Jump to content

Supreme Court rules college athletes are entitled to compensation


Recommended Posts

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that college athletes are entitled to compensation beyond the existing athletic scholarships.  This earth shaking court opinion will change college sports forever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/supreme-court-ncaa-student-athletes.html

Perhaps behind a paywall, but, by my reading, schools can differentiate themselves by additional/differing academic benefits.  Like study abroad, additional semesters of tuition, tuition to a vocational school, etc.  

Not sure where it leads, or whether it helps/hurts SLU.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, someoneelse said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/supreme-court-ncaa-student-athletes.html

Perhaps behind a paywall, but, by my reading, schools can differentiate themselves by additional/differing academic benefits.  Like study abroad, additional semesters of tuition, tuition to a vocational school, etc.  

Not sure where it leads, or whether it helps/hurts SLU.  

If you can pardon the pun, the ball is now in the NCAA's court.  "IF".... they can figure out a fair and equitable way to distribute the incoming revenues so all teams have a level playing field then college sports will be able to continue to function. This court decision forces the NCAA to deal with something that it didn't want to....and now the chickens have come home to roost.

I am sure the NCAA will do what is right....please insert blue font on this line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ruling wasn't that athletes are entitled to compensation above their current scholarships.  It is that NCAA was violating antitrust laws by placing limits on how athletes are compensated when it comes to educational benefits.  The majority opinion avoided addressing subjects like direct financial compensation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The ruling wasn't that athletes are entitled to compensation above their current scholarships.  It is that NCAA was violating antitrust laws by placing limits on how athletes are compensated when it comes to educational benefits.  The majority opinion avoided addressing subjects like direct financial compensation.  

Yep. It was a pretty narrow opinion, albeit an important one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Yep. It was a pretty narrow opinion, albeit an important one.

It was unanimous? Unless you’re referring to something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fan Guy said:

It was unanimous? Unless you’re referring to something else.

He was referring to what the ruling actually addressed.  It only says the the NCAA can't limit the educational benefits that athletes receive.  Basically schools can do whatever each individual school decides to do when it comes to the educational benefits an athlete gets when it comes to what the athletes get scholarship wise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am reading the ruling correctly, scholarship limits for sports set by the NCAA are now not permissible.  So if SLU wanted to offer 20 full scholarships for men's soccer, they could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, brianstl said:

If I am reading the ruling correctly, scholarship limits for sports set by the NCAA are now not permissible.  So if SLU wanted to offer 20 full scholarships for men's soccer, they could.

Well, I am not sure on this.  Any lawyers on here that can give a better reading on this?  The ruling that was affirmed said the NCAA couldn't limit the educational benefits offered to students athletes but appears to allow scholarship limits that would directly limit the educational benefits available to certain student athletes.  Is that allowing the NCAA to set the scholarship total below the roster total?  If so, how can this ruling allow the current scholarship splitting that is done in certain sports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing in this good for the midmajors like a saint louis university.   Everything in this imo will give a huge advantage to the blue blood and big public school budgets.   Someone show me where i am wrong.

That said no doubt it is a huge plus for the athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Yep. It was a pretty narrow opinion, albeit an important one.

The actual holding itself was narrow. Everybody is fawning over Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, which while not binding precedent, is thought to lay the groundwork for additional action in the form of new lawsuits or legislative action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brianstl said:

The ruling wasn't that athletes are entitled to compensation above their current scholarships.  It is that NCAA was violating antitrust laws by placing limits on how athletes are compensated when it comes to educational benefits.

That second sentence seems correct, which opens the doors to students receiving additional education-related compensation. So, laptops, iPads, headphones, transportation to-from class or campus (e.g. perhaps a car), etc.... all b on the table as creative ways for schools to provide "education-related" compensation to players without the NCAA able to limit them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Compton said:

That second sentence seems correct, which opens the doors to students receiving additional education-related compensation. So, laptops, iPads, headphones, transportation to-from class or campus (e.g. perhaps a car), etc.... all b on the table as creative ways for schools to provide "education-related" compensation to players without the NCAA able to limit them. 

I hope the NCAA’s new rules allow anything for the players, except Lamborghinis, which they were explicitly allowed to block. Most likely, the new Alabama players will each get a Ford Focus, and the relaxed rules will actually work against the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

There is nothing in this good for the midmajors like a saint louis university.   Everything in this imo will give a huge advantage to the blue blood and big public school budgets.   Someone show me where i am wrong.

That said no doubt it is a huge plus for the athletes.

Possibly the football players will bleed the university dry in their bidding wars, at a football school.  A basketball team has much fewer players so a school like SLU could focus its aid.  Possibly.  I'm trying to be positive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

There is nothing in this good for the midmajors like a saint louis university.   Everything in this imo will give a huge advantage to the blue blood and big public school budgets.   Someone show me where i am wrong.

That said no doubt it is a huge plus for the athletes.

It's a huge plus for the revenue generating athletes in football and basketball. Seems like a negative for the vast majority of other athletes as funding to pay the players will come from the non-revenue sports budgets. I'd expect all but the largest programs to cut as many non-revenue sports as possible. Some of that already started with COVID and this will likely accelerate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there is no holding on direct compensation of players, but there is an immense amount of dicta which can be used in a future case. Couple of bits from the opinion:

Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.

 

In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive. The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly il- legal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kshoe said:

It's a huge plus for the revenue generating athletes in football and basketball. Seems like a negative for the vast majority of other athletes as funding to pay the players will come from the non-revenue sports budgets. I'd expect all but the largest programs to cut as many non-revenue sports as possible. Some of that already started with COVID and this will likely accelerate it. 

I think the only people that will suffer wage cuts will be the coaches and the AD. I mean, if you have to pay 5 star basketball players, then do you really need to pay the coach more than $300k?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this all the more reason the ncaa needs to make policing the schools all about academics.   hardcore rules and policing of academics.   no pretend students anymore.  pay away but they will be students.  the scotus cant argue that they are schools first.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, billiken_roy said:

this all the more reason the ncaa needs to make policing the schools all about academics.   hardcore rules and policing of academics.   no pretend students anymore.  pay away but they will be students.  the scotus cant argue that they are schools first.  

You're right Roy, but the academic problem is much broader than athletes. Most colleges/universities "sold out" long ago, sacrificing the value of their diploma in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this there only chance now to maintain control and possibly change the makeup of the prototypical d-1 student athlete.   no academic integrity you can take the "student" out of "student athlete" and then you just got another minor league nba program.   but if you put 100% of ncaa resources into policing academics maybe you can come close to changing that back to pure student athletes or at least approach that.   

i think it would also even the playing field somewhat as the big boys can offer to pay all the money they want but if the non interested in academics athletes cant legitimately qualify and stay in school in legit majors and be on pace to graduate, just maybe the likes of a slu gets the real student athlete that has a want to be a doctor, or an engineer or a teacher plus is a fantastic basketball player.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelmingly large number of D1 players couldn't make 30k playing elsewhere, so the idea that they're not getting what they are worth is ridiculous. Also the likeness is worth nothing for 95+% of them if wasn't for an NCAA school. As much as I love JGood and Has who is paying to use their likeness if not for the fact they play for an NCAA institution. Here's the answer. Absolutely no one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might actually help a school like SLU that is in a metro area.  Local appearance fees or sponsorships have to be more lucrative than in Olean or in a really huge metro area like Philly.

If you're worried about the rich getting rich, they're already rich.  This type of thing could be a huge distraction at a large program so maybe it's better not to have huge money in flows.  It's just another thing for the coaches to navigate.  You have to adapt to the operational environment and find a way to win.  Smaller schools not dealing in 1 and dones can focus on building cohesive teams that play well together to overcome teams of athletes that stay only 1 season.  Perhaps 4 years of a player will breed familiarity and open up opportunities.

 

SLU AD needs to adapt now and partner with a brand/licensing company that provides guidance to the athletes.  Furthermore, they will need to set their policies on what types of appearances/products players associated with SLU can represent.  Then they need to pitch that vision to recruits and parents.  Here's why SLU and STL are a great fit athletically, academically and for your name brand marketing.

The NCAA should have conducted contingency planning for this day as it has been coming for a long time.  I doubt they are as so many organizations are bad and preparing for the most basic outcomes.  Don't get me on schools not being prepared for COVID to continue, graduations, blah blah.  Come on, pick likely outcomes, develop courses of action (COA) to deal with those situations and meet a desired endstate.  So NCAA likely outcomes 1. No pay to student athletes 2. Full Pay no limits 3. Some limited pay.  Desired endstate is to continue to allow a "level" playing field in college atheltics.  Develop your COA to deal with each usually we try to do 3 COAs per.  Examine the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Pick a COA.  Boom.  Emmert call me I'll fix you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...