


As to the rest of your post and in general what I was posting about in previous posts:

I reject that NIL is part of the standard CBA components that have been tested in court. This is a wild west, new frontier. College football let the cat out of the bag, in that regard.

So I actually do think it could be a legally interesting case for, let's say a very wealthy owner of a NFL franchise, to say that he wants to use his personal/personal business wealth -- not a single iota related to the team's money -- to give a NIL deal to a particular player, and that the NFL, NFLPA, nor the CBA have no legal authority to block such a deal. They say otherwise. He sues. Would be a great court case, if the courts don't wrongly refuse to accept it.

Reviewing the history of NFL CBAs it’s very interesting the NFLPA has disbanded not once or twice but several times due to the curiously absurd nature of antitrust law shielding the business entities engaged in one. They (the NFLPA) had to decertify in order to bring meaningful change from management who were all too eager to get the players back into a union…curious?

So, we can reason CBAs properly written by white-shoe attorneys protect not only workers but more importantly the interests of management from legal scrutiny. The logic and reasons for this carve out from antitrust law are Byzantine and could perhaps be called circular logic by some and essentially amount to “because I said so”, an argument I have used to good effect on my children. When challenged to explain “why” I am similarly put in a difficult position at times…

Attorneys?

 

[MplsGopher]

No worries.

"Because I said so" was the sole reasoning used for many posts in this thread, by people who had established zero credibility.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

My understanding is unions and related agreements (CBA) are exempt from antitrust scrutiny as long as the union acts in its own interest and not in collusion with management. Is this correct?

If that’s the case it seems odd a CBA (drastically) holding down draftee salaries, the total numbers of players on rosters, enforcing the “age rule” of not drafting or signing players less than 3 years removed from high school, and part of a scheme limiting number of franchises or of banning public ownership of said franchises could not possibly pass this test.

Seems like blatant collusion at the expense of young players, some established players but most importantly consumers held hostage by owners eg threatening to leave town or unable to own their teams. Am I way off base?

I’m just throwing crap at the wall.

Unions aren't prohibited from working in concert with management so long as that collaboration is for the benefit of the members. Sports are an excellent example of this. For a time, it seemed that the highest-paid player in the NFL each year was last year's top draft pick. The union and the league negotiated a framework where that didn't happen any longer because they agreed, for different reasons, that each side was better off with a structure whereby the available salary pool was divided up in a way that provided greater rewards to more established players. Was that collusion? Maybe, depending on how you define the term, but it's permissible because each side participated in advancing their own interests and the courts recognize that both sides have a significant interest in maintaining the overall health of the league.

Reviewing the history of NFL CBAs it’s very interesting the NFLPA has disbanded not once or twice but several times due to the curiously absurd nature of antitrust law shielding the business entities engaged in one. They (the NFLPA) had to decertify in order to bring meaningful change from management who were all too eager to get the players back into a union…curious?

So, we can reason CBAs properly written by white-shoe attorneys protect not only workers but more importantly the interests of management from legal scrutiny. The logic and reasons for this carve out from antitrust law are Byzantine and could perhaps be called circular logic by some and essentially amount to “because I said so”, an argument I have used to good effect on my children. When challenged to explain “why” I am similarly put in a difficult position at times…

Attorneys?

You raise several different issues that aren't really amenable to a thorough response on a message board and I won't try to answer each of them. In short, the courts give wide berth to labor unions and industry to collectively bargain for their independent and mutual interests and, as you point out, sports leagues are atypical because they depend in large part on competition in ways that most industries do not. Things like rookie wage scales and delayed free agency are permissible because there are articulable reasons to support them for the benefit of the players as a group and the league as a whole. Without trying to convince you on the merits, it could be argued that the union membership collectively is better off if a larger share of the available salary pool goes to players with established track records vs. incoming rookies or that delayed free agency benefits the group (at the expense of the individual) by increasing competitive balance in the league. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be challenges to those types of provisions, but they would need to be addressed through the union, contract negotiation, the NLRB, etc. Justin Jefferson arguing that he should be exempt from the franchise tag designation because it limits his ability to earn income isn't an antitrust issue because he, as a union member, has agreed to be bound by the contract that provides for the designation.

Challenges from the outside, meaning from people or entities outside the league and NFLPA, are different and someone could argue that the league structure violates antitrust provisions, but even those challenges are difficult because the NFL typically doesn't preclude the existence of other leagues or prevent the people they do business with from working with others. As an overly simplistic example, let's say that Pompous Elitist puts together a group of investors and wants to start a football team. You call Roger Goodell and ask him how you petition to join the NFL. He tells you that they aren't expanding right now. Is that anti-competitive? Does it violate the Antitrust Act? You could probably formulate arguments that it is and that it does since the NFL is the premier American football league in the world and that by keeping you out they are essentially denying you the ability to pursue that business at the highest level, but I would guess you would lose because the courts would find that nothing is preventing you from starting your own league, finding your own sponsors and getting as big as the marketplace will allow.

 

[MplsGopher]

Whether NIL deals should or should not be treated as supplementary salary and whether or not team ownership can use their personal money to fund such deals have not been tested in courts. The NFL and NFLPA may or may not have proper legal authority to block such deals. We don't know. Hasn't been tested.

 

[Cedar Rapids Gopher]

They let others try...latest incarnation is the UFL.

NFL Europe was the NFL's attempt. But it wasn't making money so they ditched it.

 

[Some guy]

My understanding is unions and related agreements (CBA) are exempt from antitrust scrutiny as long as the union acts in its own interest and not in collusion with management. Is this correct?

If that’s the case it seems odd a CBA (drastically) holding down draftee salaries,

Holding down rookie salaries while keeping same revenue sharing increases veteran salaries

the total numbers of players on rosters,

Give and take, if you don’t change revenue sharing….smaller rosters equals more money and more workload and larger rosters means less money but less workload

enforcing the “age rule” of not drafting or signing players less than 3 years removed from high school,

Protects players currently in the league by restricting competition for roster spots

and part of a scheme limiting number of franchises or of banning public ownership of said franchises could not possibly pass this test.

Seems like blatant collusion at the expense of young players, some established players but most importantly consumers held hostage by owners eg threatening to leave town or unable to own their teams. Am I way off base?

I’m just throwing crap at the wall.

players not in the league yet aren’t members of the union. Of course the union is going to advocate for veteran salaries over rookie salaries. Next years rookies have no one repping them in the meeting.

 

[MplsGopher]

players not in the league yet aren’t members of the union. Of course the union is going to advocate for veteran salaries over rookie salaries. Next years rookies have no one repping them in the meeting.

Isn't what first and second year rookies want, and their representation, going to be exactly equivalent to what next year's rookies want?

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Look out - Chaos on track #1 entering the station with no brakes.......

The preliminary injunction has been granted in the case of the state of Tennessee and Virginia vs. the NCAA. Details from Pete Thamel:

(quoting the Judge's decision)

"Here, the situation requires no more and no less than permitting student-athletes to negotiate NIL deals with third parties prior to committing to a particular school. The NCAA fails to show how such relief will cause any harm that outweighs the irreparable harm that student-athletes will face in the absence of an injunction."

more: (read this bit....)
It is hereby ordered that effectively immediately, Defendant NCAA, its servants, agents and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with the NCAA, are restrained and enjoined from enforcing the NCAA interim NIL policy, the NCAA bylaws, or any other authority to the extent such authority prohibits student-athletes from negotiating compensation for NIL with any third-party entity, including but not limited to boosters or a collective of boosters, until a full and final decision on the merits in the instant action.

Derek Burns and his crew had better get to work, or they'll be like the town Marshall walking into the saloon with no six-gun.

 

[WindyCityGopher]

Just so it’s clear that there is absolutely zero moral motivation behind this lawsuit:

Tenn AG did this because UTenn was going to be hit by the NCAA for a NIL violation.


That’s where we’re at.

If the NCAA says they’re going to punish your school for a violation of a rule ….. just sue them.

What are they going to do??

That's been the game plan to beat back NCAA sanctions for more than a decade now. They've become toothless when they have to defend their rules in court, and its member institutions know it.

 

[MplsGopher]

(quoting the Judge's decision)

"Here, the situation requires no more and no less than permitting student-athletes to negotiate NIL deals with third parties prior to committing to a particular school. The NCAA fails to show how such relief will cause any harm that outweighs the irreparable harm that student-athletes will face in the absence of an injunction."

more: (read this bit....)
It is hereby ordered that effectively immediately, Defendant NCAA, its servants, agents and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with the NCAA, are restrained and enjoined from enforcing the NCAA interim NIL policy, the NCAA bylaws, or any other authority to the extent such authority prohibits student-athletes from negotiating compensation for NIL with any third-party entity, including but not limited to boosters or a collective of boosters, until a full and final decision on the merits in the instant action.

None of the words here would seem to have anything to do with whether or not the NCAA is allowed to make a transfer sit out a year.

You can still sit out and be allowed to negotiate NIL deals in the sense of abiding by the above words.


F NIL and F collectives, sure, but by far and wide it's the free player movement that's ruining things.

Players need to sit out a year from playing in games when they transfer. Regardless if they can get NIL lined up or not, before transferring.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Unions aren't prohibited from working in concert with management so long as that collaboration is for the benefit of the members.

The purported primary rationale of antitrust law is to protect consumers. Not management or workers in any particular industry.

Sports are an excellent example of this. For a time, it seemed that the highest-paid player in the NFL each year was last year's top draft pick. The union and the league negotiated a framework where that didn't happen any longer because they agreed, for different reasons, that each side was better off with a structure whereby the available salary pool was divided up in a way that provided greater rewards to more established players. Was that collusion?

Hard to see how the above isn’t the definition of antitrust violation when non-Union members cannot negotiate their rookie salaries. Obviously antitrust law, labor law is a patchwork of caveats and carve outs “because”. We accept that argument but don’t have to necessarily respect it.

Maybe, depending on how you define the term, but it's permissible because each side participated in advancing their own interests and the courts recognize that both sides have a significant interest in maintaining the overall health of the league.


You raise several different issues that aren't really amenable to a thorough response on a message board and I won't try to answer each of them. In short, the courts give wide berth to labor unions and industry to collectively bargain for their independent and mutual interests and, as you point out, sports leagues are atypical because they depend in large part on competition in ways that most industries do not. Things like rookie wage scales and delayed free agency are permissible because there are articulable reasons to support them for the benefit of the players as a group and the league as a whole. Without trying to convince you on the merits, it could be argued that the union membership collectively is better off if a larger share of the available salary pool goes to players with established track records vs. incoming rookies or that delayed free agency benefits the group (at the expense of the individual) by increasing competitive balance in the league.

Seems more like established players protecting their own interests. Channeling Kavanaugh, would this fly in any other private workplace?

That doesn't mean that there couldn't be challenges to those types of provisions, but they would need to be addressed through the union, contract negotiation, the NLRB, etc. Justin Jefferson arguing that he should be exempt from the franchise tag designation because it limits his ability to earn income isn't an antitrust issue because he, as a union member, has agreed to be bound by the contract that provides for the designation.

Maurice Clarett is an example of a player that tried to defeat anticompetitive age rules regarding entering the draft. He lost. Fair? The current argument is: should unions and employers be exempt from anticompetitive practice lawsuits simply because the existing group of workers have certified as a union and before any agreement has been agreed on. They are immune from outside interests and challenges. I believe the current laws say: yep. . Correct me if I’m wrong.

Challenges from the outside, meaning from people or entities outside the league and NFLPA, are different and someone could argue that the league structure violates antitrust provisions, but even those challenges are difficult because the NFL typically doesn't preclude the existence of other leagues or prevent the people they do business with from working with others. As an overly simplistic example, let's say that Pompous Elitist puts together a group of investors and wants to start a football team. You call Roger Goodell and ask him how you petition to join the NFL. He tells you that they aren't expanding right now. Is that anti-competitive? Does it violate the Antitrust Act? You could probably formulate arguments that it is and that it does since the NFL is the premier American football league in the world and that by keeping you out they are essentially denying you the ability to pursue that business at the highest level, but I would guess you would lose because the courts would find that nothing is preventing you from starting your own league, finding your own sponsors and getting as big as the marketplace will allow.

Yes. There are Sherman violations everywhere in the sports world but have become accepted and increasingly protected practice. It doesn’t even have to make “sense”. Carve outs and exceptions are the norm.

Since we’re discussing the caterwauling of some media and fans over Sherman violations it seemed appropriate to raise the issue that Sherman violations are absolutely necessary to making sports work. It also seems entirely separate from the NCAA violations TN and others likely committed under existing rules at the time. Rules their opponents were operating under.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Look out - Chaos on track #1 entering the station with no brakes.......

The preliminary injunction has been granted in the case of the state of Tennessee and Virginia vs. the NCAA. Details from Pete Thamel:

(quoting the Judge's decision)

"Here, the situation requires no more and no less than permitting student-athletes to negotiate NIL deals with third parties prior to committing to a particular school. The NCAA fails to show how such relief will cause any harm that outweighs the irreparable harm that student-athletes will face in the absence of an injunction."

more: (read this bit....)
It is hereby ordered that effectively immediately, Defendant NCAA, its servants, agents and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with the NCAA, are restrained and enjoined from enforcing the NCAA interim NIL policy, the NCAA bylaws, or any other authority to the extent such authority prohibits student-athletes from negotiating compensation for NIL with any third-party entity, including but not limited to boosters or a collective of boosters, until a full and final decision on the merits in the instant action.

Derek Burns and his crew had better get to work, or they'll be like the town Marshall walking into the saloon with no six-gun.

So, this implies the NCAA is dead? It seems hard to believe rules around tampering, bribing, inducement, lack of roster control would not be upheld but it is always helpful to look at the background of men granted power.

Clifton was born in Richmond, Virginia and has lived in Tennessee most of his adult life. A 2019 Trump appointee, published works indicate the signs of an unrestricted free markets proponent. Obviously the pros and cons of that philosophy have long been and will always be debated but that’s the baseline approach and state of mind. Is it surprising this person may have a bias in terms of aligning his personal bias and philosophies.

The media, some fans just love chaos. Corker has handed down his personal opinion. Now we see if the NCAA fights it or lays up. Maybe congress steps in or on at some point as this thing starts to spin out of all control.

 

[MplsGopher]

So, this implies the NCAA is dead? It seems hard to believe rules around tampering, bribing, inducement, lack of roster control would not be upheld

I am told that you need a CBA. Once you have that, you can do literally anything you want because antitrust laws no longer apply even a single iota.

That in itself seems unbelievable, but I am told it is true "because I said so".

 

[MplsGopher]

Steward Mandel at The Athletic:

https://theathletic.com/5296175/2024/02/23/ncaa-nil-paying-recruits-tennessee-injunction/

A federal judge in Tennessee on Friday granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits the NCAA from enforcing its own rules against pay-for-play in recruiting. Effective immediately, name, image and likeness collectives can negotiate deals with recruits without fear of NCAA sanctions.

My first reaction to the news: This renders the entire plot of “Blue Chips” obsolete.

If you’ve never seen that classic 1994 college basketball film, here are the key details: Nick Nolte plays Pete Bell, a big-time coach (clearly modeled after Indiana’s Bob Knight) so desperate to get his struggling program back on track that he sells his soul and allows a booster to go buy some recruits. Stud center Neon Boudeaux (played by Shaquille O’Neal) gets a new car. The mother of Butch McCrae (Penny Hardaway) gets a house. And a big ol’ tractor shows up at the farm of Ricky Roe (former Indiana big man Matt Nover).

But an investigative reporter catches wind of the operation. Things don’t end well for coach Bell.

...

The film came out Feb. 18, 1994, nearly 30 years to the day before Judge Clifton L. Corker of the Eastern District of Tennessee told the NCAA to bug off and let the Neon Boudeauxs and Ricky Roes of the world get their cars and cash.

The NCAA’s court losses have been coming so fast and furious recently that you really should take a moment to stop and reflect on how seminal some of these decisions are.

Until 2021, an athlete could lose eligibility if someone so much as bought them a hamburger. Today, thanks to a crush of states passing laws forcing the NCAA to allow NIL payments, Caitlin Clark can appear in a State Farm commercial and nobody bats an eye.

For decades, it was just accepted that players have to sit out a year if they transfer to a new school. In December, a judge in West Virginia issued an injunction allowing athletes to transfer and play immediately as many times as they want to.

And now, one of the bedrock principles of college athletics for the entirety of its existence — no giving money to recruits — has gone up in smoke in the span of three weeks.

On Jan. 30, Tennessee chancellor Donde Plowman wrote a fiery letter to NCAA president Charlie Baker ripping the organization for attempting to sanction the school over the recruitment of five-star quarterback Nico Iamaleava for entering into a lucrative NIL deal with Tennessee collective Spyre Sports. The argument itself — that the NCAA hadn’t explicitly said booster collectives can’t be involved in recruiting — was laughable. But it presented the perfect opportunity for someone to challenge the underlying rule.

Sure enough, the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia swiftly filed a federal suit contending the NCAA’s NIL restrictions violate antitrust law. Corker denied the plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order, but Friday, he issued a preliminary injunction that carries the same effect.

 

[MplsGopher]

As much as we all appreciate the efforts of DTA ... collectives need to get abolished and banned, right quick.

The quicker the better.

Make it the schools themselves who do all of the paying.


Now that it's done and gone .... go full bore. Schools pay. Not boosters, not fans. Collectives are just an organized bagman on steroids. It's dirty, smelly, business. Make it legitimate. Make the schools pay.

U athletic dept can hire Derek Burns to run the paying organization, if it makes people feel better.