forums

NCAA Oversight Committee proposes New Penalties for Transfers who unenroll....

Advertisement
winter is coming GIF
 
Really? How about:

- The NCAA would be prohibited from all football and administrated duties through the sixth contest of the season.
- The NCAA would give 20% of its football revenues to fund athletic departments.
- The NCAA would be required to lose the number of football playoff selection committe member spots by five for next season, regardless of the head selection committee member's status.
 
Last edited:
Not a lawyer and I did not stay in a holiday inn express last night... This looks like the NCAA and member institutions have recognized they cannot stop the players from moving and so the penalties will be levied on the coaches (employees) and program (member institution) instead.

But, doesn't that still violate anti-trust if the end effect is essentially freezing out student athlete movement?
 
Advertisement
Cribby said:
How cute the NCAA must’ve went to Aspen Dental and got a few implants.
Click to expand...
You have a student that attends a university but decides to transfer the next semester to a university who will benefit the student more for the next semester? The NCAA and the rest of the country say this is logical and what happens all the time.

You have a student athlete that is held hostage by his current school and refuses to put the paperwork in for him to transfer? The NCAA says this is perfectly ok.

The "Xavier Lucas Rule" now allows the NCAA to say "nuh uh! Your new school owes us 10-20 million dollars and they lose 5 scholarship spots."

Absolutely laughable. The NCAA must be run by dudes older and less lucid than Mitch McConnell.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Even with a simple prompt on ChatGPT asking if the ncaa can do this and would it survive a challenge I got this response……guessing NCAA didn’t listen to their counsel on this one.

Edited to add: the cases listed didn’t transfer over for some reason in section 4. Case 1 is NCAA v U of Oklahoma board of regents. Case 2 is Obannon and case 3 is Alston…..for anyone who cares lol.


I’ll break this down into:

  1. What the proposal does legally
  2. Relevant NCAA “case law” and infractions precedent
  3. Federal antitrust framework
  4. Application of modern Supreme Court rulings
  5. Likelihood the NCAA could enforce this
  6. Bottom-line assessment

1. What This Proposal Legally Does​

The proposal would impose severe institutional penalties if:

  • A student-athlete transfers,
  • Was not active in the Transfer Portal at the time of transfer,
  • Participates in athletically related activity at the new school.
Penalties include:

  • Head coach suspension through six contests
  • 20% football budget fine
  • Reduction of five roster spots the following season
This is a horizontal agreement among competing schools (via the NCAA) restricting transfer participation and imposing coordinated penalties.

That places it squarely in the realm of:

  • NCAA governance authority
  • Contract law (membership agreement)
  • Federal antitrust law (Sherman Act §1)
The real issue isn’t whether the NCAA can write the rule. The question is whether it would survive antitrust challengeunder modern Supreme Court precedent.

2. NCAA Infractions Precedent (Internal Case Law)​

Historically, the NCAA has imposed:

  • Postseason bans
  • Scholarship reductions
  • Coach suspensions
  • Financial penalties
  • Recruiting restrictions
These have generally been upheld internally because member schools contractually agree to NCAA governance.

However, that internal authority has increasingly collided with federal courts.

3. The Antitrust Framework​

The governing law is:

  • Sherman Act §1 (15 U.S.C. §1) — prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade.
NCAA rules are analyzed under:

  • Rule of Reason (not per se illegality)
  • Market definition
  • Anticompetitive effects
  • Procompetitive justifications
  • Less restrictive alternatives
The Supreme Court has consistently held that NCAA rules are subject to antitrust scrutiny.

4. Key Supreme Court and Federal Cases​

1️⃣​

Held:

  • NCAA television restrictions violated antitrust law.
  • Recognized NCAA needs some coordination for product definition.
  • BUT confirmed NCAA is subject to Sherman Act.
Important language:
The NCAA cannot use “amateurism” as a blanket immunity.

2️⃣​

Held:

  • NCAA restrictions on athlete compensation violated antitrust law.
  • Amateurism justification was weakened.

3️⃣​

This is the game changer.

Held:

  • NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust law.
  • Court unanimously ruled against NCAA.
  • Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence strongly suggested that most NCAA compensation restrictions may violate antitrust law.
Key takeaway:
The Court rejected broad deference to NCAA claims of preserving amateurism.

4️⃣ Transfer-Specific Litigation​

Recent litigation (2023–2024) involving transfer restrictions resulted in:

  • Courts issuing temporary restraining orders and injunctions against NCAA transfer eligibility rules.
  • Federal courts finding likely antitrust violations in transfer restrictions.
In multiple cases, courts found:

  • Transfer restrictions limit athlete labor mobility.
  • Such limits may violate Sherman Act absent strong justification.

5. Applying Antitrust Analysis to This Proposal​

Step 1: Relevant Market​

Likely market:

  • Division I FBS football labor market
  • Or broader Division I athlete labor market
Student-athletes now clearly function in a commercial labor market (NIL, revenue sharing, etc.).

Step 2: Anticompetitive Effect​

This rule:

  • Restricts athlete mobility
  • Punishes receiving schools
  • Chills recruitment of transferring athletes
  • Acts as coordinated restraint among competitors
This looks very similar to:

  • No-poach agreements
  • Group boycotts
  • Collective labor mobility restrictions
Those are traditionally suspect under antitrust law.

Step 3: Procompetitive Justifications NCAA Would Argue​

The NCAA would likely argue:

  • Maintaining competitive balance
  • Preventing tampering
  • Preserving orderly transfer process
  • Protecting integrity of portal system
However, after Alston, courts require:

  • Concrete economic evidence
  • Proof that rule is necessary
  • Proof no less restrictive alternative exists

Step 4: Less Restrictive Alternatives​

Courts would likely ask:

  • Could tampering be punished individually?
  • Could schools be fined only upon proof of inducement?
  • Could compliance enforcement target bad actors rather than mobility itself?
If alternatives exist, the rule likely fails under Rule of Reason.

6. Coach-Specific Sanctions​

Suspending a head coach for six contests for portal noncompliance:

  • May be permissible internally
  • But if tied to an unlawful restraint of trade, it becomes part of the antitrust violation.
Reducing roster spots and imposing a 20% budget fine may be viewed as:

  • Retaliatory enforcement mechanism
  • Enforcement of a potentially unlawful restraint

7. Could the NCAA Do This?​

Technically?​

Yes — they can adopt the rule via membership vote.

Legally?​

Highly vulnerable to antitrust challenge.

Given:

  • NCAA v. Alston
  • Recent federal injunctions against transfer restrictions
  • Increasing judicial skepticism of NCAA “amateurism” defenses
  • Recognition of athletes as participants in a commercial market
This proposal would likely face immediate litigation and serious risk of injunction.

8. What Courts Would Likely Focus On​

  1. Is this a restraint on athlete labor mobility?
  2. Is it a horizontal agreement among competitors?
  3. Does it suppress market competition?
  4. Are there less restrictive alternatives?
  5. Does the NCAA have empirical evidence supporting necessity?
Post-Alston, courts require real economic proof.

9. Bottom Line​

Can the NCAA adopt this rule?​

Yes.

Would it survive antitrust challenge?​

Uncertain, but increasingly unlikely if challenged aggressively.

My Legal Assessment:​

Given the trajectory from:

  • NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
  • O'Bannon v. NCAA
  • NCAA v. Alston
…courts are moving steadily toward treating NCAA athlete restrictions as commercial restraints subject to strict Rule of Reason scrutiny.

This proposal:

  • Restricts mobility
  • Coordinates competitor behavior
  • Imposes punitive sanctions
  • Has clear market impact
It would be legally vulnerable.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top