(03-11-2019 01:54 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  So no limit on number of "tutors" Louisville can offer?

They can certainly offer a type of "education".

(03-11-2019 01:54 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  So no limit on number of "tutors" Louisville can offer?

There's not a limit now. Tutors for every class, note takers, coordinators, attendance takers, tutors for how to study. That's the type of stuff P5 schools have now for every sport.

Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

So one of the solutions might be to incorporate a semester abroad program into the athletic scholarships since this would be an "educational benefit."

(10-24-2019 08:44 AM)chester Wrote:  Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

I’m not sure they they can prove “harm”. IF the NCAA didn’t exist—where are the big money alternatives that pay more than a scholarship and FCOA? Not to mention the current system supports a crap load of Title9 opportunities which I would assume most judges would view as a “public good”. I suspect that figured into the judges use of discretion in the final ruling.

(10-27-2019 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:44 AM)chester Wrote:  Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

I’m not sure they they can prove “harm”. IF the NCAA didn’t exist—where are the big money alternatives that pay more than a scholarship and FCOA? Not to mention the current system supports a crap load of Title9 opportunities which I would assume most judges would view as a “public good”. I suspect that figured into the judges use of discretion in the final ruling.

Well, the fact that there are no viable alternatives for the class of Alston plaintiffs (some thousands of FBS football players and D1 men's and women's basketball players, IIRC) is not an excuse for the NCAA to abuse its monopsony power.

Look at it this way: no one has to buy, say, tuna and no one has to work in the tuna industry, and yet it's still illegal for the tuna companies to collude with each other to fix the price of tuna and to fix the wages of cannery workers. The one harms the consumer and the other harms the worker. Both are anticompetitive.

We would not say that consumers should be happy with their artificially high-priced tuna because there is no other way for non-fishers to get the stuff, and we would not say that cannery workers should be happy with their artificially low wages because there is no other way for people to scratch a living canning tuna. Americans are supposed to have access to any product or services they desire at fair, competitive, free market prices and they are supposed to be able to work in any industry they like while receiving fair, competitive, free market wages.

Anyway, Alston plaintiffs DID prove to the district court that the NCAA's compensation rules are, on the whole, harmful. The court did find that the NCAA's cap on certain education related compensation is unnecessary and harmful, as they are nowise needed to maintain consumer demand for college sports.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the district court did not grant them the relief they want. Plaintiffs had recommended to the court three alternatives to the NCAA's illegal compensation model. (The court opted for a variation of their least desired alternative.)

But what the plaintiffs really want is a injunction against the Cartel's cap on both education and non-education related compensation and for individual conferences to have the freedom to set their own compensation rules. That would open the market.

"Public good" in the sense of access to college athletics had nothing at all to do with the district court's reasoning. Judge Wilken's one and only reason for denying plaintiff's their desired alternative was due to her buying into the NCAA's argument that unrestricted "pro-level" pay for athletes in Big Time college sports would hurt consumer demand. (Y'all keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that no college athletes are worth more to their schools than what they're paid, or that no schools can afford to pay athletes more than they do, or that what paid college athletes receive is "enough" or "too much." The NCAA itself admits that there are college athletes who are greatly underpaid.)

Not just that, Judge Wilken seems to think that "pro-level" pay would happen all of a sudden. She offered:

Quote:It is to be hoped that gradual change will be instructive. If it were persuaded to do so, the NCAA could conduct market research and allow gradual increases in cash compensation to student-athletes to determine an amount that would not be demand-reducing.

--Judge Wilken's ruling p. 55

WTF?

The 9th Circuit will do as it will. But IMO, the district court's reason for denying an injunction against the cap on non-education related pay is, frankly, dumb.

First off, no NCAA school would immediately start paying any athletes a million bucks if the cap was suddenly lifted, especially if they truly believe that pro-level pay would hurt consumer demand. That's silly. Rational people don't do irrational things.

Second, it shouldn't matter anyway. As plaintiffs argue in their appeal, "The court's lone reason for declining this broader relief—its concern about the 'unintended consequences' of conferences engaging in 'trial and error'—rests on a mistake of law. The trial-and-error process the court feared is nothing more than the very market competition that antitrust law exists to protect—and that the court's injunction was required to restore."

Team Athlete! Screw the NCAA!

(03-08-2019 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's going to hit basketball as well and possibly baseball and hockey.

It will hit every sport in which some universities/institutions want to win more than others.

(10-27-2019 05:21 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:44 AM)chester Wrote:  Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

I’m not sure they they can prove “harm”. IF the NCAA didn’t exist—where are the big money alternatives that pay more than a scholarship and FCOA? Not to mention the current system supports a crap load of Title9 opportunities which I would assume most judges would view as a “public good”. I suspect that figured into the judges use of discretion in the final ruling.

Well, the fact that there are no viable alternatives for the class of Alston plaintiffs (some thousands of FBS football players and D1 men's and women's basketball players, IIRC) is not an excuse for the NCAA to abuse its monopsony power.

Look at it this way: no one has to buy, say, tuna and no one has to work in the tuna industry, and yet it's still illegal for the tuna companies to collude with each other to fix the price of tuna and to fix the wages of cannery workers. The one harms the consumer and the other harms the worker. Both are anticompetitive.

We would not say that consumers should be happy with their artificially high-priced tuna because there is no other way for non-fishers to get the stuff, and we would not say that cannery workers should be happy with their artificially low wages because there is no other way for people to scratch a living canning tuna. Americans are supposed to have access to any product or services they desire at fair, competitive, free market prices and they are supposed to be able to work in any industry they like while receiving fair, competitive, free market wages.

Anyway, Alston plaintiffs DID prove to the district court that the NCAA's compensation rules are, on the whole, harmful. The court did find that the NCAA's cap on certain education related compensation is unnecessary and harmful, as they are nowise needed to maintain consumer demand for college sports.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the district court did not grant them the relief they want. Plaintiffs had recommended to the court three alternatives to the NCAA's illegal compensation model. (The court opted for a variation of their least desired alternative.)

But what the plaintiffs really want is a injunction against the Cartel's cap on both education and non-education related compensation and for individual conferences to have the freedom to set their own compensation rules. That would open the market.

"Public good" in the sense of access to college athletics had nothing at all to do with the district court's reasoning. Judge Wilken's one and only reason for denying plaintiff's their desired alternative was due to her buying into the NCAA's argument that unrestricted "pro-level" pay for athletes in Big Time college sports would hurt consumer demand. (Y'all keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that no college athletes are worth more to their schools than what they're paid, or that no schools can afford to pay athletes more than they do, or that what paid college athletes receive is "enough" or "too much." The NCAA itself admits that there are college athletes who are greatly underpaid.)

Not just that, Judge Wilken seems to think that "pro-level" pay would happen all of a sudden. She offered:

Quote:It is to be hoped that gradual change will be instructive. If it were persuaded to do so, the NCAA could conduct market research and allow gradual increases in cash compensation to student-athletes to determine an amount that would not be demand-reducing.

--Judge Wilken's ruling p. 55

WTF?

The 9th Circuit will do as it will. But IMO, the district court's reason for denying an injunction against the cap on non-education related pay is, frankly, dumb.

First off, no NCAA school would immediately start paying any athletes a million bucks if the cap was suddenly lifted, especially if they truly believe that pro-level pay would hurt consumer demand. That's silly. Rational people don't do irrational things.

Second, it shouldn't matter anyway. As plaintiffs argue in their appeal, "The court's lone reason for declining this broader relief—its concern about the 'unintended consequences' of conferences engaging in 'trial and error'—rests on a mistake of law. The trial-and-error process the court feared is nothing more than the very market competition that antitrust law exists to protect—and that the court's injunction was required to restore."

Team Athlete! Screw the NCAA!

As it is, not all the schools in the NCAA from D1 down to D3 can pay their players. These lawsuits will make the gap between the haves and have nots further.

(10-27-2019 09:44 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's going to hit basketball as well and possibly baseball and hockey.

It will hit every sport in which some universities/institutions want to win more than others.

That's true, but its the revenue sports that most institutions want to enhance. But I could see Virginia or UNC paying for an edge in lacrosse.

(10-27-2019 05:21 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:44 AM)chester Wrote:  Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

I’m not sure they they can prove “harm”. IF the NCAA didn’t exist—where are the big money alternatives that pay more than a scholarship and FCOA? Not to mention the current system supports a crap load of Title9 opportunities which I would assume most judges would view as a “public good”. I suspect that figured into the judges use of discretion in the final ruling.

Well, the fact that there are no viable alternatives for the class of Alston plaintiffs (some thousands of FBS football players and D1 men's and women's basketball players, IIRC) is not an excuse for the NCAA to abuse its monopsony power.

Look at it this way: no one has to buy, say, tuna and no one has to work in the tuna industry, and yet it's still illegal for the tuna companies to collude with each other to fix the price of tuna and to fix the wages of cannery workers. The one harms the consumer and the other harms the worker. Both are anticompetitive.

We would not say that consumers should be happy with their artificially high-priced tuna because there is no other way for non-fishers to get the stuff, and we would not say that cannery workers should be happy with their artificially low wages because there is no other way for people to scratch a living canning tuna. Americans are supposed to have access to any product or services they desire at fair, competitive, free market prices and they are supposed to be able to work in any industry they like while receiving fair, competitive, free market wages.

Anyway, Alston plaintiffs DID prove to the district court that the NCAA's compensation rules are, on the whole, harmful. The court did find that the NCAA's cap on certain education related compensation is unnecessary and harmful, as they are nowise needed to maintain consumer demand for college sports.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the district court did not grant them the relief they want. Plaintiffs had recommended to the court three alternatives to the NCAA's illegal compensation model. (The court opted for a variation of their least desired alternative.)

But what the plaintiffs really want is a injunction against the Cartel's cap on both education and non-education related compensation and for individual conferences to have the freedom to set their own compensation rules. That would open the market.

"Public good" in the sense of access to college athletics had nothing at all to do with the district court's reasoning. Judge Wilken's one and only reason for denying plaintiff's their desired alternative was due to her buying into the NCAA's argument that unrestricted "pro-level" pay for athletes in Big Time college sports would hurt consumer demand. (Y'all keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that no college athletes are worth more to their schools than what they're paid, or that no schools can afford to pay athletes more than they do, or that what paid college athletes receive is "enough" or "too much." The NCAA itself admits that there are college athletes who are greatly underpaid.)

Not just that, Judge Wilken seems to think that "pro-level" pay would happen all of a sudden. She offered:

Quote:It is to be hoped that gradual change will be instructive. If it were persuaded to do so, the NCAA could conduct market research and allow gradual increases in cash compensation to student-athletes to determine an amount that would not be demand-reducing.

--Judge Wilken's ruling p. 55

WTF?

The 9th Circuit will do as it will. But IMO, the district court's reason for denying an injunction against the cap on non-education related pay is, frankly, dumb.

First off, no NCAA school would immediately start paying any athletes a million bucks if the cap was suddenly lifted, especially if they truly believe that pro-level pay would hurt consumer demand. That's silly. Rational people don't do irrational things.

Second, it shouldn't matter anyway. As plaintiffs argue in their appeal, "The court's lone reason for declining this broader relief—its concern about the 'unintended consequences' of conferences engaging in 'trial and error'—rests on a mistake of law. The trial-and-error process the court feared is nothing more than the very market competition that antitrust law exists to protect—and that the court's injunction was required to restore."

Team Athlete! Screw the NCAA!

That’s not what I’m saying. The NCAA lost the battle on whether or not they were using anti-competitive practices. However, the AMOUNT of harm is what is in dispute. My point is minor league pro sports have never been very profitable and have never paid much. Thus, the “harm” is the difference between what a college degree (estimated at 100K) plus FCOA are roughly worth vs what a kid could earn in minor league football/basketball (assuming the4e were even employment opportunities for over 13,000 minor league football players and almost 160,000 minor league basket players). In other words, there are only so many slots in minor league sports—so many of these athletes would not even have any athletic opportunity otherwise. Furthermore, anti-competitive behavior is allowed when it is considered to function in the public interest (utilities are sometimes allowed this right). The many Title-9 opportunities the system provide to female athletes would likely be considered a “public good” by most Americans and most judges.

I’m just saying the judge was likely looking at the applying the law in a manner that was attempting to be fair and reasonable to all parties involved—as well as considering the NCAA argument that competitive balance (which the court agreed is another area in which anticompetitive behavior is legal) could be negatively affected if the plaintiffs got what they wanted.

Bottom line—the judge must rule fairly following the law. On the other hand, the plaintiffs lawyers only represents their client. They are not required to treat the defendant fairly and will typically interpret the law in the way most advantageous to thei client. In other words, just because the plaintiffs lawyer says a mistake was made in the judges us of discretion in her decision, doesn’t mean a mistake was actually made by the judge.

(10-27-2019 12:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 05:21 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:44 AM)chester Wrote:  Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

I’m not sure they they can prove “harm”. IF the NCAA didn’t exist—where are the big money alternatives that pay more than a scholarship and FCOA? Not to mention the current system supports a crap load of Title9 opportunities which I would assume most judges would view as a “public good”. I suspect that figured into the judges use of discretion in the final ruling.

Well, the fact that there are no viable alternatives for the class of Alston plaintiffs (some thousands of FBS football players and D1 men's and women's basketball players, IIRC) is not an excuse for the NCAA to abuse its monopsony power.

Look at it this way: no one has to buy, say, tuna and no one has to work in the tuna industry, and yet it's still illegal for the tuna companies to collude with each other to fix the price of tuna and to fix the wages of cannery workers. The one harms the consumer and the other harms the worker. Both are anticompetitive.

We would not say that consumers should be happy with their artificially high-priced tuna because there is no other way for non-fishers to get the stuff, and we would not say that cannery workers should be happy with their artificially low wages because there is no other way for people to scratch a living canning tuna. Americans are supposed to have access to any product or services they desire at fair, competitive, free market prices and they are supposed to be able to work in any industry they like while receiving fair, competitive, free market wages.

Anyway, Alston plaintiffs DID prove to the district court that the NCAA's compensation rules are, on the whole, harmful. The court did find that the NCAA's cap on certain education related compensation is unnecessary and harmful, as they are nowise needed to maintain consumer demand for college sports.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the district court did not grant them the relief they want. Plaintiffs had recommended to the court three alternatives to the NCAA's illegal compensation model. (The court opted for a variation of their least desired alternative.)

But what the plaintiffs really want is a injunction against the Cartel's cap on both education and non-education related compensation and for individual conferences to have the freedom to set their own compensation rules. That would open the market.

"Public good" in the sense of access to college athletics had nothing at all to do with the district court's reasoning. Judge Wilken's one and only reason for denying plaintiff's their desired alternative was due to her buying into the NCAA's argument that unrestricted "pro-level" pay for athletes in Big Time college sports would hurt consumer demand. (Y'all keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that no college athletes are worth more to their schools than what they're paid, or that no schools can afford to pay athletes more than they do, or that what paid college athletes receive is "enough" or "too much." The NCAA itself admits that there are college athletes who are greatly underpaid.)

Not just that, Judge Wilken seems to think that "pro-level" pay would happen all of a sudden. She offered:

Quote:It is to be hoped that gradual change will be instructive. If it were persuaded to do so, the NCAA could conduct market research and allow gradual increases in cash compensation to student-athletes to determine an amount that would not be demand-reducing.

--Judge Wilken's ruling p. 55

WTF?

The 9th Circuit will do as it will. But IMO, the district court's reason for denying an injunction against the cap on non-education related pay is, frankly, dumb.

First off, no NCAA school would immediately start paying any athletes a million bucks if the cap was suddenly lifted, especially if they truly believe that pro-level pay would hurt consumer demand. That's silly. Rational people don't do irrational things.

Second, it shouldn't matter anyway. As plaintiffs argue in their appeal, "The court's lone reason for declining this broader relief—its concern about the 'unintended consequences' of conferences engaging in 'trial and error'—rests on a mistake of law. The trial-and-error process the court feared is nothing more than the very market competition that antitrust law exists to protect—and that the court's injunction was required to restore."

Team Athlete! Screw the NCAA!

That’s not what I’m saying. The NCAA lost the battle on whether or not they were using anti-competitive practices. However, the AMOUNT of harm is what is in dispute. My point is minor league pro sports have never been very profitable and have never paid much. Thus, the “harm” is the difference between what a college degree (estimated at 100K) plus FCOA are roughly worth vs what a kid could earn in minor league football/basketball (assuming the4e were even employment opportunities for over 13,000 minor league football players and almost 160,000 minor league basket players). In other words, there are only so many slots in minor league sports—so many of these athletes would not even have any athletic opportunity otherwise. Furthermore, anti-competitive behavior is allowed when it is considered to function in the public interest (utilities are sometimes allowed this right). The many Title-9 opportunities the system provide to female athletes would likely be considered a “public good” by most Americans and most judges.

I’m just saying the judge was likely looking at the applying the law in a manner that was attempting to be fair and reasonable to all parties involved—as well as considering the NCAA argument that competitive balance (which the court agreed is another area in which anticompetitive behavior is legal) could be negw5ively affected if the plaintiffs got what they wanted.

Bottom line—the judge must rule fairly following the law. On the other hand, the plaintiffs lawyers only represents their client. They are not required to treat the defendant fairly and will typically interpret the law in the way most advantageous to thei client. In other words, just because the plaintiffs lawyer says a mistake was made in the judges us of discretion in her decision, doesn’t mean a mistake was actually made by the judge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge/recollection, no one involved in the suit has compared the worth of the athletic services provided by the plaintiff class to those in minor league sports (and thus the amount of harm done.) The money settlement had to do with the shortfall between the old type of scholarships and the newer, full cost of attendance ones.

In truth, the actual worth of the services provided by college athletes in revenue sports is unknown and cannot be known as long as their compensation is capped.

The defendants argued that uncapping this and/or that type of pay could/would hurt consumer demand and that it would harm the athletes' college experience due to jealousies among the rest of the student body, or some such. The judge pooh-poohed the latter and, regarding non-education related compensation, agreed with the former. So for the judge, the only argument from the defendants that mattered was what could/would harm demand for the product – and that, again, was her fear that schools would suddenly go on a spending frenzy. She didn't look to pin a specific worth to athletes. If she had, she wouldn't have uncapped certain education related benefits, leaving it to competing schools to decide.

I agree that just because a lawyer says a thing is so doesn't mean it is.

I agree that there are probably lots of judges and other Americans who consider the opportunities Title IX provides to be a matter of public good. I'm one of those Americans. However, if you're suggesting that Title IX should be considered by judges who weigh the questions of possible anticompetitive behavior by the NCAA and the extent of possible harm done to certain athletes, I disagree. Schools are legally obliged to satisfy Title IX. Therefore, no school would spend so much on athletes that it could not meet that requirement. No competent one, anyway. Incompetent ones would be sued and would lose.

Are you thinking of excess non-revenue sports? There might be lots of Americans who think those are a public good too, I don't know. But I do know that there aren't so many as to prompt Congress to pass a law that requires those sports, and so judges should not consider them, either. Maybe judges do have discretionary leeway there, dunno. Just saying that I think they ought not consider them. Those sports are not legally required. Meanwhile, if a school wanted to keep excess non-revenue sports in an open market scenario – spending less on those involved in revenue sports than other schools might – they would. And they would probably align themselves with like-minded schools.

(10-27-2019 05:43 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 12:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 05:21 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:44 AM)chester Wrote:  Plaintiffs have filed their appeal for broader relief. Via Andy Schwarz:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xjp-2Vo...YxVFT/view

They say "the district court's refusal to grant broader injunctive relief is grounded in legal error" and that it "abused its discretion by issuing an injunction more limited than the anticompetitive harm it found." (Page 80 on)

BTW, anyone have an idea how long it might take the 9th Circuit to rule on this case? I've no idea what its backlog is.

I’m not sure they they can prove “harm”. IF the NCAA didn’t exist—where are the big money alternatives that pay more than a scholarship and FCOA? Not to mention the current system supports a crap load of Title9 opportunities which I would assume most judges would view as a “public good”. I suspect that figured into the judges use of discretion in the final ruling.

Well, the fact that there are no viable alternatives for the class of Alston plaintiffs (some thousands of FBS football players and D1 men's and women's basketball players, IIRC) is not an excuse for the NCAA to abuse its monopsony power.

Look at it this way: no one has to buy, say, tuna and no one has to work in the tuna industry, and yet it's still illegal for the tuna companies to collude with each other to fix the price of tuna and to fix the wages of cannery workers. The one harms the consumer and the other harms the worker. Both are anticompetitive.

We would not say that consumers should be happy with their artificially high-priced tuna because there is no other way for non-fishers to get the stuff, and we would not say that cannery workers should be happy with their artificially low wages because there is no other way for people to scratch a living canning tuna. Americans are supposed to have access to any product or services they desire at fair, competitive, free market prices and they are supposed to be able to work in any industry they like while receiving fair, competitive, free market wages.

Anyway, Alston plaintiffs DID prove to the district court that the NCAA's compensation rules are, on the whole, harmful. The court did find that the NCAA's cap on certain education related compensation is unnecessary and harmful, as they are nowise needed to maintain consumer demand for college sports.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the district court did not grant them the relief they want. Plaintiffs had recommended to the court three alternatives to the NCAA's illegal compensation model. (The court opted for a variation of their least desired alternative.)

But what the plaintiffs really want is a injunction against the Cartel's cap on both education and non-education related compensation and for individual conferences to have the freedom to set their own compensation rules. That would open the market.

"Public good" in the sense of access to college athletics had nothing at all to do with the district court's reasoning. Judge Wilken's one and only reason for denying plaintiff's their desired alternative was due to her buying into the NCAA's argument that unrestricted "pro-level" pay for athletes in Big Time college sports would hurt consumer demand. (Y'all keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that no college athletes are worth more to their schools than what they're paid, or that no schools can afford to pay athletes more than they do, or that what paid college athletes receive is "enough" or "too much." The NCAA itself admits that there are college athletes who are greatly underpaid.)

Not just that, Judge Wilken seems to think that "pro-level" pay would happen all of a sudden. She offered:

Quote:It is to be hoped that gradual change will be instructive. If it were persuaded to do so, the NCAA could conduct market research and allow gradual increases in cash compensation to student-athletes to determine an amount that would not be demand-reducing.

--Judge Wilken's ruling p. 55

WTF?

The 9th Circuit will do as it will. But IMO, the district court's reason for denying an injunction against the cap on non-education related pay is, frankly, dumb.

First off, no NCAA school would immediately start paying any athletes a million bucks if the cap was suddenly lifted, especially if they truly believe that pro-level pay would hurt consumer demand. That's silly. Rational people don't do irrational things.

Second, it shouldn't matter anyway. As plaintiffs argue in their appeal, "The court's lone reason for declining this broader relief—its concern about the 'unintended consequences' of conferences engaging in 'trial and error'—rests on a mistake of law. The trial-and-error process the court feared is nothing more than the very market competition that antitrust law exists to protect—and that the court's injunction was required to restore."

Team Athlete! Screw the NCAA!

That’s not what I’m saying. The NCAA lost the battle on whether or not they were using anti-competitive practices. However, the AMOUNT of harm is what is in dispute. My point is minor league pro sports have never been very profitable and have never paid much. Thus, the “harm” is the difference between what a college degree (estimated at 100K) plus FCOA are roughly worth vs what a kid could earn in minor league football/basketball (assuming the4e were even employment opportunities for over 13,000 minor league football players and almost 160,000 minor league basket players). In other words, there are only so many slots in minor league sports—so many of these athletes would not even have any athletic opportunity otherwise. Furthermore, anti-competitive behavior is allowed when it is considered to function in the public interest (utilities are sometimes allowed this right). The many Title-9 opportunities the system provide to female athletes would likely be considered a “public good” by most Americans and most judges.

I’m just saying the judge was likely looking at the applying the law in a manner that was attempting to be fair and reasonable to all parties involved—as well as considering the NCAA argument that competitive balance (which the court agreed is another area in which anticompetitive behavior is legal) could be negw5ively affected if the plaintiffs got what they wanted.

Bottom line—the judge must rule fairly following the law. On the other hand, the plaintiffs lawyers only represents their client. They are not required to treat the defendant fairly and will typically interpret the law in the way most advantageous to thei client. In other words, just because the plaintiffs lawyer says a mistake was made in the judges us of discretion in her decision, doesn’t mean a mistake was actually made by the judge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge/recollection, no one involved in the suit has compared the worth of the athletic services provided by the plaintiff class to those in minor league sports (and thus the amount of harm done.) The money settlement had to do with the shortfall between the old type of scholarships and the newer, full cost of attendance ones.

In truth, the actual worth of the services provided by college athletes in revenue sports is unknown and cannot be known as long as their compensation is capped.

The defendants argued that uncapping this and/or that type of pay could/would hurt consumer demand and that it would harm the athletes' college experience due to jealousies among the rest of the student body, or some such. The judge pooh-poohed the latter and, regarding non-education related compensation, agreed with the former. So for the judge, the only argument from the defendants that mattered was what could/would harm demand for the product – and that, again, was her fear that schools would suddenly go on a spending frenzy. She didn't look to pin a specific worth to athletes. If she had, she wouldn't have uncapped certain education related benefits, leaving it to competing schools to decide.

I agree that just because a lawyer says a thing is so doesn't mean it is.

I agree that there are probably lots of judges and other Americans who consider the opportunities Title IX provides to be a matter of public good. I'm one of those Americans. However, if you're suggesting that Title IX should be considered by judges who weigh the questions of possible anticompetitive behavior by the NCAA and the extent of possible harm done to certain athletes, I disagree. Schools are legally obliged to satisfy Title IX. Therefore, no school would spend so much on athletes that it could not meet that requirement. No competent one, anyway. Incompetent ones would be sued and would lose.

Are you thinking of excess non-revenue sports? There might be lots of Americans who think those are a public good too, I don't know. But I do know that there aren't so many as to prompt Congress to pass a law that requires those sports, and so judges should not consider them, either. Maybe judges do have discretionary leeway there, dunno. Just saying that I think they ought not consider them. Those sports are not legally required. Meanwhile, if a school wanted to keep excess non-revenue sports in an open market scenario – spending less on those involved in revenue sports than other schools might – they would. And they would probably align themselves with like-minded schools.

My point in bringing up Title-9 requirements is to show that college sports really doesnt fit anti-trust law very well. On one hand, the government is requiring an amateur non-profit public institution to provide reasonably equal male/female opportunities. In other words, the government is forcing the schools to engage in a business where there is absolutely guaranteed to lose money. On the other hand, for the Alston plantiffs to get what they want---the government must treat the NCAA as a free market professional sports league which must bid competitively for talent regardless of its desire to be a public non-profit amateur league. Thats at least part of the reason I suspect the judge had to look at a more limited educationally related award---the two positions are not consistent with one another.

Frankly...I think the whole thing is a big mess. Greed will eventually screw the whole thing up.