|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 15:38:24 GMT -8
If the NCAA's limitations on compensation are a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then shouldn't the NCAA's eligibility limitations be a violation as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by crackhead on Dec 1, 2022 15:56:08 GMT -8
If the NCAA's limitations on compensation are a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then shouldn't the NCAA's eligibility limitations be a violation as well? This sounds like is should be on an episode of LA Law, not here on the board. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 20:48:55 GMT -8
If the NCAA's limitations on compensation are a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then shouldn't the NCAA's eligibility limitations be a violation as well? This sounds like is should be on an episode of LA Law, not here on the board. It's just as relevant as all of the other legal debates regarding waivers and such. But, if you think it's too much for your pointy little head, don't participate. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 1, 2022 20:58:43 GMT -8
If the NCAA's limitations on compensation are a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then shouldn't the NCAA's eligibility limitations be a violation as well? You can play anywhere you want. You just cannot play at an NCAA college. Why would that be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act? |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 21:06:57 GMT -8
If the NCAA's limitations on compensation are a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then shouldn't the NCAA's eligibility limitations be a violation as well? You can play anywhere you want. You just cannot play at an NCAA college. Why would that be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act? It would be the same principle as non-compete clauses: too restrictive and they are an unjustifiable restraint on trade. Sure you can play elsewhere ... but ... it's like a Michelin-star Chef who leaves his restaurant and is told "you can flip burgers anywhere." |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Dec 1, 2022 21:11:23 GMT -8
It's pretty simple.
The NCAA is a voluntary organization. Schools are not compelled to join; some don't. But when you become part of a group, you agree to its rules and laws. The NCAA has certain rules, including things like eligibility, that member schools agree to follow to ensure fair competition.
Leave the law to the lawyers. It's their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 1, 2022 21:13:14 GMT -8
You can play anywhere you want. You just cannot play at an NCAA college. Why would that be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act? It would be the same principle as non-compete clauses: too restrictive and they are an unjustifiable restraint on trade. Sure you can play elsewhere ... but ... it's like a Michelin-star Chef who leaves his restaurant and is told "you can flip burgers anywhere." But non-compete clauses are upheld all of the time. I have drafted non-compete clauses that have never been successfully challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by crackhead on Dec 1, 2022 21:27:59 GMT -8
This sounds like is should be on an episode of LA Law, not here on the board. It's just as relevant as all of the other legal debates regarding waivers and such. But, if you think it's too much for your pointy little head, don't participate. It was a joke. But I get it, grrrr, it’s the internets, rawrr! |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 21:39:12 GMT -8
It's just as relevant as all of the other legal debates regarding waivers and such. But, if you think it's too much for your pointy little head, don't participate. It was a joke. But I get it, grrrr, it’s the internets, rawrr! Oops, sorry. Please forgive the snark. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 21:41:14 GMT -8
It's pretty simple. The NCAA is a voluntary organization. Schools are not compelled to join; some don't. But when you become part of a group, you agree to its rules and laws. The NCAA has certain rules, including things like eligibility, that member schools agree to follow to ensure fair competition. Leave the law to the lawyers. It's their job. You could make that argument for the compensation limitations the SCOTUS ruled a violation of the SAA. The entire NIL system is a result of that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 21:44:12 GMT -8
It would be the same principle as non-compete clauses: too restrictive and they are an unjustifiable restraint on trade. Sure you can play elsewhere ... but ... it's like a Michelin-star Chef who leaves his restaurant and is told "you can flip burgers anywhere." But non-compete clauses are upheld all of the time. I have drafted non-compete clauses that have never been successfully challenged. Yes, if they are written properly. Failure to specify time limits, establishing to large a geographic area, failure to accommodate the high demand for certain skillsets, have all resulted in NCAs that are tossed by the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 1, 2022 21:51:45 GMT -8
But non-compete clauses are upheld all of the time. I have drafted non-compete clauses that have never been successfully challenged. Yes, if they are written properly. Failure to specify time limits, establishing to large a geographic area, failure to accommodate the high demand for certain skillsets, have all resulted in NCAs that are tossed by the courts. But no one is precluding anyone from playing anywhere else. It is not even a non-compete. You just exhaust eligibility to play. That's like saying that a U21 tournament violates the Sherman Act. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the right to maintain your ability to market your likeness just because you agreed to play sports for an NCAA school situation. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 1, 2022 22:14:29 GMT -8
Yes, if they are written properly. Failure to specify time limits, establishing to large a geographic area, failure to accommodate the high demand for certain skillsets, have all resulted in NCAs that are tossed by the courts. But no one is precluding anyone from playing anywhere else. It is not even a non-compete. You just exhaust eligibility to play. That's like saying that a U21 tournament violates the Sherman Act. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the right to maintain your ability to market your likeness just because you agreed to play sports for an NCAA school situation. This article suggests that Allston was the opening salvo and that the SCOTUS is itching to transform intercollegiate athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 1, 2022 22:26:27 GMT -8
But no one is precluding anyone from playing anywhere else. It is not even a non-compete. You just exhaust eligibility to play. That's like saying that a U21 tournament violates the Sherman Act. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the right to maintain your ability to market your likeness just because you agreed to play sports for an NCAA school situation. This article suggests that Allston was the opening salvo and that the SCOTUS is itching to transform intercollegiate athletics. In compensation-related issues, not eligibility-related issues. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Dec 2, 2022 7:35:59 GMT -8
The "it's like a non-compete clause" doesn't past muster for academic eligibility. The player with a 400 SAT score never received any compensation and is effectively blocked out from pursuing their profession. It might apply to the four-year limit for eligibility has a better basis - at least the player was employed and signed a contract.
What we have here is a industry-wide temporary employment contract. There is nothing wrong with that - it's similar to actors "working for scale" in the theater. However, specific terms can be judged to be illegal for a variety of reasons. In this case, a court is likely to buy the argument that eligibility requirements are appropriately tied to the nature of the college "job". As long as academic requirements correspond reasonably well to the likelihood of student success and college degrees continue to take about four years to achieve, a court will probably let them stand.
Honestly, I'd be more worried about some court somewhere attacking the NCAA based on theories of "disparate impact". The last time I looked, fully half of the colleges that lost scholarships due to infractions were HBC's. A grandstanding judge or a equity-obsessed presidential administration could do a lot of mischief by claiming the NCAA eligibility requirements are racist - either in their form or in their application.
|
|
