Court Blows Up NCAA Transfer Rules

[leatherneckjacket]

Yeah, unfortunately, the NCAA is not above the law.

The NCAA could dictate eligibility for over a hundred years. What specific law now prevents them from doing that?

 

[billga99]

I think the only thing I have heard thst is feasible is conferences set rules on transfers. Schools could say players have to sit out a year on second and subsequent transfers. If all of the Power 5 did that, would slow this down. Even the top schools will continue to lose plaers in this insanity.

 

[slugboy]

The NCAA could dictate eligibility for over a hundred years. What specific law now prevents them from doing that?

Various anti-trust and labor laws that they’ve been implicitly violating for 100 years. Eight years ago, those laws didn’t apply because college players weren’t labor—they were “amateurs”. The Supreme Court punctured the amateur concept—the NCAA had stretched it too far—and now they’re all in scope, plus other labor precedents

I figured one reason the NCAA wasn’t going back to the old transfer rule was because they were afraid of any new changes that could trigger more court challenges, but guess that wasn’t even necessary. Player unions + negotiated rules are the way out - nobody has told the pro leagues they can’t have salary caps or multi-year contracts, even without special congressional exemptions.

The NFL has those because of congressional antitrust exemptions—I think they were written in the 1950s. That’s why we didn’t have NFL on Friday nights or Saturdays—the law protected college and high school teams from pro competition

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Various anti-trust and labor laws that they’ve been implicitly violating for 100 years. Eight years ago, those laws didn’t apply because college players weren’t labor—they were “amateurs”. The Supreme Court punctured the amateur concept—the NCAA had stretched it too far—and now they’re all in scope, plus other labor precedents

The NFL has those because of congressional antitrust exemptions—I think they were written in the 1950s. That’s why we didn’t have NFL on Friday nights or Saturdays—the law protected college and high school teams from pro competition

Where did the Supreme Court rule that student athletes are employees? I missed that.

Also, are you suggesting that the NCAA cannot regulate eligibility, like at all? Wouldn't eligibility based on minimum academic standards, maximum number of years, or commission of any NCAA rules violation also be a violation of anti-trust or labor laws?

 

[bhoffman123]

If NIL opens up further you could limit transfers with contract terms. One more step to a semi pro-environment but we are essentially there already. That would protect coaches and schools from having to continually use resources on retention vs recruiting and development.

 

[slugboy]

Where did the Supreme Court rule that student athletes are employees? I missed that.

Also, are you suggesting that the NCAA cannot regulate eligibility, like at all? Wouldn't eligibility based on minimum academic standards, maximum number of years, or commission of any NCAA rules violation also be a violation of anti-trust or labor laws?

NCAA v. Alston - Harvard Law Review

In January of 2021, as the coronavirus pandemic reached its peak in the United States, Alabama Crimson Tide football coach Nick Saban won his...

harvardlawreview.org

“The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that limitations on education-related student-athlete benefits constituted unlawful restraints on trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

“As a final step in confirming that the rule of reason test applied, Justice Gorsuch agreed with the district court that the NCAA and its member schools are commercial enterprises subject to the Sherman Act.”

“ In challenging the NCAA’s argument that maintaining compensation restrictions is necessary to distinguish college athletics from professional athletics, Justice Kavanaugh stated: “Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product.”

“The principal contribution of the Court’s decision was to make clear that the NCAA’s compensation rules are subject to Sherman Act scrutiny.”

There is some consideration of “amateurism”, but it was largely dismissed, and gets further dismissed with each of the following cases. CFB is considered a commercial enterprise and is subject to antitrust and labor laws.

 

[IM79]

Where did the Supreme Court rule that student athletes are employees? I missed that.

Also, are you suggesting that the NCAA cannot regulate eligibility, like at all? Wouldn't eligibility based on minimum academic standards, maximum number of years, or commission of any NCAA rules violation also be a violation of anti-trust or labor laws?

Well, this case is just one Federal Judge's temporary restraining order against the NCAA at the moment until he can have a hearing on the issue. Permanent rulings will come later. the NCAA hasn't decided if they will appeal TRO and attempt to delay the process. Here is the basis of the claim of the states that are suing the NCAA:

"We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.

The lawsuit alleged requiring athletes to sit can mean lost potential earnings from endorsement deals with their name, image and likeness or professional careers. It pointed to exposure from competing in national broadcasts, noting: "One game can take a college athlete from a local fan favorite to a household name."

"It is ironic that this rule, stylized as promoting the welfare of college athletes, strips them of the agency and opportunity to optimize their own welfare as they see fit," the lawsuit said.

Bailey's ruling came after hearing testimony from athletes whose waiver requests to play immediately were denied.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

True college sports will emerge where every athlete is up to the highest bidder each year and there is no roster continuity? Yeah, go with that.

Sorry you don’t like real life but that is how the world works. Roster continuity doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s a fabrication in your head. If Haynes King goes down for the season in fall practice are you going to scream “but roster continuity“. Sorry, that adults get to decide where and when they do something. The schools could stop all this by their admissions policy. But they don’t. You guys are mad at the wrong group.

 

[iceeater1969]

Wrong. This garbage version of college sports we’ve seen the last 60 years has taken a blow. True college sports will hopefully emerge once the non-students go to whatever new paid for model emerges.

True sports is called 2A high school but its not fun to watch. 5 and 6A HS quarter finals to finals is close to pure and fun to watch.

Our 2 hs qb recruits have done very well in Georgia and Texas. Atl and Gt footnall w great academics ( W GREAT TUTORING ) and a NIL hybrid type COOP PROGRAM for O linemen who stay 5 years could be a winner for gt football and players.

I am not a fan of gt to Patriot Conference

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

Well, this case is just one Federal Judge's temporary restraining order against the NCAA at the moment until he can have a hearing on the issue. Permanent rulings will come later. the NCAA hasn't decided if they will appeal TRO and attempt to delay the process. Here is the basis of the claim of the states that are suing the NCAA:

I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard many times that TROs and injunctions are often a tell that the judge believes that plaintiffs will win on the merits. IMO, this is one of the final coffin nails for the NCAA - at least it's control of CFB and CBB. They may hang around to regulate the "lesser" sports.

The schools could stop all this by their admissions policy.

The schools could easily change all of this. They are the NCAA - if enough of them get together, they could force a reorganization of this relic. Won't happen tho' - the money's too good right now....

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Sorry you don’t like real life but that is how the world works. Roster continuity doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s a fabrication in your head. If Haynes King goes down for the season in fall practice are you going to scream “but roster continuity“. Sorry, that adults get to decide where and when they do something. The schools could stop all this by their admissions policy. But they don’t. You guys are mad at the wrong group.

The real world includes contracts that have non compete clauses that prevent people from working for competitors? There is also not a single sports league in the world that has 100% free agency for all their athletes each and every year. This utopia where every employee can move around and go the highest bidder does not exist anywhere except now in college sports.

Better yet, provide one single example of true sports that has this model. I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Well, this case is just one Federal Judge's temporary restraining order against the NCAA at the moment until he can have a hearing on the issue. Permanent rulings will come later. the NCAA hasn't decided if they will appeal TRO and attempt to delay the process. Here is the basis of the claim of the states that are suing the NCAA:

"We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.

The lawsuit alleged requiring athletes to sit can mean lost potential earnings from endorsement deals with their name, image and likeness or professional careers. It pointed to exposure from competing in national broadcasts, noting: "One game can take a college athlete from a local fan favorite to a household name."

"It is ironic that this rule, stylized as promoting the welfare of college athletes, strips them of the agency and opportunity to optimize their own welfare as they see fit," the lawsuit said.

Bailey's ruling came after hearing testimony from athletes whose waiver requests to play immediately were denied.

That is not the Supreme Court, is it?

 

[leatherneckjacket]

NCAA v. Alston - Harvard Law Review

In January of 2021, as the coronavirus pandemic reached its peak in the United States, Alabama Crimson Tide football coach Nick Saban won his...

harvardlawreview.org

“The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that limitations on education-related student-athlete benefits constituted unlawful restraints on trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

“As a final step in confirming that the rule of reason test applied, Justice Gorsuch agreed with the district court that the NCAA and its member schools are commercial enterprises subject to the Sherman Act.”

“ In challenging the NCAA’s argument that maintaining compensation restrictions is necessary to distinguish college athletics from professional athletics, Justice Kavanaugh stated: “Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product.”

“The principal contribution of the Court’s decision was to make clear that the NCAA’s compensation rules are subject to Sherman Act scrutiny.”

There is some consideration of “amateurism”, but it was largely dismissed, and gets further dismissed with each of the following cases. CFB is considered a commercial enterprise and is subject to antitrust and labor laws.

Does that explicitly rule that they are employees?

 

[slugboy]

Does that explicitly rule that they are employees?

It rules that 1) college athletic programs are commercial enterprises and are subject to labor laws and antitrust legislation, 2) the players are covered under labor laws and antitrust legislation, 3) the NCAA’s amateur argument is limited (and is becoming more limited with each court case) and does not stop the courts from enforcing antitrust and labor laws in college sports. Courts have a reasonableness test they can use to apply antitrust, trade, and labor laws; the NCAA is regularly losing the reasonableness tests.

I said the Supreme Court punctured the NCAAs amateurism argument. It did. You can read the original decision—I have.

Gorsuch in the majority opinion doesn’t use the term “employees”, but it does give them labor rights. Kavanaugh’s concurring minority opinion clearly does classify them as employees, even when he doesn’t use that term.

The transfer rule is being attacked as illegal restraint of trade. If you read through the Alston decision, it would appear that lower court decision overturning transfer rules is going to hold.

Right now, college athletes are in this strange limbo status. They aren’t amateurs any more, but it’s up to the athletic associations to make them into employees. They are labor. Until the AAs make players into employees with contracts, the AA’s have even more limited authority than a normal employer.

And that doesn’t even include the need to have an antitrust exemption to have a unified college football system and set of rules. Any uniform set of rules is going to be collusion towards restraint of trade, even if all the conferences “happen” to end up with the same rules.

My personal view is that Gorsuch gave the NCAA and member schools a chance to square things away before another case came before the Supreme Court again. The NCAA and the conferences have squandered that opportunity.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

It rules that 1) college athletic programs are commercial enterprises and are subject to labor laws and antitrust legislation, 2) the players are covered under labor laws and antitrust legislation, 3) the NCAA’s amateur argument is limited (and is becoming more limited with each court case) and does not stop the courts from enforcing antitrust and labor laws in college sports. Courts have a reasonableness test they can use to apply antitrust, trade, and labor laws; the NCAA is regularly losing the reasonableness tests.

I said the Supreme Court punctured the NCAAs amateurism argument. It did. You can read the original decision—I have.

Gorsuch in the majority opinion doesn’t use the term “employees”, but it does give them labor rights. Kavanaugh’s concurring minority opinion clearly does classify them as employees, even when he doesn’t use that term.

The transfer rule is being attacked as illegal restraint of trade. If you read through the Alston decision, it would appear that lower court decision overturning transfer rules is going to hold.

Right now, college athletes are in this strange limbo status. They aren’t amateurs any more, but it’s up to the athletic associations to make them into employees. They are labor. Until the AAs make players into employees with contracts, the AA’s have even more limited authority than a normal employer.

And that doesn’t even include the need to have an antitrust exemption to have a unified college football system and set of rules. Any uniform set of rules is going to be collusion towards restraint of trade, even if all the conferences “happen” to end up with the same rules.

My personal view is that Gorsuch gave the NCAA and member schools a chance to square things away before another case came before the Supreme Court again. The NCAA and the conferences have squandered that opportunity.

I never read through the ruling, but I understand and agree with your assessment. Would you agree that this ruling now forces Congress to step in and provide anti-trust exemption to the NCAA? Otherwise, this devolves into complete chaos where there are no standard rules of eligibility going forward.

 

[Root4GT]

I never read through the ruling, but I understand and agree with your assessment. Would you agree that this ruling now forces Congress to step in and provide anti-trust exemption to the NCAA? Otherwise, this devolves into complete chaos where there are no standard rules of eligibility going forward.

That makes sense. Confidence level of Congress functioning is a limit approaching zero.

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

That makes sense. Confidence level of Congress functioning is a limit approaching zero.

The most likely result of the dot gov getting involved is a worse situation than we currently find ourselves in; not to mention the likelihood of legislation trying to return us back to the old status quo would likely be found unconstitutional by the USSC. IMO, best case scenario is enough university presidents get together to force systemic change to the NCAA. The total number of institutions greatly outnumber the mega-sports schools, so hopefully an equitable solution could be found. I think we're likely headed to a system of contractual SAs in major sports, although I'm not sure how Title IX is preserved with that...

 

[slugboy]

I never read through the ruling, but I understand and agree with your assessment. Would you agree that this ruling now forces Congress to step in and provide anti-trust exemption to the NCAA? Otherwise, this devolves into complete chaos where there are no standard rules of eligibility going forward.

So far, we have chaos. There is a lack of responsible behavior and foresight in virtually all parties

I’ve seen a few people in congress propose legislation, but it seems to have withered

The most likely result of the dot gov getting involved is a worse situation than we currently find ourselves in; not to mention the likelihood of legislation trying to return us back to the old status quo would likely be found unconstitutional by the USSC. IMO, best case scenario is enough university presidents get together to force systemic change to the NCAA. The total number of institutions greatly outnumber the mega-sports schools, so hopefully an equitable solution could be found. I think we're likely headed to a system of contractual SAs in major sports, although I'm not sure how Title IX is preserved with that...

The current problem is that there is NO law supporting a CFB antitrust exemption. The NFL has one. The Alston decision said College sports were engaged in illegal restraint of trade because, among other things, they had no similar exemption.

It’s unclear how the Supreme Court would rule on a law that doesn’t yet exist

 

[IM79]

That is not the Supreme Court, is it?

It was not the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey in northern West Virginia issued the order. NCAA could appeal the restraining order but they have not yet.

 

[Randy Carson]

Don't most universities have rules about the minimum number of credits that they will accept from another school? Or the minimum number that must be earned at that school to earn a degree to be awarded a degree from that faculty?