NCAA- Supreme Court ruling

[Mr Janny]

Depends. If the NCAA and the union come to an agreement that only union members can play in NCAA college football then thats your answer. Thats probably not legal, but they might have the pull to get congress to make it legal. There is already proposed federal legislation for college athletes to unionize.

There are 28 states with Right to Work laws on the books, that guarantee that union membership cannot be a required condition of employment. I don't believe that the current bipartisan support of NIL rights is going to extend to unions. There are lots and lots of folks for whom the word "union" is entirely offensive. It would take an incredible amount of cohesiveness on the part of the players to get a union put into effect, and there are way too many of them, with way too much variation in goals and aspirations. I just can't see that happening, especially with some of the handlers for these top talent guys. They're going to be whispering in ears telling them they can make more without joining a union.

 

[NorthCyd]

There are 28 states with Right to Work laws on the books, that guarantee that union membership cannot be a required condition of employment. I don't believe that the current bipartisan support of NIL rights is going to extend to unions. There are lots and lots of folks for whom the word "union" is entirely offensive. It would take an incredible amount of cohesiveness on the part of the players to get a union put into effect, and there are way too many of them, with way too much variation in goals and aspirations. I just can't see that happening, especially with some of the handlers for these top talent guys. They're going to be whispering in ears telling them they can make more without joining a union.

Federal law can supercede state law. That's why they are proposing the federal legislation for college athletes to begin with. Hell, Iowa is a right to work state, but as a state employee in Iowa my job classification was required by state law to be represented by a union when I was hired. I had no choice. I didn't have to pay dues, but I had to be in the union and get whatever was collectively bargained.

I guess time will tell what will happen.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Opinion: Kavanaugh’s concurrence in the NCAA case is an open invitation for another lawsuit

"But from that perspective, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s blistering concurrence is infinitely worse, an open invitation for student-athletes to file another lawsuit and see if they can’t get the court to strike down the NCAA’s restraints on noneducational compensation, which the court didn’t consider in this case. If students sue and win, college presidents would no longer have to worry only about the burden on their budgets; they’d have to figure out whether college sports can continue to exist in anything like their current form."

 

[JRE1975]

Opinion: Kavanaugh’s concurrence in the NCAA case is an open invitation for another lawsuit

"But from that perspective, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s blistering concurrence is infinitely worse, an open invitation for student-athletes to file another lawsuit and see if they can’t get the court to strike down the NCAA’s restraints on noneducational compensation, which the court didn’t consider in this case. If students sue and win, college presidents would no longer have to worry only about the burden on their budgets; they’d have to figure out whether college sports can continue to exist in anything like their current form."

Also, everyone should note that Kavanaugh couldn't get any of the other judges to join him in the position he did above. Had he gotten 4 others to join him, the alarm bells would really go off!

 

[isucy86]

Depends. If the NCAA and the union come to an agreement that only union members can play in NCA

Also, everyone should note that Kavanaugh couldn't get any of the other judges to join him in the position he did above. Had he gotten 4 others to join him, the alarm bells would really go off!

Not a legal expert, but that is not how I saw his opinion characterized.

What I read was:
- The Supreme Court unanimous decision addressed a very specific legal challenge.
- Kavanaugh then wrote his statement to send the NCAA the message they better implement broad changes to their student-athlete compensation model because it wouldn't stand further legal challenges.

Changing the subject, I realize professional leagues have some anti-trust exemptions. But are they the next target? How can the post HS age restriction stand? Also will player drafts come under legal scrutiny?

I agree with with Kavanaugh that the collegiate student-athlete model might get turned upsidedown. How do colleges get credited as compensation for their significant investment in scholarships, facilities, coach salaries, etc.

Who knows, maybe D1 colleges do away with athletic scholarships and make student athletes go through the traditional FAFSA financial aid process with additional promise of compensation/grant/aid for sport participation.

 

[BryceC]

IDK what you mean by good faith, but I honestly don't think enrollment will drop much if they lose tax exempt status and have to solely raise tuition to cover it. And it won't bankrupt ISU either.

ISU budget is appx $700M, I think that's annual expenses I saw referenced in an article. No idea what their income is, but I doubt it is more (or much more) than that, because the State still sends them cash annually. If ISU was generating lots of positive cash flow, the state surely wouldn't be sending cash.

So how much taxable profit will they show on that? $50M? $100M? Maybe none? They can depreciate a heck of a lot of stuff. Does ISU even turn a profit? But let's say it's $50-100M annual. At a combined tax rate of 25% overall, that's on the order of $1k per student annually. So no, I don't think it will be that big a deal.

That's a quick ROM, and I don't really know anything about ISU's P&L. Probably @isufbcurt can comment on it more expertly.

PS - the impact of giving/donations might be a bigger problem. You might not get as many millions donated if those donations are not tax deductions. No idea where to begin scaling that problem.

Iowa State’s enrollment is down thousands already from it’s peak.

You also aren’t considering the insane propert taxes that would be levied on that amount of land and structures.

 

[CycloneErik]

isufbcurt marking this post as Dumb clearly displays how effin clueless he is about this topic.

True. If there are two things he knows nothing about, it's tax law and college athletics.
Oh, wait a minute...

 

[isufbcurt]

How often are volunteers contractually tied to a specific not-for-profit? Student athletes are not volunteers. They are a labor force that is under contract, but is not given the right to negotiate either individually or collectively for fair compensation.

Disagree. No one forced me to play football at Iowa State. I could have quit any time. I watched many of my teammates quit and just go to school, there was nothing contractually binding them to play football.

 

[cysmiley]

Disagree. No one forced me to play football at Iowa State. I could have quit any time. I watched many of my teammates quit and just go to school, there was nothing contractually binding them to play football.

Just a thought, the problem is not individual institutions; the problem is with the NCAA and its exemption from antitrust laws. Congress can still act to correct whatever the problems are; as can the NCAA. The NCAA could vote to disband, whereby the conferences would take over rules and regulations. No longer would a monopoly exist, then that would open another can of worms as to who could join what conference, and the various rules adopted by individual conferences. This decision is far from automatically granting compensation to football players for playing football but as SCOTUS says, they have to change things for the future, and they certainly cannot bar football athletes from getting compensation from sources outside football activities under current law.

 

[CascadeClone]

Iowa State’s enrollment is down thousands already from it’s peak.

You also aren’t considering the insane property taxes that would be levied on that amount of land and structures.

That's a great point on property taxes, I hadn't thought of that.

I suppose the legislature could do something like they do for farmland, and tax "educational" land at a much lower rate. Even at a much smaller rate, that would be a windfall for local gvmt and schools, so there would probably be support for taxing it at a lower rate.

But hang on- if the university is owned by the State... do state owned buildings pay property tax? I have no idea how that works.

 

[Halincandenza]

The Supreme Courts ruling was narrow, but the opinion by Kavanaugh basically said the NCAA can not prohibit schools from paying players. If they do they will get sued and they will lose. If nothing is going to stop schools from paying players schools are going to start paying players.

That isn't what the ruling said at all.

 

[Halincandenza]

It's amazing you are competent enough to do tax returns based on your limitations marking multiple posts as Dumb without an ability to respond as to why in writing. The examples you cite above aren't the same as athletes being paid for their on-field athletic services beyond FCOA which actually generates the millions of revenue streams. Those millions being generated are why these issues have been raised and rules are being changed.

Just simply making them employees doesn't change their tax exempt status. What is your authority for this position?

 

[BryceC]

Just simply making them employees doesn't change their tax exempt status. What is your authority for this position?

None, he just likes repeating this. Again, things could change if they rewrite current laws. But by that measure literally anything is possible.

 

[BMWallace]

Disagree. No one forced me to play football at Iowa State. I could have quit any time. I watched many of my teammates quit and just go to school, there was nothing contractually binding them to play football.

I'm not saying that you were forced to play football. Just like accountants aren't forced to be accountants, engineers aren't forced to be engineers, soldiers aren't forced to be soldiers (anymore), and coaches aren't forced to be coaches. But you wanted to play football, and in order to do so, you had to agree to play for an institution.

You agreed to offer your talent and effort as a football player to to Iowa State. In return you were given compensation in the form of a scholarship. You were also given restrictions as to how you could render your services, and how you could benefit from your labor and services. You couldn't freely seek out other places to play football, nor could you seek greater compensation for your talent and services as a player. Iowa State owned your rights as a football player. And they were able to take the talent and services from you and your teammates, sell them to fans, advertisers, and media companies, and increase their revenue.

The crux of the issue is that in the last 40 years, those revenues collected by NCAA member colleges have exploded, and the NCAA has exercised unilateral power to restrict players from seeking a fair share of the revenue that is being created by their talent and effort.

 

[NorthCyd]

That isn't what the ruling said at all.

It's not my opinion that Kavanaughs statements are opening the door for students to sue for compensation. Its the opinion lots of legal experts. One example:

"An ominous concurring opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to the “illegal” nature and “price-fixing labor” practices of the NCAA’s long-held approach to amateurism that bars players from receiving their share of the billions of dollars that are created by college football and basketball—rules that “raise serious questions under the antitrust laws,” according to Kavanaugh.

Urman views Kavanaugh’s opinion as an invitation for student-athletes who hope to be paid."

 

[cykadelic2]

Just simply making them employees doesn't change their tax exempt status. What is your authority for this position?

None, he just likes repeating this. Again, things could change if they rewrite current laws. But by that measure literally anything is possible.

BS. Both of you (along with others) have missed the point that these would not be typical additional employees for ISU and other universities. These employees would be generating millions in revenue streams outside of academics/research.

 

[BryceC]

BS. Both of you (along with others) have missed the point that these would not be typical additional employees for ISU and other universities. These employees would be generating millions in revenue streams outside of academics/research.

Why would that make any difference? I didn’t miss the point I think the point isn’t relevant.

Again, nothing changes unless laws are rewritten. By that same line of reasoning well football could be outlawed and all of this is moot anyway.

 

[CycloneErik]

Why would that make any difference? I didn’t miss the point I think the point isn’t relevant.

Again, nothing changes unless laws are rewritten. By that same line of reasoning well football could be outlawed and all of this is moot anyway.

What if they don't outlaw football but they outlaw football coaches and Campbell goes to Alabama and the NFL and the CFL and starts a collegiate Arena League, and then quits all that for a consulting gig?

 

[cycloneG]

BS. Both of you (along with others) have missed the point that these would not be typical additional employees for ISU and other universities. These employees would be generating millions in revenue streams outside of academics/research.

 

[BryceC]

What if they don't outlaw football but they outlaw football coaches and Campbell goes to Alabama and the NFL and the CFL and starts a collegiate Arena League, and then quits all that for a consulting gig?

IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE