TN to add 'talent fee' to all tickets

[Techster]

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Class Action Settlement is sort of a proxy for a collective bargaining agreement. Any athlete can opt out of the settlement, but if they don't, the terms are binding within the bounds of the Class. Also if anyone opts out of the Settlement, they are on their own insofar as litigation against the NCAA is concerned.

I think you're thinking of class action versus collective action. Both operate (or is settled) in the court of law.

Collective bargaining is separate, and operates outside of the court of law. Collective bargaining requires members of a labor group to collectively agree on various points, and once those points are agreed to by the members of the labor group, they are presented to their employers to ultimately accept or reject. If terms are accepted by both, it becomes legally binding to both parties. This is why professional leagues operate under Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), because it protects the players from hostile/unfair action from the owners/franchise while also protecting the owners and leagues from challenges from players not yet in the league. For instance, how many times has the NBA and NFL been challenged regarding the draft? Remember Maurice Clarett? How about rookie compensation? How come there are rules regarding "free agency" in different leagues? This was all agreed to in CBAs across different leagues. Even if certain players were not even in the different pro leagues at the time, it still holds for future players due to the CBAs of each league voted on by current players. This is why CBAs are important for college sports going forward.

Is the NFL Draft Illegal? - SLA Blog

blog.sportslaw.org

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=jdr

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Why don't you compare eras before and after the forward pass was invented while you are at it? You are trying to equate two completely different eras now ... just like before and after gambling.

Not at all. The only teams that will follow the cap are same ones who wouldn’t cheat before. If Bama and UGA both offer a kid the max cap, what do you think they’ll do when the players rep tells both sides? They’ll sweeten the deal. And just like Burger King bags of cash well never know, but we’ll hear the rumors. Listen, I hope the cap works, but I know there are competitive people who will “go the extra mile” to get a player. It’s like real estate. A player has 2 offers exactly the same on paper (cap). What does any smart person do to decide? They ask for more. Sure, Vanderbilt and GT may say “we can’t do that because we are at the cap”. But you seriously believe Auburn, Clemson, UGA, Bama, will walk away from a player? Come on. The players will scam any system in place and the boosters and coaches will assist them.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

As I understand it, the cap is for a pool that is intended for the rank and file S-A. I don't believe the distribution is expected to be even across all S-As, so elite athletes could be compensated well above the average.

Also to your point, the settlement is just for "above the table" compensation. Nothing to limit "under the table" comp for elite athletes. But the pool should be enough to mitigate that somewhat.

I get all that. But that’s my point. When both UGA and Bama offer a Gibbs type player 3M and the players rep goes back to them we all know these teams will do what it takes to get the player. If it means going outside whatever system is in place they will. They have a 50 year track record of doing that. Bama isn’t going to lose a player to Arkansas because they hit a “cap”.

 

[roadkill]

I think you're thinking of class action versus collective action. Both operate (or is settled) in the court of law.

Collective bargaining is separate, and operates outside of the court of law. Collective bargaining requires members of a labor group to collectively agree on various points, and once those points are agreed to by the members of the labor group, they are presented to their employers to ultimately accept or reject. If terms are accepted by both, it becomes legally binding to both parties. This is why professional leagues operate under Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), because it protects the players from hostile/unfair action from the owners/franchise while also protecting the owners and leagues from challenges from players not yet in the league. For instance, how many times has the NBA and NFL been challenged regarding the draft? Remember Maurice Clarett? How about rookie compensation? How come there are rules regarding "free agency" in different leagues? This was all agreed to in CBAs across different leagues. Even if certain players were not even in the different pro leagues at the time, it still holds for future players due to the CBAs of each league voted on by current players. This is why CBAs are important for college sports going forward.

Is the NFL Draft Illegal? - SLA Blog

blog.sportslaw.org

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=jdr

There can't be a compensation "cap" (whether NIL, salary, etc.) without collective bargaining amongst Student Athletes

My understanding of Class Actions, and I have received settlements from them, is that you are considered a member of the Class unless you opt-out. If you are a member, you agree to accept the settlement. Why do you think this would not apply to S-As without collective bargaining?

It's not collusion if it's the result of a Class Action.

 

[cpf2001]

My understanding of Class Actions, and I have received settlements from them, is that you are considered a member of the Class unless you opt-out. If you are a member, you agree to accept the settlement. Why do you think this would not apply to S-As without collective bargaining?

It's not collusion if it's the result of a Class Action.

Can the result of a class action bind future members of the class in the same way a union contract can?

 

[roadkill]

Can the result of a class action bind future members of the class in the same way a union contract can?

I don't know about the "future" aspect. It doesn't seem right to me that it could bind someone who is not yet part of the class. There may be a legal way to do that, though. For example, requiring all prospective S-A's to sign on to the settlement terms in order to be paid by the school.

 

[Techster]

My understanding of Class Actions, and I have received settlements from them, is that you are considered a member of the Class unless you opt-out. If you are a member, you agree to accept the settlement. Why do you think this would not apply to S-As without collective bargaining?

It's not collusion if it's the result of a Class Action.

I am not sure what you're asking. It's really as simple as Class Action and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) being two wholly separate things.

You are mischaracterizing a Class Action lawsuit settlement with a Collective Bargaining agreement. Class Actions (handled in court) are usually applied to what has previously occurred and usually stipulates that the defendant is protected from further action (if defendent is fully compliant and didn't hide any evidence) and future lawsuits from the plaintiffs. For instance, the NCAA class action lawsuit in the O'Bannon vs NCAA case affected PAST and CURRENT players at the time. Outside of the ramifications of the class action lawsuit, FUTURE SAs were not entitled to any settlements, NOR did they have the ability "opt in" or "opt out" of the class action lawsuit as you're implying. Obviously, there's more going on with Class Action lawsuits than what I just said, but it's really not that complicated for this discussion.

Collective Bargaining is a voluntary agreement, usually between employer(s) and employee(s), and affects both parties moving forward from the date of agreement on both sides. This is usually handled outside of a court of law, but is legally binding in the court's eyes...as the agreement was negotiated and voted on between a group of employees (players) and a group of employees (colleges or teams). If a minimum threshold of players is achieved when voting (in the NFL is was 75% of players in the NFLPA), then the CBA was legally binding to ALL players. In other words, because the minimum voting threshold was achieved to reach a binding agreement, all players are legally entitled to follow the agreement in the CBA moving FORWARD...they do not have a choice to "opt in" or "opt out" of what was agreed to in the CBA. This is key, because if there's a current Student Athlete union, and they agree to a CBA, future SAs that come into college will have to operate under the CBA negotiated by SAs at the time. The onus is also on the current SAs (and their lawyers) to foresee any issues so they can protect the interests of future SAs who are not even in college yet.

 

[Techster]

Can the result of a class action bind future members of the class in the same way a union contract can?

If you look at the collective bargaining agreements (not class action lawsuits...they're separate things) negotiated by players unions, and I'm sure college players unions will model their CBAs after those agreements, the answer is "YES". This is why pro leagues, and I will venture to guess colleges in the future, will require a CBA before any player salaries and benefits are agreed to.

 

[cpf2001]

If you look at the collective bargaining agreements (not class action lawsuits...they're separate things) negotiated by players unions, and I'm sure college players unions will model their CBAs after those agreements, the answer is "YES". This is why pro leagues, and I will venture to guess colleges in the future, will require a CBA before any player salaries and benefits are agreed to.

A CBA/union contract for sure; but I didn’t think a class action could have a “we’re gonna keep doing it and future affected people who aren’t in the class have no further recourse” conclusion. Which I believe is a big part of the issue with the current case vs actually making a CBA.

IMO this “talent fee” is performative outrage-bait designed to get Tenn fans in a tizzy to try to get Congress to step in and come up with an antitrust exemption instead of universities having to come to a collective bargaining table. I bet they’re branding it like this vs just a regular price increase for the reaction value.

 

[roadkill]

I am not sure what you're asking. It's really as simple as Class Action and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) being two wholly separate things.

You are mischaracterizing a Class Action lawsuit settlement with a Collective Bargaining agreement. Class Actions (handled in court) are usually applied to what has previously occurred and usually stipulates that the defendant is protected from further action (if defendent is fully compliant and didn't hide any evidence) and future lawsuits from the plaintiffs. For instance, the NCAA class action lawsuit in the O'Bannon vs NCAA case affected PAST and CURRENT players at the time. Outside of the ramifications of the class action lawsuit, FUTURE SAs were not entitled to any settlements, NOR did they have the ability "opt in" or "opt out" of the class action lawsuit as you're implying. Obviously, there's more going on with Class Action lawsuits than what I just said, but it's really not that complicated for this discussion.

Collective Bargaining is a voluntary agreement, usually between employer(s) and employee(s), and affects both parties moving forward from the date of agreement on both sides. This is usually handled outside of a court of law, but is legally binding in the court's eyes...as the agreement was negotiated and voted on between a group of employees (players) and a group of employees (colleges or teams). If a minimum threshold of players is achieved when voting (in the NFL is was 75% of players in the NFLPA), then the CBA was legally binding to ALL players. In other words, because the minimum voting threshold was achieved to reach a binding agreement, all players are legally entitled to follow the agreement in the CBA moving FORWARD...they do not have a choice to "opt in" or "opt out" of what was agreed to in the CBA. This is key, because if there's a current Student Athlete union, and they agree to a CBA, future SAs that come into college will have to operate under the CBA negotiated by SAs at the time. The onus is also on the current SAs (and their lawyers) to foresee any issues so they can protect the interests of future SAs who are not even in college yet.

To be clear, it wasn't my intent to conflate Class Actions and Collective Bargaining Agreements. I understand how they are different. I was responding to your post which stated:

There can't be a compensation "cap" (whether NIL, salary, etc.) without collective bargaining amongst Student Athletes...otherwise you'll see a class action lawsuit for collusion and price fixing labor

If the Class Action Settlement creates a cap, and the S-As are members of the Class, then it would seem that they have agreed to a cap. We may be talking about different types of caps - I'm referring to the one in the proposed settlement which establishes a 22% revenue cap on the total amount of compensation available. If you are talking about caps for individual compensation, then we have been talking past each other. The percentage cap is what @Vespidae brought up earlier in this thread.

 

[Techster]

To be clear, it wasn't my intent to conflate Class Actions and Collective Bargaining Agreements. I understand how they are different. I was responding to your post which stated:


If the Class Action Settlement creates a cap, and the S-As are members of the Class, then it would seem that they have agreed to a cap. We may be talking about different types of caps - I'm referring to the one in the proposed settlement which establishes a 22% revenue cap on the total amount of compensation available. If you are talking about caps for individual compensation, then we have been talking past each other. The percentage cap is what @Vespidae brought up earlier in this thread.

Gotcha. I was confused as to your wording.

I have yet to see a Class Action lawsuit "create a cap" for parties going forward. There have been instances where a Class Action lawsuit addressed a group of employers that illegally imposed a cap on employees without their consent or agreement, and the courts remediated by awarding damages to current and past affected employees. The most famous case regarding sports salary caps is the case where schools "capped" assistant coaches salaries. In that case, the coaches that were affected "opted in" to be part of the class action, but it didn't mean they opted in to have their compensation "capped" going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/05/sports/colleges-assistant-coaches-win-ncaa-suit-66-million-award.html

I may be wrong, but I don't remember any case law where a class action lawsuit created a future cap for the affected class. If there is, what was the case (or cases) that set a "cap" for compensation going forward? There's usually language in class action settlements that future potential plaintiffs can not take the defendents back to court for the same issues that were settled by the Class Action case...this is why everyone is sent those famous class action lawsuit letters notifying them of their right to become a party to the class action lawsuit.

As I said, if there's a case that did create a "cap" for future employees (or coaches/players), what case was that? I could totally be wrong...and it won't be the first time.

 

[roadkill]

Gotcha. I was confused as to your wording.

I have yet to see a Class Action lawsuit "create a cap" for parties going forward. There have been instances where a Class Action lawsuit addressed a group of employers that illegally imposed a cap on employees without their consent or agreement, and the courts remediated by awarding damages to current and past affected employees. The most famous case regarding sports salary caps is the case where schools "capped" assistant coaches salaries. In that case, the coaches that were affected "opted in" to be part of the class action, but it didn't mean they opted in to have their compensation "capped" going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/05/sports/colleges-assistant-coaches-win-ncaa-suit-66-million-award.html

I may be wrong, but I don't remember any case law where a class action lawsuit created a future cap for the affected class. If there is, what was the case (or cases) that set a "cap" for compensation going forward? There's usually language in class action settlements that future potential plaintiffs can not take the defendents back to court for the same issues that were settled by the Class Action case...this is why everyone is sent those famous class action lawsuit letters notifying them of their right to become a party to the class action lawsuit.

As I said, if there's a case that did create a "cap" for future employees (or coaches/players), what case was that? I could totally be wrong...and it won't be the first time.

And yet the proposed settlement with the 22% cap is forward-looking, as well as compensating past athletes. It would go into effect next year, and the term (I think) is for ten years.

 

[Techster]

And yet the proposed settlement with the 22% cap is forward-looking, as well as compensating past athletes. It would go into effect next year, and the term (I think) is for ten years.

You may want to re-read the wording on that. When something says an entity is "allowed", that doesn't mean it's settled. That is just a proposed settlement, and the article specifically says:

• The settlement does not resolve the patchwork of state laws, many of which may conflict with the settlement. These laws will need to be preempted by federal legislation in order for the settlement to be effective.
• The settlement does not address ongoing efforts to designate student-athletes as employees under state and federal labor and employment laws. These efforts by the NLRB and plaintiffs' attorneys pose a direct threat to both the sustainability of sports programs (especially for non-revenue generating ones) and to the baseline of support provided to all athletes.

The other thing it states, and this is were the class action differs from collective bargaining:

The settlement must be approved by the court before it becomes final, a process expected to take several months. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, the class members will be provided notice of the settlement. Class members with claims for monetary damages based on prior conduct will have an opportunity to opt out of the settlement if they choose. Class members—including incoming student-athletes—will also receive notice and be allowed to present objections to the future relief/model to the court.

This is a better article that discusses the ramifications, and it isn't a glossy release from the NCAA like the linked source article:

10 Things To Know About The NCAA’s House Settlement

From who's getting paid, to how much, where it's coming from and whether Title IX and student visa guidelines apply, this is what we know about the House settlement.

www.forbes.com

This settlement may also create grounds for new antitrust cases in the future because the solution here creates a cap, which represents a restraint on pay. Restrictions like that are potential antitrust violations if not collectively bargained, which can’t happen unless athletes are deemed employees.

That was my original point regarding caps and collective bargaining.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

TN is adding a 10% 'talent fee' to all tickets (single game and season) to help pay for revenue sharing with Student Athletes.
This will be in addition to any other increases they decide to make.

Tennessee set to add 10% 'talent fee' to tickets to fund plan for revenue sharing with players

The Volunteers have been one of the most aggressive programs in NIL

www.cbssports.com

I have just about lost all interest in college football. NIL in all its "glory" is really too much. I wish there was an alternate conference or conferences for those schools that would want to opt out of the NIL insanity and just offer room, board, tuition, books and a small stipend for incidental expenses.

 

[stinger78]

It reminds me of going to my favorite restaurant and discovering that they are now tacking on an extra 4-5% to the check to cover their credit card transaction fee. It feels manipulative in a dishonest kind of way.

Yep, but worse IMPO. Everyone associated with college football is being remunerated well, from the HC to the lowest player *only* getting a 6-figure degree handed to him/her.

It’s just becoming decadence.

 

[LongforDodd]

Yep, but worse IMPO. Everyone associated with college football is being remunerated well, from the HC to the lowest player *only* getting a 6-figure degree handed to him/her.

It’s just becoming decadence.

Our age is showing by some of us in our thoughts and feelings about things like this.

 

[SunBum]

I have just about lost all interest in college football. NIL in all its "glory" is really too much. I wish there was an alternate conference or conferences for those schools that would want to opt out of the NIL insanity and just offer room, board, tuition, books and a small stipend for incidental expenses.

I'm not there just yet, but I don't like where all this is headed. If I'm being honest (taking off the old gold colored glasses) I don't see how we can compete (certainly on a regular basis or maybe even ever) with the factories in this environment. I get it and if this is what the top 15 - 20 - 25 programs can support than have at it. But for the rest of us, and as painful as it would be to start, I think a second-tier level without all this NIL, revenue-sharing, etc. would be appropriate.

 

[GTLorenzo]

Heard about this from a buddy who played at Tennessee and has had season tickets for 30 years. He's not happy about it. Besides the 20% fee, ticket prices are going up about 5% as well. I don't think that would stop him from buying season tickets, but there will come a point where people will say that it is too much, I can watch it on tv, etc. I personally hate the NIL, transfer portal, etc. I understand that is how it is these days and I'm very happy to have Haynes King, Chase Lane, etc. But, most of these players are getting an opportunity to get a top level education at Georgia Tech, Duke, Vandy, UNC, UVA, etc. through their athletic skills for free. If they were not talented, most would likely get in. Most are not going pro. That, and maybe some stipend, should be enough.

Now get off my lawn!!

 

[Vespidae]

Heard about this from a buddy who played at Tennessee and has had season tickets for 30 years. He's not happy about it. Besides the 20% fee, ticket prices are going up about 5% as well. I don't think that would stop him from buying season tickets, but there will come a point where people will say that it is too much, I can watch it on tv, etc. I personally hate the NIL, transfer portal, etc. I understand that is how it is these days and I'm very happy to have Haynes King, Chase Lane, etc. But, most of these players are getting an opportunity to get a top level education at Georgia Tech, Duke, Vandy, UNC, UVA, etc. through their athletic skills for free. If they were not talented, most would likely get in. Most are not going pro. That, and maybe some stipend, should be enough.

Now get off my lawn!!

One of the big problems for AA’s that do this is accelerating alternatives. Geolocated tickets are already an option for a fraction of season tickets without an annual donation. Club seats can be had for less than face value. I see that already as I can attend games, sit in the club level, enjoy free food and adult beverages for less than $500 a year.

At some point, consumer behavior will change.

 

[roadkill]

You may want to re-read the wording on that. When something says an entity is "allowed", that doesn't mean it's settled. That is just a proposed settlement, and the article specifically says:

• The settlement does not resolve the patchwork of state laws, many of which may conflict with the settlement. These laws will need to be preempted by federal legislation in order for the settlement to be effective.
• The settlement does not address ongoing efforts to designate student-athletes as employees under state and federal labor and employment laws. These efforts by the NLRB and plaintiffs' attorneys pose a direct threat to both the sustainability of sports programs (especially for non-revenue generating ones) and to the baseline of support provided to all athletes.

The other thing it states, and this is were the class action differs from collective bargaining:

The settlement must be approved by the court before it becomes final, a process expected to take several months. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, the class members will be provided notice of the settlement. Class members with claims for monetary damages based on prior conduct will have an opportunity to opt out of the settlement if they choose. Class members—including incoming student-athletes—will also receive notice and be allowed to present objections to the future relief/model to the court.

This is a better article that discusses the ramifications, and it isn't a glossy release from the NCAA like the linked source article:

10 Things To Know About The NCAA’s House Settlement

From who's getting paid, to how much, where it's coming from and whether Title IX and student visa guidelines apply, this is what we know about the House settlement.

www.forbes.com

This settlement may also create grounds for new antitrust cases in the future because the solution here creates a cap, which represents a restraint on pay. Restrictions like that are potential antitrust violations if not collectively bargained, which can’t happen unless athletes are deemed employees.

That was my original point regarding caps and collective bargaining.

Are you a lawyer specializing in antitrust? If not, thanks for sharing other’s opinions. If so, you should contact the NCAA and the House court and offer help, because clearly they have no clue about antitrust law since they are proposing a “cap”.