• The KillerFrogs

SCOTUS Rules Against NCAA and In Favor of Athletes

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
Coaches salaries have little to do with the plight of the players, I don't understand the obsession with it. Players have probably never had it better. I guess if they want to possibly make huge money after college and they aren't good enough for the pros, they can get into coaching.

GP spent a year at K-State, two years at Tennessee Tech, a year at UC Davis, a year at Cal Lutheran, a year at Pittsburg State, two years at Sonoma State, a year in the semi-pros in Oregon, three years at Utah State, a year at Navy and two years at New Mexico before he even got to Fort Worth. Just getting more and more rich every step along the way I'm sure.
Well, making more money is kind of the idea isn’t it? Most people usually don’t change jobs to take a pay cut. You usually only get rich if you are doing something good.

Lots of people change jobs on their way up. I know I did. Even so, coaching is a different animal and frankly suffer a lot with moves, long hours and family hardships. Point I was trying to make was between real employees and scholarship athletes.
 
Last edited:

steelfrog

Tier 1
Steel hasn't read this opinion, and hasn't studied this issue, but does know a thing or two about stuff.

It seems that you all might be getting into the thickets of dumb NCAA rules and missing the big picture that motivated the SCOTUS ruling which is that the NCAA is a tool the schools use to exercise unlawful monopoly (or monopsony) power over the workers, the kids. It's unlawful colluding. So, while the Court was only presented with this issue in the context of making $$ of name/likeness, if the issue came to the Court in a different context -- e.g., colluding to prevent me from freely transferring wherever I want, whenever I want -- the NCAA and universities could likely lose that as well. And they know it, which is why they are loosening things up voluntarily.

This is America -- which means free competition, between companies, schools, and between groups like employers and employees. And when a group of employers bands together, acting in concert, perhaps through the artifice of calling the employees "amateurs" (just because) and agrees that we are all going to create a set of rules that we are going to, between us, agree to honor, to the detriment of our employees, that's illegal.

That's Steel's uneducated take on this; if that's what they're saying, it's nothing knew in antitrust law.
 

Farmfrog

Active Member
College athletics, mostly football and basketball, have become so large and dependent on the money it receives. I’m as big a basketball fan as there is and I don’t get as excited as like I used to. For me the college model just doesn’t work anymore and now the college game will become just like the pros. If I wanted to watch the NFL or the NBA I would but I don’t prefer them.
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
Steel hasn't read this opinion, and hasn't studied this issue, but does know a thing or two about stuff.

It seems that you all might be getting into the thickets of dumb NCAA rules and missing the big picture that motivated the SCOTUS ruling which is that the NCAA is a tool the schools use to exercise unlawful monopoly (or monopsony) power over the workers, the kids. It's unlawful colluding. So, while the Court was only presented with this issue in the context of making $$ of name/likeness, if the issue came to the Court in a different context -- e.g., colluding to prevent me from freely transferring wherever I want, whenever I want -- the NCAA and universities could likely lose that as well. And they know it, which is why they are loosening things up voluntarily.

This is America -- which means free competition, between companies, schools, and between groups like employers and employees. And when a group of employers bands together, acting in concert, perhaps through the artifice of calling the employees "amateurs" (just because) and agrees that we are all going to create a set of rules that we are going to, between us, agree to honor, to the detriment of our employees, that's illegal.

That's Steel's uneducated take on this; if that's what they're saying, it's nothing knew in antitrust law.

But are students legally defined as being employees? Has there ever been legal precedence to show a student whether athlete, tuba player, astrophysics major or any other student that brings value or prestige to a university is an employee able seek recompense for the value they provide?
 

steelfrog

Tier 1
But are students legally defined as being employees? Has there ever been legal precedence to show a student whether athlete, tuba player, astrophysics major or any other student that brings value or prestige to a university is an employee able seek recompense for the value they provide?
That is a much-litigated issue. Steel hasn't studied that either; at one point Steel believes the NLRB found them not to be employees. However, they certainly do form a pool of labor that is vigorously exploited by universities and millionaire coaches for a handsome profit, which is used to build nice buildings, monuments and statues and endowments, as well as pay for the many administrators required in the modern university setting to make sure all the appropriate diversity boxes are being checked and re-checked. The athletes, and no one else, are out on the field performing the work that people buy tickets and beers to watch, and donate money for.
 

Froggish

Active Member
One can argue that tuition, room, board, and a stipend may not be enough in proportion to the wealth generated by the schools, but it’s a terrible argument to summarize that athletes don’t get paid for their services.
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
That is a much-litigated issue. Steel hasn't studied that either; at one point Steel believes the NLRB found them not to be employees. However, they certainly do form a pool of labor that is vigorously exploited by universities and millionaire coaches for a handsome profit, which is used to build nice buildings, monuments and statues and endowments, as well as pay for the many administrators required in the modern university setting to make sure all the appropriate diversity boxes are being checked and re-checked. The athletes, and no one else, are out on the field performing the work that people buy tickets and beers to watch, and donate money for.

Exploited hints at not having a choice in some less than pleasant task. None of these kids have been forced to do anything and have chosen to enroll out of their own free will with full knowledge of what they are entitled to and to do something apparently love. What’s next, reparations for the decades of those not paid? What about high school?

My high school stadium built in the 60s sat 16000 people, other than students no one got in free. The school district made money off football, should these kids not get their cut for being “exploited”?

Such BS…
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
At least one ruling out of the 9th Circus says no…


LEGAL UPDATE

Aug 19, 2019

Student-Athletes Are Students—And Athletes—But Not Employees
Click for PDF
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Ninth Circuit has held that, under federal and California law, college student-athletes are not employees of either the NCAA or the Pac-12, the regulatory bodies that govern college sports.

The Facts

Dawson played football for the University of Southern California. USC is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Pac-12 Conference. The NCAA is an organization encompassing more than 1,100 colleges and universities nationwide. The Pac-12 operates a multi-sport collegiate conference.

NCAA member schools agree to administer their athletic programs in accordance with the NCAA constitution, bylaws, and other NCAA policies. Consistent with its decades-long tradition of amateurism, the NCAA in its bylaws prohibits student-athletes from being paid to participate in school athletic programs. The bylaws also provide that student-athletes may receive financial aid based on athletic ability, but that the amount of aid must not exceed the value of the student’s cost of attending the school.

Dawson sued the NCAA and the Pac-12, claiming that he and other Division I athletes were employees for purposes of California and federal law. Dawson did not sue USC.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Reviewing the District Court’s order dismissing Dawson’s complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that Dawson was not an employee of either the NCAA or Pac-12. The Ninth Circuit first applied the “economic realities” test under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which considers (1) the expectation of compensation, (2) the power to hire and fire, and (3) evidence that an arrangement was conceived or carried out to evade the law.

The Ninth Circuit held that Dawson’s scholarship did not create an expectation that he would receive compensation from the NCAA or the Pac-12, as he did not receive his scholarship from either of them. The Ninth Circuit also held that the regulation limiting scholarships to the cost of attendance did not create any expectation of compensation. Next, the Ninth Circuit found that neither the NCAA nor Pac-12 had the ability to hire or fire Dawson. Although the NCAA bylaws regulate college athletics, neither the NCAA nor Pac-12 choose the players on a team or supervise the players’ performance. Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that there was no evidence that the arrangement was designed to evade the law because the NCAA rules have existed in some form since before Congress enacted the FLSA.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Dawson’s claim that the NCAA and Pac-12 were his employers under California law. California, by statute, exempts student-athletes from workers’ compensation benefits. California appellate courts have held that student-athletes are not employees of their universities for purposes of the California Tort Claims Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, reasoning that the workers’ compensation exemption reflects a legislative intent to exclude student-athletes from California’s employment laws. Applying similar reasoning, the Ninth Circuit held that student-athletes also are not employees of the NCAA or Pac-12 for purposes of California’s wage and hour laws.

Seyfarth Shaw represented the Pac-12 before both the district court and the Ninth Circuit.

What Dawson Means for Employers

There have been numerous efforts over the years to persuade courts and administrative agencies to confer employee status on student-athletes. In Dawson, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that, as a matter of law, student-athletes are not employees of either the NCAA or the Pac-12, the regulatory bodies governing college sports, for purposes of the FLSA and California wage and hour law. Dawson provides useful insight into how the Ninth Circuit applies the sometimes amorphous FLSA “economic realities” test. It remains to be seen what impact Dawson will have on other efforts to challenge the status of student-athletes.
 

Eight

Member
And CADE clearly chose not to. That's on him.

It would work with basketball as easy as it would with any other sport. Cade did not buy that arena. Nor did his brother.

that arena didn't make cade an nba lottery pick unless it somehow is connected to gregor mendel and even then it would only provide the diagram to the fact mom and dad are the biggest contributors to cade's future in the nba and not the ok state basketball program
 

Eight

Member
Seems to have worked for more than a century. Sounds like greed. No pathway from high school isn’t exactly true. There have been several NFL players that haven’t gone to college, but then the percentage is still rather low of anyone getting to the pros. I have a feeling talent would win the day somehow.

I’d tell them, Sucks to be you. Go to college or not, if not find your own way to the pros. Not our problem. You want an education to back up your small chances of hitting it big? C’mon, if not, good luck son.

This sounds more and more like the it’s the all about me generation. Kind of like after decades and decades having an Indian as a mascot is offensive, when everyone knows you want a mockery to represent your school or city.

I wonder how many of us would have gladly been given the physical assets and would’ve jumped at an offer to represent TCU on any field of athletics for a lot less than these guys get?

first, greed from whom?

the average head coach in d1 college football makes just under 2M. why? because they deserve it?

second, the number of nfl players who didn't play in college is exceptionally small and each of those usually has some twist in their life story such as brian banks, a few where pro athletes in other sports who quit that sport after taking the money, and very,very few are guys who literally came off the streets
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
first, greed from whom?

the average head coach in d1 college football makes just under 2M. why? because they deserve it?

second, the number of nfl players who didn't play in college is exceptionally small and each of those usually has some twist in their life story such as brian banks, a few where pro athletes in other sports who quit that sport after taking the money, and very,very few are guys who literally came off the streets

Well, we have gone more than a century considering scholarship athletes as students and not employees. Everyone of them knows going in what is given them as student athletes. No one is forcing them to be football players. Now they want to be paid, just because they aren’t getting a cut. They are not hired, they are enrolled.

Coaches salaries are products of an arm race. If the competition for jobs in your profession got to be a bidding war for your services, would you turn down the high bidder? Football coaches generally struggle very hard before the few of them get into serious money. The long road there usually requires a lot of struggling that is hard on marriages, requires multiple moves, lots of stress and few guarantees. I seem to recall GP talking about having to work two jobs and do laundry or something in his early years. These are adults that have generally paid their dues and are hopefully still be employed after 4 or 5 years and not just passing through like students. Scholly athletes are kids that know what they are getting into and have a lifetime to to make money.

I’m not sure why you begrudge coaches the pay they get or why you think the system needs to change when it has worked fine for over a hundred years. I think this will create a crack in the dam that will eventually destroy something that didn’t need to be changed.

Just my opinion.
 

Eight

Member
Well, we have gone more than a century considering scholarship athletes as students and not employees. Everyone of them knows going in what is given them as student athletes. No one is forcing them to be football players. Now they want to be paid, just because they aren’t getting a cut. They are not hired, they are enrolled.

Coaches salaries are products of an arm race. If the competition for jobs in your profession got to be a bidding war for your services, would you turn down the high bidder? Football coaches generally struggle very hard before the few of them get into serious money. The long road there usually requires a lot of struggling that is hard on marriages, requires multiple moves, lots of stress and few guarantees. I seem to recall GP talking about having to work two jobs and do laundry or something in his early years. These are adults that have generally paid their dues and are hopefully still be employed after 4 or 5 years and not just passing through like students. Scholly athletes are kids that know what they are getting into and have a lifetime to to make money.

I’m not sure why you begrudge coaches the pay they get or why you think the system needs to change when it has worked fine for over a hundred years. I think this will create a crack in the dam that will eventually destroy something that didn’t need to be changed.

Just my opinion.

just because something has been done for a century doesn't always mean it is proper and the law such as other aspects of life evolves and changes

why would the definition of an employee and whether or not an athlete is or is not an employee not be subject to change as other aspect of employment law have changed over the years?

you continue to be resistant to the fact that college sports have changed over the years and will continue to change.

as far as begrudging the pay of coaches i simply find it ludicrous that a head coach gets paid multi-millions as find all your examples of reasoning amusing. i will share them with friend who either have coached for a career or still coach. sure none of them have worked multiple jobs, coached multiple sports, taught multiple preps, and deal with not only boosters but something even worse, parents on a daily basis who in some cases have direct impact on a coaches future.

sure the former coach at decatur would love to deal with all those challenges gary faces each day as he just got canned by the school board and one of the reasons might be his discipling a board members daughter a few years prior.

the bottom line is college sports are not the same as they were 100 years ago as you keep saying and the money flowing into the programs has changed everything
 

Christcu

Member
I'm not against amateur college players getting compensated but where does it stop if ever.
What's to prevent it becoming technically a professional sport.
300k education
Housing expense
Medical
Meal plan
Marketing money for endorsements
Free tutors
*Will it all count as income and be taxable?

Pandora's Box about to be opened..... again, I'm not against this. But it may eventually turn into Free Agency College Sports.....the Transfer portal will seem irrelevant compared to where this could go. "The highest bidder wins"
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
just because something has been done for a century doesn't always mean it is proper and the law such as other aspects of life evolves and changes

why would the definition of an employee and whether or not an athlete is or is not an employee not be subject to change as other aspect of employment law have changed over the years?

you continue to be resistant to the fact that college sports have changed over the years and will continue to change.

as far as begrudging the pay of coaches i simply find it ludicrous that a head coach gets paid multi-millions as find all your examples of reasoning amusing. i will share them with friend who either have coached for a career or still coach. sure none of them have worked multiple jobs, coached multiple sports, taught multiple preps, and deal with not only boosters but something even worse, parents on a daily basis who in some cases have direct impact on a coaches future.

sure the former coach at decatur would love to deal with all those challenges gary faces each day as he just got canned by the school board and one of the reasons might be his discipling a board members daughter a few years prior.

the bottom line is college sports are not the same as they were 100 years ago as you keep saying and the money flowing into the programs has changed everything

Yes, but not all change is good. Your one example of a high school coach has nothing to do with the high paid collegiate coaches. You bring up the elite highest paid colleges coaches as some kind of travesty, but then bring up some high school example. I don’t believe that was the discussion.

Again, you seem to blame the coaches for their pay, but don’t respond to my question whether you would refuse a big money bidding war for your talents. This is no different than the grotesque money pro athletes make. Very few people would turn down a big paycheck. GP certainly didn’t create the situation that put him in a mansion, but I sure don’t condemn him for accepting it.

It remains to be seen whether this new ruling creates a better scenario or ruins it.
 

Eight

Member
Yes, but not all change is good. Your one example of a high school coach has nothing to do with the high paid collegiate coaches. You bring up the elite highest paid colleges coaches as some kind of travesty, but then bring up some high school example. I don’t believe that was the discussion.

Again, you seem to blame the coaches for their pay, but don’t respond to my question whether you would refuse a big money bidding war for your talents. This is no different than the grotesque money pro athletes make. Very few people would turn down a big paycheck. GP certainly didn’t create the situation that put him in a mansion, but I sure don’t condemn him for accepting it.

It remains to be seen whether this new ruling creates a better scenario or ruins it.

you were the one who mentioned greed in reference to the players and i would say that in the case of pro athletes they are the product regardless of what people try to spin.

i didn't use the word travesty or condemn him for his money, simply that the money paid to college coaches is ridiculous and hasn't always been that way.

we saw the surge starting in the 80's when the explosion of television money and the emergence of espn

been in a situation for over 20 years that what i made was based directly on what was achieved and not was negotiated so the idea that someone is given a salary because of a job title is something that can completely relate to, but i do understand the concept of going through all those early challenges one has to in building something.

never said change is always good, but the one constant with change is that it is going to happen whether we want it or not and the last thing i will say on this is that the ncaa, conferences, and the schools knew they were headed in this direction whether they liked it or not and they have drug their feet and resisted the change
 

Wexahu

Full Member
you were the one who mentioned greed in reference to the players and i would say that in the case of pro athletes they are the product regardless of what people try to spin.

i didn't use the word travesty or condemn him for his money, simply that the money paid to college coaches is ridiculous and hasn't always been that way.

we saw the surge starting in the 80's when the explosion of television money and the emergence of espn

been in a situation for over 20 years that what i made was based directly on what was achieved and not was negotiated so the idea that someone is given a salary because of a job title is something that can completely relate to, but i do understand the concept of going through all those early challenges one has to in building something.

never said change is always good, but the one constant with change is that it is going to happen whether we want it or not and the last thing i will say on this is that the ncaa, conferences, and the schools knew they were headed in this direction whether they liked it or not and they have drug their feet and resisted the change

Ok. What should be done about it?

Just speaking for myself, I will have little to no interest in what amounts to a minor league sport with no contracts, almost unlimited player movement, and very few rules that balance the competitive landscape. Maybe I am in the minority, I don't know, but at that point almost all the things that make watching college football fun will be gone.

So let's look forward and not back. What's the solution? Players signing binding contracts upon enrolling in school? Salary caps? Reductions in scholarships? Just getting rid of all NCAA non-revenue generating sports? I've yet to hear anything that sounds very appealing to me, just from a fan perspective. And where does all the money come from when the fans go away?
 

Atomic Frawg

Full Member
Almost 20 years ago, while I was in a sports law class in law school, I wrote my final paper, on "Amateurism v Professionalism in College Sports." At the conclusion of my effort, I believe the only difference was who got paid, and I knew then that universities, coaches, and conference big wigs couldn't continue to make such large sums of money while a kid from Longview (or any other small town in America) didn't have enough money or time for simple off campus activities like getting a pizza with friends.

For those who watched the latest season of Last Chance U, the disparity was front and center. Student athletes are damn near homeless in some parts of the country or have to commute two hours in everyday. And then there are the "Chris Webber" athletes who walk around the local mall and see their name on a jersey selling for $100, their name on a player on a video game bearing his tattoos and hair styles, yet the student is broke, busted, and disgusted. All this with no guarantee of graduating and a high likelihood of injury.

Lastly, consider FCS players, particularly the ones who get sacrificed annually to get schools money to fund athletic department salaries and other, non-revenue generating sports. They don't have the size, speed, strength, or talent of the D1 players they they get told to go get beat up by, but but folk seem mad when they have the audacity to ask for even a sample-sized piece of the pie - be it in the form of lab equipment, computers, a free tat from the local parlor, or money.

This was a 9-0 decision, y'all. But it isn't a doomsday decision and college sports aren't going away. There's too much money in it. They will find a way to make eveyone happy, and college sports will continue on. We will adapt as we've always done.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Almost 20 years ago, while I was in a sports law class in law school, I wrote my final paper, on "Amateurism v Professionalism in College Sports." At the conclusion of my effort, I believe the only difference was who got paid, and I knew then that universities, coaches, and conference big wigs couldn't continue to make such large sums of money while a kid from Longview (or any other small town in America) didn't have enough money or time for simple off campus activities like getting a pizza with friends.

For those who watched the latest season of Last Chance U, the disparity was front and center. Student athletes are damn near homeless in some parts of the country or have to commute two hours in everyday. And then there are the "Chris Webber" athletes who walk around the local mall and see their name on a jersey selling for $100, their name on a player on a video game bearing his tattoos and hair styles, yet the student is broke, busted, and disgusted. All this with no guarantee of graduating and a high likelihood of injury.

Lastly, consider FCS players, particularly the ones who get sacrificed annually to get schools money to fund athletic department salaries and other, non-revenue generating sports. They don't have the size, speed, strength, or talent of the D1 players they they get told to go get beat up by, but but folk seem mad when they have the audacity to ask for even a sample-sized piece of the pie - be it in the form of lab equipment, computers, a free tat from the local parlor, or money.

This was a 9-0 decision, y'all. But it isn't a doomsday decision and college sports aren't going away. There's too much money in it. They will find a way to make eveyone happy, and college sports will continue on. We will adapt as we've always done.

Don't really care whether it was a 9-0 decision or not. And I remember when boxing (and NASCAR) were really, really popular too. There are no guarantees.

Based on the past few years, I have serious doubts they will find a way to make everyone happy.
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
you were the one who mentioned greed in reference to the players and i would say that in the case of pro athletes they are the product regardless of what people try to spin.

i didn't use the word travesty or condemn him for his money, simply that the money paid to college coaches is ridiculous and hasn't always been that way.

we saw the surge starting in the 80's when the explosion of television money and the emergence of espn

been in a situation for over 20 years that what i made was based directly on what was achieved and not was negotiated so the idea that someone is given a salary because of a job title is something that can completely relate to, but i do understand the concept of going through all those early challenges one has to in building something.

never said change is always good, but the one constant with change is that it is going to happen whether we want it or not and the last thing i will say on this is that the ncaa, conferences, and the schools knew they were headed in this direction whether they liked it or not and they have drug their feet and resisted the change

It was just an opinion. But, if we are now calling players employees, should they have to go to class or are we renting semi-pro athletes to put in schools in name only as representatives of the university? I don’t know what’s right or what all this results in. I’m just not of the opinion that these kids received nothing of value since most of this kids will never get paid to play a sport and may need that worthless degree.
 
Last edited:
Top