Court Hearing on whether NIL rules can be legally enforced

[Pompous Elitist]

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".

No CBA needed but “an intent“ to sign one, ie management entity or entities and a certified union in a negotiating stage, which could take years. No interloper outsiders need file lawsuits.

Makes total sense as (paraphrasing) the “parties should not be encumbered by having to engage in lawsuits from outside interested parties” (like say Maurice Clarett or XYZ) alleging anticompetitive behavior due to their….blatantly anticompetitive behavior. It makes sense if you hang upside down, look sideways.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

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.

Here is the actual decision in all its glory. I can’t even. See if you can make sense of the endless contradictory statements. He did briefly allude to the major anticompetitive behaviors allowed in pro sports but incorrectly stated only congress can provide any nuance to the Sherman Act. Makes some broad statements, then narrows the focus of the decision to negotiations prior to signing….seemingly upholding every other NCAA rule except the ones TN violated. Am I reading this right? The assertion that the public has an interest in allowing TN and VA, student athletes and collectives and boosters to run afoul of NCAA rules. Much more. Very strange.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2024/pr25-18.pdf