(10-05-2019 04:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 07:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 06:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im not sure government legislation forcing an amateur league to effectively become a pro league is exactly the definition freedom and liberty. The courts took a much more thoughtful and reasonable tack in the O'bannon case in dealing with the application of anti-trust law to the NCAA's unique amateur student athlete model. I suspect the courts will have their say as well before this is all over. Honestly, the only way I can see this working is if there is a shared pool that all the endorsement/appearance money goes into where it would be shared equally by all the players in that sport. In order to reward the individual, allow him to keep 20% of the endorsement/appearance fee. The taxes for that 20% are paid (so he actually gets 20% after taxes and doesnt end up with a bill at the end of the year). The rest of the fee goes to the fund. Maybe something like that would keep the name and likeness game from spiraling out of control as such a system would sort of perform the same braking function as the luxury tax in the NBA. At the very least it would make it expensive as hell to buy a championship.

IMO, your model is a non-starter, because it's anti-American, socialistic. The only way you could even do it is there was collective bargaining with the players as a union, and no player would want to do that - does Kobe want to throw his endorsement money in to a pot to be split between all the other players? Of course not.

Also, the issue isn't the "liberty" of schools to create a unique monopolistic cartel that is built on everyone making a lot of money except the players, it's the liberty of players to make monetize their market value. I don't see your argument as being a compelling argument with anyone. But we shall see. As of now, for all the sturm and drang, only California has passed a law.

Let’s just remember, the last time this was litigated, the courts came to the conclusion that the NCAA was in violation of anti trust law but that a scholarship that included FCOA was the remedy. The decision left all other NCAA rules designed to protect its amateur model stand. Furthermore, in the decision, the court indicated that the NCAA was well within its rights to act in a monopolistic way if the rules were designed to create completive balance. So, it would seem precedent is on the NCAA’s side this time around. That said—who knows what the next judge has to say.

I think this past litigation would be relevant if someone was filing a lawsuit against the NCAA, challenging its rules against players being able to exploit their name and likenesses. But that's not what is happening, rather, Cali passed a law instructing their schools to allow players to make money this way.

That's an entirely different animal, as what California is doing doesn't depend on whether a court would uphold or reject the NCAA's policy against pay for names/likenesses. The policy could be perfectly acceptable under anti-trust law, and Cali could still tell its schools not to abide by it because, well, they disagree with it.

We don’t know what shape the suit will take. It may be Stanford, USC, and the NCAA suiting the state of California. It may be California filing suit against the NCAA over Cal being barred from the post season Another interesting situation to watch is how the other Pac12 and MW schools decide to handle the new recruiting advantage their California schools have been handed.

No doubt, there are lots of unanswered questions right now.

I just don't see any federal place - congress or the courts - that are likely to rescue the status quo model.

I suspect the battle will be fought at the state level. California realizes it can't go it alone on this, if it is just California, their schools will face NCAA sanctions and have to give in. But if other states adopt similar laws, then the NCAA will have to capitulate. That's why they have a 2023 start date, to allow time for other states to become allies before the rubber hits the road.