1VaBlue1

December 16th, 2020 at 2:01 PM ^

The Rodgers Court has been the most pro-business collection of Justices we've ever had.  It'll be interesting to see how it rules in this case.  Clearly, the NCAA should lose (as the lower courts have ruled), but never underestimate the ability of John Rogers to write an awesome decision that says how strong your case is while still cutting you to shreds.  Dude is a legal Ninja...

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127788

bronxblue

December 16th, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^

Not to get overly political, but I imagine this case will be closer than people may assume given the consistency of the lower court rulings.  Could well turn on how Gorsuch and Roberts view the role of student-athletes at a school and on a team.  

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 172112

Mike Damone

December 16th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^

Fuck the NCAA.  They are slimy and greedy, while being slow and reactive to the desires of the players and fans.

Hope the Supreme Court gives them a kick in the ass...

 

Joined: 09/02/2017

MGoPoints: 24449

Teddy Bonkers

December 16th, 2020 at 6:04 PM ^

Good question. Some graduate programs give their students full rides and a stipend because of the work they provide as teaching and research assistants. I don't see why players couldn't get a full ride with a stipend for the millions their games bring to the University. 

Joined: 03/08/2018

MGoPoints: 3844

DCGrad

December 16th, 2020 at 2:20 PM ^

Will be curious to see if DOJ files an Amicus.  DOJ has been all over wage suppression cases over the last few years.  Hard to see a cap on NIL or other compensation as anything but wage/earnings suppression.

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 9261

Mongo

December 16th, 2020 at 2:51 PM ^

Won't matter unless the under-the-table payments are attacked by the IRS and FBI.  Cheating programs will always find a way to channel illegal bags of money when needed.  There needs to be enforcement, which starts with auditing player and families change in lifestyle after leaving high school.   Trace the money thru these families and your criminals will be caught.  Players should get paid more, I agree, but not under the table.

Joined: 06/25/2016

MGoPoints: 9585

GIWolv1029

December 16th, 2020 at 3:57 PM ^

For those of you hoping that this case will end the NCAA once and for all, this is not a good development.  In the overwhelming majority of cases in which the Supreme Court grants "cert"--i.e., agrees to hear a case--it overturns the lower appellate court.  Worse yet, the Ninth Circuit is the most frequently overturned court in the land.  And that's for a reason:  it's rulings are consistently out of step with the other "circuit courts" (i.e., federal appellate courts) in the country. 

The question that the Supreme Court will consider is this:  "Whether the Ninth Circuit erroneously held, in conflict with decisions of other circuits and general antitrust principles, that the National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules regarding compensation of student-athletes violate federal antitrust law." 

To non-lawyers, this is saying that the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicts with the decisions of other courts and must be overturned.  If at least four members of the Supreme Court (the minimum number required to hear a case) didn't already have strong opinions against the Ninth Circuit decision, I suspect there would've been no grant.

Now of course, the Supreme Court may be opting to hear the case because once and for all it wants to stick it to the NCAA...but, as mentioned above, given the pro-business, anti-consumer leanings of this current Supreme Court, that's a harder prediction to make.

Joined: 04/27/2011

MGoPoints: 87

Sambojangles

December 16th, 2020 at 5:46 PM ^

+1 informative. 

Since you sound like a lawyer, and I'm not (unless you count bird law) plus a closer SCOTUS watcher than I am, I'll frame my post as a question instead of talking out of my ass. 

How narrow, or broad, is the decision they're reviewing, and what would be the direct implications of a decision to uphold? Would the NCAA limit on comp be gone entirely or would there still be some guardrails around direct payments from schools to players? 

If it goes the other way, what's the next case to challenge the NCAA? Another NLI case? I think NLI is probably something the SCOTUS, and Gorsuch in particular, is likely to be open to deciding on the side of the players. 

Joined: 12/15/2008

MGoPoints: 10996

GIWolv1029

December 16th, 2020 at 6:34 PM ^

I see three possible outcomes, in broad strokes:

  • A blanket ruling that a membership association like NCAA has broad authority to set competition-related rules; either effectively granting a university athletics exception to the antitrust laws or doing so explicitly.  I think that outcome is not likely, but possible.
  • A more nuanced opinion grounded in the fundamentals of antitrust law, that looks at how closely courts can scrutinize membership rules related to competition in the context of a joint venture like the NCAA.  Here the main focus will be on whether the trial judge went too far in micromanaging individual NCAA rules, as opposed to looking at the total package together and determining whether they work to create a playing field, providing some deference to the members of the joint venture to create that total package without second guessing.  This opinion could come in two flavors:  1) one that all but shuts the door to future litigation against the NCAA's rules or 2) one that spawns more litigation.  I think this option is the most likely result, though I'm not sure whether the Supreme Court will go with 1) or 2).
  • A declaration that the Ninth Circuit had it right and the other circuits have it wrong,  affirming Alston and calling into question what other rules the NCAA can let stand.  As I mentioned in my first post, this is a possible route but, practically speaking, it's not clear why the Supreme Court would have agreed to hear the case if it thought the Ninth Circuit decision was correctly decided.  Since the Ninth Circuit's decision has already forced the NCAA to make changes, and those changes will remain in effect, the Supreme Court could have just let it stand had it agreed with the decision.  Granting cert suggests that at least four of the nine justices think the Ninth Circuit decision is wrong in some way--ultimately they'll need a fifth justice to render a decision, of course. 

NIL has left the barn because of state legislation and possible federal legislation. So I view that as a separate issue that probably won't be directly affected by the current strand of cases, though whatever the Supreme Court decides in Alston may affect a) how the NCAA can legislate going forward and b) the scope of possible federal legislation.

Joined: 04/27/2011

MGoPoints: 87

OSUMC Wolverine

December 16th, 2020 at 5:13 PM ^

I actually agree with the title of this post. I am absolutely opposed to colleges and universities themselves paying players beyond what they provide other scholarship students. A scholarship is a scholarship whether it be academic, need based, or athletic. I would not be opposed to the NCAA profit sharing with players as that would benefit all players in the NCAA, not just a few at schools with deep pockets. Im not sure how much money would be available and Im sure once divided among all the players in the NCAA it would not be much, but that is the first idea regarding paying players that may have some validity--NCAA profit sharing. It would also not open the door to individual schools abusing paying players. In fact, the schools making the most money could/should pay the most into the NCAA pool to profit share with all the players under the NCAA umbrella.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 4403

tigerd

December 16th, 2020 at 8:19 PM ^

I'm ok with some sort of compensation but what worries me is where would it stop. would it not open the door eventually to agents and determining actual worth of individual athletes. Just seems like you'd be opening Pandora's box and things would spiral out of control. 

Joined: 11/12/2016

MGoPoints: 6470