Scotus/NCAA decision

[PSU2UNC]

Those leagues have collectively bargained agreements. The ncaa has become a monopoly that has used its power to artificially set wages and restrict earnings.

But the NCAA is not for profit (in theory), correct?

Can a non-profit (which is really an organization of member organizations) actually be a monopoly? Like could I sue the Red Cross for being too dominant at disaster relief and violating the anti-trust act? Honestly asking...

 

[91Joe95]

But the NCAA is not for profit (in theory), correct?

Can a non-profit (which is really an organization of member organizations) actually be a monopoly? Like could I sue the Red Cross for being too dominant at disaster relief and violating the anti-trust act? Honestly asking...

Ncaa makes reams of money and handsomely rewards their executives, their members, and everyone except the employees (athletes). The ncaa keeps changing the definition of amateurism to suit their purposes and it cannot be a product feature. Simply being a non-profit does not exempt them from Sherman antitrust act, and they keep meeting the threshold(s) for the law.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Ncaa makes reams of money and handsomely rewards their executives, their members, and everyone except the employees (athletes). The ncaa keeps changing the definition of amateurism to suit their purposes and it cannot be a product feature. Simply being a non-profit does not exempt them from Sherman antitrust act, and they keep meeting the threshold(s) for the law.

Thanks.

Is there a previous example of Sherman being applied to a non-profit entity?

 

[91Joe95]

Thanks.

Is there a previous example of Sherman being applied to a non-profit entity?

They discussed it in the opinion, along with the history of the ncaa, how it has changed, how an opinion in a 1984 ruling had been improperly interpreted, etc. It was a classic dismantling of the ncaa's arguments, and Kavanaugh's attached opinion was a clear warning shot to the ncaa to clean up the athletic side also. It's my favorite part, and seemed like it was aimed at the lower courts to say even though this hasn't been brought before us, this is how we'd probably rule, so feel free to do so.. Basically, if the ncaa ties up the courts instead of negotiating they're going to lose even more than if they simply negotiate.

 

[PSU2UNC]

They discussed it in the opinion, along with the history of the ncaa, how it has changed, how an opinion in a 1984 ruling had been improperly interpreted, etc. It was a classic dismantling of the ncaa's arguments, and Kavanaugh's attached opinion was a clear warning shot to the ncaa to clean up the athletic side also. It's my favorite part, and seemed like it was aimed at the lower courts to say even though this hasn't been brought before us, this is how we'd probably rule, so feel free to do so.. Basically, if the ncaa ties up the courts instead of negotiating they're going to lose even more than if they simply negotiate.

I understand what the court ruled. What I'm asking is: has Sherman Anti-Trust ever been applied (successfully or otherwise) to a non-profit entity? If so, I have no further questions. If no, then this seems to be breaking some interesting (and potentially dangerous) new ground.

 

[91Joe95]

I understand what the court ruled. What I'm asking is: has Sherman Anti-Trust ever been applied (successfully or otherwise) to a non-profit entity? If so, I have no further questions. If no, then this seems to be breaking some interesting (and potentially dangerous) new ground.

They did discuss it, it's not new ground. I'm pretty sure they listed the precedent, but I doubt I could find it again easily in the 45 pages. They said if the ncaa wanted an exception congress was the proper avenue since writing laws is their domain.

 

[Aardvark86]

I understand what the court ruled. What I'm asking is: has Sherman Anti-Trust ever been applied (successfully or otherwise) to a non-profit entity? If so, I have no further questions. If no, then this seems to be breaking some interesting (and potentially dangerous) new ground.

I would imagine so but don't have knowledge of specific cases, for the simple reason that regardless of whether an entity is tax exempt, it is still a market participant. The only area in which I'm aware of a nonprofit exemption is in Robinson Patman, which allows a seller to price discriminate in favor of a nonprofit buyer (eg, a hospital). But RP is sort of the opposite of antitrust law in a lot of ways. Beyond that, say that you had a bunch of competing proprietary organizations who formed a "non profit" trade association through which they colluded via the setting of industry standards. That sort of structure clearly can be and has been subject to antitrust scrutiny in the past.

 

[Art]

I understand what the court ruled. What I'm asking is: has Sherman Anti-Trust ever been applied (successfully or otherwise) to a non-profit entity? If so, I have no further questions. If no, then this seems to be breaking some interesting (and potentially dangerous) new ground.

Dozens of times, and at least once (or more, depending on how one counts) against the NCAA itself, succeesfully I might add.

 

[Art]

I would imagine so but don't have knowledge of specific cases, for the simple reason that regardless of whether an entity is tax exempt, it is still a market participant. The only area in which I'm aware of a nonprofit exemption is in Robinson Patman, which allows a seller to price discriminate in favor of a nonprofit buyer (eg, a hospital). But RP is sort of the opposite of antitrust law in a lot of ways. Beyond that, say that you had a bunch of competing proprietary organizations who formed a "non profit" trade association through which they colluded via the setting of industry standards. That sort of structure clearly can be and has been subject to antitrust scrutiny in the past.

You can start with NCAA v Board of Regents of The University of Oklahoma, et al.

 

[Midnighter2]

I understand what the court ruled. What I'm asking is: has Sherman Anti-Trust ever been applied (successfully or otherwise) to a non-profit entity? If so, I have no further questions. If no, then this seems to be breaking some interesting (and potentially dangerous) new ground.

Quick search finds American Society of Mechanical Engineers found guilty of violating antitrust laws...

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2291&context=law_lawreview

 

[Woodpecker]

Quick search finds American Society of Mechanical Engineers found guilty of violating antitrust laws...

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2291&context=law_lawreview

I wonder if their lawyers passed the I-bar

 

[PSU2UNC]

Dozens of times, and at least once (or more, depending on how one counts) against the NCAA itself, succeesfully I might add.

Yes, I did some research a little bit ago. This seems...counterintuitive, but the law often doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Art]

Yes, I did some research a little bit ago. This seems...counterintuitive, but the law often doesn't make sense to me.

Why is it counter-intuitive? Should not-for-profits like hospitals be allowed to conspire among themselves to price fix?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Why is it counter-intuitive? Should not-for-profits like hospitals be allowed to conspire among themselves to price fix?

The NCAA is not conspiring to price fix.

To use your hospital example, it would be like if hospitals agreed that residents should make a certain salary across the board (adjusted for cost of living) so that there wasn't competition between hospitals based on salary for new graduates. I would have zero problem with that. That would help some under served (traditionally lower paying hospitals) get good doctors.

Back to the NCAA:

The NCAA has rules (as do many member organizations do). One of those is that you cannot pay your student athletes because they are amateurs. I realize that the SCOTUS ruling is mostly about limits on aid related to education (not pay for play) but there is language in the opinion that suggests this is a precedent to allow payment.

It is not at all clear to me why agreeing not to pay your student athletes violates anti-trust (and yes, I read the 45 page opinion).

I agree that that current system has flaws, but paying players isn't the answer.

The players should sue the NBA and NFL to allow them to go directly to the pros from high school. When they fail to get drafted or make the team, a free college education and continued athletic development under the guidance of the top minds in the sport will seem like a pretty good deal.

 

[Art]

The NCAA is not conspiring to price fix.

To use your hospital example, it would be like if hospitals agreed that residents should make a certain salary across the board (adjusted for cost of living) so that there wasn't competition between hospitals based on salary for new graduates. I would have zero problem with that. That would help some under served (traditionally lower paying hospitals) get good doctors.

Back to the NCAA:

The NCAA has rules (as do many member organizations do). One of those is that you cannot pay your student athletes because they are amateurs. I realize that the SCOTUS ruling is mostly about limits on aid related to education (not pay for play) but there is language in the opinion that suggests this is a precedent to allow payment.

It is not at all clear to me why agreeing not to pay your student athletes violates anti-trust (and yes, I read the 45 page opinion).

I agree that that current system has flaws, but paying players isn't the answer.

The players should sue the NBA and NFL to allow them to go directly to the pros from high school. When they fail to get drafted or make the team, a free college education and continued athletic development under the guidance of the top minds in the sport will seem like a pretty good deal.

The NCAA certainly is price-fixing when it caps the price it will pay for labor.

And the NFL has already been sued and the Second Circuit tossed it in record time. Supremes wouldn't even grant cert.

Oh, and btw, Spankie is in jail.

 

[WDLion]

An individual athlete suing to compel a school to increase scholarships would lose. However, if Cael and PSU decide to abandon the 9.9 limitation and provide a full ride to any wrestler on the squad, there is a very good chance they would prevail.

Probably but who are they going to wrestle?

 

[Art]

Probably but who are they going to wrestle?

Ah, so then schools would have to confront the question they've avoided forever: why do we have a wrestling (you can substitute any other sport that loses money) team? Ms. Excellence would have a cow if she were put through that exercise.

 

[WDLion]

Ah, so then schools would have to confront the question they've avoided forever: why do we have a wrestling (you can substitute any other sport that loses money) team? Ms. Excellence would have a cow if she were put through that exercise.

Is there a high school in the country whose athletic program makes money? So in your opinion high schools should do away with all sports. If we did away with everything that loses money there wouldn't be much left. No governments, no transportation systems, on and on.

 

[Art]

Is there a high school in the country whose athletic program makes money? So in your opinion high schools should do away with all sports. If we did away with everything that loses money there wouldn't be much left. No governments, no transportation systems, on and on.

Is there a high school that spends near the money on sports that PSU does?

Bottom line is only part of it. There are schools where no sport makes money, ever, so athletic budgets are calls on resources that could go elsewhere. And on a regular basis, ADs at those schools are called on to justify how and why those monies are spend in detail.

At PSU, the philosophy is that football makes so much money that it can be spent on other sports. Do you think that Ms. Excellence goes through much of an exercise to justify it? Ask Barry Fenchak. And considering that the folks on the other side of the table are personified by Brandon Short, it's just like a walk in the park.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The NCAA certainly is price-fixing when it caps the price it will pay for labor.

And the NFL has already been sued and the Second Circuit tossed it in record time. Supremes wouldn't even grant cert.

Oh, and btw, Spankie is in jail.

You can't price fix for labor when it isn't labor.

 

[91Joe95]

You can't price fix for labor when it isn't labor.

Then who are all the employees generating all the income for the ncaa? What is the product the ncaa is selling?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Then who are all the employees generating all the income for the ncaa? What is the product the ncaa is selling?

If I film a scientific tv show about volcanoes, are you paying the volcanoes?

Edit to clarify:
I contend that college athletes would want to play sports whether they are being watching by fans (on TV or in person) or not. In fact they do at smaller schools (where attendance is sparse and there is not TV), on club teams and in intramurals.

The sports would occur with or without the NCAA, TV or ticket sales. Those things are just the film crew filming the volcanoes erupting.

 

[91Joe95]

If I film a scientific tv show about volcanoes, are you paying the volcanoes?

No offense, but this is the kind of bs that got the ncaa clobbered.

 

[PSU2UNC]

No offense, but this is the kind of bs that got the ncaa clobbered.

No offense, but I am not defending the NCAA here. Nor is it BS (I clarified my statement above, please read)

I am 100% against paying players. If you want to move to a different model than the current one (because I agree the current one is broken), great. But do not turn college athletics into professional sports.

 

[91Joe95]

No offense, but I am not defending the NCAA here. Nor is it BS (I clarified my statement above, please read)

I am 100% against paying players. If you want to move to a different model than the current one (because I agree the current one is broken), great. But do not turn college athletics into professional sports.

The ncaa's own arguments 1) already showed it to be professional, 2) how you compensate players cannot be a product feature, and 3) limiting income from non football activities violates the antitrust law. Seems to me the ncaa has already destroyed your myth.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The ncaa's own arguments 1) already showed it to be professional, 2) how you compensate players cannot be a product feature, and 3) limiting income from non football activities violates the antitrust law. Seems to me the ncaa has already destroyed your myth.

1) How so?

2) I argue there isn't a product.

3) I agree.

 

[Midnighter2]

2) I argue there isn't a product.

3) I agree.

It is professional sports for all involved except the players. If there is no product, what does James Franklin make millions of dollars to do? Supervise volcanos? The fact that he can’t make that salary doing the same thing at another school should be a hint that what happens at Penn State and in major college football involves a lot of money. Unlike volcanos, a football game isn’t going to just happen in the wild. And it won’t happen at all without players.

 

[91Joe95]

1) How so?

2) I argue there isn't a product.

3) I agree.

1) The ncaa did not have a consistent definition of amateurism, and kept redefining it. Their own member witnesses admitted they didn't even know what it was.

2) The ncaa and conferences sell rights to view the sports, charge ticket prices, etc. Even the ncaa said there was a product. In a bizarre argument they tried to say controlling and limiting the compensation was a product feature.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Ten years from now, if college sports survive at all, everyone will be operating on something akin to a Div-II model. The Supreme Court made the right decision legally, and maybe one can argue it will be more fair for Div-I MBB and football players, but competitive bidding for the services of these athletes (we can wipe "student-athlete" from the lexicon) will funnel all resources to these two sports with nothing left for non-revenue sports.

I can't wait for high school athletes to tell recruiters, "How much are you offering? Talk to my agent." Fun times ahead.

This dystopia could have been avoided if the NCAA had worked with the NBA and NFL to allow high school seniors to sign minor league pro contracts, just like in almost every sport but football and basketball.

 

[91Joe95]

I see no reason why college sports cannot survive. In fact, I view it as just the opposite. Allowing (especially non revenue) athletes to earn more on the academic side makes being an athlete more lucrative, hence more athletes. Bonus: athletes are going to be forced into the classroom to get the academic compensation. As far as the revenue producing sports, I'm fine with more of the revenue going to the athletes instead of the non-producing administrative bloat.

 

[bigsirspur]

Ten years from now, if college sports survive at all, everyone will be operating on something akin to a Div-II model. The Supreme Court made the right decision legally, and maybe one can argue it will be more fair for Div-I MBB and football players, but competitive bidding for the services of these athletes (we can wipe "student-athlete" from the lexicon) will funnel all resources to these two sports with nothing left for non-revenue sports.

Can't funnel like that because of Title IX. When the newest iPhone becomes an "educational benefit" for the football team, it will have to be one for the women's sports. This is going to become a very expensive arms race, which is probably why The OSU is already moving to jack up ticket prices for "scholarships." (And none of this even begins to include the impact of NIL, which will really obliterate the model as kids are already able next week in some states to start using agents for endorsement deals).

Penn State doesn't seem to have a plan. Lots of corporate speak and platitudes from the AD, but no actual plan apparent.

 

[91Joe95]

Can't funnel like that because of Title IX. When the newest iPhone becomes an "educational benefit" for the football team, it will have to be one for the women's sports. This is going to become a very expensive arms race, which is probably why The OSU is already moving to jack up ticket prices for "scholarships." (And none of this even begins to include the impact of NIL, which will really obliterate the model as kids are already able next week in some states to start using agents for endorsement deals).

Penn State doesn't seem to have a plan. Lots of corporate speak and platitudes from the AD, but no actual plan apparent.

100 phones at $1,000 is only $100k, without any bulk discounts or promotional tie ins. That's chump change for an athletic department to find. That's the real scandal the supreme court attacked.

 

[PSU2UNC]

1) The ncaa did not have a consistent definition of amateurism, and kept redefining it. Their own member witnesses admitted they didn't even know what it was.

2) The ncaa and conferences sell rights to view the sports, charge ticket prices, etc. Even the ncaa said there was a product. In a bizarre argument they tried to say controlling and limiting the compensation was a product feature.

1) The NCAA is stoopid (sic). It is very easy to define an amateur/student athlete. Not sure why that eluded them.

2) The activity (students playing sports) exists independent of the product (television and tickets). That is to say, students would still play sports (see also: intramurals) if the television and tickets did not exist.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Unlike volcanos, a football game isn’t going to just happen in the wild. And it won’t happen at all without players.

I disagree. Humans love to compete. Look at the proliferation of intramurals, club sports, adult sports leagues. I'm 40-something and still compete 4 to 6 times per week.

Penn State students will play sports regardless of the TV $$. Regardless of the high paid coaches.

This does exist "in the wild." Society has just (somewhat oddly, but I am right there with them) decided that they like to watch student athletes compete. That is the product, just like there is a market for volcano documentaries (I guess).

 

[Art]

Ten years from now, if college sports survive at all, everyone will be operating on something akin to a Div-II model. The Supreme Court made the right decision legally, and maybe one can argue it will be more fair for Div-I MBB and football players, but competitive bidding for the services of these athletes (we can wipe "student-athlete" from the lexicon) will funnel all resources to these two sports with nothing left for non-revenue sports.

I can't wait for high school athletes to tell recruiters, "How much are you offering? Talk to my agent." Fun times ahead.

This dystopia could have been avoided if the NCAA had worked with the NBA and NFL to allow high school seniors to sign minor league pro contracts, just like in almost every sport but football and basketball.

The NCAA could have avoided the situation if they worked with Jeff Kessler to reach a solution. The opportunities were there.

As for working with the NBA and NFL, the folks that run those leagues aren't that stupid on a number of counts.

 

[bigsirspur]

100 phones at $1,000 is only $100k, without any bulk discounts or promotional tie ins. That's chump change for an athletic department to find. That's the real scandal the supreme court attacked.

That was just an example. The rich programs will intentionally raise the stakes as high as possible. We know that from the facilities arms race. You think Harbaugh is not planning Caribbean "internships" already?