Supreme court backs athletes over NCAA
doubledragon
Posts: 23,269 ✭✭✭✭✭
In the issue of whether college athletes should receive pay, the supreme court has sided with the athletes.
Breaking Sports News
Supreme Court Deals NCAA Significant Blow in Favor of Athletes Being Paid
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by placing a cap on education-related benefits that college athletes can receive.
The NCAA does not allow athletes to paid but permits schools to cover the cost of tuition and room and board, along with $5,000 worth of education-related expenses. Those benefits can include new computers, private tutoring, paid internships, and the costs of attending study abroad programs.
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."
While the decision is a significant blow to the NCAA, the justices did not rule on whether athletes can be paid by the schools or whether student-athletes were allowed to accept other benefits not related to education or earn money off their image.
"For our part, though, we can only agree with the Ninth Circuit: "'The national debate about amateurism in college sports is important. But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve it. Nor could we. Our task is simply to review the district court judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law,'" Gorsuch wrote.
Despite the narrow scope of the ruling, the plaintiffs hope it will pave the way for student-athletes to one day be paid for their time playing college sports.
"It's tremendous to win this 9-0. Hopefully, it will be the major next step on the road to a true fair, competitive system for these athletes. It should have positive effects immediately on NIL. We look forward to a world that's better for college athletes today than it was yesterday," Jeffrey Kessler, the plaintiffs' attorney, told ESPN.
Comments
Of course what the supreme court thinks means nothing to me, I am a rebel, always have been, always will be. I like to break the law at least once a day. I wake up, check ebay, have a cup of coffee, break the law, check the sports news, and have breakfast.
I do believe the college kids should have the right to make money though.
I scoff at your laws good sir! (Not you Todd)
I'll park my rump roast wherever I choose to good sir!
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the old saying goes.
So lemme think of some consequences to paying college athletes.
Very interesting points Mr.k, I am torn on this subject, I can understand both sides of the argument. I can understand the above points, but I also realize that some of these athletes are putting their health on the line for these schools. If a kid gets seriously injured playing for a school, what does he have to show for it.
That is an excellent point. Perhaps some sort of insurance program could be put into place for that? Although I'm not sure if an insurance company would write a policy such as that for a non-professional athlete.
I get the other side's view on this. Poor kid or any kid should make some money playing say college football or basketball, the biggest sports money generators for the colleges.
However I would retort that the kids are already getting paid plenty through a college scholarship. The value of that is enormous. Especially when factoring in the extra money they will make by having a college diploma their entire job career, versus having only a high school diploma.
I would like to see these kids finish their educations, it is a very valuable thing. I don't think a lot of them realize the importance of having a degree can be, especially if they get injured in the pros, at least they'll have something to fall back on.
Yes, a college education is very important, of course, I went to a different college than most after high school, B.J. University. I have a photo around here somewhere, ah yes, here it is, B.J. University. The place still looks the same as when I attended.
so after 8 years at bju did they quit calling you mister bojangles?
“its dr. bojangles, ma’m! i did not go to 8 years of bojangles university to be called mr. bojangles!”
Yes, and after I finished at BJU, I continued my education at a more prestigious institution in the same field of studies.
I shall never reveal my true employment status to the forum, I have vowed this, and I always keep my vows. Am I employed, or am I a superhero?
I highly recommend DD's restaurant. I have been there many times and am never disappointed.
Thank you for your loyal support at my establishment, please remember to tip our waitress Peggy, she could use the money, her dream is to become a Hooters girl.
Yeah, but you can't take your girl to the movies with a scholarship. They aren't money.
And let's take Michigan as an example. If you say a year at Michigan is worth $60k as a scholarship then they pay $5.2m a year in football scholarships (85 per year). They brought in $126m in football revenue. So they pay 4% of revenue in scholarship - AND that money is going right back to the school anyway!
There's also the fact no coach is paid in scholarships...
I lived on the Penn State campus for my Junior and senior years. Without going into a dissertation, a student for various reasons can live on the campus with little or no pocket money. Girls don't expect the guys on dates to take them out to the movies, dinner or anything like that, IE spend money on them.
Most students lived in the dorms or fraternities/sororities where everything including food was pre-paid. Students living in apartments, likely in the vast majority of cases their parents paid for the apartment and food.
Besides, any student is free to get a job doing something, if they want or need extra money.
Every job I've ever had, the company earned a lot more off my labors than what i was paid. It's called capitalism. After school, the student is free to earn 100% of their labors minus expenses, either in a professional field such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc, or use the knowledge gained from college to start their own various business.
I think part of this is that "student" athletes are not allowed to exercise their right to capitalism off campus.
they are not allowed to sign autographs or endorse products, even in their own time.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'm not up to speed on how that works with student athletes earning money while attending college.
Frankly, it wouldn't bother me at all if students earned money from endorsements. I just don't want to see for example, a kid who would have paid say 10k for his college tuition, now has to pay 20k because of his college involved in a bidding war for star athletes. The non-athlete shouldn't be financially punished because he can't catch a football.
An "athletic scholarship" really doesn't cost the university much of anything, therefore not seriously adding to the cost of a non-athlete's tuition. For example say there is a college classroom of 100 students. The fixed cost is already there. The professor, the building maintenance, the administrative expense, etc, is already built in there. Adding an athletic scholarship student to the class, is basically costing the college next to nothing.
However a college directly paying the athlete for his services, would significantly add to the cost of each classroom, and has to increase tuition for the other students. In my view, that is unacceptable.
Athletes on scholarship aren't allowed to get jobs. But music students on scholarship can. Hence a big part of the issue.
This is completely untrue. Athletic dollars stay in the athletic department and general fund dollars don't go to athletics. In fact, athletic departments transfer dollars to the general fund for their scholarships. No college is going to exceed their athletic revenues to pay athletes. There will be absolutely no reason to raise costs on regular students. All that will happen is that the athletic department will make less of a profit.
Are you presuming that things will remain the same if colleges get into bidding wars for athletes? When professional teams get involved in bidding wars for athletes, everything goes up...tickets, parking, beer, etc, IE the consumer pays for it. We all know that.
I don't know the intricacies of the colleges in the way they handle their various incoming revenue. Or what the federal and state laws are regarding this matter. And I have no desire to investigate it.
However this I do know. If an athletic department from a college is providing say 100 million dollars in revenue towards the general operation of the college. But suddenly that money is gone because of payments to student athletes. How is the difference going to be made up?
Do you think the administrators are going to take a pay cut? Do you think the professors are going to take a pay cut? Do you think the campus maintenance crew is going to take a pay cut? Do you think anyone working for the college is going to take a pay cut to help make up for that lost revenue? Of course not.
College students are the consumer for the services the colleges offer. Hence they will be the ones paying for the student athlete's salaries, one way or the other.
I would also be quite okay to allow student athletes to have jobs. If some local or national company wishes to pay a college student an exorbitant amount of money to appear in an ad, I've got no problem at all with that.
As long as the average college student isn't financially punished for the financial gain of student athletes.
J Manziel appeared on Barstool Sports' "Bussin' With The Boys" podcast to discuss instances where he sold his autograph to net more than $33,000.
The first occasion that Manziel described was when a man approached him in Florida with a chance to make $3,000.
"We're doing it all sneaky, we don't want to get caught, we're trying to learn from everybody else who's got caught," Manziel said during the interview. "And I may or may not have gone back to this guy's condo [in South Beach] and signed probably 10,000 pieces. He gave me three grand."
While he was autographing, Manziel was approached by someone who realized that he was being ripped off. Manziel was then given the phone number of another man he said would pay Manziel $30,000 for signing autographs.
Manziel decided to contact the other potential buyer.
That sure was 33k down the drain. LOL
Athletic departments don't put any money toward the general operation of their colleges.
Well i googled it and technically you are correct.
However, my premise is also correct in regards to if colleges are involved in bidding wars for athletes, monies donated from alumni and others that likely would have went to regular college scholarships and overall university improvements, now may go towards paying lavish salaries to college athletes.
Colleges getting involved in bidding wars for student athletes will result in tuition increases and less opportunity for non-athlete students. That is a fact.
Can't be a fact since it hasn't happened yet. Pure speculation on your part.
Sorry but I prefer to deal in reality on a subject such as this, not fantasy.
If you believe that paying student athletes won't affect the tuition rates of other students, then that's your prerogative.