Antitrust? Calling MGoLawyers

Submitted by MGoAragorn on

I’m not a lawyer. However, the NCAA is a cartel and their decision regarding satellite camps sure seems like it’s a whole lotta collusion to divvy up markets, which is one of the no-nos in US antitrust law.

Pro sports are exempt from antitrust laws, but I don’t think amateur sports are exempt. I think there must be actual damages, so what would preclude a class of athletes from suing the NCAA sometime in the future, assuming it can be shown statistically that those athletes a) received fewer scholarship offers; b) ended up at colleges closer to home; c) experienced less playing time in college; d) were less likely to go pro; or e) all of the above. I don’t think the class would be from the Top X lists because big-time programs find them, but rather the class would be athletes who were destined for lesser programs or football divisions.

The remedy could amount to quite a financial hit to the NCAA, as it can include treble damages.

MGoLawyers, what say you? 

Maizen

April 11th, 2016 at 12:12 PM ^

IRVING, Texas — The SEC and ACC want a national rule preventing college football coaches from staging satellite camps far off campus. Nick Saban is complaining that satellite camps are “ridiculous.” NCAA president Mark Emmert says the issue will be at the top of the list for the NCAA's Football Oversight Committee.

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick offers some cautionary advice to the NCAA: Good luck defending yourself against another antitrust lawsuit.

“The NCAA does not have a very good track record of limiting, without losing an antitrust lawsuit, economic opportunities for coaches,” Swarbrick said Tuesday at the College Football Playoff meetings. “So they should be treading very lightly. The perception is these are school opportunities. A lot of these are coach opportunities purely. Imagine a rule that said, as was introduced years ago, coaches couldn't do national televised advertising because it created a recruiting advantage. … I wouldn't want to defend those lawsuits.”

johnthesavage

April 11th, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^

Also not a lawyer but as I understand it, the more compelling legal issue with this decision is the way it limits the ability of coaches to earn money at these camps.

I think they may expect that this won't stand up in court. But by enacting it out of the blue with no discussion, and immediate force, they at least disrupt the ongoing stuff, which some coaches were obviously not prepared for.

I'd prefer some sort of nuclear option, by which the NCAA is vaporized, but I'm not sure how to acheive that.

massblue

April 11th, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^

According to her,  high school coaches might have a stronger case.  They are not part of NCAA and this prevents them from hiring college coaches to be at their camps.  In other words, a high school in FL should be allowed to hire JIm to work at his camp.

03 Blue 07

April 11th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

Am a lawyer; have done some antitrust work professionally; believe NCAA would lose lawsuit based on antitrust grounds (preventing coaches from making money by holding camps which have neither the participation of, nor attendance of, NCAA student-athletes). Think about the lawsuit where, in 1998, the NCAA was smacked down and ordered to pay damages due to their artificially capping the salaries of assistant coaches at $16k. The NCAA actually had a stronger argument in that case than they would if sued here, in my view. 

Only issue is it would take a few years to work through the legal system. But I am cautiously optimistic that the coaches would prevail in such a suit. 

Mr Miggle

April 11th, 2016 at 12:57 PM ^

prevents from working camps.

An assistant from somewhere like the MAC would make a better lead plaintiff. He has real damages. Camp income supplements a modest salary. Coaching at Big Ten camps gives him valuable exposure to help move up the coaching ranks.

bluebyyou

April 11th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^

I am a lawyer but the wrong kind.  As far as timing goes, a good case could be made that irreparable harm occurs by waiting until the issue is adjudicated due to how recruits are impacted.  File for injunctive relief asking that the NCAA ruling be suspended until the courts have decided the issue. 

charblue.

April 11th, 2016 at 1:02 PM ^

on these grounds, is identifying a class of student-athletes who could demonstrate they were harmed as a group by denial of certain coaching and camp opportunities. You'd have to demonstrate how they were damaged and to what extent their scholarship opportunities might be hamprered or materially  harmed by the failure to showcase their talents before coaches at certain camps.

I think rather than a lawsuit, a susteained public outcry embarrassing the NCAA and certain coaches, schools and conferences is clearly the better avenue to take. Quicker response in the long run.

 

CalifExile

April 11th, 2016 at 1:31 PM ^

Any poor kid will do. You prove your case by having specific individuals like the kicker from GA who went to Penn State file an affidavit that he couldn't afford to travel to camps around the country burt gained exposure when PSU came to GA. Supplement it with an affidavit from Franklin saying we wouldn't have had sufficient confidence to offer a scholarship without the contact in our satellite camp. You only need 2 or 3 individuals to represent the class. It's easy if you only ask for injunctive relief and not monetary damages.

Darker Blue

April 11th, 2016 at 1:09 PM ^

I've felt this way for quite a few years but 

Fuck the ncaa

I know it wasn't very politically correct, but the South Park episode "Crack Baby Basketball" was spot on. I know that the NCAA isn't quite to the level of slave owners but they make a shit ton of money and don't really share that much of the profits with the players who actually make them the money. Sure a free education is nice, but when you are making BILLION$ you probably need to distribute a little bit more of that money. 

/end semi political statement

I probably should be downvoted for being semi political.

Sorry not sorry

wolfman81

April 12th, 2016 at 11:15 AM ^

It is definitely sports-relevant, and it follows an active discussion that has been ongoing here for years.

To me, there is an argument to be articulated which stands irrespective of how much money the NCAA makes.  (The fact that the NCAA is a gigantic cash cow only amplifies the stakes).  The argument, as I see it looks like this:

We (faculty members) hire good students all the time to work in our research labs.  Do well in my physics class, and I'll invite you to join my research group.  Do well in my research group, and I'll give you more responsibility and a raise.  Even if you are already on a scholarship (of any sort).  I'm hiring the best and the brightest for a reason.  There is a market for good physics students to be making money on (and off) campus -- in my lab, in other faculty labs, and in tutoring opportunities (I made a few hundred a month by tutoring students in both HS and college in my off hours).  Why can't the same be said for athletes?  Why can't a hometown athlete go and work a summer camp, and make a few grand in the process?  He has skills to contribute to a market that exists.  And assuming that the employer can afford to pay him...why not?  Is not one purpose of college to accrue skills that you can apply in the marketplace to earn a living?

goblue8394

April 11th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^

That's why they want everything to stay the same. They sure as hell don't want change at the top so they can continue using (mostly)African-American players in basketball/football for their own economic benefit. The two positions that hold the most power are: conference commisioners (100% white) and university presidents (almost 90% white). With that type of majority, there will never be any meaningful change in the NCAA. 

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/four-years-a-student-athlete-the-racial-injustice-of-big-time-college-sports

The white majority leadership of college sports has a long history of acting in its own economic self-interest when it comes to the rights of black athletes. Consider basic participation: in the 1930s and 1940s, Northern teams typically benched their African-American players in order to participate in profitable Southern bowl games—Boston College twice benched Lou Montgomery to play in the Cotton and Sugar Bowls—while in the 1960s and 1970s, Southern teams integrated their football squads because failing to do so was competitive (and financial) suicide. Does the current amateurism status quo reflect more of the same? It's hard not to wonder. "You could argue that the system is not failing us, that it is doing exactly what it is intended to do, " says Eddie Comeaux, an associate professor of higher education at the University of California, Riverside who has studied race, diversity, and structural inequality in college sports, and once played Division I baseball at the University of California, Berkeley. "Think of the stakeholders. The coaches, presidents, the people in positions of privilege and power—namely, white men—all benefit handsomely from this enterprise."

DMack

April 11th, 2016 at 5:03 PM ^

I get it and I was wondering if anyone would confront the under-tones of the elephant in the room. The NCAA is protecting the talent pool of Sothern Schools because it benefits handsomely from the staus quo.  

I hope you didn't scare some of the good progressive commentors when you went Dr. Cornell West on them but this thing does have a civil right movement feel to it.

It's as though we are trying to liberate our brotheren athletes from the coercive and repressive clutches of the old southern plantation schools, who seek to cherry pick the best and leave less opportunity for those that don't make their cut.

So what if they screwed over thousands to get 10, and so what if some of those thousands could have gone to U of M or Northwestern if they could have been evaluated at these camps. They dont care about southern kids success they only wanted to use them and discard them.  

DMack

April 11th, 2016 at 4:28 PM ^

There could be several different Plaintiffs in a case such as this one with several different legal causes. H.S. students, H.S. coaches, college coaches and possibly universities themselves. Going after them with 4 different Plaintiff's all at once would get their attention.

We would almost certainly be granted injuctive relief  and a stay of the NCAA's ruling until the matter is adjudicated based on the irreparable harm to the different classes of Plaintiff's as stated below. Emmert will regret he ever took Sankey's call and acted on behalf of the SEC.  

If there are some serious legal professionals here not just talking I have a few pro bono  hours I can donate to help a good cause.

  

xtramelanin

April 11th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^

and cross state lines, many different plaintiffs, travel, etc.  an expensive case to handle.  fed court cases can get pretty costly.   the issue will be finding some entity/person/group to fund it.  my feeling is that it's a winner on a whole bunch of levels.