NCAA in front of the US Supreme Court today with regards to amateurism
The NCAA is currently in front of the US Supreme Court to discuss their interpretation of amateurism.
They're currently in the middle of getting smacked around by every justice on the Court. It appears that the entire political spectrum hates the NCAA and thinks their model is a farce.
Michael McCann (sports law guy) is a great Twitter follow for more information about what's going on: https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw
March 31st, 2021 at 10:57 AM ^
The comments from the Justices are just roasting them. It might have gone better if the NCAA just kept showing commercials about how most athletes go pro in something other than sports and didn't try to argue anything at all. Hilarious.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:46 AM ^
Many people say you can't win a case in oral arguments, but you can lose. This may be one of those situations for the NCAA.
March 31st, 2021 at 10:57 AM ^
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Kagan seem fairly suspect of the NCAA judging by their questions
March 31st, 2021 at 10:57 AM ^
This even roused Thomas from his nap to lay the smack down.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:09 AM ^
I have less hope about Thomas given his follow-up questions to Kessler, but it's interesting to see the more conservative justices coming down hard against the NCAA.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:20 AM ^
If you follow the SCOTUS, Thomas regularly doesn't ask any questions.
Don't make assumptions about his opinion from the times he does speak up. He may just be confirming a suspicion, putting something out there for other justices, etc.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:38 AM ^
No, I get he rarely asks questions. I've also read enough of his opinions/dissents over the years to know that he's got his own jurisprudential outlook that tends to be idiosyncratic. And when it comes to antitrust and similar competitive practices, he can be quixotic.
I will say, you may be giving Thomas way too much credit if you think he's throwing out ideas for the other justices to discuss.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:55 AM ^
And by saying "idiosyncratic" and "quixotic", you mean idiotic. By this explanation, I agree...
March 31st, 2021 at 12:07 PM ^
Thomas is a thoughtful writer and while I disagree with virtually every opinion he has I can at least follow parts of his logic in getting there. But I swear it feels like he has his own bootleg copy of the Federalist Papers that he relies on for all of his historical rationalizations.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:57 AM ^
Thomas has been asking questions more regularly due to the change in oral argument formats that arrived with the onset of pandemic protocols. So some of this is just circumstantial. More, I think, can be read from him showing *some* skepticism.
March 31st, 2021 at 12:33 PM ^
Fair enough
I will say, you may be giving Thomas way too much credit if you think he's throwing out ideas for the other justices to discuss
Just reaching and/or giving someone the benefit of the doubt rather than judging them since I'm not there.
March 31st, 2021 at 10:59 AM ^
From the quotes that are coming out so far, this isn't going great for the NCAA
March 31st, 2021 at 11:00 AM ^
tfw Breyer is the only one willing to speak against the rights of workers under the guise of protecting a vague ideal.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:02 AM ^
Can someone please question them regarding scheduling Michigan for the 10pm game last night?
March 31st, 2021 at 11:31 AM ^
In addition, tell them to make back to back TV timeouts during basketball games unconstitutional
March 31st, 2021 at 11:04 AM ^
Going off Sotomayer’s question... why the hell is this even in the Supreme Court if the NCAA isn’t looking for anything more than what she asked with regards to district court decisions?
March 31st, 2021 at 11:04 AM ^
Thanks for the heads up and the twitter suggestion. Fascinating stuff.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:06 AM ^
Thanks for posting. McCann does have an interesting feed. It sounds like from a brief review of the coverage that the athletes are asking for more education-related benefits rather than a salaries per se. I'm with most of the folks on this board who believe that more money ought to be directed to athletes, but also I think that given that as the revenues comes from competitions between teams that rules intended to maintain competitive balance aren't unreasonable.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:17 AM ^
Then why not put in a cap on salaries and benefits for coaches?
March 31st, 2021 at 11:21 AM ^
Because that's price fixing and anti-competitive which is what a lot of these Justices are railing against in this case.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:32 AM ^
Right, that's the point of my question. I'm in the boat that players should be able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them. My question was getting at the statement of "revenues [come] from competitions between teams [so] rules intended to maintain competitive balance aren't unreasonable." If someone thinks that where the revenue comes from means exploiting amateur athletes is okay, then why wouldn't that person also think exploiting amateur coaches is okay if the revenue comes from the same place?
March 31st, 2021 at 11:53 AM ^
Haha they're not amateur coaches by definition - they're getting paid.
In the pro leagues, there are no unions of coaches that collectively bargain with the league/teams. For whatever reason, one never developed in the way the players unions did. Which makes coaches salaries limited only by how much teams want to pay. If the richest owner wanted to buy the best coaching staff money could buy, they would. I guess they've determined getting better players is a better use of resources, so player salaries are multiples more than coaches, in all leagues. Which is all to suggest that there is no real competitive balance interest in limiting coach salaries, while it's demonstrated across the NFL, NBA, NHL, and even MLB, that there is in limiting player salaries.
March 31st, 2021 at 12:02 PM ^
Sorry if my intention wasn't clear, what I meant by that was "coaches of amateurs," not trying to imply they are amateurs themselves.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my point -- I agree that athletes should receive a greater share of the pie -- but if that a slice of that pie is generated by a game between Michigan and Rutgers, for instance, aren't the Scarlet Knight players contributing the revenue generated? If Michigan pays its players $40k a season on top of scholarships and Rutgers 20k are the Rutgers players being exploited or is that fine because they choose or their choices were limited to a less wealthy institution?
Shit I hope that analogy doesn't become something.
Because the precedent would fuck the private sector.
If Google (Michigan) would pay me $250K a year while Yahoo (Rutger) would only pay me $60K a year is kinda how the real world works.
So do lawsuits start flying and everyone makes the same money regardless of organization, qualifications, merit, value, etc.? I suppose to Andrew Yang fans.
The distinction I'd would make is that Google and Yahoo are separate businesses competing economically (though obviously Google is doing much better). And assuming that most agree that college football is more like a business than say college crew or college glee clubs then I think Rutgers and Michigan are component parts of that business, competing with whatever people do when they watch less college football (other sports, Netflix, time with family etc.)
Nearly all professional sports have rules that you wouldn't see in pure free market capitalism. Yahoo and Google don't draft college students based on their prior year's performance, there's no salary caps or limits to the number of employees they can hire etc.
I'd would make is that Google and Yahoo are separate businesses competing economically
Which is no different than the post I responded too.
You wrote that students competing for a lesser program are somehow exploited vis-a-vis someone doing the same work for a superior program.
I used two separate but competing business in the same space which are directly analogous to your Michigan/Rutger scenario.
The University and/or the AD, of Michigan is indeed a business.
Rutger is indeed a business.
Michigan and Rutger are separate businesses.
Michigan and Rutger compete for the same clients (5 stars)... just like when I worked for Honeywell we tried to beat Garmin for the same clients (aviation).
The better Michigan and Rutger do, the more it benefits their institutions. So they not only compete for signing the same clients but they compete economically as well. After all that's how Michigan will be able to afford to pay its players better one day -- which is what you were trying to say was problematic. LOL.
Nearly all professional sports have rules that you wouldn't see in pure free market capitalism. there's no salary caps or limits to the number of employees they can hire etc.
Not an apples to apples comparison. You're just moving the goals posts now instead of engaging in cogent discussion.
Yahoo and Google don't draft college students based on their prior year's performance
1. Yes they fucking do. You clearly haven't been to any recruiting events. LOL.
2. Please do try to stay on point. Again, the point is you wrote that students competing for a lesser program are somehow exploited vis-a-vis someone doing the same work for a superior program. That's simply not true any way to you try to spin it.
As much fun as it is arguing with folks I don't know online there comes a point of futility, which I think is fast approaching. It's fine that you and I disagree (and maybe you are more right than I am), but I don't think the points you are responding to aren't the ones I was making.
I'll concede that, to an extent, Rutgers and Michigan are competing businesses in the area of college football as their teams have separate budgets and benefit from seeing those budgets increase.
That said, I think that they are far more connected economically than Honeywell and Garmin. As you said, Honeywell and Garmin compete for clients, and I assume rarely if ever share clients. The largest clients/customers of college football are, I suspect, the broadcast networks followed by ticket buyers. Broadcast revenue is shared by teams and to a lesser extent ticket revenue is as well since visiting teams get a cut. Broadcasters want -- and a significant number of fans in the seats want -- a reasonably competitive playing field. Clients of competing businesses might not mind if one company gets the vast majority of the clients so long as the clients get good service at competitive rates.
Regarding my draft example, you point out that Google and Yahoo hold recruiting events. Isn't recruiting the opposite of drafting? Alabama recruits players from high school. The Patriots draft players from college.
Finally, my point wasn't that Rutgers players were necessarily being exploited in my example. It was that a system that exacerbates the existing competitive imbalance in college football wasn't good for the sport as a whole financially -- if it may be good for Michigan vis-a-vis Rutgers.
First, that's what unions are for, and should the courts decide that the NCAA must allow compensation to athletes above the current CoA, a NCAA Players Union is absolutely sure to follow. Second, if Rutgers only wants to offer $20k to their students while Michigan offers $40k, that's their choice (so long as neither party violates the terms of a theoretical CBA). They're choosing profit over competitiveness, just like professional teams who pay just enough to be over the salary floor while others pay up to the salary cap. Are players on the Miami Marlins being exploited because players on the New York Yankees make considerably more on average?
I assume this would follow the same logic that is used at any other level... Is a rookie player in the NFL being exploited because he is making less on his rookie deal than the highest payed player in the league? Those decisions are market driven. If UM wants to "pay" its players 40k and Rutgers wants to pay theirs 20k that creates a competitive imbalance but that's not UM's fault or problem. My guess is the final system is not going to be a pure unfettered marketplace (like MLB) but will be set by the conferences with their revenue sharing and TV rights etc. Hard to say where all this goes though. A LOT of changes and possibilities are on the horizon.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:34 AM ^
It's interesting, though - how would this shake out regarding public vs. private institutions? Wouldn't there be a case made that capping coaching salaries for public universities be in the general interest of the state's budget/tax uses?
Or maybe there's the fact that many athletic departments are separate entities. Dunno.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:07 AM ^
Yeah, following this case on Twitter makes it sound like we'll get one of those 6-3/7-2 decisions against the NCAA that'll be good for athletes but also have enough weird caveats we'll still be arguing over this for a while. Like, Thomas talking about how the value paid to the players may increase over time and how that would lead to litigation is one of those annoying slippery slope arguments judges fall back on when they want to vote a certain way already. But seems like the NCAA's case is weak and they sort of know it.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:22 AM ^
I would be shocked if the NCAA has any situational awareness to even know their case is weak.
I think it's time for university presidents to bust the NCAA like a corporation does to a union.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:41 AM ^
They've been going at this long enough in the courts to reason their arguments aren't particularly strong, but they're also a billion dollar organization that has enjoyed a monopoly on resources and the suppression of worker compensation for decades. I'm sure it's quite a trip for them right now.
March 31st, 2021 at 12:37 PM ^
but they're also a billion dollar organization that has enjoyed a monopoly
IDK but for me, that's even more incentive to break up the NCAA from the bottom up. 1. gain more control and 2. get a piece of that billions of dollars pie.
Technically, they're a monopsony, a word Gorsuch used, not a monopoly.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:31 AM ^
Can the SCOTUS actually do anything here?
March 31st, 2021 at 12:02 PM ^
They can rule that the NCAA's business model is unconstitutional, which would put it directly out of business. So there's that...
Not really. They are mostly deciding just on the Alston case on it's own. They can expand or narrow the scope based on some details, and what they put in the opinions. But at the core, either they accept or overturn the decision of the trial and appeals courts, which sided with Alston and against the NCAA on the anti-trust argument. They can't throw out the whole model with just this case. It doesn't even touch NIL rights, for instance.
I still feel a lot of you all are going to regret this NIL movement. I mean, I'm fine with it because I don't think universities should sponsor sports at all, but I know I'm in the minority with that opinion.
It sounds good to let the players earn their market value themselves as it is they are who earning the colleges sports revenue in general, but the unintended consequences of a more capitalist system could be ugly.
There is only so much ad revenue to spread around, and if the leagues themselves start getting less money, they won't be cutting football coach salaries, they'll be cutting water polo or volleyball or tennis (even more).
I agree with you on some of this Carpetbagger. I think NIL is a reasonable thing for student athletes, but I think there will be some unintended consequences that will just create new problems.
Maybe Michigan Athletics will be able to use the system to its full extent but I suspect that those who are currently bending or breaking the rules now will continue to do so, and those who don’t will abide by the spirit of NIL.
I don't think universities should sponsor sports at all,
But you're a fan of college sports?
There is only so much ad revenue to spread around, and if the leagues themselves start getting less money,
Professional athletes earn endorsement money, but this doesn't seem to harm the values of pro sports TV contracts. Why would it be different for college sports?
March 31st, 2021 at 11:37 AM ^
You can't count on the results matching up with the questions during oral arguments.
But it doesn't look good. The NCAA will be sweating this ruling, and it deserves to sweat it.
I've been saying this for years: Fix stuff or you run the risk that the government will get involved and fix stuff for you... and when they're involved, you don't get to control how much they're going to fix. I've made the same arguments for head injuries in the sports where those are dangerous.
The NCAA could have saved itself a lot of trouble by releasing NIL rights. Instead they're left hoping that they won't get their whole operating model destroyed by a 9-0 vote.
March 31st, 2021 at 12:10 PM ^
The NCAA is really accomplishing quite a feat here, uniting the most conservative and liberal justices!
March 31st, 2021 at 12:49 PM ^
They've been getting along quite nicely recently.
March 31st, 2021 at 12:38 PM ^
I've been saying this for years: Fix stuff or you run the risk that the government will get involved and fix stuff for you... and when they're involved, you don't get to control how much they're going to fix.
Ha! GM certainly learned your lesson hard way.
March 31st, 2021 at 11:38 AM ^
Perhaps the NCAA higher-ups just get off on public humiliation...? nttawwt
March 31st, 2021 at 12:07 PM ^
I haven't caught up with all Twitters on this case and I'm not a legal expert, but I will say that SCOTUS plays devil's advocate with both sides. So of course they're being tough on the NCAA. That in and of itself doesn't mean they'll come down against them.
March 31st, 2021 at 12:37 PM ^
This argument by the NCAA is one you make when you've sort of run out of better ones. It breaks down to "do you really want to see us again?"