New Anti-Trust Lawsuit Filed Against NCAA
Per the ESPN story linked above, there's another lawsuit heading to challenge the NCAA's current "salary cap" of scholarships and prohibition of almost any other sources of income.
The move comes on the heels of a similar, if less aggressive, claim filed earlier this month by a Seattle firm on behalf of former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston. In that suit, which does not include current players, the same defendants that Kessler's group is targeting were asked to pay damages for the difference in the value of an athletic scholarship and the full cost of attendance -- an amount equivalent to several thousand dollars annually. By contrast, the Kessler suit dispenses with the cost-of-attendance argument and does not ask for damages as a group. It simply states that no cap is legal in a free market, and asks the judge to issue an injunction against the NCAA ending the practice. It contends that NCAA member universities are acting as a "cartel" by fixing the prices paid for athletes, who presumably would receive offers well in excess of tuition, room, board and books if not restricted by NCAA rules.
Kessler is most famous for his work against leagues for players. He's
"a litigator with a history of victories against sports leagues reaching to the 1970s. Kessler helped bring free agency to the NFL, winning a key jury verdict for the NFL Players Association in 1992. He remains outside counsel to the NFLPA and the NBA's player union, has taken on Major League Baseball, and represented star athletes including Michael Jordan and Tom Brady. For municipal authorities, he forced the Raiders to honor their stadium lease and stay in Oakland."
Should be interesting to see where this goes...
March 17th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
This really would be opening Pandora's box. I don't want the NCAA to lose this.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
While I think that the NCAA is full of crap in general, and way out of line on most things, an unregulated bidding war wouldn't be great IMO.
I'm a fan of the Olympic Model, and of some sort of stipend/trust fund/something so that athletes get a more proportionate slice of the ever-growing pie of revenue that they generate. It bothers me that athletes are prohibited from holding other jobs. Grad students get university stipends, and that factors into where they go to school. There are a lot of things to dislike about the current system.
I'm sure the students would like it as well. I'd perfer a lot of different options to an all-out bidding war
However, i'm not blaming the students or former athelets here, like it seems others are (not you :) ) I'm blaming the NCAA, as they built the monster they are now facing. When you have a situation that flat out punshes a "student athlete" for playing sports... something is wrong.
I remember hearing a story on this board (i'll try to track it down if someone wants) that talked about a Michigan Football player having a friend fix up his car for a few beers. After the compliance department saw that his car was fixed, they asked him to provide reciepts of the work done at an auto shop. When he told them his buddy did it, he had to take his car to an auto shop... get a quote for the work was done, and then pay his friend the amount needed for the car to be repaired if he took it in. That's fucked up. Since then i've heard of similar stories at other colleges... it's no joke.
I thought that in America people called your "Pandora's box" a free market. I also thought people generally supported free markets.
What am I missing?
You are missing the desire for competitive balance. We have salary caps in three of the four major sports (and a luxury tax in the other) for this reason. In a truly free market, the small-market teams would be screwed, like they are in European sports.
College sports has its inequities, but the prohibition on paying players still helps to level things somewhat. Take that away and you move into really uncharted territory. You probably kill the financial health of a lot of athletic departments, among other things.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
the same defendants that Kessler's group is targeting were asked to pay damages for the difference in the value of an athletic scholarship and the full cost of attendance -- an amount equivalent to several thousand dollars annually.Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't the total value of an athletic scholarship exceed the full cost of attendance? I'm taking into consideration training table, per diem while on trips, travel expenses, swag, etc..
March 17th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
"Full cost of attendace" has been used as a term to explain costs associated with going to the colleges that they can't cover through scholarship - travel to and from campus/home, things of that nature.
The "BCS" conferences (for lack of a better term) actually have petitioned the NCAA to allow themselves to pay athletes the FCoA since they need to do something with all this money. The small schools (indiana state, etc) have so far vetoed.
Here's some background from SI from two years ago: "Here's what Perlman means. When Nebraska officials calculated the cost of attendance for an out-of-state student planning to live on campus for the 2011-12 school year, they told the federal government that student would have to pay $19,848 in tuition and fees, $1,020 for books and supplies, $8,196 for room and board and $3,422 for miscellaneous expenses including travel home, clothing, laundry, etc. The total cost: $32,486. According to the NCAA's definition of a full scholarship, Nebraska would only be allowed to give an athlete $29,064. That $3,422 is not covered.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/03/08/presidents-scholarships/index.html#ixzz2wEX1teGf"
March 17th, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^
I don't understand. Why is travel to and from home something a kid should be compensated for? NOBODY gets that paid. If you accept a scholarship (athletic or academic) to a school 1000s of miles away, and travel expenses are a concern, you shouldn't have accpeted the offer.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
Most of these athletes can't go get jobs since going to practice and participating in their sports on top of class leaves little time. Also, if someone wants to pay for me to do all this stuff, no one is stopping them. Athletes have such a prohibition.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
When I was in school, athletes usually got hooked up with jobs in the summers, working for wealthy donors or alumni. General Dynamics and HiGrade are 2 companies that come to mind. The work sucked ass (especially HiGrade - blech) but it was a job. Maybe things are different now. I don't know.
Also, don't the overwhelming majority of college students have some debt coming out of college? We're talking about $285/month here for "living expenses." Can't they take out a loan like the majority of other kids?
(Just some background from my perspective - I'm not completely clueless about this situation. I lived it. I was there for 4 years and experienced everything that goes on inside the building. I just don't feel like every single little thing is the responsibility of the school, in MY opinion.)
I was not aware that I could have taken out more loans to cover pizza and gas while I was in college. I thought those loans were only available to pay tuition and room/board. I had to pay for all of the other stuff myself.
No lending institution is going to hand out loans for that kind of stuff, especially when it doesn't assist the student's ability to pay back the loan in the future.
And we flip out on this board when our offensive linemen haven't put on enough good weight over the summer, and haven't gotten better year to year, but it would be okay if they took a job in the off-season?
College football is a business, and a big one at that. The players are the biggest piece of that. I don't see why people get upset that a school should give them some extra money in return for all that they deal with during their time there.
If that is the premise, that "college football is a business," then let's fix that part. Make it less of a business. Decrease the time athletes spend in their sports. Make them true student-athletes. Let all of the wannabe pros go to a developmental league. Decrease athletic budgets.
To a great extent, I blame the institutions themselves for engaging in the sort of arms race towards bigger and bigger budgets and more and more NFL-Lite kinds of accoutrements.
The Ivy League isn't having these problems. I'd favor moving to the Ivy League model instead of the NFL Jr. model. I'd rather Michigan's athletic department run in the red, rather than have it be profitable under a model of paying players in a minor league football system.
I largely agree with this but too many 3rd parties benefit from this model to ever really make the switch. At that point, it becomes what can we do to make it less unfair/more equitable.
You ever open up a credit card account when you were in school?
I get what your saying, but please lets not say the answer to this problem is to simply charge it up. Fiscal responsibility is a lost skill for many and a huge factor in post-college quality of life. Keep in mind a lot of these kids will not end up in the pros.
Neither did I, nor my wife or son (a current student). Managing money is a lesson we all need to learn. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do. If your family can't afford $285/month, and you can't (for whatever reason) find a summer job, then you have to borrow money to make ends meet temporarily. If that means getting a credit card, so be it.
I'm not trying to trivialize this, nor am I suggesting kids put themselves behind the 8-ball before they even graduate. However, we're talking about a small amount of money compared to what a lot of kids have to do to foot the school bill. These athletes are getting $30,000 in tuition. Most students don't get anything close to that, and many don't come from families that can just stroke a reader to cover it.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
If I'm a genuis grad student (not real life), I'll get scholarship offers from universities at the top of my field. I'll get wined-and-dined and told various perks of choosing University X - like facilities, professors, housing, stipends, potential for outside jobs (could I tutor or pick up hours in a lab?) and what I'll make financially.
Now for athletes, that's all the same except that they can't get a stipend, can't get an outside job (what's different about a grad student tutoring someone and a football player working in the CCRB or something?) oh, and they have to watch how much cream cheese goes on their bagel.
If the goal truly is "student education", why not remove a barrier (like travel costs) when you're totally printing money?
March 17th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
Dont blame the players, it's the insitutions fault for being greedy. They have killed the golden goose with their relentless pursuit of bigger and bigger TV contracts.
March 17th, 2014 at 10:47 PM ^
Between antitrust issues and CTE concerns, I'm thinking that unless there is something I am totally missing, college sports, particularly football, can't keep its current model and survive.
It is very hard filling 109,000 seat stadiums for lacrosse games. If I'm an AD and stadium expansion or improvement is in the wind, I might have to think twice.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
Nobody is forcing schools to field sports teams and join the NCAA. It's a voluntary arrangement. And if I'm not mistaken, there's even alternative such as the NAIA.
All these comparison of the NCAA to the NFL, NBA or any professional league are just stupid because it's a total apples to oranges comparison.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
Oh boy, here we go again.......
March 17th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
March 17th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^
Student-Athletes can make X, administrators can make Y, and affiliates (like Bowl committees) can only make Z.
Everything else that is made, all additional revenue that is made beyond the set caps for these groups goes into a pot. With the money from this pot, the millions even billions of dollars...we go build schools for kids that can't afford college, we put money into research for disease, we give more support to building our inner-cities and riding them of crime. We make America better.
Eh, nevermind...let's all get paid.
March 17th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
March 17th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
March 17th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
Profit doesn't take into account all the money that goes to the suits. Emmert's 1.7M? Not a profit!
March 17th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
Can I..... drink you..
March 17th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
March 17th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
So Kessler "won" a case against a league that instituted a salary cap as a result of this "win", but that's still a win even though salary caps are, according to him, inherently monopolistic?
Hmm, that's a good point. I still disagree that scholarship caps make it a monopolistic enterprise. Brandon Jennings proved that point. The fact that nobody followed his lead is not the NCAA's problem.
And I think Kessler's being an asshole when he says this will "save college sports." As usual, we have here a lawsuit whose focus is on diverting money and resources from one sport to another. If anyone thinks a more free market system will actually open up opportunities, they're crazy. The world they're building is: if you want a scholarship, play football or basketball, or you're screwed, and P.S. - don't be a woman, because women contribute nothing and therefore deserve nothing. Really wonderful idea.
Read this article for a more thorough argument. The fact that 1 player left the country doesn't make the NCAA any less of a cartel. That's not standard that the case will be measured against.
These lawsuits go head to head against Title IX.
If they try to pay big men's sport players, they will have to equal pay for the womens sports.
The costs will be too prohibitive and 75% of the sports will be cut and become "amateur clubs" with no school support.
I think the lawyers will argue that they cannot pay mens players what they are worth in a competitive market because the women would be worth less and that goes directly against Title IX. Title IX will win out in the courts over anti-trust.
...to make sure that everybody shares in the new effective taxes on college athletics, so that it all goes where they want it. Women's sports; carefully managed minority representation; union organizing fees; and naturally, fees to lobbyists who will work the regulators and help fund campaigns.
This country is really fucked up if this happens.
How did the principles of a market become so awe-inspiring and hypnotic that people literally can't conceptualize of any activity without reference to said principles?
It wasn't all that long ago that freshmen were ineligible to play varsity sports so they could get accustomed to college academic life. It wasn't all that long ago that teams could only be on TV a few times a year. Life went on.
People and lawyers can scream it until their faces and bodies turn blue, but college students playing sports for their schools are not employees of the schools just because the schools charge admission to see the games.
Cap the coaches' and administrators' salaries, cap admissions prices, and take all the excess money in the system and distribute it to charity or the university at large. That's a billion times better an idea than market bidding for non-students to play semi-pro football under the name of a university.