College Football Business: Is This Where We’re Heading?

[AtlAtty]

Nothing had to happen. My argument is accurate nice try twisting it.

People didn’t get paid because everyone thinking about a capitalist system. You are assigning something that fits ann anrgument after the fact. They got paid because everyone said the poor athletes are getting ****ed. The big bad NCAA and colleges are ******** athletes.

Doesn’t matter the reason. Congrats to the athletes I can guarantee you that people are tuning out now and the trend will continue.

NIL is one thing but that coupled with the portal? F them will be what happens eventually.

If you read the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alston case you would have known that the Court, especially Justice Cavanaugh made the same argument I am making. In fact I am basically stealing his argument for how and why NIL exists.

Read the opinion and you will better understand why things are as they are today and into the distant future.

 

[RozayCane]

 

[PalyCane]

The oft mentioned House settlement is just around the corner. Hearings commence April 7th.

The House settlement, however, is between the NCAA/member schools and a discrete set of former athletes/plaintifs. The House settlement does not include or directly bind current and future players, although the NCAA/member schools are behaving and intend to write contracts with said current and future players as though it will.

This article is the most comprehensive I've come across. https://www.espn.com/college-sports...caa-sec-college-contracts-name-image-likeness

The article describes the notable legal challenges facing the NCAA/member schools in the post-House settlement world that they are trying to construct, which will certainly result in new litigation filed by current and future players who are not party to the settlement.

Absent an anti-trust exemption from Congress, which I don't expect will be forthcoming, the entire go-forward regime being crafted by the NCAA/member schools will be invalidated through future litigation.

Ultimately, the only solution available to the NCAA and member schools lies with a collective bargaining system with current player involvement. The NCAA and member schools will need to first be pounded into submission by the courts, but that pounding is sure to occur without an (unlikely) anti-trust exemption from Congress.

Edit: I posted something here that is correct. In fact the proposed House settlement does purport to bind future athletes to the terms of the settlement. That said, Judge Wilkins on the opening day of the hearing (April 7th) has questioned whether it is proper to do so (item (1) below)

 

[Hoyacane1620]

The oft mentioned House settlement is just around the corner. Hearings commence April 7th.

The House settlement, however, is between the NCAA/member schools and a discrete set of former athletes/plaintifs. The House settlement does not include or directly bind current and future players, although the NCAA/member schools are behaving and intend to write contracts with said current and future players as though it will.

This article is the most comprehensive I've come across. https://www.espn.com/college-sports...caa-sec-college-contracts-name-image-likeness

The article describes the notable legal challenges facing the NCAA/member schools in the post-House settlement world that they are trying to construct, which will certainly result in new litigation filed by current and future players who are not party to the settlement.

Absent an anti-trust exemption from Congress, which I don't expect will be forthcoming, the entire go-forward regime being crafted by the NCAA/member schools will be invalidated through future litigation.

Ultimately, the only solution available to the NCAA and member schools lies with a collective bargaining system with current player involvement. The NCAA and member schools will need to first be pounded into submission by the courts, but that pounding is sure to occur without an (unlikely) anti-trust exemption from Congress.

That article is really eye opening. IDK why any athlete with a legitimate representative, would sign any of them.

 

[CaneinBroward]

The oft mentioned House settlement is just around the corner. Hearings commence April 7th.

The House settlement, however, is between the NCAA/member schools and a discrete set of former athletes/plaintifs. The House settlement does not include or directly bind current and future players, although the NCAA/member schools are behaving and intend to write contracts with said current and future players as though it will.

This article is the most comprehensive I've come across. https://www.espn.com/college-sports...caa-sec-college-contracts-name-image-likeness

The article describes the notable legal challenges facing the NCAA/member schools in the post-House settlement world that they are trying to construct, which will certainly result in new litigation filed by current and future players who are not party to the settlement.

Absent an anti-trust exemption from Congress, which I don't expect will be forthcoming, the entire go-forward regime being crafted by the NCAA/member schools will be invalidated through future litigation.

Ultimately, the only solution available to the NCAA and member schools lies with a collective bargaining system with current player involvement. The NCAA and member schools will need to first be pounded into submission by the courts, but that pounding is sure to occur without an (unlikely) anti-trust exemption from Congress.

Thank you for the info.

As an aside, how the **** does baseball still have an anti-trust exemption after all these years?

 

[PalyCane]

Thank you for the info.

As an aside, how the **** does baseball still have an anti-trust exemption after all these years?

Baseball, while maintaining its anti-trust exemption granted 100 years ago, is only able to do so because it has a collective bargaining arrangement with the MLB players association. This has made the original anti-trust exemption largely moot.

In contrast the NCAA/member schools are not willing to allow the players to bargain collectively, which puts them at jeopardy.

A sports league cannot band together and act collectively while simultaneously requiring players to act individually. Which is what the NCAA is trying to do.

This also gets to employment law, and the NCAA will have a very difficult time prevailing on the claim that players that the member schools are paying are not employees given the terms that are being written into the player agreements.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Baseball, while maintaining its anti-trust exemption granted 100 years ago, is only able to do so because it has a collective bargaining arrangement with the MLB players association. This has made the original anti-trust exemption largely moot.

In contrast the NCAA/member schools are not willing to allow the players to bargain collectively, which puts them at jeopardy.

A sports league cannot band together and act collectively while simultaneously requiring players to act individually. Which is what the NCAA is trying to do.

This also gets to employment law, and the NCAA will have a very difficult time prevailing on the claim that players that the member schools are paying are not employees given the terms that are being written into the player agreements.

Then why don't the NFL, NBA, and any other pro sports league have the same exemption? They all have collective bargaining agreements with their respective players associations.

In reading the history of it, the exemption was given by the Supreme Court as they deemed pro baseball was not interstate commerce so therefore, exempt from the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Just doesn't make sense to me, even in 1922 when it was decided as there were and still are baseball franchises in a multitude of states.

As far as the NCAA goes, I think that's why eventually they will have a "super-league" so they can bargain collectively once they are deluged by court cases for collective bargaining by the athletes. There are a couple of schools who have had their student-athletes unionize and I imagine the floodgates will open soon to even more unionization.

 

[caneingville]

Then why don't the NFL, NBA, and any other pro sports league have the same exemption? They all have collective bargaining agreements with their respective players associations.

In reading the history of it, the exemption was given by the Supreme Court as they deemed pro baseball was not interstate commerce so therefore, exempt from the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Just doesn't make sense to me, even in 1922 when it was decided as there were and still are baseball franchises in a multitude of states.

As far as the NCAA goes, I think that's why eventually they will have a "super-league" so they can bargain collectively once they are deluged by court cases for collective bargaining by the athletes. There are a couple of schools who have had their student-athletes unionize and I imagine the floodgates will open soon to even more unionization.

I’m on my phone so please excuse any sloppiness…

The answer is weirdly pretty simple. Because in a second case, SCOTUS decided in the 1950s that baseball is a unique sport and cannot be applied as precedent to football, even under the same Sherman Act. Radovich v. National Football League (1957) is the case.

Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957)

Radovich v. National Football League

supreme.justia.com

SCOTUS does that sometimes.

Their reasoning was essentially that - at the time - football dealt with a much larger scale of interstate commerce, spread across many more states and cities across the country, NYC to Chicago to LA. These games were broadcast over tv and radio pretty much everywhere in the U.S. Baseball, according to SCOTUS, was much more localized and limited in geographical scale.

Holmes relied on the Federal Base Ball case mentioned above, applied the Sherman test, and differentiated football in several ways (namely the scale I spoke of above). They just decided back then that the sports were so different, and football was so much larger and more complex that they couldn’t possibly be similar. Nowadays, it seems ridiculous, and the Opinion doesn’t even say very much, but that’s just the way it is. The dissents only disagree on the basis of state decisis (case precedent), not the Court’s reasoning.

Maybe if it were challenged today, we would have a different answer, but I think that’s kind of what is happening today.

Also, in case in wasn’t mentioned above, the Curt Flood Act of 1998 keeps MLB tied to antitrust laws, thanks to Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ297/PLAW-105publ297.pdf

 

[caneingville]

View attachment 313588

Am I the only one surprised by UVA’s position on this list?

 

[CaneinBroward]

I’m on my phone so please excuse any sloppiness…

The answer is weirdly pretty simple. Because in a second case, SCOTUS decided in the 1950s that baseball is a unique sport and cannot be applied as precedent to football, even under the same Sherman Act. Radovich v. National Football League (1957) is the case.

Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957)

Radovich v. National Football League

supreme.justia.com

SCOTUS does that sometimes.

Their reasoning was essentially that - at the time - football dealt with a much larger scale of interstate commerce, spread across many more states and cities across the country, NYC to Chicago to LA. These games were broadcast over tv and radio pretty much everywhere in the U.S. Baseball, according to SCOTUS, was much more localized and limited in geographical scale.

Holmes relied on the Federal Base Ball case mentioned above, applied the Sherman test, and differentiated football in several ways (namely the scale I spoke of above). They just decided back then that the sports were so different, and football was so much larger and more complex that they couldn’t possibly be similar. Nowadays, it seems ridiculous, and the Opinion doesn’t even say very much, but that’s just the way it is. The dissents only disagree on the basis of state decisis (case precedent), not the Court’s reasoning.

Maybe if it were challenged today, we would have a different answer, but I think that’s kind of what is happening today.

Also, in case in wasn’t mentioned above, the Curt Flood Act of 1998 keeps MLB tied to antitrust laws, thanks to Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ297/PLAW-105publ297.pdf

Yeah, from what I read, when it came back up to the Supreme Court in the '50's and '70's, the Supreme Court basically just responded that Congress needs to handle it. They just didn't want to touch it.

 

[caneingville]

Yeah, from what I read, when it came back up to the Supreme Court in the '50's and '70's, the Supreme Court basically just responded that Congress needs to handle it. They just didn't want to touch it.

Right, I can understand that.

The Curt Flood story is in interesting one - he tried taking a case of his own to SCOTUS too back around that time. He was challenging his own contract because he didn’t want to be traded, and argued that the reserve clause was a form of slavery. He lost, but eventually Congress created the Curt Flood rule because of him and his activism.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Right, I can understand that.

The Curt Flood story is in interesting one - he tried taking a case of his own to SCOTUS too back around that time. He was challenging his own contract because he didn’t want to be traded, and argued that the reserve clause was a form of slavery. He lost, but eventually Congress created the Curt Flood rule because of him and his activism.

Yeah, just interesting MLB got 100 years of no rival leagues while the NFL and NBA had to deal with various upstarts in the '60's (AFL), '70's (ABA), and '80's (USFL). It's been pretty quiet for 40 years now though.

It will be interesting to see if a rival pro league to college football should develop over the next 5-10 years.

 

[caneingville]

Yeah, just interesting MLB got 100 years of no rival leagues while the NFL and NBA had to deal with various upstarts in the '60's (AFL), '70's (ABA), and '80's (USFL). It's been pretty quiet for 40 years now though.

It will be interesting to see if a rival pro league to college football should develop over the next 5-10 years.

SCOTUS had some hard core baseball fans back in the day, with an intensely fierce interest in preserving baseball’s sanctity. (Although Holmes was not one of them. I remember Taft was. Forget the others, but I recall there being a few more on the Holmes Court).

True story.

 

[CaneinBroward]

SCOTUS had some hard core baseball fans back in the day, with an intensely fierce interest in preserving baseball’s sanctity. (Although Holmes was not one of them. I remember Taft was. Forget the others, but I recall there being a few more on the Holmes Court).

True story.

Yes. The 7th inning stretch began with Taft so the story goes.

 

[Brooklyndee]

Then why don't the NFL, NBA, and any other pro sports league have the same exemption? They all have collective bargaining agreements with their respective players associations.

In reading the history of it, the exemption was given by the Supreme Court as they deemed pro baseball was not interstate commerce so therefore, exempt from the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Just doesn't make sense to me, even in 1922 when it was decided as there were and still are baseball franchises in a multitude of states.

As far as the NCAA goes, I think that's why eventually they will have a "super-league" so they can bargain collectively once they are deluged by court cases for collective bargaining by the athletes. There are a couple of schools who have had their student-athletes unionize and I imagine the floodgates will open soon to even more unionization.

Because each union barters their own deals. Neither side simply piggy backs the opposing sport.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Because each union barters their own deals. Neither side simply piggy backs the opposing sport.

Read earlier in the thread. The poster stated that baseball received an anti-trust exemption because they collectively bargain with a players association. I was pointing out the other 3 major professional sports leagues do the same. I never said they piggy back on anyone's deals.

 

[Brooklyndee]

Read earlier in the thread. The poster stated that baseball received an anti-trust exemption because they collectively bargain with a players association. I was pointing out the other 3 major professional sports leagues do the same. I never said they piggy back on anyone's deals.

I understood that. Maybe I didn't word it clear. My fault. Only was pointing out when it was stated why don't they do the same it's because each league and each union barter there own deals. Each side isn't necessarily going to offer up the same bullet points since each sport has separate issues. Not to state the obvious.

 

[CaneinBroward]

I understood that. Maybe I didn't word it clear. My fault. Only was pointing out when it was stated why don't they do the same it's because each league and each union barter there own deals. Each side isn't necessarily going to offer up the same bullet points since each sport has separate issues. Not to state the obvious.

Sorry, I still don't understand your point. My point was simply having a collective bargaining agreement with a player's association is not the reason why baseball received an anti-trust exemption by the Supreme Court. It was provided to them by the Court because the Court deemed their "exhibitions" were not interstate commerce so baseball received the exemption in 1922 and since then, any cases brought to overturn it have been punted by the Court to Congress to handle.

Even if the NFL, NBA, and NHL did mirror their collective bargaining agreements with their players' unions to the MLB's, they still would not receive an anti-trust exemption.

 

[PalyCane]

Read earlier in the thread. The poster stated that baseball received an anti-trust exemption because they collectively bargain with a players association. I was pointing out the other 3 major professional sports leagues do the same. I never said they piggy back on anyone's deals.

Point of clarification:

The question you asked is why baseball still has an anti-trust exemption

“As an aside, how the **** does baseball still have an anti-trust exemption after all these years?”

I answered that baseball still has anti-trust exemption today because collective bargaining is in place today. That removes any plaintiff interest for challenging baseball’s anti-trust exemption

My response was not intended why baseball originally received its antitrust exemption 100 years ago, which as you and others have pointed out was for different reasons

 

[CaneinBroward]

Point of clarification:

The question you asked is why baseball still has an anti-trust exemption

“As an aside, how the **** does baseball still have an anti-trust exemption after all these years?”

I answered that baseball still has anti-trust exemption today because collective bargaining is in place today. That removes any plaintiff interest for challenging baseball’s anti-trust exemption

My response was not intended why baseball originally received its antitrust exemption 100 years ago, which as you and others have pointed out was for different reasons

Actually, it has been challenged through the years in the '50's and '70's specifically in the Supreme Court. They didn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole and stated Congress needs to deal with it. As you said, as long as everyone is happy with the collective bargaining agreement (I think it is coming up for renewal soon), there will be no challenge to it.

It would be interesting if a true, rival baseball league (i.e. LIV in golf) were to form and challenge MLB's anti-trust status, how the Supreme Court would react this time.