Name and Likeness Law Signed by Kemp

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
I shared more information on the Supreme Court NCAA v Alston decision at https://gtswarm.com/threads/general-ncaa-thread.23305/.

There was the majority (“official”) decision written by Gorsuch, and a concurring but harsher opinion by Kavanaugh, with the Gorsuch opinion being precedent. The majority of what I’ve seen is
  • The NCAA is covered by anti-trust law, even though they argued that it doesn’t apply to them
  • There’s little to no legal weight given to “amateurism” as a defense.
  • This decision was on a narrow topic (internships, summer jobs, and other “academic” compensation), and the NCAA lost entirely on the narrow compensation topic. Kavanaugh’s concurrence implies “bring us more cases; unless Congress gives the NCAA special protection, we’re ready to make broader decisions”.
  • No one believes Congress is going to give the NCAA anti-trust protection. I think you’d get majority bipartisan opposition to that.
  • For what it’s worth, Kavanaugh’s concurrence says that the NCAA’s compensation model is unjustified and ludicrous, and that it’s ridiculous to have an industry where some people make a lot of money and the workers don’t really get paid. If lawyers see that and don’t think “I can take this NCAA case to the Supreme Court”, I don’t know what kind of hint they’re waiting for.
  • This case in particular doesn’t change a lot directly, but it’s a clear signal for lawyers that it’s open season on the NCAA
  • “Winter is coming” and the NCAA is publicly ignoring it
One of the broader aspects of this -- and I am in the athletes' corner almost all the way -- is how this money making venture will be governed and by whom. Are the athletes going to be hounded by "agents" day and night, at school, at home and, I betcha, on the practice field? And pray tell, who is the guardian angel(s) who will help them navigate. Lord knows no matter what a school does to insulate a 19-year-old from the sharks -- Nike, that means you -- by giving them courses in financial management, more than half the NFL players who in theory make millions are broke within a decade of retirement, and owe millions of dollars.

It is all well and good to make the NCAA cough up some of its loot, but history says few athletes will even have a clue how to figure out what his likeness is worth.

I am not a lawyer but if there is one out there who can't figure a way to make a buck here, then he or she should get into auto repair.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,800
One of the broader aspects of this -- and I am in the athletes' corner almost all the way -- is how this money making venture will be governed and by whom. Are the athletes going to be hounded by "agents" day and night, at school, at home and, I betcha, on the practice field? And pray tell, who is the guardian angel(s) who will help them navigate. Lord knows no matter what a school does to insulate a 19-year-old from the sharks -- Nike, that means you -- by giving them courses in financial management, more than half the NFL players who in theory make millions are broke within a decade of retirement, and owe millions of dollars.

It is all well and good to make the NCAA cough up some of its loot, but history says few athletes will even have a clue how to figure out what his likeness is worth.

I am not a lawyer but if there is one out there who can't figure a way to make a buck here, then he or she should get into auto repair.
The real money has always been in either auto repair or asbestos remediation.
 

GTBandman

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
148
i don't understand why the NCAA's argument on anti-trust isn't related to the title IX requirements. The government tells schools they must spend money on a bunch of stuff that can't come close to supporting itself. If football and basketball players want to get paid, get rid of the boat anchors or they pull their own weight.

I'd also include the "women's" sports aren't limited to women anymore so they shouldn't be protected.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,895
Location
Augusta, Georgia
i don't understand why the NCAA's argument on anti-trust isn't related to the title IX requirements. The government tells schools they must spend money on a bunch of stuff that can't come close to supporting itself. If football and basketball players want to get paid, get rid of the boat anchors or they pull their own weight.

I'd also include the "women's" sports aren't limited to women anymore so they shouldn't be protected.

The decision that came down wasn't that schools must pay their athletes, but rather they could no longer prevent their athletes, in any sport, from monetizing their own name, image, and likeness.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
i don't understand why the NCAA's argument on anti-trust isn't related to the title IX requirements. The government tells schools they must spend money on a bunch of stuff that can't come close to supporting itself. If football and basketball players want to get paid, get rid of the boat anchors or they pull their own weight.

I'd also include the "women's" sports aren't limited to women anymore so they shouldn't be protected.
That is a remarkably short-sighted view of the value of sports in school. One might also make the argument, then that all academic courses should be eliminated, as they won't show a "profit" for many years. Title IX has been immensely beneficial at all levels.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,895
Location
Augusta, Georgia
That is a remarkably short-sighted view of the value of sports in school. One might also make the argument, then that all academic courses should be eliminated, as they won't show a "profit" for many years. Title IX has been immensely beneficial at all levels.

You're conflating profit with return on investment. I assure you the universities profit greatly every year from their academic courses. Students are depending on ROI to make their expenditures worth the cost.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,663
You're conflating profit with return on investment. I assure you the universities profit greatly every year from their academic courses. Students are depending on ROI to make their expenditures worth the cost.
Interesting that the original purpose of a university was to make a decent human being with depth and values. Some historians define the decadent stage of a culture as the moment a majority of people go to college not out of a sense of vocation but simply to make money.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,800
Interesting that the original purpose of a university was to make a decent human being with depth and values. Some historians define the decadent stage of a culture as the moment a majority of people go to college not out of a sense of vocation but simply to make money.
I’m sure that they publicly said words to that effect, and carved them in stone, but money was scarcer then than it is now, and I suspect that there were tighter strings attached both in founding the universities and in running them than you’d see today.
Plus, Prince Henry of Portugal founded a navigator’s school for one reason—to make a pile of money.
 
Last edited:

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
You're conflating profit with return on investment. I assure you the universities profit greatly every year from their academic courses. Students are depending on ROI to make their expenditures worth the cost.
You are right of course, but my focus was on profit for the student. My son is a university professor and believe me, he roasts my ears about courses scheduled because they can get students to pay top dollar, And don't get him started on administrators.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,663
I’m sure that they publicly said words to that effect, and carved them in stone, but money was scarcer then than it is now, and I suspect that there were tighter strings attached both in founding the universities and in running them than you’d see today.
Plus, Prince Henry of Portugal founded a navigator’s school for one reason—to make a pile of money.
We can be cynical or quibble about details, but the invention of the university has a very specific pedigree. The church may have had mixed motives to get involved, what institution doesn’t have some of that, but it was not primarily to make money.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,663
The two purposes aren't mutually exclusive.
No, but that misses the point. My daughter left a job at a school that had a long solid reputation as a liberal arts college but was squandering that by adding business major after business major. The pursuit of money alone destroyed the rigor and integrity of the school and the overall quality of the student population plummeted.

To reiterate, making money was not the original purpose of universities.
 
Top