OT: NCAA antitrust federal bench trial over athlete pay begins

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,242
19,334
Sin City
NCAA Antitrust Bench Trial Over Athlete Pay Kicks Off - Law360

(free registration required)

A California federal bench trial over allegations that the National Collegiate Athletic Association prevents student-athletes from being paid beyond their scholarships kicked off Tuesday, with a sports economist testifying that the case isn’t complicated and that athletes’ pay is being illegally capped by a “monopolistic cartel” of 353 schools.
...
Now, three classes of current and former Division I college football players and college men’s and women’s basketball players claim the NCAA’s amateurism system is enforced through dozens of rules that prohibit players from being provided anything beyond the cost of attendance at their schools.

The athletes claim the rules are unlawful restraints on trade that cap what players can receive to play college sports, preventing them from realizing their true value. They aim to change the system to give college athletic conferences more freedom to allow their member schools to provide higher aid packages to attract the best recruits.

This is beyond the use of likenesses in previous suits.

Expected to last about two weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKIslandersFan

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,592
4,552
Behind A Tree
It's interesting to follow; Given how big both college football and basketball are in the U.S. I do think players should get some sort of payment.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,477
2,782
It's interesting to follow; Given how big both college football and basketball are in the U.S. I do think players should get some sort of payment.

if they do then they should pay for their own college education instead of free/reduce cost due to sponsorships.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,634
18,463
Las Vegas
If they got their fair share a lot of them would be 18 year old millionaires.

no, there wouldnt.

first only about 10% of all D1 athletic departments turn a profit.

secondly, you can bet the NCAA will push for a pool money into 1 fund to pay out to all 351 D1 schools.

third, payment would be across all sports, not just football and basketball.

finally, and the biggest hurdle, all payments will have to comply with Title IX. So the mens and womens teams will have to be paid similar amounts.
 

Burke the Legend

Registered User
Feb 22, 2012
8,317
2,850
Yeah I don't think they will be able to collect direct salaries from the schools. Only 1% of all star would justify it anyway. The vast majority of athletes wouldn't be worth more than what they get already. Tuition+room+board scholarships and other perks like coaching/training adds up.

One thing that might be legally possible is signing bonuses and should happen IMO, so the recruiting process for top high school players just come out into the open. No more secret payment games with coaches, agent-advisers and alumni booster clubs. It would be healthy to bring everything into the open.

What also makes sense is for athletes to get a cut of sponsorship deals. They should get a cut of sport team sponsorships at the popular schools where they exist, and also sponsorship of individual athletes should be made permissible so those 1% all stars, future NFL/NBA stars who are huge names already at school and who would be in actual demand to sign big deals will be allowed to collect.
 

tailfins

Registered User
Sponsor
Apr 20, 2005
2,605
1,469
Yeah I don't think they will be able to collect direct salaries from the schools.

Take $ from the coaches, the university admin, and the NCAA admin.

Just take Rutgers as an example of a middle of the road D1 program:
~$2.5 million salary for football head coach
~$1.5 million salary for men's basketball head coach

The biggest job each of those coaches has is recruiting players. Basically convincing the kids to come play at Rutgers for free.

Reduce those salaries by 60%. Now the coaches are making $1 million and $600k. Still too much IMO, but clearly still enough to be 1%-ers, despite being at lowly Rutgers.

That's enough to pay each kid on the football and basketball team nearly $20k / year.

The reality is that:
- There are lots of other pockets of money outside of head coach salaries
- Not every kid would need to get paid. Even now, there are 85 scholarships and 107 kids on the football team, so 20+ kids choose to play for free and pay for tuition.

In terms of the argument that the kids should pay for their own tuition, two responses:
1. Ok - then add that into the kids salaries and have the kids pay it back
2. And, make sure the kids are able to focus on school first. They can start be eliminating weekday (travel) games.

Men's college football and basketball have very little to do with being a student athlete. These kids have a job - playing a sport for their school. Then they fit academics around it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - lots of people work while going to school. The difference is that other people get paid when they work, and these kids do not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corso

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,125
3,365
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
If you applied the NHL CBA to Division I athletics (50% of revenues to the athletes), the athletes would be owed roughly 3.2 billion dollars.

There’s about 185,000 Division I athletes; which would give each student-athlete about $24,000, which is about the average cost of tuition ($23,800).

Athletes are only "getting screwed" if you ask the guys from BCS schools who play professionally. When you ask every other athlete who didn't play professionally if their life was sweeter in college when they were allegedly being exploited or now, most would say "I miss having someone wash my workout clothes, pay my gym membership, give me massages, pain meds and vitamins, etc."
 

Newsworthy

Registered User
Jan 28, 2018
4,253
982
USA
if they do then they should pay for their own college education instead of free/reduce cost due to sponsorships.
That makes no sense. The point of earning a scholarship is a free ride. College is also supposed to be about academics and not sports. Also your penalizing the athlete who is highly responsible for school revenue. Although I don't believe pay is the best way college athletes deserved to be compensated.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,477
2,782
That makes no sense. The point of earning a scholarship is a free ride. College is also supposed to be about academics and not sports. Also your penalizing the athlete who is highly responsible for school revenue. Although I don't believe pay is the best way college athletes deserved to be compensated.

My point being is they are already getting compensate through scholarship to attend their school. Why should the school have to pay them more than what they are already are giving them,?
 

My3Sons

Nobody told me there'd be days like these...
Sponsor
If the schools have to pay the athletes you have to imagine the sports landscape changes fairly dramatically. Numerous conferences in multiple sports based on ability and willingness to pay the players. Would be interesting to see how many players would actually get paid beyond their tuition room and board. Probably not as many as we’d think.
 

YEM

Registered User
Mar 7, 2010
5,718
2,697
My point being is they are already getting compensate through scholarship to attend their school. Why should the school have to pay them more than what they are already are giving them,?
a scholarship does not necessarily equal a payment or compensation
 

BJNT

Registered User
Jan 12, 2015
56
25
I don’t think the schools themselves should pay the athletes but I do believe the athletes should be able to be compensated for their own image and likeness outside of the school. A student on an academic scholarship is getting a free education, room and board, book, and won’t have to worry about paying back student loans when they graduate just like those on athletic scholarships. But those on academic scholarships can have jobs during the school year, have a monetized YouTube channel, design an app an charge for downloading it or be able to profit from their own image and likeness in general without having to worry about losing their scholarship. Why can’t athletes have the same freedom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lidstromiscool

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,125
3,365
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I don’t think the schools themselves should pay the athletes but I do believe the athletes should be able to be compensated for their own image and likeness outside of the school. A student on an academic scholarship is getting a free education, room and board, book, and won’t have to worry about paying back student loans when they graduate just like those on athletic scholarships. But those on academic scholarships can have jobs during the school year, have a monetized YouTube channel, design an app an charge for downloading it or be able to profit from their own image and likeness in general without having to worry about losing their scholarship. Why can’t athletes have the same freedom?

The root cause of the NCAA’s policies is “an equal recruiting playing field.”

I agree that student-athletes SHOULD be compensated for their likeness. The problem is that you have 353 Division I schools of various size and alumni bases. And their boosters want their team to win. Boosters who own businesses ABSOLUTELY would say “we’ll sign every single athlete to a sponsorship deal, so you can just use that as a recruiting pitch.”

The ideal rules set up is everyone talking to recruits can offer only THE EXACT SAME thing.

The goal is to have student-athletes making their decision on where to do go based on “What’s the best academic institution for me?” and not “what sport program is offering the most perks.”
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,558
363
Don't say anything at all
It's time that college athletes get paid.

Not paying college athletes is as antiquated as not letting women into Augusta National, only letting adult white males vote, and only letting couples consisting of a man and a woman marry. That's why none of those three things exist anymore.

CBS and Turner have the chance to make a difference. They can walk away from their multi-billion contract to broadcast March Madness, as they should be uncomfortable with making all this money while the players don't see a dime. They can do this because contracts can be broken if one of the parties involved is behaving in a way that the other party/parties do not like. When all is said and done they will be suing the NCAA for corruption and violating the anti-slavery amendment.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,125
3,365
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
It's time that college athletes get paid.

Not paying college athletes is as antiquated as not letting women into Augusta National, only letting adult white males vote, and only letting couples consisting of a man and a woman marry. That's why none of those three things exist anymore.

CBS and Turner have the chance to make a difference. They can walk away from their multi-billion contract to broadcast March Madness, as they should be uncomfortable with making all this money while the players don't see a dime. They can do this because contracts can be broken if one of the parties involved is behaving in a way that the other party/parties do not like. When all is said and done they will be suing the NCAA for corruption and violating the anti-slavery amendment.

That is WAAAAAY over dramatic. And silly to compare NCAA athletes to slaves.

#1 - The BCS football programs are in a ridiculous arms race to build lavish accommodations for football/basketball players. The media loves mocking the absurdity at that “SPENDING! while giving nothing to the slaves!” but no one really mentions that “Holy crap, they’re showering athletes with sweet, sweet amenities!”

If the average dorm room has a 30-inch TV, a used couch you nabbed as a hand-me-down or garage sale, and anything else YOU PAID FOR… isn’t another way of looking at the Alabama football facility “Alabama just gave 100 kids a multi-mullion dollar clubhouse” ?

And yeah, they’re using it, not keeping it. But that’s the point. You take any Division I athlete who doesn’t go pro and check in ten years later, they’re all going to say “I have to pay for a gym membership and any athletic gear I want, which I now have to wash myself. I MISS being in college.”


#2 - I cannot stress this enough: NCAA Sports are not JUST the Football and Men's Basketball players you see playing SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12 and Big East games.

The NCAA has 273 other schools, and 86 other sports
.

The NCAA total revenues are about $1.136 billion a year.
A scholarship is worth about $25,000.

BCS football and men’s basketball scholarships would be, on average, $191.1 million total (not counting walk-ons).

BCS Football and BCS men’s basketball make up 6.37 PERCENT of Division I athletes. So a full scholarship for every athlete would cost $3 billion alone.


If you want to argue that EVERY ATHLETE should be full scholarship, I’m on board. Most schools can’t afford that, but making a “We can’t pay athletes because that revenue funds ALL the sports” argument and then not funding ALL your athletes puts a sour taste in my mouth.

It doesn’t matter if you playing football in front of 103,000 at a BCS school, or you’re playing field hockey in front of 23 people at a “non-major.” These athletes put in WORK. The same amount of work.

All of the “players deserve a cut of revenues” arguments for the NCAA amount to ONLY looking at SIX PERCENT of athletes who ESPN covers.

The BCS brings in 85% of the revenue by being a cartel, and gets 99% of the attention from the people giving them the revenue. And then everyone’s mad at the finances when they only look at 85% of the revenue and 22% of the schools.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,558
363
Don't say anything at all
There is precedent for what I am advocating CBS and Turner to do.

In 1994, ABC and NBC began a joint broadcast venture with MLB called The Baseball Network. Under this arrangement ABC and NBC beginning after the All-Star Break were to once a week distribute regionally all the games scheduled one one day (either Friday or Saturday, the first several weeks on ABC, remainder on NBC).
ABC and NBC also were to alternate coverage of the Division Series, LCS, World Series and All-Star Game, with the former two also carried regionally, much to the consternation of baseball fans.

However, The Baseball Network's plans went out the window when the players went on strike in 1994, causing NBC to lose all its scheduled regular season broadcasts and the cancellation of that year's postseason.

Since 1995 was delayed, ABC and NBC decided to walk away from the contract after the season, and split coverage of the postseason that year.

So CBS and Turner wouldn't be doing anything that didn't have a precedent.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,634
18,463
Las Vegas
That is WAAAAAY over dramatic. And silly to compare NCAA athletes to slaves.

#1 - The BCS football programs are in a ridiculous arms race to build lavish accommodations for football/basketball players. The media loves mocking the absurdity at that “SPENDING! while giving nothing to the slaves!” but no one really mentions that “Holy crap, they’re showering athletes with sweet, sweet amenities!”

If the average dorm room has a 30-inch TV, a used couch you nabbed as a hand-me-down or garage sale, and anything else YOU PAID FOR… isn’t another way of looking at the Alabama football facility “Alabama just gave 100 kids a multi-mullion dollar clubhouse” ?

And yeah, they’re using it, not keeping it. But that’s the point. You take any Division I athlete who doesn’t go pro and check in ten years later, they’re all going to say “I have to pay for a gym membership and any athletic gear I want, which I now have to wash myself. I MISS being in college.”


#2 - I cannot stress this enough: NCAA Sports are not JUST the Football and Men's Basketball players you see playing SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12 and Big East games.

The NCAA has 273 other schools, and 86 other sports
.

The NCAA total revenues are about $1.136 billion a year.
A scholarship is worth about $25,000.

BCS football and men’s basketball scholarships would be, on average, $191.1 million total (not counting walk-ons).

BCS Football and BCS men’s basketball make up 6.37 PERCENT of Division I athletes. So a full scholarship for every athlete would cost $3 billion alone.


If you want to argue that EVERY ATHLETE should be full scholarship, I’m on board. Most schools can’t afford that, but making a “We can’t pay athletes because that revenue funds ALL the sports” argument and then not funding ALL your athletes puts a sour taste in my mouth.

It doesn’t matter if you playing football in front of 103,000 at a BCS school, or you’re playing field hockey in front of 23 people at a “non-major.” These athletes put in WORK. The same amount of work.

All of the “players deserve a cut of revenues” arguments for the NCAA amount to ONLY looking at SIX PERCENT of athletes who ESPN covers.

The BCS brings in 85% of the revenue by being a cartel, and gets 99% of the attention from the people giving them the revenue. And then everyone’s mad at the finances when they only look at 85% of the revenue and 22% of the schools.

the biggest hurdle on top of everything you mentioned....TITLE IX

TItle IX isnt going anywhere and ANY athlete compensation from the schools will have to be within Title IX guidelines
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,325
12,668
South Mountain
There is precedent for what I am advocating CBS and Turner to do.

In 1994, ABC and NBC began a joint broadcast venture with MLB called The Baseball Network. Under this arrangement ABC and NBC beginning after the All-Star Break were to once a week distribute regionally all the games scheduled one one day (either Friday or Saturday, the first several weeks on ABC, remainder on NBC).
ABC and NBC also were to alternate coverage of the Division Series, LCS, World Series and All-Star Game, with the former two also carried regionally, much to the consternation of baseball fans.

However, The Baseball Network's plans went out the window when the players went on strike in 1994, causing NBC to lose all its scheduled regular season broadcasts and the cancellation of that year's postseason.

Since 1995 was delayed, ABC and NBC decided to walk away from the contract after the season, and split coverage of the postseason that year.

So CBS and Turner wouldn't be doing anything that didn't have a precedent.

So MLB was in breach of its contract with ABC/NBC.

I don't see how that sets a precedent for terminating a contract where presumably the NCAA is fulfilling all the obligations set out in the contract. Obligations which I'm quite certain don't include paying players.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,125
3,365
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
the biggest hurdle on top of everything you mentioned....TITLE IX

TItle IX isnt going anywhere and ANY athlete compensation from the schools will have to be within Title IX guidelines

Correct. Football, MBB, WBB and a number of women's athletes equal to the number of football scholarships for Division I = 47734 Division I scholarships you'd have to "pay" if you paid FB/MBB players.

But that's about 40% of NCAA Division I athletes (and pretty much 99% of revenue).
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,125
3,365
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
And there were a hell of a lot more things behind The Baseball Network.

It wasn't "you had a strike and didn't deliver the content, you're in breach of contract"

The entire structure of the Baseball Network deal was that MLB got 85% of the first $140 million in advertising revenues, then the rate cut and the TV networks took home a much bigger slice of the next block of ad revenues, then the pendulum swung back to MLB for a bigger cut of the next block, and keep alternating until the contract ran out.

So the networks didn't have a bidding war for rights fees. It just took them a while to sell ads to pay off MLB's high rate FIRST, then it turned into a good deal for them later in the contract.

However with the strike crushing the good will of fans and 1995 starting with no CBA and scab players in spring training the date at which the Networks were to clear that first $119 million to MLB kept getting pushed further and further back. It made no sense to stick to a deal that got more lucrative later when later might not ever come.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->