Scoggins (ST): University of Minnesota regent Michael Hsu takes the NCAA to task

Donate To GopherHole
Good arguments, but you guys are on the wrong track.

Arguing if the monetary value of the benefits that players receive now, in exchange for the workload and understood requirements of maintaining active status with the team, is fair or not, is not the correct argument. It's not the argument that is playing out in court.

The correct argument, the one playing out in court, is if the NCAA's arbitrary decree that the maximum monetary value that can be awarded to players shall not exceed the value of the Dept of Ed's "FCOA" for the school, violates federal antitrust laws.

Essentially, the argument boils down to: why is it/should it be legal for the NCAA to make such an arbitrary decree? Why can't each school athletic dept and team staff determine an appropriate amount of monetary benefit to offer each player? IE, why not allow the same wage marketplace to exist as it does for every other job?



Think about this for a second: you all are so worried about player compensation exploding off the charts, but what if the scrip was flipped?? What if, actually, the total cumulative sum of wages that the varsity athletes would agree to was actually LESS than what the school is paying for all the scholarships now?? In that case, the school actually wins out!


SO, you really need to ask yourself this question: why is the fundamental, ideological hang-up about allowing athletes to be employees, who receive a market-set wage, as opposed to being "amateurs" who receive a scholarship (+ a bit of fluff)?? If every athlete, on average, agreed to receive exactly the same wage as the monetary value of the current benefits, then there would be ZERO change for the school. ONLY a change in ideology.

So why are you against it??
 

The Supreme Court has already weighed in back in the 80s. Of course, laws may stay the same but judges and opinions don’t. Which way would this court lean??
 


From the ether:

In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled the NCAA’s broadcast restrictions constituted an illegal horizontal restraint on trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.[6] Ironically the legacy of the case is not the antitrust violation, but the majority’s decision to give the NCAA special treatment under antitrust law in nearly all other aspects of its operation.

Majority: Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens held that the NCAA’s broadcast restriction was a per se illegal restraint on trade.[7] Nevertheless, the majority explicitly chose not to apply per se analysis because “a certain degree of cooperation (i.e. collusion) is necessary if the type of competition that [the NCAA] seek to market is to be preserved.” Instead, the court applied the Rule of Reason to the telecast restrictions because the NCAA needed “ample latitude” to play “a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports.”[8] Furthermore, Justice Stevens advised future courts “[it] is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams and therefore procompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics.”[9]
 

That was TV rights. That decision is what allowed schools to own their rights and sell them, which they do today mostly via the conference, as a pool of rights.

That’s not the issue here.
 


dpodoll68 said:
That's not a possibility, that's a certainty. People enter voluntarily into unfair arrangements all the time. Virtually all people exit those arrangements as soon as they find out that they are unfair - particularly when there's no cost to doing so. If scholarships are so unfair, why aren't scholarship athletes running away screaming en masse? It's not like they have an exit fee or a prepayment penalty.
Click to expand...

A person who has ambitions to pursue a career in football may decide not to "exit" this patently unfair arrangement because they don't want to abandon their dream.

An athlete can't simply offer his services to another "employer" if he feels his current one is treating him unfairly. He has no other options, except to give up his hopes and walk away.

Wealthy, powerful individuals win the "games" they play because they make the rules. They are very, very good at using their power to stack the deck in their own favor.

In the case of the NCAA, it isn't hard to see which side is holding the pat hand.

“Amateurism is an invention by the NCAA in the 1950s so they didn’t have to pay workers’ comp and didn’t have to pay for the labor,” he said.

The NCAA generated more than $1 billion in revenue last year. The Big Ten distributed $51 million to each of its schools thanks to TV revenue. Coaching salaries have skyrocketed. Hsu sees everybody getting rich in the arms race, except athletes.

He says stakeholders in college sports resist compensating athletes beyond scholarships and cost-of-living stipends because they want “to capitalize on the free labor.”

“That’s where I have a problem,” he said. “The NCAA wants to get their labor for free. But there’s a point where there’s a moral problem with that.”
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life said:
That was TV rights. That decision is what allowed schools to own their rights and sell them, which they do today mostly via the conference, as a pool of rights.

That’s not the issue here.
Click to expand...

You and I are not lawyers and the points of contention on which decisions turn are at times so obscure and convoluted we have difficulty understanding them. I’m simply pointing out the special treatment accorded the NCAA and amateurism as necessary for a procompetitive market and product. The excerpt above specifically discusses issues of collusion, restraint of trade, amateurism and the full decision goes even further. Again, different courts can mean different opinions.
 

WiddleWatkins said:
I'm not sure if the Universities paying the players is a realistic option. What really grinds my gears about the NCAA is that players can't make money on their own likeness. Why can't they do advertisements for a business for some extra cash? Why can't they sell autographs? That's where I think the NCAA could make a change
Click to expand...

They can make money with their own likeness.
If they do they simply are inelligible for future competition. They have the option to do this at any time.
 

Gophers_4life said:
If this were true, the current lawsuit could not have proceeded. Since it is, you must be citing something that isn’t relevant. Do you k ow what you’re citing?
Click to expand...

For sure, since Plessy V Ferguson ruled segregation legal it would be impossible to have another case on segregation for example
 



Pompous Elitist said:
You and I are not lawyers and the points of contention on which decisions turn are at times so obscure and convoluted we have difficulty understanding them. I’m simply pointing out the special treatment accorded the NCAA and amateurism as necessary for a procompetitive market and product. The excerpt above specifically discusses issues of collusion, restraint of trade, amateurism and the full decision goes even further. Again, different courts can mean different opinions.
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you're getting at now. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Sure, it is possible that the SC could decide to give the NCAA special consideration that will allow it to win its appeal.
 

Some guy said:
They can make money with their own likeness.
If they do they simply are inelligible for future competition. They have the option to do this at any time.
Click to expand...

"Someone in person has the option to no longer be in prison, and can choose to take it any time they wish. All they have to do is hang themselves, and they are no longer a prisoner."

Exact same reasoning.
 

Some guy said:
it would be impossible to have another case on segregation for example
Click to expand...

The case he cited wasn't relevant precedent for the current case, rather he was just demonstrating the point that the SC has given the NCAA preferential treatment in the past.
 

Gophers_4life said:
"Someone in person has the option to no longer be in prison, and can choose to take it any time they wish. All they have to do is hang themselves, and they are no longer a prisoner."

Exact same reasoning.
Click to expand...

If you equate not being a college athlete to suicide. Then yes, it is the exact same logic I guess
 



Some guy said:
If you equate not being a college athlete to suicide. Then yes, it is the exact same logic I guess
Click to expand...

It is the exact same logic. My example is far more extreme than your example, of course. Mine is ridiculous, yours is not. I did it that way to emphasize the flaw in the logic you applied.
 


Gophers_4life said:
It is the exact same logic. My example is far more extreme than your example, of course. Mine is ridiculous, yours is not. I did it that way to emphasize the flaw in the logic you applied.
Click to expand...

Isn’t it ironic that you are arguing players need to get paid because they’re the ones who bring the dollars but at the same time acknowledge that without the institution there would be no money to even argue about because not being able to play would be akin to suicide?
 


I get your arguments guys.
You are saying the ncaa is a monopoly.


However, I don’t think the ncaa is a monopoly.
First of all. Alternatives exist. NAIA is an alternative offering almost an identical thing.
Second of all. If there was money to be made by paying college aged players, there is nothing to stop people from doing it
 

Some guy said:
Isn’t it ironic that you are arguing players need to get paid because they’re the ones who bring the dollars but at the same time acknowledge that without the institution there would be no money to even argue about because not being able to play would be akin to suicide?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's not what he was saying.
 

Some guy said:
I get your arguments guys.
You are saying the ncaa is a monopoly.


However, I don’t think the ncaa is a monopoly.
First of all. Alternatives exist. NAIA is an alternative offering almost an identical thing.
Second of all. If there was money to be made by paying college aged players, there is nothing to stop people from doing it
Click to expand...

Clearly, there is money to be made. And they are, in fact, doing it.

If you're a player and you hope to play pro, the NAIA is not "almost an identical thing".
 


RememberMurray said:
Clearly, there is money to be made. And they are, in fact, doing it.

If you're a player and you hope to play pro, the NAIA is not "almost an identical thing".
Click to expand...

Well, if you are trying to prove the ncaa is a monopoly in an anti trust lawsuit. Nice argument
 



Gophers_4life said:
The case he cited wasn't relevant precedent for the current case, rather he was just demonstrating the point that the SC has given the NCAA preferential treatment in the past.
Click to expand...

Not relevant?

I have that troll gif somewhere...
 


Some guy said:
Isn’t it ironic that you are arguing players need to get paid because they’re the ones who bring the dollars but at the same time acknowledge that without the institution there would be no money to even argue about because not being able to play would be akin to suicide?
Click to expand...

Not being able to play is not akin to suicide.

I'm arguing that the NCAA should not be able to place an arbitrary, artificial limit on how and how much athletes can be compensated.
 

Gophers_4life said:
It wasn't relevant to the arguments being argued presently, that the NCAA's arbitrary limiting of the monetary benefits an athlete can be awarded violates antitrust laws.
Click to expand...

Every justice attested to the importance of amateurism in terms of the product the NCAA offers, even the ones that wanted to allow for the schools to have control over enormous tv contracts.

From the decision:
moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like …

There is a reason these types of cases have been steered to Judge Wilken, as she has been on the record with not agreeing with the above. It stands to reason many other intelligent people disagree with her.
 

Let's just pretend that the NCAA & Universities hold fast on not compensating players outside of a scholarship and a new league forms that will pay players and focuses on 18-24 year olds as a proving ground for the NFL and with no academic requirement. How many players actually jump? How much money does NCAA football lose?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Every justice attested to the importance of amateurism in terms of the product the NCAA offers, even the ones that wanted to allow for the schools to have control over enormous tv contracts.

From the decision:
moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like …

There is a reason these types of cases have been steered to Judge Wilken, as she has been on the record with not agreeing with the above. It stands to reason many other intelligent people disagree with her.
Click to expand...

You are correct, you have a valid point. We will indeed see how and if this affects the NCAA's appeals efforts, when Wilken rules in favor of Alston.

In my opinion, Alston (or others) could make a very valid counter-point that the essential identity/integrity/essence of the product of major *college* football and basketball can still be preserved, and thus the more extensive popularity can be preserved, by making the players be enrolled in the school and attend class. The amateurism part of it, the receiving a scholarship part of it, is not valued by the consumers.

And another valid counter-argument: the more extensive popularity is not necessarily tied to the players themselves, but to the team's representing the schools. The argument would be that if each school's janitor's dressed up in the uniforms, it would still be popular to that school's fans.
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom