Yeah, but they usually have to violate the constitution. Seeing as congress enacted the Sherman Act and have granted anti-trust exemptions before, I don't see why they wouldn't have the jurisdiction to enact this bill too. I am not a lawyer so maybe there is an angle to attack this bill from like the takings clause of the 5th amendment.
Protect College Sports Act
- Thread starter PrimeCy
- Start date
Limiting player mobility for more money is not going to work. It goes against all free market and capitalist tendencies. Fact of the matter, this can all be solved by having a player's union.
The thing is schools don't want unions. They are expensive and the schools lose control. This is an end-run-around accepting players as employees.
It's just like roundup trying to avoid liability for cancer or Summit trying to force farmers to cede their land for carbon sequestration. People with money are using their political leverage and donations, thereby spending pennies on the dollar to achieve a goal otherwise unattainable, because it violates their civil rights.
So, this will be shot down in litigation. But it has a chance to be in place until it goes to appeals or the Supreme Court. If it passes congress at all.
College sports are and never will be what they once were. There will have to be a major paradigm shift on what sports is, but it won't ever go back. For now it is going to be more and more expensive to keep up with schools we will never keep up with.
This is like a cold war where we are more like Russia than the United States.
As a Cyclone fan, I will always cheer on the Cyclones in whatever sport. I refuse to watch any games the Cyclones don't have a vested interest in. Also, aside from the tickets I purchase to go to games, I don't give to NIL funds. I love the Cyclones. I don't like college sports. If college sports are going to get more expensive, it won't be because of me.
The thing is schools don't want unions. They are expensive and the schools lose control. This is an end-run-around accepting players as employees.
It's just like roundup trying to avoid liability for cancer or Summit trying to force farmers to cede their land for carbon sequestration. People with money are using their political leverage and donations, thereby spending pennies on the dollar to achieve a goal otherwise unattainable, because it violates their civil rights.
So, this will be shot down in litigation. But it has a chance to be in place until it goes to appeals or the Supreme Court. If it passes congress at all.
College sports are and never will be what they once were. There will have to be a major paradigm shift on what sports is, but it won't ever go back. For now it is going to be more and more expensive to keep up with schools we will never keep up with.
This is like a cold war where we are more like Russia than the United States.
As a Cyclone fan, I will always cheer on the Cyclones in whatever sport. I refuse to watch any games the Cyclones don't have a vested interest in. Also, aside from the tickets I purchase to go to games, I don't give to NIL funds. I love the Cyclones. I don't like college sports. If college sports are going to get more expensive, it won't be because of me.
Agreed. It would have to be unconstitutional in some way and they should have plenty of legal review to make sure they don't run into issues with that. Other legal challenges could be brought on interpretation and administration of the law once it's passed, but if it's well written that shouldn't be a problem.
I'd rather give players contracts with buyout clauses just like the coaches. Players can leave as often as they want, but if they leave they owe the university some portion of the payment back. Players contracts are with the university and not the coach, so if the coach leaves the buyout is still in effect. Conversely, if a new coach gets rid of a bunch of new players, the university is on the hook for some portion of the remaining contract - probably proportional to eligibility. So cutting a freshman pays a higher percentage of a (likely smaller) contract than cutting a senior.
It does go against free market principles, but there is no free market in college athletics. I liken the sit out year to a non-compete clause in an employment contract. Yes, they are ******. But they are legal in most states.
If the NCAA said that you can transfer but have to sit out, I don’t see how that is struck down. The NCAA is not saying you can’t sign NIL contracts or transfer schools. You just can’t participate in the sport for a year after. And, based on the definition that NIL is not to be for a pay to play situation, sitting out a year should not impact a persons ability to collect NIL. Any anti-trust argument would have to acknowledge that a player’s NIL contract is for their on field performance and not for their name, image, or likeness.
There are no proposed limitations on player mobility. Only caveat is sitting out one season after the initial free transfer as long as the HC stays put.
Of course, the schools don't want unions. And neither do the vast majority of athletes including FB and MBB players. However, the proposed Cruz-Cantwell bill doesn't preclude athletes to eventually become employees instead of 1099 contractors but is obviously silent on CBAs based on what I've read.
I'd like this idea too. What is frustrating is that there is nothing stopping schools from doing this right now. For the majority of players this would be a more friendly deal than they are already getting, but no one wants to be the first to offer these types of contracts.
Does the NCAA allow 4 year contracts? I thought when this first started that they only allowed year to year contracts. But that may have changed.
It seems 4 year NIL contracts could fix a lot of things. Let tort law already in place fix a lot of the shady **** that’s going on with recruiting kids before they’re in the portal.
I think coaches are significant roadblock to longer player contracts. Coaches like to ***** and moan about having to re-recruit their players, but they like the ability to boot anyone off the team as soon as they aren't useful.
I hate to tell you this, but the schools have already lost control, and unions and collective bargaining may well be the only thing that is going to stop this speeding train. Maybe anti trust will work, but without some way to reign in the cost of the players and outside influence, then nothing is going to change, and schools like ISU cannot long continue to play the game the way it is set up now, and there are a lot of schools in the same boat with ISU.
Yeah, but they would have to determine the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was unconstitutional and unravel things like The NFL.
I agree, but it seems like about every time some athlete or school files a lawsuit against the NCAA, the courts favor the athlete. They can do the same with Congress. I hope they get a law done, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
They favor the athlete because of the anti-trust angle. That can be removed if Congress wanted. But doing so would give NCAA complete control and Congress seems to think they’re better suited to control this than the NCAA. I’d be hard pressed to come up with any other organizations that would be worse than those two.
