I read two pieces today that reinforce my gut instinct that college athletics is being forced by the courts to make student-athletes employees or go bankrupt with legal fees and judgements. This is no longer an NCAA failure. That shipped sailed a long time ago. This is a failure of individuals within collegiate athletics and academics to pivot to the demands of SCOTUS.
Every time a case has been tried, the courts have ruled against the NCAA, which is made up of individuals from collegiate academcis and athletics. The Supreme Court harshly admonishing the "amateur model" as illegal on its face, as it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. I saw one article today by Andy Staples suggesting the Big Ten and SEC would break away from the NCAA. But where would they go to operate with what the Supreme Court has ruled illegal? I read another long twitter post suggesting the SEC and BIg 10 are looking to break away and contemplating a remedy to the central issue which is the source of the losing hand the NCAA has been dealt by following the SCOTUS's lead and making the players employees, unionizing and arbitrating.
Which has been a bridge too far for the athletic directors and collegiate administrators who are anti-employee.
There's a meteor heading directly at planet Earth. It is called House vs NCAA which is another antitrust suit in which the lawyers, who represent the players, are demanding a share of the TELEVISION REVENUES, including $4 BILLION of reperations for past use of their Name Image and Likeness. The clock is ticking. Impact is inevitable and little progress has been made by collegiate administrators with Congress to write legislation that can legally shield collegiate athletics from the antitrust laws.
Seems like the BIG2's thought process is on point to me. And if they go that way, would you want FSU to follow?
So, I'd like to ask those of you who know labor law. Why do you think college athletic and academic administrators are so against making players employees? What is the rest of the story? Why is it a worse alternative to what we are facing?
Is it worse than the impending peril?
Share your thoughts, please.
Every time a case has been tried, the courts have ruled against the NCAA, which is made up of individuals from collegiate academcis and athletics. The Supreme Court harshly admonishing the "amateur model" as illegal on its face, as it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. I saw one article today by Andy Staples suggesting the Big Ten and SEC would break away from the NCAA. But where would they go to operate with what the Supreme Court has ruled illegal? I read another long twitter post suggesting the SEC and BIg 10 are looking to break away and contemplating a remedy to the central issue which is the source of the losing hand the NCAA has been dealt by following the SCOTUS's lead and making the players employees, unionizing and arbitrating.
Which has been a bridge too far for the athletic directors and collegiate administrators who are anti-employee.
There's a meteor heading directly at planet Earth. It is called House vs NCAA which is another antitrust suit in which the lawyers, who represent the players, are demanding a share of the TELEVISION REVENUES, including $4 BILLION of reperations for past use of their Name Image and Likeness. The clock is ticking. Impact is inevitable and little progress has been made by collegiate administrators with Congress to write legislation that can legally shield collegiate athletics from the antitrust laws.
Seems like the BIG2's thought process is on point to me. And if they go that way, would you want FSU to follow?
So, I'd like to ask those of you who know labor law. Why do you think college athletic and academic administrators are so against making players employees? What is the rest of the story? Why is it a worse alternative to what we are facing?
Is it worse than the impending peril?
Share your thoughts, please.
Last edited:
