Former Recruits and Players

BaNgMyPrOgRaM said:
I think he meant the thread not the player. But yeah, I'm glad he's doing great. Let's just say I won't think as much about our former players who transfer. Guys like MSS and Ace...Etc.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with MSS because he came back to play with Ram Nation in the TBT and did a pretty darn good job considering he'd been all-in on football up to that point.
 
share the ball said:
interesting take - to me the scenario you describe then puts the college basketball enterprise into a clear business and colleges and universities would have to treat athletics as an unrelated business subject to federal and state income tax (assuming they make money, which most don't )

then the next question is can contributions to a taxable business be tax deductible for the donor?

IMO colleges and universities will maintain limits on eligibllity for the Student- athletes (yes student - athlete was tongue in cheek to an extent ) but like you say this will be challenged in court
Click to expand...
It's extraordinarily complicated. Any agreement by two or more employers that restricts the ability to employ (eligibility limits, enrollment requirements, class attendance requirements academic progress requirements etc) would be restraints of trade and unlawful under the Sherman Act. Congress could provide antitrust immunity (and is considering it), but if it doesn't, the only other way to escape antitrust liability would be for the players to unionize and the schools to form a multi-employer bargaining unit. A CBA would insulate the schools from antitrust challenge.

Problem there is that state schools are not covered by the federal labor law, whereas the private schools would be. There may be examples of multi-employer units bargaining across statutes like that but I am unaware of any such instance.
 
N Mollen said:
It's extraordinarily complicated. Any agreement by two or more employers that restricts the ability to employ (eligibility limits, enrollment requirements, class attendance requirements academic progress requirements etc) would be restraints of trade and unlawful under the Sherman Act. Congress could provide antitrust immunity (and is considering it), but if it doesn't, the only other way to escape antitrust liability would be for the players to unionize and the schools to form a multi-employer bargaining unit. A CBA would insulate the schools from antitrust challenge.

Problem there is that state schools are not covered by the federal labor law, whereas the private schools would be. There may be examples of multi-employer units bargaining across statutes like that but I am unaware of any such instance.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that explanation. If the NCAA represented the multiple employers (schools) and the players formed a collective bargaining association, then the only limitations caused by being "students" would be in the contract both sides agreed to?
 
N Mollen said:
It's extraordinarily complicated. Any agreement by two or more employers that restricts the ability to employ (eligibility limits, enrollment requirements, class attendance requirements academic progress requirements etc) would be restraints of trade and unlawful under the Sherman Act. Congress could provide antitrust immunity (and is considering it), but if it doesn't, the only other way to escape antitrust liability would be for the players to unionize and the schools to form a multi-employer bargaining unit. A CBA would insulate the schools from antitrust challenge.

Problem there is that state schools are not covered by the federal labor law, whereas the private schools would be. There may be examples of multi-employer units bargaining across statutes like that but I am unaware of any such instance.
Click to expand...
I think it is going to be very easy for a team of lawyers to defend the fact that colleges and for that matter high schools (bc we all know there will be idiots that try to use this line pf reasoning to argue they should be able to stay in HS playing sports while in there 20's) can have eligibility requirements such as classes, numbers of years able to play, grades.... What people are proposing as possible challenges/wont even come close to materializing. These are educational institutions that allow students to play on an institutional sponsored sports team while attending the institution. The institution can set the rules. I am no lawyer, but pragmatic enough to know these what if scenarios are ridiculous.
 
Ramaholic said:
I think it is going to be very easy for a team of lawyers to defend the fact that colleges and for that matter high schools (bc we all know there will be idiots that try to use this line pf reasoning to argue they should be able to stay in HS playing sports while in there 20's) can have eligibility requirements such as classes, numbers of years able to play, grades.... What people are proposing as possible challenges/wont even come close to materializing. These are educational institutions that allow students to play on an institutional sponsored sports team while attending the institution. The institution can set the rules. I am no lawyer, but pragmatic enough to know these what if scenarios are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but we got where we are in large part because plaintiff/players argued (and the NCAA effectively conceded) that the limits and the sit-rule for transfers were restraints on competition in violation of the Sherman Act. Two courts so held, and the NCAA flew the white flag by failing to appeal. They are now negotiating a broad $20B Sherman Act settlement in two cases based on that same theory.

Perhaps you have a rationale for explaining how the sit year rule, or the one time transfer rule, can be seen as a Sherman Act violation, but the 5-years-to-play-4 rule is not. Having litigated a number of labor antitrust cases, I am stymied.
 
Last edited:
N Mollen said:
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but we got where we are in large part because plaintiff/players argued (and the NCAA effectively conceded) that the limits and the sit-rule for transfers were restraints on competition in violation of the Sherman Act. Two courts so held, and the NCAA flew the white flag by failing to appeal. They are now negotiating a broad $20B Sherman Act settlement in two cases based on that same theory.

Perhaps you have a rationale for explaining how the sit year rule, or the one time transfer rule, can be seen as a Sherman Act violation, but the 5-years-to-play-4 rule is not. Having litigated a number of labor antitrust cases, including Brown v. Pro Football, 518 U.S. 231, I am stymied.
Click to expand...
I dont think the NCAA has a right to prevent a kid from working for a booster (or anyone for that matter) Or they should be able to limit a student athlete from doing what another student can do (unlimited transfers) But some of the other issues I hear people raising seem illogical. Like unlimited eligibility and not having to take classes. What allows high schools restricting the age limits (or little league for that matter) to be enforced. Why cant a kid stay in high school a few extra years and wait to see if he can perform well enough to get a scholarship? Or for a Little League team to start loading up on teenagers to win the LL World Series? Something seems off to me with concept that the university (Public or Private) cant set its own rules. I guess maybe they have never been tested legally and the fight is only being fought now bc there is $$ involved. HS and Little Leagues aren't raking in billions of $$ of profit each year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top