|
|
Post by bulkey on Jun 21, 2021 9:57:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jun 21, 2021 13:49:33 GMT -5
Although the Supreme Court didn't rule on pay, but rather more narrowly on the question of increased support for athletes in areas of academic costs (computers, etc), Noah Feldman, probably our wisest commentator on things judicial, reports that:
In a crucial passage of the court’s unanimous opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the justices agreed with the lower court and essentially repudiated the statements from the 1984 case. Gorsuch wrote that “when it comes to college sports, there can be little doubt that the market realities have changed since 1984.” Television revenues have vastly expanded. And colleges allow many more forms of compensation to reach student-athletes.
In the other essentially important part of the opinion, the court rejected the NCAA’s argument that it shouldn’t be subject to ordinary antitrust analysis because it’s made up of universities that are nonprofits seeking to serve the overall goal of higher education. So what, the court basically said. The NCAA isn’t exactly a nonprofit in the deepest sense, and anyway, the law still applies.
It seems quite likely that this will affirm that college athletes will get substantial access to their NIL revenue.
At the very least, this is certain to bust up the insane laws around NCAA compliance. I have a friend who was removed from his career-long academic support of a particular college team because he gave team members one too many rides to his home for dinner. The dinner was okay, but the "free transportation" wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on Jun 23, 2021 16:12:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jun 23, 2021 16:31:34 GMT -5
I'm all for the decision and its aggressive application to NIL. However....
Players are not as Kavanaugh seems to think "workers." It's true that graduate students who serve as teaching assistants are now allowed to unionize and be considered workers. But they teach, just as faculty teach, for which every university charges its "customers" tuition.
But most athletic departments not in a couple of the power conferences lose money, just as do (say) college theater groups and orchestras. Most of their productions are even free, at least to students, as most athletic events are generally free, at least to students. Or at a very nominal cost that is not designed to turn a profit.
I am fully supportive of allowing athletes to get the revenue from their NIL. If an undergraduate created a killer app on a university computer, most likely that student would be able to claim all the revenue (moving into a grey area here of who owns faculty research).
But I think Kavanaugh's analogy is way too simplistic. OTOH, he does coach girls basketball, so he can't be really wrong.
|
|
