House settlement approved

[horns96]

How ridiculous that a swimmer from Arizona State will forever be the namesake of what turned college sports upside-down.

[Jordan91]

12 hours ago, harveycmd said:

Another way to describe the cap nonsense talk is that idiot reporters repeat what they're told by the NCAA and universities don't know what they're talking about. Professional sports can have a "cap" because they have employees who agree to conditions of employment. This hasn't happened in college sports. This "settlement" has nothing to do with that. The SEC making their member schools agree to refrain from legally challenging the "settlement" doesn't mean anything. The individual players will legally challenge the limit on compensation, not the schools. Being a college sport or school doesn't exempt you from constitutional law. That's what the 2021 Supreme Court decision that allowed NIL clearly stated. Before that, there wasn't a federal court case that addressed the billion make in college sports. 

There is no getting around what was in that decision. Guys will go to the highest bidder, if they want. If we feel we deserve a raise, we ask for it. If we don’t get it we move on. It has been determined that 20.5 is the number (salary cap). Problem is the current athletes do not have any say in that. Litigation will come, so temporarily a current athlete will have to adhere to the rules of a conference, while the litigation continues. Of course a judge may hit pause on this, and things continue as is until the issue is resolved. Either is possible. When does the issue finally get resolved? Who knows. 

[Hashtag]

2 hours ago, Jordan91 said:

There is no getting around what was in that decision. Guys will go to the highest bidder, if they want. If we feel we deserve a raise, we ask for it. If we don’t get it we move on. It has been determined that 20.5 is the number (salary cap). Problem is the current athletes do not have any say in that. Litigation will come, so temporarily a current athlete will have to adhere to the rules of a conference, while the litigation continues. Of course a judge may hit pause on this, and things continue as is until the issue is resolved. Either is possible. When does the issue finally get resolved? Who knows. 

No they dont. They just sue and injunctions get added and they make what they want and inevitably courts side with athletes. 

[harveycmd]

4 hours ago, Hashtag said:

No they dont. They just sue and injunctions get added and they make what they want and inevitably courts side with athletes. 

I wouldn't say they're "siding" with athletes. It's basic constitutional principles. People are free to make money in the US. Even if colleges make athletes employees and then get a collective agreement for a maximum in return for a minimum amount of pay from the colleges, there's just no way to legally curtail income from NIL. It's flat out a violation of core "rights." The truth is that it will eventually curtail itself, as it does in professional sports. Not every pro player has marketing deals. But some college players can make a lot of money through marketing deals. All they have to do is show up in court with the proof that they are being financially harmed and the injunction will be granted. 

[harveycmd]

You know the clearing house stuff won't hold up in court, but there is a good chance the revenue share component won't hold up either. The way this is being set up by the schools is to have players sign "publicity rights" waivers in exchange for some money. If a player can prove that such a waiver is financially limiting, the rights waiver will be struck down also. The rights are inalienable. Again, it will be individual players that sue, not the schools.

Then why did the judge agree? The judge agreed because she doesn't care how stupid the schools are. It's not her job to make sure they can't be held accountable in the future. Without an employment agreement there is no legally tight way to establish the limit. 

I've read a couple of legal assessments that argue the NCAA is intentionally setting this up so they can stoke public discontent and get Congress to grant an anti-trust exemption. You can't have an anti-trust exemption without an employment agreement, so that's a wash at best. They could've already taken the employment road and truly "settled" the issue, but they're stubbornly resisting that outcome. 

[harveycmd]

It should be noted that players in sports that don't generate positive revenue won't have a legal leg to stand on in court. The whole premise of this is that schools are making a ton of money and refusing to compensate those who generate the money. If the sport doesn't generate positive revenue, there's no money to share. That's the cost of removing the veil of amateurism.