NCAA seems to have miscalculated with the Supreme Court
Mar 31, 2021 17:03:29 GMT -5
huskyharper likes this
Post by bulkey on Mar 31, 2021 17:03:29 GMT -5
The NCAA thought a conservative court would support them against compensating athletes. But court watchers who have a good record of predicting rulings by the questions justices ask are thinking this will go against the NCAA.
Here's a cut-and-paste from Bloomberg (which I subscribe to) in case it's behind a paywall:
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the NCAA’s rules about amateurism — rules designed to prevent college athletes from reaping any money from their talent — violated antitrust laws. Further, the court upheld the district court’s remedy: Players could reap any reward from a university as long as it was related to education.
The NCAA appealed to the Supreme Court in part because it knew that “education-related” payments would most likely finish off amateurism. But it also presumably appealed because with conservatives holding a 6-to-3 majority on the bench, the odds of overturning the Ninth Circuit ruling were pretty good.
Oops.
The NCAA’s relationship with its university members constitutes “an agreement among competitors to fix prices in a labor market,” said former President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.
Trump’s second nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, said that amateurism should not be a cover for the exploitation of student athletes.
Amy Coney Barrett, the third Trump nominee, wanted to understand why the NCAA was arguing that “consumers love watching unpaid people play sports.” She also wanted to know why the NCAA got to decide the pay for athletes.
Oh, and let’s not forget Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Thomas: “It just strikes me as odd that the coaches’ salaries have ballooned and they’re in the amateur ranks as are the players.” And this from Alito:
[Universities] have programs that bring in billions of dollars … but the athletes themselves have a pretty hard life. They face training requirements that leave little time or energy for study, constant pressure to put sports above study, pressure to drop out of hard majors and hard classes, really shocking graduation rates. Only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports. So, the argument is they are recruited, they’re used up and then they’re cast aside, without even a college degree, so they say ‘How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?’
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-31/supreme-court-seems-reluctant-to-play-ball-with-ncaa?srnd=premium&sref=UGneIVZ3
Here's a cut-and-paste from Bloomberg (which I subscribe to) in case it's behind a paywall:
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the NCAA’s rules about amateurism — rules designed to prevent college athletes from reaping any money from their talent — violated antitrust laws. Further, the court upheld the district court’s remedy: Players could reap any reward from a university as long as it was related to education.
The NCAA appealed to the Supreme Court in part because it knew that “education-related” payments would most likely finish off amateurism. But it also presumably appealed because with conservatives holding a 6-to-3 majority on the bench, the odds of overturning the Ninth Circuit ruling were pretty good.
Oops.
The NCAA’s relationship with its university members constitutes “an agreement among competitors to fix prices in a labor market,” said former President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.
Trump’s second nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, said that amateurism should not be a cover for the exploitation of student athletes.
Amy Coney Barrett, the third Trump nominee, wanted to understand why the NCAA was arguing that “consumers love watching unpaid people play sports.” She also wanted to know why the NCAA got to decide the pay for athletes.
Oh, and let’s not forget Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Thomas: “It just strikes me as odd that the coaches’ salaries have ballooned and they’re in the amateur ranks as are the players.” And this from Alito:
[Universities] have programs that bring in billions of dollars … but the athletes themselves have a pretty hard life. They face training requirements that leave little time or energy for study, constant pressure to put sports above study, pressure to drop out of hard majors and hard classes, really shocking graduation rates. Only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports. So, the argument is they are recruited, they’re used up and then they’re cast aside, without even a college degree, so they say ‘How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?’
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-31/supreme-court-seems-reluctant-to-play-ball-with-ncaa?srnd=premium&sref=UGneIVZ3
.........!! Emmert has a conflagration of dumpster fires and his fire extinguisher is pissing out kerosene.....